***Official*** Australia in South Africa

[irfan]

If the SAfrica can get to about 180 at the end of today 1 or 2 down at the most, that will leave em around 270 odd to get tommorrow. Not completely out of the realms of possibility....

Rain will most probably be a spoilsport though

 

[four_or_six]

Red ****ing button again.

 

[Uppercut]

Raging for you FOS. Stuck with the turgid, mediocre-standard cricket while this is going on.

 

[four_or_six]

Raging for you FOS. Stuck with the turgid, mediocre-standard cricket while this is going on.

Not just that... we get half an hour of waffle before the 'action' even starts.

 

[Uppercut]

But conditions are good for bowling. By the time South Africa bat again the pitch could be easy-pace, the weather hot and sunny and the three-man Aussie attack ineffective. There could be time lost due to rain and not a lot of time to bat out. You don't know.

All you know is that as of now, conditions are good for bowling and your bowlers have bowled extremely well. So send them back in.

^ why Ponting should have enforced the follow-on. They should still end up winning, of course, but they've thrown away quite a bit of percentage.

 

[Manee]

Obviously can't play Pattinson; he's English. Hopes is not a better bowler than Geeves.

Tongue firmly in cheek for that post - slightly insulted that you couldn't see that.

 

[stephen]

I actually disagree on the follow on. The stats say that it isn't always a good move. It's a bad move IMO if you do it when you don't have a very experienced bowling attack. It cost Australia at home in 2002 and I think that memory plays on Ponting's mind. It certainly terrifies me whenever we get the choice to do it or not.

 

[social]

^ why Ponting should have enforced the follow-on. They should still end up winning, of course, but they've thrown away quite a bit of percentage.

Oz batted in the gloom, weather is now sunny - talk about a dumb-arse, ultra-conservative decision

 

[pasag]

Mitch!

 

[Uppercut]

I actually disagree on the follow on. The stats say that it isn't always a good move. It's a bad move IMO if you do it when you don't have a very experienced bowling attack. It cost Australia at home in 2002 and I think that memory plays on Ponting's mind. It certainly terrifies me whenever we get the choice to do it or not.

There goes McKenzie!

It's not always a good move, but it certainly was this time.

As i said at the time, noone knows what a pitch is going to do. Pitches used to regularly deteriorate, but these days they could do anything. All you have to work on is how the pitch is playing now, and when Ponting had the choice of whether to put them in or bat himself, conditions were really, really good for the quicks. He handed South Africa the best bowling conditions of the match, and now he's trying to bowl them out on a deck that's hardly doing anything.

They should still win, of course, but they might not. And they'd have surely been more likely to win if they'd enforced it.

 

[social]

There goes McKenzie!

It's not always a good move, but it certainly was this time.

As i said at the time, noone knows what a pitch is going to do. Pitches used to regularly deteriorate, but these days they could do anything. All you have to work on is how the pitch is playing now, and when Ponting had the choice of whether to put them in or bat himself, conditions were really, really good for the quicks. He handed South Africa the best bowling conditions of the match, and now he's trying to bowl them out on a deck that's hardly doing anything.

They should still win, of course, but they might not. And they'd have surely been more likely to win if they'd enforced it.

Exactly

 

[stephen]

There goes McKenzie!

It's not always a good move, but it certainly was this time.

As i said at the time, noone knows what a pitch is going to do. Pitches used to regularly deteriorate, but these days they could do anything. All you have to work on is how the pitch is playing now, and when Ponting had the choice of whether to put them in or bat himself, conditions were really, really good for the quicks. He handed South Africa the best bowling conditions of the match, and now he's trying to bowl them out on a deck that's hardly doing anything.

They should still win, of course, but they might not. And they'd have surely been more likely to win if they'd enforced it.

I'd have agreed with you if they had have played Bollinger over McDonald, but not with only 3 strike bowlers. All indications were that the weather was not going to improve over the course of the test match and so I think it was at the very worst a sensible decision.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Have a very eerie feling SAF will get out of this game with something.

Of course, it could just be my pure rage and absolute frustration through watching my football team completely **** up yet again, but hey.

 

[pasag]

Have a very eerie feling SAF will get out of this game with something.

Of course, it could just be my pure rage and absolute frustration through watching my football team completely **** up yet again, but hey.

Melbourne played today?

 

[pup11]

Is Hilfenhaus the kind of bowler who can cope with lots of overs? I ask because I seem to remember something about back stress fractures not so long ago.

As already has been mentioned he has been a real workhorse for Tassies over the years, and tbh all the three quicks, Johnson, Siddle and Hilf are pretty relentless, and are more then upto bowling a lot of overs in a game, which is kind of a saving grace, given the make-up of the bowling attack for this game.

 

[Son Of Coco]

There goes McKenzie!

It's not always a good move, but it certainly was this time.

As i said at the time, noone knows what a pitch is going to do. Pitches used to regularly deteriorate, but these days they could do anything. All you have to work on is how the pitch is playing now, and when Ponting had the choice of whether to put them in or bat himself, conditions were really, really good for the quicks. He handed South Africa the best bowling conditions of the match, and now he's trying to bowl them out on a deck that's hardly doing anything.

They should still win, of course, but they might not. And they'd have surely been more likely to win if they'd enforced it.

This is quite possibly true...pitches used to start of decent and get worse...now they can be tough to bat on for 3 days and then perfect, which suggests to me someone's doing something wrong. There's no advantage really in winning the toss if the 4th innings will be played on a pitch better to bat on than the first.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Melbourne played today?

**** you.

froff, nab cup winzzz

 

[pasag]

**** you.

froff, nab cup winzzz

 

[social]

I'd have agreed with you if they had have played Bollinger over McDonald, but not with only 3 strike bowlers. All indications were that the weather was not going to improve over the course of the test match and so I think it was at the very worst a sensible decision.

At best, conservative

However, depending upon what happens tommorrow, it could go down as an horrendous blunder

 

[stephen]

At best, conservative

However, depending upon what happens tommorrow, it could go down as an horrendous blunder

If Australia lose/draw from this point then it's due to one of two things - terrible weather or horrid bowling.

Of those two enforcing the follow on only may have saved against the terrible weather outcome. But imagine if South Africa had have piled on enough runs for Australia to be chasing 150 odd in the forth innings and the weather had have been much the same as it has been so far. The results could have been dire.