I'm at work mate, just following on Cricinfo which said it went through 3rd slip. I'll take your word for it.You'd have needed Paul Collingwood to have a shot at catching Cowan's edge. IMO there was almost no chance of that being caught.
Poor stuff from Australia putting an invisible wall of treacle in front of Zaheer like that.
Has looked pretty good any time I've watched him in the last 4-5 months.Clarke looks good today, just quietly.
Clarke will probably ton up, he loves the flat decks.Clarke looks good today, just quietly.
Cape Town was a real road, eh?Clarke will probably ton up, he loves the flat decks.
India would be pleased to have some breakthroughs after losing this test though.
Yadav seems to bowl well every second test.
Well SA cantered to 2/230 odd in the second innings. CT was never a minefield but the batting was poor early on.Cape Town was a real road, eh?
Back in your box.
Aye, t'was. Surprisingly similar. And that itself was a decent recovery from 2/3. One suspects Aus will score rather more than 245 this time round.. though you never know ehWas it 94/3 lunch day 1 last year?
It's funny having to say that about a guy who just notched up 329* but I would have to agree that he's been flimsy as "top order" batter i.e. top 4. And statistically vastly better at number 5. Perhaps we could call it Ian Bell syndrome...Well SA cantered to 2/230 odd in the second innings. CT was never a minefield but the batting was poor early on.
SA hadn't played test cricket for ten months and were obviously rusty. Australia should never have been bowled out for 47, especially as we batted when the sun was out.
My point about Clarke is that his best attribute is scoring on flatties when the shine is off the ball. It's why he failed at #4, struggled against SA's bowlers apart from that 150, admittedly a very good innings, albeit against a rusty attack with two debutants - let's get some context! He struggled in the Ashes last year when exposed to the new ball.
So he should score runs today because that's what he's good at, not good enough to bat up the order but well suited to #5.
There was a bit of life in that pitch early which was exploited by the poms and then they ended up having the best of the batting conditions.Aye, t'was. Surprisingly similar. And that itself was a decent recovery from 2/3. One suspects Aus will score rather more than 245 this time round.. though you never know eh
But on a flat pitch against a modest attack which bowled poorly. Even the experts put that caveat on it while praising the effort.It's funny having to say that about a guy who just notched up 329* but I would have to agree that he's been flimsy as "top order" batter i.e. top 4. And statistically vastly better at number 5. Perhaps we could call it Ian Bell syndrome...