***Official*** South Africa in Australia

[social]

Harsh, man. Lee took 5-fer in the first innings, well and truly doing his bit, and bowled 30 overs in the second. You saying 'a bit different for him when batsman don't feel the need to score off him' and solely attributing that to Lee is very harsh; it is very tough no matter who you are or how well you bowl to get batsmen out who are only concentrating on staying out there, especially on a relatively flat deck. I notice you didn't mention how McGrath only took one wicket and he's one of the best bowlers the game has ever seen. At least Lee looked dangerous on occasions, something that could not be said of McGrath.

I reckon the blame does lie largely with Ponting but not for time required to bowl SA out because 126 overs should have been plenty. The 491 runs was the problem. It gave SA zero chance to win the match so it made their task simple; survive. Anything non-threatening they could just let go to the 'keeper knowing there's no pressure to score. A team without pressure to score is damn tough to get out. You can't build pressure and then throw out the wide ball for the snick behind because they're looking to leave everything, for example. You're basically relying on being able to bowl 10 unplayable deliveries and on that pitch, no chance.

Speaking of the pitch, that's easily the flattest Perth deck I've ever seen. Don't know where the groundsman's head is at.

Good summary

Lee was actually very good yesterday and appreciably better than both Bracken and Mcgrath. He could quite easily have had a few more wickets whilst the others were largely unthreatening.

As for the pitch, by the end it had nothing in it for anybody. Whilst Rudolph played a very good innings in the circumstances, it will be a long time before he gets easier conditions in which to bat.

Hopefully, it will be a long time before we see bowlers having to resort to

 

[vic_orthdox]

Bad, and "unsporting" as such, captaincy with the declaration, despite it allowing Hodge to get 200. It goes to show that, unless you have two whole days spare, you actually need to give the opposition an incentive to chase a target, otherwise in most circumstances they'll be very difficult to dismiss.

For me, it's not "leaving the declaration late" time wise, but not providing any incentive for the Proteas to chase that I found to be the naive aspect of the captaincy.

 

[Top_Cat]

For me, it's not "leaving the declaration late" time wise, but not providing any incentive for the Proteas to chase that I found to be the naive aspect of the captaincy.

What's really funny about that is that in the 90's, being negative and being more interested in preventing the opposition from winning than winning the game yourself was exactly the criticism levelled at South Africa. Funnier still was that the most vocal proponents of that criticism came from Australia. Ponting wasn't the captain at that time of course but he was in the side and I think he should be speaking to Mark Taylor soon to ask about the concept of 'risking losing a match to win it'. Even with 100 runs less to play with, Australia were odds-on favourites to win. 391, no matter what the deck looks like, is a tough chase. And putting the more conservative Saffies under pressure with a 'possible' win would have created a lot more pressure than trying to grind them with a huge impossible total. They're far tougher than that.

The fact that a guy like Kemp, hardly a bastian of conservative batsmanship, can hang around looking largely untroubled for 160-odd balls scoring 55 in an innings where Warne bowled 47 overs says a great deal, m'thinks.

 

[irfan]

I think the generalisation you're making is pointless - but I'm pretty nervous about what might have been said in the crowd. Does anybody who was there have any idea what the chants were? We really don't need these idiots anywhere, let alone the cricket.

I was there at the 3rd day (Sun) of the Test and I didn't really notice any particular racist comments out there. We were out on the banked grassy area and the main crowd banter was Hodgey goin slow at the start of his innings which bored us MInd u I missed most of the middle session so I cant comment if anything happened then

 

[Jono]

Well done, RSA. And it is kinda ironic that Ponting (who criticized Lara for playing on for his personal score) allowed Hodge to complete his 200. That hour could have been the difference, IMO.

LOL! I know, how ironic is it. He's such a jackass.

