Swalec Stadium

[Furball]

Hauritz gaffe aside, I agree with Riviera in general. The SA batting attack is hardly the best in the world. Even in Australia, they won because their lower order shored them up in hopeless situations. The difference between SA in Aus and Aus in SA was that Steyn was off key, and Duminy did not click as SA wanted him to.

I would rate the batting lineups in test cricket in the following order:

1. India
2. Australia
3. South Africa
4. Sri Lanka
5. England
6. New Zealand
7. Pakistan
8. West Indies.

Were you sleeping for all of 2008 when the entire lineup, with the exception of Kallis, pretty much smacked every attack they faced?

 

[Smith]

Were you sleeping for all of 2008 when the entire lineup, with the exception of Kallis, pretty much smacked every attack they faced?

I have listed that order purely on current form. We are close to middle of 2009 my friend, and SA have done nothing to substantiate a ranking above 3 in my list this year.

The fact that SA top batsmen made a pile of runs in 2008 (including against Bangladesh) does not take away anything from my argument that SA's wins and losses against Aus were more or less determined by their bowling and lower order batting. Top order batting was almost similar across both the series.

 

[Furball]

I have listed that order purely on current form. We are close to middle of 2009 my friend, and SA have done nothing to substantiate a ranking above 3 in my list this year.

The fact that SA top batsmen made a pile of runs in 2008 (including against Bangladesh) does not take away anything from my argument that SA's wins and losses against Aus were more or less determined by their bowling and lower order batting. Top order batting was almost similar across both the series.

Purely on "current" form, de Villiers and Prince are streets clear of any other bats out there.

 

[Smith]

Purely on "current" form, de Villiers and Prince are streets clear of any other bats out there.

They are not.

 

[Richard]

Siddle outbowled him with some straight, fast-medium deliveries ffs.

He didn't though - he just benefited from being in the right place at the right time the way Clark did not.

Siddle bowled a heap of crap on debut. There's no way on Earth what he sent down was better than what Clark did even if his figures were better.

 

[rivera213]

He didn't though - he just benefited from being in the right place at the right time the way Clark did not.

Siddle bowled a heap of crap on debut. There's no way on Earth what he sent down was better than what Clark did even if his figures were better.

Na. I definately think Siddle against South Africa bowled better than Clark against New Zealand. Both bowled on some pretty slow and flat wickets so the comparison is there to be had.

I think Siddle got a few wickets due to batsman error for sure, but his economy rate on those wickets was impressive (even if I don't think he's gonna be the long term replacement for McGrath as some have touted him as).

Doesn't sound to me like you saw anything. Hauritz didn't even play a match

Ah, gaff. Sorry about the switcharoo.

I actually meant the series in Aus betwen the 2 (at MCG and SCG I believe). I stand by the fact that Hauritz's wickets in that series was down to poor batting as opposed to great bowling.

South Africa were crap in the series IN South Africa. For some reason I married the 2 up.

 

[Burgey]

Hauritz gaffe aside, I agree with Riviera in general. The SA batting attack is hardly the best in the world. Even in Australia, they won because their lower order shored them up in hopeless situations. The difference between SA in Aus and Aus in SA was that Steyn was off key, and Duminy did not click as SA wanted him to.

I would rate the batting lineups in test cricket in the following order:

1. India
2. Australia
3. South Africa
4. Sri Lanka
5. England
6. New Zealand
7. Pakistan
8. West Indies.

No, the difference between SA in Australia and SA in SA was that Australia's bowling and fielding took the chances they created, and there were more of them. Australia could easily have won the home series 3-0 - in fact, after two days of each of the first two tests, they were favourites by a country mile.

Their inability, with an inexperienced attack, to take SA's middle and lower order wickets killed them in those games. In SA, that same attack delievered, whether that was due to conditions, improvement, increased confidence, not being favourites, who knows?

 

[Richard]

Na. I definately think Siddle against South Africa bowled better than Clark against New Zealand. Both bowled on some pretty slow and flat wickets so the comparison is there to be had.

I think Siddle got a few wickets due to batsman error for sure, but his economy rate on those wickets was impressive (even if I don't think he's gonna be the long term replacement for McGrath as some have touted him as).

I wasn't talking about the home summer in 2008/09 because it's really impossible to compare bowling on green seamers against New Zealand with bowling on flatties against South Africa. In India, Clark bowled better than Siddle for my money - Siddle was hopelessly flattered by his figures in his single Test.

Siddle's economy-rate in his Tests after his first two has indeed been most impressive, and in truth rather surprising. His action is 100% Merv Hughes and though Merv was decent with his areas he was certainly not from the very top of the tree a la McGrath\Davidson\Lindwall.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Siddle's economy-rate in his Tests after his first two has indeed been most impressive, and in truth rather surprising.

Because you decided he was no good after hardly watching him?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Duminy did not click as SA wanted him to.

Reckon the number of balls that were in the bowler's half had a fair bit to do with that as well.

