***Official Australia in South Africa***

[chalky]

Clark can take 250 test wicket, says Allan Donaldhttp://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18541714-23212,00.html

Big call who is with him their?

I say Shaun Udal can take 250 test wickets who is with me?

 

[luckyeddie]

I say Shaun Udal can take 250 test wickets who is with me?

Not sure about that 25 maybe if he plays another 5 years.

Interesting that Herschelle Gibbs is now showing his total ignorance of basic astrophysics.

He thinks - now get this - that Clark bowls a yard faster with the RED cricket ball.

What an idiot. Any fool knows that the Doppler Effect suggests that the light from objects moving towards you are shifted towards the BLUE end of the spectrum. It's only when they are moving away from you that the wavelengths are stretched a little.

Spoilt the article for me.

 

[Matt79]

How ridiculous is Micky Arthur? First, in the leadup to the test, he talks up a seamers pitch to nullify Warne, backing his seamers to do the job and so on. Then on the first day he is upset at the pitch because it's too dry and might suit the spinners, and after the match he complains that the groundsman watered the pitch too much before the game and it "didn't play the way we wanted" and had too much moisture in it.

How exactly is it meant to play, then? The only way you can nullify Warne is to produce a greentop. If you produce a greentop, Kasprowicz, Clark and Lee will get assistance from it, as will Nel and Ntini, and it's basically a lottery. You can't have it both ways.

good to see Arthurs taking the pressure off Smith to say something stupid tho -

I've started a thread regarding peope getting pitches they want.

 

[howardj]

I Was Pressured To Water: Curator

 

[social]

I Was Pressured To Water: Curator

Sounds better than "we were smashed again."

Anyway, why the complaints?

SA won the toss. If it was so wet, why did they bat?

 

[Jono]

Poor bugger.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm all for home sides producing whatever sort of pitch they want, provided that it isn't dangerous, unplayable or so flat as to be uncompetitive. I'm fine with home captains and coaches working with the groundsman or whatever is necessary to achieve a desirable wicket... that's what home advantage is.

However, Arthur is just being stupid. You can't blame the pitch for losing when it's exactly what you asked for - a pitch which seams around on the first couple of days, let alone when you win the toss as well.

 

[luckyeddie]

I'm all for home sides producing whatever sort of pitch they want, provided that it isn't dangerous, unplayable or so flat as to be uncompetitive. I'm fine with home captains and coaches working with the groundsman or whatever is necessary to achieve a desirable wicket... that's what home advantage is.

However, Arthur is just being stupid. You can't blame the pitch for losing when it's exactly what you asked for - a pitch which seams around on the first couple of days, let alone when you win the toss as well.

I totally and utterly agree with the first part here - let the curator or groundsmen, the home chairman of selectors, captain, television schedulers, ice-cream salesmen and anyone else you want to be involved collaborate in setting up exactly the conditions they want.

Then do away with the toss of the coin entirely and allow the visitors the choice of batting or bowling.

End of argument for ever.

 

[Steulen]

I totally and utterly agree with the first part here - let the curator or groundsmen, the home chairman of selectors, captain, television schedulers, ice-cream salesmen and anyone else you want to be involved collaborate in setting up exactly the conditions they want.

Then do away with the toss of the coin entirely and allow the visitors the choice of batting or bowling.

End of argument for ever.

Good call

 

[Top_Cat]

However, Arthur is just being stupid. You can't blame the pitch for losing when it's exactly what you asked for - a pitch which seams around on the first couple of days, let alone when you win the toss as well.

Precisely. Besides, good teams don't try to fix the conditions in their favour; they look at the conditions and adjust their tactics. I mean, what does the coach being dirty about the pitch say to the players in their side? "You're not good enough to win without help from the conditions"? And then, as Social said, why did they bat? Nup, deflection of criticism is the name of the game here.

 

[howardj]

This article talks about the fact that the South African team has instructed their premier (and surely one of the world's premier) batsmen, Jacques Kallis, to be more aggressive during the Tests against Australia. This would, in part, explain both of his dismissals in the First Test - both were uncharacteristic slashes, either early in his innings (1st Innings) or early in the day's play (2nd Innings). I'd strongly counsel against instructing Kallis to change what has been a very effective modus operandi, while having to deal with the monumental challenge of playing the best team in world. How he performed in Sydney was fine.

 

[Nate]

I totally and utterly agree with the first part here - let the curator or groundsmen, the home chairman of selectors, captain, television schedulers, ice-cream salesmen and anyone else you want to be involved collaborate in setting up exactly the conditions they want.

Then do away with the toss of the coin entirely and allow the visitors the choice of batting or bowling.

End of argument for ever.

That`s up there with the best idea I`ve ever heard, cricket-wise.

Do ittttt!

 

[DanielFullard]

To beat the Aussies I think South Afirca are going to have to bat agressively.

Also, in the first innings of the last test the SA bowlers did not put a great deal of pressure on the Aussies. England beat them by putting pressure on their batsmen but the South African bowlers were simply not making them play which is what you have to do at this level and against a team of Aussie quality.

I do hope its not over in 2 and half days again.

4 days would be fine as the fifth day coincides with the first India v England ODI

 

[andyc]

This article talks about the fact that the South African team has instructed their premier (and surely one of the world's premier) batsmen, Jacques Kallis, to be more aggressive during the Tests against Australia. This would, in part, explain both of his dismissals in the First Test - both were uncharacteristic slashes, either early in his innings (1st Innings) or early in the day's play (2nd Innings). I'd strongly counsel against instructing Kallis to change what has been a very effective modus operandi, while having to deal with the monumental challenge of playing the best team in world. How he performed in Sydney was fine.

Completely agree, Howard. When you have attacking players like Gibbs and Smith in the team, you need someone like Kallis who can occupy the crease and make some good scores.

 

[social]

To beat the Aussies I think South Afirca are going to have to bat agressively.

Also, in the first innings of the last test the SA bowlers did not put a great deal of pressure on the Aussies. England beat them by putting pressure on their batsmen but the South African bowlers were simply not making them play which is what you have to do at this level and against a team of Aussie quality.

I do hope its not over in 2 and half days again.

4 days would be fine as the fifth day coincides with the first India v England ODI

So youre saying that SA have to bowl and bat better.

Thanks. I'll pass that on.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

So youre saying that SA have to bowl and bat better.

Thanks. I'll pass that on.

 

[TT Boy]

To beat the Aussies I think South Afirca are going to have to bat agressively.

I think one of the reasons that South Africa lost the first test match was their over-the-top aggression, emphasised by Jacques Kallis who gave Australia two gifts.

You only have to look at the others dismissals and see must of them steamed from players trying to really leather the ball through the covers, instead of just placing it or leaving the ball.

It's all well and good attacking Mickey Mouse bowlers like Stuart Clark on a Jo'burg road but South Africa should have paid a tad more respect (to the conditions). Ricky Ponting and Matthew Hayden succeeded by raining the strokeplay in, their innings were not pretty but they respected and acknowledge what they were up against, South Africa did not.

 

[Ikki]

So youre saying that SA have to bowl and bat better.

Thanks. I'll pass that on.

Before Richard adds it: remember to catch the ball (fielding).

 

[marc71178]

So youre saying that SA have to bowl and bat better.

Wrong!

They just need to catch better!

 

[aussie]

To beat the Aussies I think South Afirca are going to have to bat agressively.

But thats the problem their are not an aggressive batting minded test side, so they might struggle to do that.