Australians have alot to say now that they're winning ? - Tony Cozier

[Pratters]

Richard, I find it laughable that you have written off Morne Morkel. He is one of the finest talents to come out of South Africa in the past decade. Whether he can do justice to that talent remains to be seen.

 

[aussie]

Richard, I find it laughable that you have written off Morne Morkel. He is one of the finest talents to come out of South Africa in the past decade. Whether he can do justice to that talent remains to be seen.

Richard is right to a level tbf. Morkel was just like Hayward back in the early days, saw the talent but was always eratic - thus fell short of test quality. If Morkel has doesn't step vs ENG this winter, not sure how much longer SA will persist with him.

 

[Pratters]

I think it is stupid to compare Morkel with Hayward. Morkel is just 25 and has already played more than Hayward did in his entire career. Hayward also averaged 40 in 21 ODIs where Morkel averages 29 in 23 ODIs with similar test averages.

Most importantly, while Morne Morkel hasn't done spectacularly well so far, he hasn't exactly done badly at all.

Writing off Morkel is one of the stupidest things I have read on this forum, EVER.

 

[tooextracool]

Going back to the original topic... this Second Test shows just how stupid all this WI-are-a-disgrace-to-Test-cricket-and-aren't-fit-to-be-playing-Australia nonsense is. WI now have a genuine chance to win this Test. They may not take it, but it emphasises how all that rubbish was written on the basis of a single Test.

Knee-jerk reaction at its very worst.

Not that I disagree with your point, but it is interesting to see how you condemn those who wrote off WI as being a disgrace based on a single test and then used one test to argue your point.

One successful test doesn't prove anything, and WI need to maintain this level of performance over a period of time.

 

[tooextracool]

Writing off Morkel is one of the stupidest things I have read on this forum, EVER.

No one has written off Morkel. However, the point is that he has been nothing short of pathetic for most his test match career stands especially when you consider that he has never had a good series or taken a 5 wicket haul when you exclude his performances against Bangladesh. And hes quite likely to remain so unless he sorts out his bowling action, which based on the recent ODI series has yet to seen.

 

[Pratters]

Morne Morkel has never been much of a bowler

He has been at times and in spells to be honest. To say that he has never been much of a bowler is extremely harsh and rash.

 

[aussie]

No one has written off Morkel. However, the point is that he has been nothing short of pathetic for most his test match career stands especially when you consider that he has never had a good series or taken a 5 wicket haul when you exclude his performances against Bangladesh. And hes quite likely to remain so unless he sorts out his bowling action, which based on the recent ODI series has yet to seen.

On point. ATM if he plays againts ENG, he is weaklink that should be exploited.

 

[shivfan]

Going back to the original topic... this Second Test shows just how stupid all this WI-are-a-disgrace-to-Test-cricket-and-aren't-fit-to-be-playing-Australia nonsense is. WI now have a genuine chance to win this Test. They may not take it, but it emphasises how all that rubbish was written on the basis of a single Test.

Knee-jerk reaction at its very worst.

Well said, Richard....

 

[shivfan]

Not only that, they're doing it without their 2 best quicks.

There's loads of positives to take from this Test, regardless of what happens over the last 2 days, and it's great to see IMO.

Yeah, without Edwards and Taylor....

Surely, it's time for Hughes, Buchanan, Roebuck and Chappelli to write off Australia now.

 

[shivfan]

Not that I disagree with your point, but it is interesting to see how you condemn those who wrote off WI as being a disgrace based on a single test and then used one test to argue your point.

One successful test doesn't prove anything, and WI need to maintain this level of performance over a period of time.

Improvements should really be measured against what's gone before, and if you look at the WI results under the captaincy of Gayle compared to any WI captain since Richardson, he comes off better....

Under Gayle, the WI won their first-ever Test match in South Africa.

Under Gayle, the WI drew their Test series in New Zealand - their first in a long time.

Under Gayle, the WI beat England 1-0 in a Test series in the Caribbean.

So, it's not just a one-off. There have been small improvements, unfortunately interrupted by disputes between the WICB and WIPA.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Going back to the original topic... this Second Test shows just how stupid all this WI-are-a-disgrace-to-Test-cricket-and-aren't-fit-to-be-playing-Australia nonsense is. WI now have a genuine chance to win this Test. They may not take it, but it emphasises how all that rubbish was written on the basis of a single Test.

Knee-jerk reaction at its very worst.

I agree, you get the impression some of the 'cricket journalists' writing about the game at the moment have never actually played the game themselves and have no clue about it. I think it's great to see the WI doing well and improving. Having grown up watching Marshall, Garner, Ambrose, Walsh etc go around and absolutely run through teams I have a soft spot for the team and would love to see them playing excellent cricket again.

It's great to see young players with ability like Roach and Barath coming through. I hope a few more join them and the WI climb up towards the top of the rankings again.

