***Official*** Australia in South Africa

[TT Boy]

and the yarps were terribly undercooked too.

Only if you believe that. You could use that as an excuse I guess, Hashim Amla who failed in the first innings here has played all of 5 FC games in 10 months, possibly less but he scored a double hundred in the first domestic game he played this season. If he skipped the ODIs and 20/20s and just played FC cricket before this test, he would have probably scored 500+ runs and be seemingly in the form of his life. But Jacques Rudolph came into this test also with a recent FC double hundred and plenty of more runs scored for Yorkshire, yet he was outscored and has been outperformed by Graeme Smith here - a man who hasn’t played any FC cricket since January.

They had 3 ODIs and 2 20/20s against pretty much the same opposition prior to this test, that's good prep if you ask me. Better than 5 FC games against nothing opposition and bag full of cheap runs or wickets.

 

[SJS]

Australia's batting lineup is an absolute joke as any self-respecting grade team wouldve managed more than 50

Anyway, this match just provides more evidence that test cricket is at its lowest ebb in at least 40 years (probably much more but I couldnt be bothered going back any further) - the standard is just completely ****

Imposible to disagree with that.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

@Social- Seriously, games like this happen sometimes, and thank god for it. Get over it.

 

[TT Boy]

Smith and Amla should that it could be done. Even someone like Smith with his very typical style of playing refused to play square of the wicket and the result showed. Amla played so late and left almost everything that he could except rank half volleys. He was so relieved at having reached the end of the day's play in safety that he lost it on the last ball of the last over. I would say he deserved the reprieve for he, along with his skipper, had shown to his team mates, the Australians and the rest of the cricketing world that there are difficult wickets and there is bad batting. It is the combination of the two that is an unmitigated disaster.

I hope South Africa bat well enough to get the target to show the folly of batting on bad wickets as if they are good wickets . . . or worse, batting as if to say "What's the point in trying anyway"

Playing late is just what he always does but I thought he was awful and Amla’s shot last ball of the session was every bit worse than Haddin’s but that will be forgotten if South Africa win. Smith showed the way, he dragged Hash along with him.

 

[Ruckus]

You think so? I reckon that he wouldn't be half the bowler that he is today if it wasnt for those flare ups. Watson, the tearaway quick bowler was a pretty terrible bowler to be honest, its only now that hes been forced to bowl within himself that he's actually realized the value of line and length.

Sorry yeah I didn't mean that. I meant if he was made a proper member of the attack now, I think he has the skills to be a more successful bowler than both Siddle and Johnson however his previous injury problems would probably start to recur if he had to bowl full time.

 

[Ikki]

You think so? I reckon that he wouldn't be half the bowler that he is today if it wasnt for those flare ups. Watson, the tearaway quick bowler was a pretty terrible bowler to be honest, its only now that hes been forced to bowl within himself that he's actually realized the value of line and length.

Don't agree that he was terrible, but he was pretty average and predictable. As you point out, ironically, his injuries have forced him to put much more thought into placement and variations of speed. If he could bowl 20-30 overs a Test with this quality he'd be an amazing all-rounder to have. Not sure yet if he can do that.

 

[tooextracool]

Is it that hard for quality batsmen not to commit themselves early into a stroke on a difficult wicket? Not to push when they should be playing with a dead bat? Not to flash when they dont have to? Not to play square of the wicket even when the ball is coming in towards them?

Smith and Amla should that it could be done. Even someone like Smith with his very typical style of playing refused to play square of the wicket and the result showed. Amla played so late and left almost everything that he could except rank half volleys. He was so relieved at having reached the end of the day's play in safety that he lost it on the last ball of the last over. I would say he deserved the reprieve for he, along with his skipper, had shown to his team mates, the Australians and the rest of the cricketing world that there are difficult wickets and there is bad batting. It is the combination of the two that is an unmitigated disaster.

I hope South Africa bat well enough to get the target to show the folly of batting on bad wickets as if they are good wickets . . . or worse, batting as if to say "What's the point in trying anyway"

Completely agree with you. Funnily enough, this game reminds me of:

HowSTAT! ODI Scorecard

Batsman after batsman coming in and playing around the straight ball

 

[social]

@Social- Seriously, games like this happen sometimes, and thank god for it. Get over it.

Games do not happen like this very often at all

In fact, there have been less than a handful in history

The problem is that the vast majority of today's batsmen are totally clueless when things are not completely in their favour

Look at how India's so called great lineup performed in England against an attack that couldnt hold a candle to many in the 70s and 80s

I shudder to think what the Windies greats, Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, etc etc etc would do to the millionaires masquerading as bastmen today

 

[centurymaker]

Well there were patches in the game where most every ball was oing something sideways - for both sides.

