***Official*** Australia in South Africa

[brockley]

Fergo to be the reserve batsmen for the ashes for sure.

 

[jondavluc]

Fergo to be the reserve batsmen for the ashes for sure.

It would be great if he does.He has really impressed me as a batsmen.

 

[aussie]

Geeves and Hopes might not be much good but to say they aren't specialist bowlers is just ****ing ridiculous. Do you think they were picked for their batting?

Geeves is picked as a specialist bowler. Hopes i'd say is expected to contribute fairly equally with both & ball, he aint a specialist in either facet.

Fact is though, Australia are playing without only 2 "quality" specialist bowlers. With Hauritz seemingly stepping up (but of course its still early to tell).

 

[Langeveldt]

Nice win, particularly pleased to see how the spinners stifled things again and how van der Merwe looks set to be a whole lot better than the **** we had to put up with from Robbie P.. Australia looked horrible though, like they were never really in the hunt. Ferguson batted well but never looked like he was going to take the game away from us. Why can't they just use their test side than these bits and pieces cricketers, they are beginning to look like old school England.. And get Symonds back into the fray as soon as possible as well..

How come Mitchell Johnson is a gun batsman at test level, yet averages 9 in ODI's?

 

[oitoitoi]

Why has Hughes not been given a chance, he needs to pronto considering the problems Australia are having at the top of the order. No way should Clarke be opening and Haddin's makeshift at best. Clarke should go to no.4, Haddin back down the order too. David Hussey is going to have to pull out something special to keep his place in this side, though his bowling will probably keep him in. I'm sure a lot of people will be calling for Shaun Marsh but tbh he hasn't convinced me and I'm not a fan of one-day specialists, especially for an opener. I reckon Hughes and maybe Warner for a little while isn't a bad shout. Does Symonds make it back into the side though?

Having Lee and Johnson should give Australia a big boost though.

 

[Prince EWS]

Geeves is picked as a specialist bowler. Hopes i'd say is expected to contribute fairly equally with both & ball, he aint a specialist in either facet.

I actually meant Hauritz; don't know why I typed Hopes.

Fact is though, Australia are playing without only 2 "quality" specialist bowlers.

That's a totally different thing though.

Inbox repeatedly calls anyone he doesn't rate "part-timers" or insinuates they aren't specialist bowlers. It's really been annoying me ITBT. Geeves and Hauritz may be **** but they are quite obviously full-time bowlers.

This post for example:

No surprises really, can't really go into an international cricket game with 2 specialist bowlers and expect to win.

... makes it look like Australia got their balance wrong and picked too many batsmen and allrounders, when that's actually not the case at all. Geeves isn't very good but he's not picked because he can bat. It just gives a totally false impression of things.

 

[Briony]

SA really only had two specialist seamers, plus Botha and the inexperienced VDW.

Albertus is inconsistent with the ball.

I don't think Warner is the answer. Hughes yes but he should be partnered by Marsh for starters. The two might complement one another wih the latter playing the more anchor role and Hughes using his flair to keep the board ticking.

 

[inbox24]

We have gotten the balance wrong. There's absolutely no doubt about that.

1. Not picking Hughes
2. Using makeshift openers (which at this stage is a fair complement to Clarke) - even Warner could do better than him at the moment
3. Resting Hilfenhaus and Siddle - basically cost us the series by resting these two guys
4. Hauritz, Geeves
5. Despite his recent innings with the bat still don't rate Hopes as an option, especially once Watson comes back to full tilt

Full strength:
Hughes/Warner
Watson
Ponting
Hussey
Symonds
Ferguson
Haddin
Johnson
Lee
Siddle
Bracken

 

[Briony]

We have gotten the balance wrong. There's absolutely no doubt about that.

1. Not picking Hughes
2. Using makeshift openers (which at this stage is a fair complement to Clarke) - even Warner could do better than him at the moment
3. Resting Hilfenhaus and Siddle - basically cost us the series by resting these two guys
4. Hauritz, Geeves
5. Despite his recent innings with the bat still don't rate Hopes as an option, especially once Watson comes back to full tilt

Full strength:
Hughes/Warner
Watson
Ponting
Hussey
Symonds
Ferguson
Haddin
Johnson
Lee
Siddle
Bracken

I think Siddle's foot injury was such that he had to have a spell. Hilfenhaus can be expensive at times. The problem has been more the batting, not only the opening spots but the top order in general.

 

[jondavluc]

We have gotten the balance wrong. There's absolutely no doubt about that.

1. Not picking Hughes
2. Using makeshift openers (which at this stage is a fair complement to Clarke) - even Warner could do better than him at the moment
3. Resting Hilfenhaus and Siddle - basically cost us the series by resting these two guys
4. Hauritz, Geeves
5. Despite his recent innings with the bat still don't rate Hopes as an option, especially once Watson comes back to full tilt

Full strength:
Hughes/Warner
Watson
Ponting
Hussey
Symonds
Ferguson
Haddin
Johnson
Lee
Siddle
Bracken

Clarke? I hope that his exclusion is just a mistake.

 

[oitoitoi]

Clarke? I hope that his exclusion is just a mistake.

Based on his current form probably not, he's no opener and that's a tough middle order to break into.