 

[Richard]

Not that I disagree with your point, but it is interesting to see how you condemn those who wrote off WI as being a disgrace based on a single test and then used one test to argue your point.

One successful test doesn't prove anything, and WI need to maintain this level of performance over a period of time.

This one successful-ish Test, plus the successful-ish Tests against England earlier in the year (which were forgotten when the disinterested-and-only-scheduled-at-the-last-minute ones came soon after - probably because they fit-in less well with what people want to believe), show that the knee-jerk after the First Test was precisely that.

 

[Richard]

Richard, I find it laughable that you have written off Morne Morkel. He is one of the finest talents to come out of South Africa in the past decade. Whether he can do justice to that talent remains to be seen.

I'm not sure I agree that he's one of the finest talents to come from South Africa in the past decade (he's not a patch on Steyn for example), but either way, I haven't written him off. To date he's not much of a bowler - that's it. I've never once said he can't ever be much of a bowler, but to date he isn't and there's no guarantee he will be. He'll need to make fair modification to be so.

BTW the comparison to Hayward in terms of number of games played is illogical. Morkel has enjoyed the faith of selectors; Hayward did not. That's not to say that Hayward would've had more success had he done so, because despite being very talented he had a poor attitude and, in the end, a weak body. But number of games played depends on the attitude of your selectors as well as your own performance.

 

[Richard]

How could that be when he was taking 5 & 6 wicket hauls vs IND & PAK in 2006/07?.

Overall definately disagree he was test quality before SA toured here in 2003 (Lord's test) also. You mentioned 2000/01 & 2001/02. Well i remember seeing him vs AUS & WI in that period & he was definately an average bowler.

You clearly don't remember him at home in 2000/01; I do, and he was very good. Ntini has always been up-and-down; you can't say for certain at any point how he's going to go. And he needs the right type of deck. But the first time he looked good in Tests was 2000/01; since then he's had regular spells of going back and forth.

Johnson swinging the ball in SA was a freak incident. It would be like Harmison suddenly swinging the ball.

As i said although Johnson bowled well in AUS before, the Saffies knew what he was all about - a hit the deck seamer, who tested them physically. Nobody on either side including Johnson himself expected to get the ball to swing so prodigiously. That stunned the Saffies & their batting didn't get accustomed to it until the 2nd innings of the Durban test, which by then the series had already been lost.

As I keep saying - it doesn't matter whether they were stunned or not, Johnson was no more effective in South Africa than he was in Australia. Regardless of whether they knew what to expect or not, the South African batsmen had equal difficulty with Johnson in Aus as SA.

Steyn can swing the ball yes (more geniue outswing than inswing conventionally, while he can reverse it). But you cant call him a "swing bowler", he has many other skills.

Hoggard's is swing bowler, that was his only strenght. Hoggard didn't have the ability to bounce batsmen out or test them physically.

Whether Steyn has a few more strings to his bow or not, both are overwhelmingly dependent on swing. Swing is by a massive distance the biggest weapon in the arsenal of both. They are both highly capable at swinging the ball. That makes both in my book swing bowlers.

Plus why is it important for a swing bowler to hit the stumps?.

It's important for any bowler to hit the stumps if he beats the batsmen - and one of the few ways to beat the batsmen is by swinging the ball.

 

[Furball]

Improvements should really be measured against what's gone before, and if you look at the WI results under the captaincy of Gayle compared to any WI captain since Richardson, he comes off better....

Under Gayle, the WI won their first-ever Test match in South Africa.

Under Gayle, the WI drew their Test series in New Zealand - their first in a long time.

Under Gayle, the WI beat England 1-0 in a Test series in the Caribbean.

So, it's not just a one-off. There have been small improvements, unfortunately interrupted by disputes between the WICB and WIPA.

Had a decent home series against Australia as well.

 

[Richard]

Yeah - were merely outplayed in all three Tests rather than absolutely and utterly outclassed.

 

[Burgey]

Heard the other day on radio that if WI had beaten the Bangas earlier this year they'd be ahead of Pakistan and NZ now. Givent he side they put on the park for that series, one could argue that's really where the current crop should (roughly) be.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Ha ha yeah, I was referring to the ones you'd seen and studied close at hand.

Personally I can't believe that South Africa "just happened" to be below their best every single time they came up against Australia, and TBH if they did always just happen to fail to perform against the best there was then that IMO shows even more clearly that Australia were the better side, especially as it was over an extended period of time rather than a single isolated series.

Yeah, it's a hell of a coincidence.

 

[Richard]

Strange coincidences do happen from time to time. BTW it's not like the only time they were below their best was against Australia in the time in question. There were plenty of other occasions.

 

[Top_Cat]

Strange coincidences do happen from time to time. BTW it's not like the only time they were below their best was against Australia in the time in question. There were plenty of other occasions.

haha, please. Shamelessly contrarian there.