***Official*** South Africa in Australia

[luckyeddie]

The difference between the teams however was Ricky Ponting. His captaincy may be above par to the course, but if his batting can consistently save his captaincy boo boo's who cares.

His pedigree as a batsman has never been in doubt (all right, there's a couple of fools who suggest that he's not much cop because he hasn't scored xyz against abc) - I for one wouldn't be surprised to see him have a colossal 2006. I just hope he runs out by about November.

I wasn't THAT impressed with Graeme Smith's declaration - 20 runs more in 5 overs less would still have been an appetising enough carrot on what wasn't really much worse than a thiird day pitch. Still, at least they gave themselves a chance.

 

[FuzzyDuck]

What amazes me about Ponting is that as a bowler I wouldn't mind bowling to him as his technique looks faulty! If you can bowl inswingers you'd really fancy getting him LBW - if not then he seems very susceptible to the ball just short of a length outside off.

Given all that he averages over 50, which leads me to believe that his moving across the stumps leads bowlers to bowl to straight to him, rather like Viv Richards and Mark Waugh.

 

[GotSpin]

We had a very similar situation a few years ago when the Indians made a far from sporting declaration and ultimately cost their side a real shot at victory. .

Was that when they set over 400 for Australia to win on the 5th day?

 

[Top_Cat]

Are you a member of the Sportal forum as well Topcat ?

Nope. This is the only cricket forum I'm subscribed to.

I don't think you can really count Kallis as any more of the SA attack than say Bell or Vaughan is in the England attack.

Eh? The guy bowls way more overs than those two and when he actually WANTS to bowl, he's an excellent. Certainly more than a part-timer who bowls a few overs to block up and end like those two. He's a genuine wicket-taker. He has almost 200 Test wickets with a strike-rate of almost 70. I think that puts him a couple of classes above Bell or Vaughan with the ball.

 

[luckyeddie]

What amazes me about Ponting is that as a bowler I wouldn't mind bowling to him as his technique looks faulty! If you can bowl inswingers you'd really fancy getting him LBW - if not then he seems very susceptible to the ball just short of a length outside off.

Given all that he averages over 50, which leads me to believe that his moving across the stumps leads bowlers to bowl to straight to him, rather like Viv Richards and Mark Waugh.

I reckon it's another one of those 'perceived' weaknesses - or maybe a real one until he's middled 2 or 3 (a bit like Lara being a sucker for the leg stump yorker or Steve Waugh not being comfortable against the rising ball).

Now if you want a REAL weakness, try bowling a straight one to Vaughan ( )

 

[Gideon]

Was that when they set over 400 for Australia to win on the 5th day?

yes, that was also Steve Waugh's last test match.

 

[Slats4ever]

His pedigree as a batsman has never been in doubt (all right, there's a couple of fools who suggest that he's not much cop because he hasn't scored xyz against abc) - I for one wouldn't be surprised to see him have a colossal 2006. I just hope he runs out by about November.

I wasn't THAT impressed with Graeme Smith's declaration - 20 runs more in 5 overs less would still have been an appetising enough carrot on what wasn't really much worse than a thiird day pitch. Still, at least they gave themselves a chance.

In hiendsight it looked a bit silly but at the time I think the estimation of needing the 70 odd overs at the aussies were right. I don't think it was the runs smith was concerned about. I think at the start of the day he would've sat down and set a target number of overs RATHER than a target number of runs. His mind set would've been that 76 overs are needed. Lets go on a smash until 75 overs but it doesn't matter where we are lets declare because that's the time we're going to need. I feel if he held on for any longer anythign less than 70 overs would've proved too tempting for the aussies to shut up shop.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't think you can really count Kallis as any more of the SA attack than say Bell or Vaughan is in the England attack. Pollock, Ntini and Nel would command a place in most bowling attacks. But Boje is the real weak link, and the lack of anyone coming through - Botha is nothing special - is similar to the England or NZ situation.

Kallis bowled extensively in both of the first two test matches. He was certainly playing as an all-rounder in this series, even if he usually doesn't any more.