 

[Steulen]

On current form, neither Ponting nor Hussey are better than Clarke. Symonds has a lot to prove and shouldn't get back into the team just like that, especially not at the expense of Clarke. Ferguson is the exciting new boy, but hardly the one to deprive Clarke of a place.

 

[pasag]

On current form, neither Ponting nor Hussey are better than Clarke. Symonds has a lot to prove and shouldn't get back into the team just like that, especially not at the expense of Clarke. Ferguson is the exciting new boy, but hardly the one to deprive Clarke of a place.

Hussey's been our best one day batsman over the last year, Symonds until the recent escapades was one of the best ODI bats in the world. Clarke is ****.

 

[jondavluc]

On current form, neither Ponting nor Hussey are better than Clarke. Symonds has a lot to prove and shouldn't get back into the team just like that, especially not at the expense of Clarke. Ferguson is the exciting new boy, but hardly the one to deprive Clarke of a place.

Exactly.(Except Hussey)

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

On current form, neither Ponting nor Hussey are better than Clarke.

Actually...

Since Jan 2008, Hussey has 1120 runs @ 50.90 (S/R: 80.28), Ponting has 595 runs @ 23.80 (S/R: 75.98)(very bad) whilst Clarke has 719 runs @ 29.95 (S/R: 64.60).

Hussey is still streets ahead going by that, Ponting has been rubbish but so has Clarke. It's arguable that Clarke has been worse just because that S/R is so bad it could be costing Australia matches.

 

[DaRick]

Well, another disappointing performance by Australia - with yet another poor showing by the top order. I'll run the rule down on the current side:

1) Haddin - has scored some runs, so I'd leave him for the time being
2) Clarke - shouldn't really be opening
3) Ponting - out-of-form but there's not much that can be done there
4) DJ Hussey - doesn't deserve his place: has underperformed with bat and ball in the majority of his career so far
5) MEK Hussey - scored an unbeaten 85 recently, plus lots of runs against NZ
6) CJ Ferguson - an excellent pick by the selectors; bats with poise under pressure
7) JR Hopes - not outstanding, but hardly the worst
8) MG Johnson - an automatic selection, but I wish his batting would kick on in ODI's
9) B Geeves - shouldn't have been picked; too expensive even at ODD level
10) NM Hauritz - a decent ODD bowler; no alternatives
11) NW Bracken - has been bowling poorly, but I'd give him at least a few more games

Marsh, Lee, Symonds and probably Watson should return as soon as they've proved their fitness and performance. Dave Hussey and Geeves should be dropped and Clarke should be moved down the order. Phil Hughes is worth considering, but I don't want David Warner (a sub-sub Jayasuriya) in the side.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Watto will surely open the batting with Marsh againt Pakistan, you'd think. Unless Haddin makes a couple of hundreds in the remaining SAF games.

 

[irfan]

We have gotten the balance wrong. There's absolutely no doubt about that.

1. Not picking Hughes
2. Using makeshift openers (which at this stage is a fair complement to Clarke) - even Warner could do better than him at the moment
3. Resting Hilfenhaus and Siddle - basically cost us the series by resting these two guys
4. Hauritz, Geeves
5. Despite his recent innings with the bat still don't rate Hopes as an option, especially once Watson comes back to full tilt

Full strength:
Hughes/Warner
Watson
Ponting
Hussey
Symonds
Ferguson
Haddin
Johnson
Lee
Siddle
Bracken

At full strength I'd go
Marsh
Watson
Ponting (c)
M. Hussey (bit unlucky of late)
D. Hussey
Ferguson
Haddin
Johnson
Hauritz/Tait
Lee
Bracken

 

[Uppercut]

I think Siddle's foot injury was such that he had to have a spell. Hilfenhaus can be expensive at times. The problem has been more the batting, not only the opening spots but the top order in general.

While complaining about the batting, I'd like to remind you that Australia made the second-biggest total ever made under lights at Newlands. They're only behind South Africa's total in this match, the West Indian attack being quite comically bad.

Expecting them to chase 290 is absolutely ridiculous. Winning was never on the cards unless they bowled South Africa out in the afternoon, and really it's almost a moral victory to have only lost by 24 runs having lost the toss. Again, too many conclusions are being drawn about the poor selection/Australian decline/whatever you want to believe. It's funny how they so closely mirror the complaints about their side that South Africa came up with after losing the toss in the first ODI.

 

[Briony]

While complaining about the batting, I'd like to remind you that Australia made the second-biggest total ever made under lights at Newlands. They're only behind South Africa's total in this match, the West Indian attack being quite comically bad.

Expecting them to chase 290 is absolutely ridiculous. Winning was never on the cards unless they bowled South Africa out in the afternoon, and really it's almost a moral victory to have only lost by 24 runs having lost the toss. Again, too many conclusions are being drawn about the poor selection/Australian decline/whatever you want to believe. It's funny how they so closely mirror the complaints about their side that South Africa came up with after losing the toss in the first ODI.

It was a pretty good effort but not really comparable to some of the capitulations under lights because the curator had basically shaved all the grass from the pitch and Punter said at the toss that he didn't the ball to do much under lights and it did nothing. Note the seamers took no wickets between them. In constrast Ntini went nuts in 2006 when the ball wobbled everywhere and he is not a noted big swinger of the ball.