Anyway, I agree with most other sentiments. It wasn't necessarily the time of the declaration, but the defensive nature of the target given to SA that shows just how idiotic Ponting can be as a captain. Obviously there is no chance in hell that SA were going to attempt to chase that down, which only made the job harder for Warne, McGrath and co. to scalp 10 wickets. 350-380 should have been the target made IMO, and you can say hindsight is 20/20, but I'm sure a lot of people were thinking that the declaration may be coming too late when Hodge was going for his double ton. Its not like this was the last match in the series and Australia were already 1-0 up, hence a large safe target was ensuring a series win, it was the first match and the win was necessary. Particularly when you have the opportunity to play SA without their best player.

Rudolph was simply amazing. How good was that knock, career defining. The concentration and patience he had was brilliant. IMO should have been joint man of the match, because its not always about who gets more wickets or runs, it should be on who had the biggest impact on the match. Both Hodge and Rudolph had that.

Great effort from the Proteas though. I can't wait till Boxing Day.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Great effort from the Proteas though. I can't wait till Boxing Day

As I said earlier in the thread, a draw makes Boxing Day a lot more intruiging.

Might have to delay the migration to the bar on the first day

 

[TazzX]

I don't see how Kemp can be dropped when he hung in there for a gutsy 50, while Prince failed in both innings.

Agree with you here, the man is a walking wicket. Get ride of Prince and keep Kemp

 

[Burpey]

Personally, I don't think you can blame Ponting's declaration for the draw. Only five wickets in the fourth innings of a Test in about 130 overs. I think the bowling and Ponting's tactics in the field were the problem

 

[howardj]

Personally, I don't think you can blame Ponting's declaration for the draw.

I actually think you can. I don't know about anyone else, but on Sunday afternoon I was talking to my television and asking why Ponting had not declared. With a big lead, you should normally always leave yourself more than four sessions to bowl out the opposition - particularly on a flat deck, and particularly when your strike bowler is suffering the effects of a virus. It's not hindsight, as I say, I - and I bet many others around the country - were wondering what the hell Ponting was doing on the Sunday afternoon.

 

[sqwerty]

Bad, and "unsporting" as such, captaincy with the declaration, despite it allowing Hodge to get 200. It goes to show that, unless you have two whole days spare, you actually need to give the opposition an incentive to chase a target, otherwise in most circumstances they'll be very difficult to dismiss.

For me, it's not "leaving the declaration late" time wise, but not providing any incentive for the Proteas to chase that I found to be the naive aspect of the captaincy.

still....regardless of whether or not a team is batting for a draw 126 overs would usually be enough for that Australian attack on a 5th day wicket. The issue here was more the state of the deck than how SA were batting.

On a typical 5th day deck Warne will bowl them out 99 times out of 100 regardless of whether or not they're trying to save the game. He's just as much of a threat with the batsman dead batting it with 5 blokes around the bat as he is with them playing shots.

The declaration did make Ponting look a bit silly and Hodge probably feels a bit sheepish too but I couldn't really care less, at least Sydney will be a live test when i'm there.

 

[howardj]

I reckon the blame does lie largely with Ponting but not for time required to bowl SA out because 126 overs should have been plenty. The 491 runs was the problem. It gave SA zero chance to win the match so it made their task simple; survive. .

It's not really realistic - in a three Test series - to expect Ponting to have given South Africa a chance of victory, however narrow, in the First Test. If you go one nil down in such a short series, it makes it almost impossible to win. South Africa, being an instinctively conservative side, were extremely unlikely to chase any sort of target anyway.

 

[Eclipse]

Personally, I don't think you can blame Ponting's declaration for the draw. Only five wickets in the fourth innings of a Test in about 130 overs. I think the bowling and Ponting's tactics in the field were the problem

I think the RSA good batting was the problem...

 

[SpaceMonkey]

By setting such a high total SA were always going to bat to save the match rather than chase it. If you set a more competative target the South Africans would have gone for it (at the start at least) and given you more chance to get the wickets.

I remember not that long ago that Australia use to do this alot, safe in the knowledge that 90% of the time they had the bowling attack / confidence to win and win easily.