 

[Noble One]

His action is 100% Merv Hughes and though Merv was decent with his areas he was certainly not from the very top of the tree a la McGrath\Davidson\Lindwall.

First time I have heard Peter Siddle's action compared with Merv Hughes. Honestly, I don't see the similarity. They both bowl with open chested actions?

YouTube - Siddle vs South Africa and YouTube - Merv Hughes Ashes 90/91

Then Siddle varies from Hughes in weight and height. Hughes even when at his physical peak was a giant of a man compared to Siddle which further distinguishes the bowling actions. I will be interested in understanding your opinion on the similarity.

 

[Richard]

Nah, there's massive similarity in the position of the arms as they gather (elbows pointing in polar-opposite directions) and their mechanism is similar - ie, they both do the same things with near enough the exact same timings.

If you can find a bowler who is more similar to Siddle than Hughes I'll be surprised.

 

[Richard]

Because you decided he was no good after hardly watching him?

Nope. I question the point in saying anything more than "nope" in reply to a post like that which is so obviously mind-already-made-up, but here goes...

1, I never decided Siddle was no good, either before or after hardly watching him.

2, being good or not isn't 100% correlative with whether someone is economical or not.

3, what cricket Siddle did play pre-Test career tended to suggest he was cut from the "expensive wicket-taking-delivery-bowler" cloth, not the "put it there and let the pitch do the rest" one.

 

[Smith]

You mean his inability to run through one of the best batting units ever assembled in Test cricket on some rank flat decks?

Hardly poor for my money.

Clark has been really hot and cold, too hot and too cold for my liking in the last few test matches he has played. He becomes a monster on dicks that offer him the slightest help, but struggles epically in those which does not offer him much purchase. Allow me to substantiate.

The last 13 test matches he has played :

 Overs 	Maidens	Runs	Wickets	 ER 	 Average SR 	 Opposition	Venue		Date
 38.2 	7	121	4	 3.15 	 30.25 	 58 	 Sri Lanka	Brisbane	8-Nov-07
 40.0 	11	135	3	 3.37 	 45.00 	 80 	 Sri Lanka	Hobart		16-Nov-07
 30.0 	13	48	5	 1.60 	 9.60 	 36 	 India		Melbourne	26-Dec-07
 37.0 	7	112	3	 3.02 	 37.33 	 74 	 India		Sydney		2-Jan-08
 36.0 	8	106	6	 2.94 	 17.66 	 36 	 India		Perth		16-Jan-08
 43.0 	9	129	0	 3.00 	 NA 	 NA 	 India		Adelaide	24-Jan-08
 39.0 	10	91	8	 2.33 	 11.37 	 29 	 West Indies	Kingston	22-May-08
 32.0 	8	61	1	 1.90 	 61.00 	 192 	 West Indies	North Sound	30-May-08
 39.0 	12	99	4	 2.53 	 24.75 	 59 	 West Indies	Bridgetown	12-Jun-08
 28.0 	9	70	1	 2.50 	 70.00 	 168 	 India		Bangalore	9-Oct-08
 45.0 	15	91	1	 2.02 	 91.00 	 270 	 India		Delhi		29-Oct-08
 32.0 	7	89	6	 2.78 	 14.83 	 32 	 New Zealand	Brisbane	20-Nov-08
 30.0 	11	78	1	 2.60 	 78.00 	 180 	 New Zealand	Adelaide	28-Nov-08
[B] 469.2 	127	1230	43	 2.62 	 26.60 	 65 [/B]

7 poor test matches, 1 average, and 5 good matches. The consistency that was hallmark of mcGrath is missing.

 

[Richard]

No-one in their right mind is seriously expecting Clark to be as good as McGrath, nor truth be told ever has been (anyone who thought he could was wishful-thinking of the highest order).

However, the notion that Clark has been "poor" of late is nonsensical. That is all.

 

[Smith]

No-one in their right mind is seriously expecting Clark to be as good as McGrath, nor truth be told ever has been (anyone who thought he could was wishful-thinking of the highest order).

However, the notion that Clark has been "poor" of late is nonsensical. That is all.

His consistency has been very poor. To be called a good bowler one expects him to perform much better on unhelpful decks than he has performed of late. His performances in Delhi, Bangalore, Adelaide etc are palpable evidence of him being a very much single gear bowler.

 

[Richard]

In short he's been a mixture of very good and very poor. Not roundly very poor.

 

[Smith]

In short he's been a mixture of very good and very poor. Not roundly very poor.

Considering that 7 out of his last 13 tests were very poor, overall he tends to be poor atleast on present form.

 

[Richard]

When you've essentially got a half-and-half split of good:poor, that is not poor on an overall.

There can be no overall, in fact, in such a polarised case.

 

[Smith]

When you've essentially got a half-and-half split of good:poor, that is not poor on an overall.

There can be no overall, in fact, in such a polarised case.

His poor performances have been extremely poor and hence it does take away quite a bit of shine from his other performances. Overall rating has to be poor.