*Official* Fifth Test at the SCG

[Riggins]

Well maybe not gold, but it's ****ing easy.

 

[Spikey]

Australian players played through pain to win Ashes

 

[Pup Clarke]

The batting gulf is massive IMO.

Come off it!

 

[Prince EWS]

Come off it!

Just to clarify, you do realise I was talking about the South Africa-Australia batting gulf, right?

I'm really, really surprised that's a controversial opinion.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Are you talking about South Africa's batting in general (factoring in other teams) or there ability to demonstrate their superior batting prowess in this series, and more importantly, against this bowling attack?
If it's the former then I agree, but I don't have much faith in them to deal with this current Australian attack.

 

[Prince EWS]

Are you talking about South Africa's batting in general (factoring in other teams) or there ability to demonstrate their superior batting prowess in this series, and more importantly, against this bowling attack?
If it's the former then I agree, but I don't have much faith in them to deal with this current Australian attack.

I'm just talking about the quality of South Africa's batting compared to the quality of Australia's batting. Not factoring in the upcoming series or the bowling of the two sides at all. South Africa have a much, much better batting unit.

 

[benchmark00]

5 Neil

 

[Furball]

Pasag made a post back in 2010 about Ashes cricket that I often think back to, and this series has been by far the best example of it I've ever seen.



It's really just completely taken on a life of its own to the point where the quality of the players involved has become a secondary influence to their performance compared to the logo on the shirt they're wearing.

I think in light of that point it actually makes Johnson's series all the more impressive given that his Ashes experience prior, barring Perth 2010, was just a long, continuous flogging.

 

[MW1304]

Australia sure wore that Commonwealth Bank logo with pride.

 

[Jassy]

Much, much better is pushing it I'd say. They're better by a definite margin but they're hardly *that* good.

Smith/Peterson vs Rogers/Warner

I'm tempted to go Rogers/Warner on current form, but we'll factor in Smith's overall record and give it to the SA pair.

Amla vs Watson...Amla easily.
Abd vs Clarke....Clarke

But then it gets interesting...Australia have Smith/Bailey/Haddin....SA have Elgar/Duminy/FaF...I actually think we just about shade it and we have the better tail..so it's not *that* big a difference. I'll give you Australia are more likely to collapse but still there's not as much in it as some would lead you to believe. Let's not forget Australia were a fit bowler short of beating South Africa at Adelaide and becoming the number 1 test side.

 

[Jarquis]

The difference between Amla and Watson is monumental though, it goes a long way to cancelling out any other 'victories' you have as they're all pretty negligible.
Clarke and ABDV is pretty much a coin flip at best. As are the lower orders and I think you're being pretty dismissive of the South African tail. If Petersen regains his place then again it's all pretty bloody close.

 

[Jassy]

I'm not arguing Australia have a better batting side though, I'm just disagreeing with someone saying SA have a "much, much better" line-up. I don't think you're saying anything different to what I did at all. SA have a much better number 3, everywhere else it's pretty even. As for the tails - Philander vs Johnson (I'll go Johnson), Harris vs Steyn (dunno, take your pick), Siddle vs Morkel(again flip a coin as you say), I guess Lyon is better than whoever they bat at number 11. Peterson would make it a lot closer for SA I agree, don't think he'll play though. It's all very close either way. I do think SA are definitely the better batting side overall but it's not by as big a margin as is being made out.

EDIT : If Kallis was still around I'd give SA a 9/10 for their batting. As it stands they're probably 6-7 and Australia are probably somewhere around 5.

 

[Top_Cat]

The difference between Amla and Watson is monumental though, it goes a long way to cancelling out any other 'victories' you have as they're all pretty negligible.
Clarke and ABDV is pretty much a coin flip at best. As are the lower orders and I think you're being pretty dismissive of the South African tail. If Petersen regains his place then again it's all pretty bloody close.

On form, yeah. On class in what is shaping up to be a tight series, I'm backing Clarke by a distance.

 

[Jassy]

Yeah, AB's record is a bit of a red herring for me in both formats. My impression of him is that he is a brilliant batsman...but moreso when the pressure is off. This may sound harsh but you could probably extend it to a number of SA players. I must also say that this is more in ODIs (where last I checked AbD had about 7 or 8 of his 16 tons in dead rubbers) but to AbD specifically it applies to a lesser extent in tests as well. I know he played that one innings in Perth and the recent innings vs India (we'll ignore him being trapped in front for virtually nothing and getting a reprieve) but I don't know, it'll take a fair few such innings more to shake that impression off. He is the antithesis of a Clarke or VVS if you want.

 

[Pothas]

He is easily the 3rd best batsman in the series though. Amla and AB combined is what gives South Africa the edge.

 

[Jassy]

On current form or overall? If it is the former, then you'd have to consider at least a couple of other Australian bats(and Amla will go down too). If it is the latter then a certain Graeme Smith might have something to say about it.

 

[Pothas]

Well there is a middle ground between overall career and what they did in the last test.

But sure lets include Smith, so SA have 3 of the best 4 batsmen in the series.

 

[Jassy]

His 18 centuries in Tests:

1)278 vs Pakistan against Umar Gul, Tanveer Ahmed, Mohammad Sami - arguably one of his worst hundreds. Pakistan forgot how to field, umpires forgot how to umpire (was out twice at least before he crossed 100).
2)217 vs India against RP Singh, Irfan pathan and Sreesanth, walked in when SA were about 50 runs in front with 6 wickets in hand (first innings)
3)164 vs Pakistan, walked in when SA were about 40 runs in front with 6 wickets in hand(first innings)
4)169 vs Austraia, walked in when SA were about 340 runs in front with 7 wickets in hand(second innings)
5)174 vs England, walked in when SA were 143/4 trailing England by 60 runs
6)178 vs West Indies opening the innings
7)163 vs Aus, came in when SA were 120 odd ahead with 7 wickets in hand (first innings)
8)160 vs SL from 261/3
9)185 vs WI from 283/3
10)129 vs India from 396/3
11)121 vs Pakistan from 107/3
12)114 vs West Indies opening the innings
13)109 vs England as an opener in the second innings*
14)104 vs Australia out of a total of 220*
15)103 vs West Indies from 374/4, leading them by about 240 runs (first innings)
16)103 vs Pakistan from effectively 300/3
and the two aforementioned innings vs Aus and India respectively. I know a list such as this could be said to be misleading and it might be, but there is definitely a pattern to his centuries. A lot of his centuries seem to have come when two other batsmen have also notched up tons in the same innings. You could flip the argument and argue it isn't his fault that his teammates are so good but meh, I dunno. Too many soft runs for my liking.

 

[Jassy]

Well there is a middle ground between overall career and what they did in the last test.

But sure lets include Smith, so SA have 3 of the best 4 batsmen in the series.

Yes they do, no arguments there. Australia have the best batsman, SA have 3 of the best 4 and Australia probably have 3 of the 4 next best.

 

[MW1304]

Clarke is just so much better than AB in every way.