sideshowtim
Banned
I'm not, I'm saying it was a stupid move by Graeme Smith (who is an ordinary captain at the best of times), which is why I used the word "they".
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Group A - Australia, South Africa, Scotland, Holland
- Thread starter James
- Start date
mikeW
International Vice-Captain
Symonds generally in the past has bowled 5 + overs a match. Im sure a combination of Symonds, Clarke and even Hodge himself would be sufficient enough.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Only if the other four bowlers were reliably effective. Given that Tait is horribly inconsistent and inexperienced, McGrath is easier to get hold of these days and Hogg can be absolutely smashed on unhelpful tracks, that's not even close to being the case.
Add in the fact that Symonds isn't completely match fit - especially in terms of bowling - and there's definitely a few problems.
Luckily for Australia though, they don't have to worry about the Hodge v Johnson debate - they have Watson who not only ensures batting down to 8 but can be used as a genuine fourth fast bowler.
TT Boy
Hall of Fame Member
Good point and if it wasn't for some excellent ring fielding by the likes of Symonds then Kallis would at least have been going at a run a ball. Timed the pants of a number of Tait's deliverers only to see them brilliantly stopped by Roy. Was not a great innings by any means but to suggest Justin Kemp, Boucher or Pollock would have been a better option holds little for they can't handle or hit real pace bowling, Kallis, Smith and AB can.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
He could've said nothing - how many other national team captains have said that sort of thing in the press before playing the best side in the world?
If he didn't deserve it he wouldn't get it.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Except it isn't as good as 10 overs from Watson and Symonds, with Clarke as support. That's the point. Watson plays as an all-rounder - he bowls nearly 7 overs per match, which isn't much less than Brad Hogg, and his record with the ball in recent times justifies his selection. When Symonds and the other support bowlers have to bowl 10 it often results in a weak spot in the bowling lineup, and that's cost Australia in the past. Imagine if Hodge had been in the team last night instead of Watson. What would have happened with the bowling?
Australia can win games like that, but the cost of having Symonds and Clarke bowl 10 is greater than the cost of having Watson bat instead of Hodge. That's especially true if Watson gets the chance to bat in the top order, obviously. Any ODI team is better with 5 or 6 bowlers than 4, unless your part time options are really good, or your bowling options are really crap. Bracken, Lee/Tait, McGrath, Hogg, Watson, Symonds is the best setup we've got at the moment, and it leaves no room for Hodge in the team until a batsman goes.
TT Boy
Hall of Fame Member
Yes Marc because naturally people should either be a mute or declare that just because the other team is better than them they don't have a chance and what's the point of ****ing playing because we are only going to lose, correct? Nothing wrong in 'bigging' your side up, especially when they have the results to back it up...
PhoenixFire
International Coach
Just watched the highlights on the BBC. That 4 Hayden hit to bring up is 50 was as hard as I've ever seen anyone hit it, dangerous stuff. Smith looked excellent as well.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
How about he say: "We are facing the best side in cricket, we're under no illusions of any ranking system. BUT we will try our best, as we are no shabby team, and of course we will try to win the game."
(P.S. I didn't read what he said in the papers but usually it isn't humble like that.)
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
South Africa lost partly because Kallis helped the required run rate spiral out of control. Stop trying to judge Kallis' innings by a general ODI standard. This was a game where 350 was somewhere near the par score, not 250. Just below a run a ball was not good enough. After Gibbs went the onus was on Kallis to hit a few boundaries because he was the in-batsman. Instead he just kept prodding singles and taking the odd dot and piling all the pressure on Prince and then Boucher who'd just come out. Even as it became obvious Boucher was struggling to score and the RRR was rising Kallis kept driving singles. This was the passage of play that killed SA off. The RRR went from 8.63 when Gibbs departed to nearly 11 when Boucher went and Kallis made no attempt to stop the rise.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
South Africa lost because they bowled rubbish. Conceding 377 with the ball and then blaming a batsman is so completely ludicrous that I wouldn't even expect you to do it.
PhoenixFire
International Coach
Pollock and Langeveldt bowled tripe, and Ntini bowled semi tripe. Australia just batted awesome and took full advantage of it, not much more than that tbh.
Pup Clarke
Cricketer Of The Year
How in your opinion could SA have bowled better?.
PhoenixFire
International Coach
It's quite clear that Australia would never have got that amount had Pollock not bowled like fool. Likewise with Ntini and Langeveldt. From what I saw, they bowled too full and too wide at Hayden and Gilchrist early on, and failed to get much better in the middle overs. They bowled pretty decent at the death, which has been a problem for SA recently.
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
So if SA had gotten to 376-0 with 2 overs remaining and they'd have played out two maidens that batting for the last two overs still wouldn't have been a factor? Yea right.
I should also point out SA kept up or surpassed what Australia had scored during the same period for the first 30 overs of their innings.
After 30 overs SA were 209-1, Australia were 201-2.
Last edited:
pasag
RTDAS
I agree with the fact it was SA's bowlers who let them down, however SA needed Kallis to fire and pick up the rate to win. SA were doing very well when he came in and as he slowed the scoring, the run-rate kept rising putting the whole batting side under heaps more pressure.
That's not his fault, again, it's the bowlers who lost the match, but if Kallis would have fired then SA probably would have won, so if you look at it in isolation and some context, that half an hour cost SA the match. But on the whole as others have said it's not his fault and you can't realistically expect him to navigate 10 runs an over for 30 overs and when he doesn't blame the loss on him and you shouldn't look at that half hour in isolation anyways.
That's not his fault, again, it's the bowlers who lost the match, but if Kallis would have fired then SA probably would have won, so if you look at it in isolation and some context, that half an hour cost SA the match. But on the whole as others have said it's not his fault and you can't realistically expect him to navigate 10 runs an over for 30 overs and when he doesn't blame the loss on him and you shouldn't look at that half hour in isolation anyways.
PhoenixFire
International Coach
It's easy for us people to sit here in our cosy little computer rooms, and say that out in the heat of a world cup run chase, Kallis should have done this and done that. It's not as easy as Kallis thinking "What shall I do this ball? I know I'll hit it for 6", it doesn't happen like that as some people might think.........
pasag
RTDAS
What you describe as people sitting in their cosy computer rooms, others would describe as critique and analysis. Whilst I agree with you the ask was too much for one man and unrealistic of Kallis to do that, I don't agree with the notion that people can't criticise players and situations because they don't understand what it's like.
