***Official*** South Africa in Australia 2012

[uvelocity]

Ooo this is something my program can do semi-automatically. I'll do it after christmas dinner.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nah I saw no point once someone showed that Yousuf had done it.

 

[Burgey]

It's not the bowlers' fault their blokes can't catch.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

It is the bowlers fault if their front foot lands too far forward though

 

[Burgey]

Of course it is

 

[Briony]

It's all about the risk, for me. The longer you stay out the better chance you have of bowling them out while they are behind. This means that time you spent out there to gain that lead is wasted.

I highly doubt Australia fears batting a second time as South Africa have no spinners in the team to speak of and given the time left they won't have to spend more than 40 overs out there batting in any case.

Australia has no chance of losing so holds all the aces but if SA is defeated after cruising with the bat and then losing their way they don't deserve to be #1.

Their attack will have to improve to win a test here you imagine. It lacks variety and penetration.

 

[Arachnodouche]

I think he should declare overnight. SA usually don't have intent to set up matches even in the best of situations . Clarke declaring now establishes in no uncertain terms just which side is trying win the game. Also brings the c-word into the picture.

 

[Scaly piscine]

It's a tricky one this.

I don't think there's anything drastically wrong with declaring overnight, although in that scenario they should have batted even more aggressively before close. It means you don't lose overs to change of innings in the morning session and you know exactly how to pace a chase later (if it comes about) - but it is by no means easy to chase 150-200 in 25 overs in Test cricket. To sustain that sort of run rate over the best part of a session is tricky and it would be at the worst time to bat. You could also conceivably lose. This would be a very aggressive option.

Australia could just try and blitz runs at 8+ an over tomorrow for as long as possible. Should get the lead past 100 before declaring when you run out of batsmen capable of maintaining a high run-rate. This means of course that Oz would lose overs through change of innings twice - if everything works out well they'd have another 100 to get in very quick time at the end of the day, you have two bites at blitzing the bowling. Do the higher run-rates make up for the 4 overs plus change lost through change of innings?

Australia could set out to bat until lunch (or within 10 minutes of it) and so not have to bat again, leaving about 70 overs for South Africa to survive and not lose any overs at all through change of innings. The problem with that is Australia probably won't bat through the session if they bat with sufficient aggression to get the runs they need and if you could end up not doing one thing or the other.

 

[AlanJLegend]

^^Some really good points there, I can't see our likelihood of winning changing much whether we declare overnight or not. You're right in that if we were going to declare before tomorrow we would have scored at a faster rate (in fairness our RR was pretty decent anyway). Apparently some of the cracks are opening up, so I would much rather we have a good old slog in the morning, get 200 or so ahead and put South Africa on the back foot.

Realisically what I am expecting though is that we will declare around lunch, South Africa will bat on and be 2 or 3 wickets down at the finish. It's a massive shame really that the second day was wahsed out.

 

[Briony]

It's a tricky one this.

I don't think there's anything drastically wrong with declaring overnight, although in that scenario they should have batted even more aggressively before close. It means you don't lose overs to change of innings in the morning session and you know exactly how to pace a chase later (if it comes about) - but it is by no means easy to chase 150-200 in 25 overs in Test cricket. To sustain that sort of run rate over the best part of a session is tricky and it would be at the worst time to bat. You could also conceivably lose. This would be a very aggressive option.

Australia could just try and blitz runs at 8+ an over tomorrow for as long as possible. Should get the lead past 100 before declaring when you run out of batsmen capable of maintaining a high run-rate. This means of course that Oz would lose overs through change of innings twice - if everything works out well they'd have another 100 to get in very quick time at the end of the day, you have two bites at blitzing the bowling. Do the higher run-rates make up for the 4 overs plus change lost through change of innings?

Australia could set out to bat until lunch (or within 10 minutes of it) and so not have to bat again, leaving about 70 overs for South Africa to survive and not lose any overs at all through change of innings. The problem with that is Australia probably won't bat through the session if they bat with sufficient aggression to get the runs they need and if you could end up not doing one thing or the other.

We know SA is mentally very fragile but if they lose this would it be one of the biggest chokes for a country of chokers? Guess it would also mean that they would seem a fraudulent #1.

 

[uvelocity]

stranger things have happened in cricket. a plus to overnight is first freshest use of the morning. advantage to batting 1.5 hours is 2 rolls of the pitch, and a sharp session, rest and go again after lunch

a win such a massive outsider though

 

[Scaly piscine]

We know SA is mentally very fragile but if they lose this would it be one of the biggest chokes for a country of chokers? Guess it would also mean that they would seem a fraudulent #1.

That would depend on how South Africa got bowled out really. No team in history would be a certainty to bat out 70 overs even on that pitch.

I would love it actually if one team didn't piss about bowling overs at such a slow rate and showed it was perfectly reasonable to get through 85-90 overs in 4 and a half hours. Oz could basically just throw their seamers at SA for 15 overs, then bowl Clarke and Lyon as quickly as possible until the new ball (maybe have the odd 2-3 over burst of seam in there) - then have another quick burst with the new ball. There is no reason at all they couldn't do this, it's only the will that's lacking. SA batsmen in Australia aren't going to get away with much time wasting.

 

[AlanJLegend]

1st Test: England v Sri Lanka at Cardiff, May 26-30, 2011 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Hoping this will happen...

 

[Spikey]

what, that we lose?

 

[AlanJLegend]

I should clarify...I am hoping that happens with us being England and South Africa being the Sri Lankans, who failed beyond comprehension on that day.

 

[Garson007]

How many times do you think we'll hear JP say words to the effect of "I looked behind me to see who had kicked me, but noone was there" in interviews?

WAC

Initially I thought a ball hit me on the back of the foot or somebody slapped me with something because I heard a bit of a click sound. But when I turned around and noticed nobody was behind me and I knew something was wrong.

From the horse's mouth.

 

[Briony]

I should clarify...I am hoping that happens with us being England and South Africa being the Sri Lankans, who failed beyond comprehension on that day.

SA is the mentally weakest team in the world so it might just happen. Noticed that AB thinks Australia can win. Of course if SA lose tomorrow they have to be mentally shot for the series.

They were probably never going to win this match anyway because they rarely win two tests in a row.

 

[Spark]

@Garson

 

[Heboric]

Ah I see the tired cliches are coming out thick and fast

Australia better win this series or a lot of people are going to look foolish.

Australia bowling attack didnt exactly look to flash either.

 

[benchmark00]

(H)



Brian Laraesque player, Clarke.