 

[luckyeddie]

In hiendsight it looked a bit silly but at the time I think the estimation of needing the 70 odd overs at the aussies were right. I don't think it was the runs smith was concerned about. I think at the start of the day he would've sat down and set a target number of overs RATHER than a target number of runs. His mind set would've been that 76 overs are needed. Lets go on a smash until 75 overs but it doesn't matter where we are lets declare because that's the time we're going to need. I feel if he held on for any longer anythign less than 70 overs would've proved too tempting for the aussies to shut up shop.

I've seen worse, but only twice

 

[Pratters]

It mystifies me how Jacques Rudolph bowled 12 overs and Kallis bowled less than that. Why ruin your average in a losing cause, eh?

The captain decided who bowls and not Kallis. Rudolph bowling so much was due to the Sydney 5th day pitch and he is a spinner - not an effective one but what do you do when you have just one spinner in the side and its a 5th day Sydney pitch and the Aussies are running away with the game.

 

[Salamuddin]

I personally think the 2-0 scoreline flattered the Aussies.

Problems have been revealed in the course of this series which the Aussies are ignoiring -for instance, you bowling let Saff make 450 in this test and couldn't bowl them out on the last day in Perth.
When Mcgrath and Warne go you guys will be in real trouble.

Also, South Africa's bowling is weak and they still caused your middle order problems - bad catching also let them down and contributed to Aussie victory margin.

Remember England next year won't be so generous

 

[Top_Cat]

The captain decided who bowls and not Kallis. Rudolph bowling so much was due to the Sydney 5th day pitch and he is a spinner - not an effective one but what do you do when you have just one spinner in the side and its a 5th day Sydney pitch and the Aussies are running away with the game.

You reckon Kallis wouldn't have a say in whether he bowls or not? He's a senior member of the team and would surely have a large say. Even if the pitch was spinning like a top, which it wasn't this Test, Kallis bowled better in this series than I've personally seen him bowl in ages. He was even threatening on the WACA road. Why on Earth would you not bowl him? It's mystifying either way; if he decided he wasn't bothered with bowling, why not? He was excellent in the previous two Tests. If Smith made the decision, again why not bowl the guy who's been amongst your best of the series?

I personally think the 2-0 scoreline flattered the Aussies.

Problems have been revealed in the course of this series which the Aussies are ignoiring -for instance, you bowling let Saff make 450 in this test and couldn't bowl them out on the last day in Perth.
When Mcgrath and Warne go you guys will be in real trouble.

Also, South Africa's bowling is weak and they still caused your middle order problems - bad catching also let them down and contributed to Aussie victory margin.

Remember England next year won't be so generous

Remember everyone;

 

[Pratters]

You reckon Kallis wouldn't have a say in whether he bowls or not? He's a senior member of the team and would surely have a large say. Even if the pitch was spinning like a top, which it wasn't this Test, Kallis bowled better in this series than I've personally seen him bowl in ages. He was even threatening on the WACA road. Why on Earth would you not bowl him? It's mystifying either way; if he decided he wasn't bothered with bowling, why not? He was excellent in the previous two Tests. If Smith made the decision, again why not bowl the guy who's been amongst your best of the series?

You have a point in that Kallis would have a say in whether he bowls or not. But you have to consider that

a) Nothing was working for the South Africans.
b) It was a 5th day Sydney wicket.

Kallis did take 2 wickets in the first inning so you have reason to wonder why he didnt bowl in the second. But when Nel and Pollock werent looking threatening how threatening would Kallis really be? So I dont blame or grude Smith and trying a spinner - no matter how ineffective he has been in the past (it was a desperate measure) and do not look at it as a selfish act of Kallis not to bowl.

 

[tooextracool]

You have a point in that Kallis would have a say in whether he bowls or not. But you have to consider that

a) Nothing was working for the South Africans.
b) It was a 5th day Sydney wicket.