 

[Burpey]

I think the RSA good batting was the problem...

Very true, but Australia should be able to bowl SA out in 4 sessions. And I highly doubt an extra hour or two bowling would have made a difference. As POnting himself said, they didn't create enough wicket-taking opportunities.

 

[howardj]

By setting such a high total SA were always going to bat to save the match rather than chase it. If you set a more competative target the South Africans would have gone for it (at the start at least) and given you more chance to get the wickets.

.

I don't think you know the South Africans all that well, if you think that they would have chanced their arm early on for 450 or even 420 to win, even in five sessions. Especially without Kallis. They would have batted normally, and then if they were in contention at tea on Day five, they may have gone for it then. But to suggest they would have taken risks early on, or even in the middle stages of that sort of a chase, is to misunderstand things.

 

[d.gold]

Ponting's Captaincy

I have for some time been lukewarm about Ponting as a Captain. He doesn't have the authority required. Why for god's sake, did we see only five overs of off-spin for the whole day? Surely it would have been worth giving Symonds or Hodge a trundle much earlier. Esp. with a left hander well established at the wicket, someone to take the ball away from the bat rather than turing into the pads. Some variety at least.
Ponting is in my opinion unimaginative, uninspiring and not much chop as captain. Granted it would be tough for anyone to take over from Steve Waugh, especially with Gilchrist, McGrath, Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Lehmann, Gillespie and Kasprowicz past the high points of their careers. But to my mind Ponting has shown himself to be formulaic, relying too heavily on tried and true, even when it's not working.
In addition there's a culture around the team of not calling a spade a spade. i.e. Ponting will not directly admit, "yes we should have done better", his explanations are often preceded with "probably". He is not direct. In today's paper I see McGrath saying that the wicket was the reason for RSA batting through the day yesterday.
I think senior players in the team have become far too ****y and Ponting as leader needs to be more accountable and direct as leader.

 

[Josh]

I don't care that that test was drawn. That was superbly entertaining cricket. Something we're not too used to in Australia lol.

Absolutely fantastic game. Great to watch.

Well done South Africa.

 

[howardj]

In addition there's a culture around the team of not calling a spade a spade. i.e. Ponting will not directly admit, "yes we should have done better", his explanations are often preceded with "probably". He is not direct. In today's paper I see McGrath saying that the wicket was the reason for RSA batting through the day yesterday.
I think senior players in the team have become far too ****y and Ponting as leader needs to be more accountable and direct as leader.

Yeah, ****iness, arrogance and a failure to admit the obvious, were big reasons why we lost the Ashes. It hasn't taken long - just a few wins over the hapless World XI and the West Indies - for those things to start to return. For instance, Ponting's declaration; the continual selection of a grossly underperforming Symonds; and McGrath's above statement etc. I can't help thinking that, by the time England return next year, the attitude that was rampant in the team during the Ashes this year - when even Gilchrist admitted that they weren't putting the work in - will have returned.

 

[Dasa]

I actually think you can. I don't know about anyone else, but on Sunday afternoon I was talking to my television and asking why Ponting had not declared. With a big lead, you should normally always leave yourself more than four sessions to bowl out the opposition - particularly on a flat deck, and particularly when your strike bowler is suffering the effects of a virus. It's not hindsight, as I say, I - and I bet many others around the country - were wondering what the hell Ponting was doing on the Sunday afternoon.

I was thinking that as well, particularly because had he declared a bit earlier, the South African openers would've had to face a nasty period before the tea-break. With the declaration coming so late, they went straight into tea and the South Africans had about 20 minutes or so to get themselves together, rather than the 5 minutes they would've had with an earlier declaration.

 

[Linda]

I don't care that that test was drawn. That was superbly entertaining cricket. Something we're not too used to in Australia lol.

Absolutely fantastic game. Great to watch.

Well done South Africa.

I agree. I went to the first 4 days and it was fantastic to watch.