Was every innings 160/5 in the match ?
Straw man= you constructing a weak argument and attributing it to my position:
I've shown you why this is not true using my actual opinion on the matter, showing what I consider to be important (which happens to coincide with what you believe), not what you are saying I believe.
He is very, very good with the swinging ball. Definitely the best going with reverse ATM. Possibly the most dangerous with conventional, whether or not he's the best.
I think we let Aus get at least 50+ more runs in the first innings, our tail is a bit hit and miss really. I really don't trust them to get more than 50 runs, but a bit harsh considering how well Starc bowled with the reversing ball. Our top order were just not good enough... don't think the Aus top order really covered themselves in glory either though.
It stretches incredulity a bit to believe that Sarwan did not know. McGrath missed the first two tests because of it and the story was plastered everywhere.
I don't think it would take him too long to remove the top bowling like that. Tailenders, fresh to the crease and facing that bowling are not going to survive. The RSA tail almost always gives a bit of a wag, but no tail will wag against that.
I suspect he knew beforehand, but he probably wasn't thinking about it at the time. It's a pretty generic retort to what McGrath asked him, and I don't think the cancer really made it worse per se other than that she was arguably more off limits than usual.
You're right in that I don't disagree with most of your reasoning, but it's the entire assumption that "he's not as good against middle order" as other bowlers that is just not true.
The entire discussion is based on a false statement
SA were 4/45 in the second dig. Not exactly showering themselves in glory for a chase.
The simple answer we just stop playing Test cricket in Durban altogether.... even when Centurion gets it wrong, we still seem to win!
It's funny that Haddin came up straight after this post because I'd say Lyon is every bit like the Warner's, Starc's, Haddin's, Johnson's etc. It just gets hidden because no-one listens to a spinner at gully, but he can be just as much of a **** as those guys
It sounds like a bit of a rich man's problem, but looking at the South African attack even on paper it's obvious to see they don't have someone who a lower order could be regularly blown away by. It's usually quicks who bowl full and straight or spinners with lots of variations who are hard to pick up out out of the hand who do this kind of damage, and the without Steyn or Tahir, South Africa don't have this right now. This is obviously not to say Tahir should be playing (god no), but it's the weak spot in this attack. Rabada is the most theoretically capable but I think he tends to be a 'good length' bowler, and he doesn't do heaps in the air either, so the lesser batsmen tend to do their classic trick of hitting the straight ones and missing the wide ones against him.
Exactly my take on it.
Look, my eyes told me starc was effective when the ball was swinging and not effective when it was not. I had no idea what the stats were. You posted some stats that supported this view so I commented on it.
If u write even one more post against Australian player, I will accuse u of