Kallis did take 2 wickets in the first inning so you have reason to wonder why he didnt bowl in the second. But when Nel and Pollock werent looking threatening how threatening would Kallis really be? So I dont blame or grude Smith and trying a spinner - no matter how ineffective he has been in the past (it was a desperate measure) and do not look at it as a selfish act of Kallis not to bowl.

pollock bowled quite poorly in this test match and was quite comfortable the worst bowler of the test match and also looked distinctly ordinary all series. the idea of pollock still bowling more overs than everyone else in the side is beyond belief.

 

[Son Of Coco]

What amazes me about Ponting is that as a bowler I wouldn't mind bowling to him as his technique looks faulty! If you can bowl inswingers you'd really fancy getting him LBW - if not then he seems very susceptible to the ball just short of a length outside off.

Given all that he averages over 50, which leads me to believe that his moving across the stumps leads bowlers to bowl to straight to him, rather like Viv Richards and Mark Waugh.

No offence, but what he looks like and what he is are probably two completely different things and he'd probably eat you up (I include myself as a bowler too, I can confidently say he'd take me apart), unless you bowl at a suitable pace and move it quite a bit(you're not Andrew Flintoff or Simon Jones are you? ). It generally takes quite a bowler to consistently show up weaknesses in someone like Ponting's technique, and they make bowlers like us look very slow.

I realise you weren't saying you'd have him for breakfast on any given day...in fact, this post may have no purpose whatsoever!

 

[Son Of Coco]

Hardly surprising.

It's funny, I was watching it with my uncle and said "Isn't it strange how so many off-spinners appear to have dodgy actions" - then the news in the paper the next day that he'd been reported.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well done Australia, and Graeme Smith. It was a great test match to go. I was lucky enough to go to days 1 to 4, but missed out on the 5th day cos I couldn't be bothered.

We had a very similar situation a few years ago when the Indians made a far from sporting declaration and ultimately cost their side a real shot at victory. The thing that I found so amazing about this match was the fortune of the batsman from both sides. I can only really comment on South Africa's first and second innings and Australia's first (cos I was at the golf course on the 5th day). To me it seemed like there were so many deliveries from Lee, McGrath, Nel, Pollock and Langeveldt consistently beating the bat and not taking edges. I simply couldn't believe how unlucky Australia were on the first morning and later when South Africa batted a second time, but then exactly the same thing happened for South Africa. The use of the new ball by both teams was phenomenal and I think that so often the ball was just to good for the batsman to hit.

The difference between the teams however was Ricky Ponting. His captaincy may be above par to the course, but if his batting can consistently save his captaincy boo boo's who cares.

Yeah, I thought Smith's declaration was a good thing, obviously in hindsight you can say that it was too early, but it brought the game alive. One possible problem with it was that, in setting the Aussies around 4 an over he didn't really ask them to do anything differently to the normal way they bat. 5 or 6 an over may have stretched them slightly, but given that the wicket was far from a normal 5th day Test wicket things weren't going to work out the way the Saffas wanted it to I guess.

I'm getting a bit concerned about wickets around the world losing their character I have to say. As a bowler I sympathise, and look at the flat wicket receiving, no more than a couple of bouncer ducking, average boosting, willow holding nancy boys that call themselves batsmen with a growing measure of contempt.

On a sidenote, I scored 41 out of our teams total of 86 today......and hit one ball in front of square - my wagon wheel was a pie chart over, around, and through slips 1-3. Go the number 11!

 

[marc71178]

The captain decided who bowls and not Kallis.

You reckon?!

And Kallis won't have casually mentioned his shoulder wasn't feeling right?

Not as if he has a history of that sort of thing is it?!

 

[luckyeddie]

It's funny, I was watching it with my uncle and said "Isn't it strange how so many off-spinners appear to have dodgy actions" - then the news in the paper the next day that he'd been reported.

Always the doosra.

Basically, you're not a 'complete' off-spinner now if you haven't got one that goes 'the other way'. At one time, bowlers would work to perfect a well-disguised quicker ball or a top-spinner.

Now they just throw in the dooosra.


(deliberate choice of words)

 

[Jono]

Yes but in Botha's case his normal delivery is quite suspect as well.

Thank God for Boje and Giles and their perfect actions.