***Official*** South Africa in Australia 2012

[uvelocity]

Well I think he has done alright for himself, I am sure he doesnt care about some over critical forum user - ffs

he's a mediocre chucker, deal with it

 

[Justo]

Would have been a good game if you get the full 5 days. Hoping Watson's fit for Adelaide. His bowling could be useful at Adelaide and he can make prettier 9s than Quiney. If Starc bowls well against VIC I don't see Hilfy holding his place either.

For SA Tahir will definately come in for Kleinveldt. Reckon they'll stick with Rudolph. Up until this game for the year he's been averaging over 50 with the bat. Will ultimately come down to whether they want to take the gloves from De Villiers or not for Duminy's slot.

 

[benchmark00]

Defies belief that some people watch cricket and still think like this.

 

[Spikey]

full points to that bookie who put australia at 61/1 to win. nailed it.

 

[Spark]

Defies belief that some people watch cricket and still think like this.

It just seems absolutely contrary to what I'd describe as patently obvious cricketing truisms

 

[Son Of Coco]

Oh good grief

Sorry, was just speaking as someone who's actually played cricket. Not a boffin with a calculator and protractor in their top pocket deciding that it's ok to say someone has been cleared so they don't chuck...ever...at no time in the future.

Just out of interest, if someone was cleared and then decided to blatantly chuck one, and then was cleared again in testing does this mean they did or didn't chuck it in the game?

 

[Heboric]

he's a mediocre chucker, deal with it

Oh no he will be so devastated you said that.

Please post a current video where he is chucking, i am interested to see it, I thought he was cleared.

 

[Son Of Coco]

This is the exact pathetic attitude that is echoed throughout cricket. It really does baffle me why it is perfectly okay to just give away time to win the game. It's not even as though it was a mistake. It's a wilful act because people want to protect their stats. It's absolute ****e. The same people will accept this after berating someone for costing a run with an overthrow. Or giving a wicket away with a lazy shot. Or Dhoni for guiding his team to defeat in a limited overs chase by batting too slowly. Every ball, run and wicket counts. It's just a piss poor attitude to say it's only such and such.

Australia had Lyon and Clarke who could get through overs quickly, it doesn't really diminish the effectiveness at all when Quiney and the other part-timer Hilfenhaus bowled however many overs without ever threatening.

The extra 5-10 overs might have won Australia this game - it probably wouldn't have but it might have meant instead of being 8-1 they were 6-1. It isn't just the fact that they could have taken 4 wickets in those extra overs. But that it would have put more pressure on South Africa earlier in the innings - they were never under serious threat once Amla was reprieved.

If time was the only factor in winning the game then you might have a point. Obviously there's a need to weigh up the quality of bowlers you bowl vs the need to rush in as many overs as possible.

They lost a day, you can't really say they didn't show enough intent by declaring 120-odd ahead and having a crack with the ball.

 

[uvelocity]

Oh no he will be so devastated you said that.

Please post a current video where he is chucking, i am interested to see it, I thought he was cleared.

doubt it, but reckon your neck is just about popping right now. If he was Australian I'd say the same thing, he's an effective LO dart bowler with a dodgy action - why do you get so defensive about it?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Oh look it's almost as if teams can't accelerate to declare... oh wait:

5th Test: West Indies v England at Port of Spain, Mar 6-10, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

2nd Test: England v Australia at Lord's, Jul 16-20, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

2nd Test: Australia v England at Adelaide, Dec 3-7, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

2nd Test: England v India at Nottingham, Jul 29-Aug 1, 2011 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah I agree with Heboric. Harris did what SA asked of him. Tahir doesn't.

Should have played him, 100%. Said it when he missed. He's at least going to be a threat to the left handers with his wrong'un, probably more than to right handers.

And if Kallis can get through even 8 overs a day, they should be right with taking Tahir in.

 

[benchmark00]

As the Chappell brothers have said so often, they were good baseballers in their day. It seems to me that South Australia have a rich history of producing captains that are good at pitching.

#zing

 

[Spikey]

wait australia didn't accelerate?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Oh look it's almost as if teams can't accelerate to declare... oh wait:

5th Test: West Indies v England at Port of Spain, Mar 6-10, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

2nd Test: England v Australia at Lord's, Jul 16-20, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

2nd Test: Australia v England at Adelaide, Dec 3-7, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

2nd Test: England v India at Nottingham, Jul 29-Aug 1, 2011 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

How many of these games were rain-affected? I thought Australia scored 100--odd runs more than SA in less overs...maybe I'm wrong.

 

[uvelocity]

Oh look it's almost as if teams can't accelerate to declare... oh wait:

we did accelerate, we did declare. we didn't have as many runs as you dreamt we'd have, but how many would we have needed after

Oz could basically just throw their seamers at SA for 15 overs, then bowl Clarke and Lyon as quickly as possible until the new ball (maybe have the odd 2-3 over burst of seam in there) - then have another quick burst with the new ball. There is no reason at all they couldn't do this, it's only the will that's lacking. SA batsmen in Australia aren't going to get away with much time wasting.

clarke and lyon for, lol wait for it, 50-60 overs. close of play: sa 2/200

 

[Jono]

Should have played him, 100%. Said it when he missed. He's at least going to be a threat to the left handers with his wrong'un, probably more than to right handers.

And if Kallis can get through even 8 overs a day, they should be right with taking Tahir in.

The fact Tahir is better than fat **** Kleinveldt doesn't mean he's done what SA have asked for him though. I assume you weren't directly disagreeing with my point though.

Agree that Tahir should have played. But I think most will agree that we expected more of Tahir, particularly since he bowled pretty well in the World Cup.

 

[Ruckus]

The only problem I had with the rate we were going at was when Wade came in. The early declaration obviously didn't help his cause, but the fact is he ended up with a SR of 54 which just isn't good enough in that situation. Should really have been trying to go t20 style with a SR of 100 or more. I don't know why in those situations a competent tail-ender like Pattinson isn't promoted and told literally to hit out to quickly try and get 20 or so runs.

 

[Jono]

Why would a tailender be better suited to scoring quicker runs than Wade though?

 

[Spark]

Pattinson isn't a quick scorer at all...

EDIT: And given that he spent the last three overs of the innings literally trying to hit every ball for four, I think it was pretty obvious what the thinking was - "take a few overs to get the measure of a pitch, then go for it" rather than try a wild slog with the field up and slips in place

 

[Ruckus]

Why would a tailender be better suited to scoring quicker runs than Wade though?

They wouldn't, but it seemed as though someone had told Wade to not go all out, because he started ridiculously slowly with an obvious intention of getting his eye in. I just assumed that there was still some desire to get a fair few more runs, and they wanted to make sure they had enough proper batsman to do that. But if that's the case, I don't know why they couldn't just promote a tailender - at worst they'll get out for a quick 5 runs, leaving Wade to 'stabilize' if need be.