You seem to think I am blaming the wicket for Australia making 40 odd, you're wrong. But the point is at various times during the first couple of days, there was consistent movement - not up and down, but sideways. Not jagging a foot sideways, doing enough sideways. It was great to watch.

The point I was making in the post which you erroneously thought was my blaming the pitch for Australia making 40 something, is that for Australia to win they will need the pitch to behave in a similar manner for the first two sessions today, and not to flatten right out. Bit of cloud cover would help too.

That's the only point I was making. I had thought i'd made it quite clearly, but plainly I hadn't.

my bad.

 

[hang on]

Games do not happen like this very often at all

In fact, there have been less than a handful in history

The problem is that the vast majority of today's batsmen are totally clueless when things are not completely in their favour

Look at how India's so called great lineup performed in England against an attack that couldnt hold a candle to many in the 70s and 80s

I shudder to think what the Windies greats, Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, etc etc etc would do to the millionaires masquerading as bastmen today

it was one of those days....

but regarding what the windies greats would do today's batsmen, don't quite agree. think that tendulkar, dravid, ponting and co would have fared well against them. ponting did well against ambrose and co. tendulkar hasn't done too shabbily against great fast bowlers. would also back dravid and kallis's techniques to see them through.

additionally, i would certainly have steyn up there among the greatest fasties of all time.

 

[weldone]

Look at how India's so called great lineup performed in England against an attack that couldnt hold a candle to many in the 70s and 80s

The kind of team scores they put up throughout the series would be termed 'good' as a whole in the 70s and 80s, though.

Note: If you are talking about (Indian batting minus Dravid) in that series, then fair enough.

 

[chalky]

Bookies have South Africa as heavy favourites

South Africa 1.16 Australia 5.00 Draw 251

Think it's worth a few quid on the Aussies hopefully they can get some early wickets.

 

[abmk]

Games do not happen like this very often at all

In fact, there have been less than a handful in history

The problem is that the vast majority of today's batsmen are totally clueless when things are not completely in their favour

Look at how India's so called great lineup performed in England against an attack that couldnt hold a candle to many in the 70s and 80s

I shudder to think what the Windies greats, Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, etc etc etc would do to the millionaires masquerading as bastmen today

Have to disagree with this. England bowled very well in the Ashes and vs India in England. They sure as heck are no WI quartet , but lets give credit where its due

Collapses like yesterday's have happened in the past, even to a side such as World XI ( consisting of greats from many countries ) vs Lillee @ Perth.

 

[SJS]

Bookies have South Africa as heavy favourites

South Africa 1.16 Australia 5.00 Draw 251

Think it's worth a few quid on the Aussies hopefully they can get some early wickets.

Why only 251 on a draw ??

 

[hang on]

and the indians, despite their travails on their travels in blighty, weren't too bad in south africa against steyn and co. last winter.

 

[Flem274*]

Australia's batting lineup is an absolute joke as any self-respecting grade team wouldve managed more than 50

Anyway, this match just provides more evidence that test cricket is at its lowest ebb in at least 40 years (probably much more but I couldnt be bothered going back any further) - the standard is just completely ****

lol

The game has changed. Yes, these batsmen were caught with their pants down on this pitch against very good bowling.

It doesn't matter though, because these pitches are rare. There is no point crafting their strokeplay to suit pitch situations that very rarely exist in modern cricket.

It doesn't excuse them for what happened last night, because a good test batsman plays to the situation and the conditions as best as he can. Hussey and Haddin got out chasing wide ones, and Steyn/Philander/Morkel/Harris/Watson have bowled some beautiful deliveries out in any era.

Conversely, perhaps all time great bowlers from past eras would have their records dented in the modern game because of flatter pitches? Certainly Hadlee wouldn't walk out to the samenumber of green tops today than he would have in his own time.

How come it is fair to judge modern batsmen by the standard of yesterday, but we cannot judge yesterday's bowlers by modern pitches?

It's all hypothetical rubbish anyway and requires a lot of assumptions. Also, it really is boring to read. Personally, if these batsmen were playing in 1970 they would play very differently to how they do so today, and no one would raise a stink. Indeed, someone like Kallis or Ponting would be paraded as a "real" test batsman who shows up the "hacks" of today.

If you think the game is at its lowest ebb, good for you. I am really enjoying this test match, and I really enjoy watching a lot of these players. If this is poor cricket, I say let there be more.

 

[hang on]

Personally, if these batsmen were playing in 1970 they would play very differently to how they do so today, and no one would raise a stink. Indeed, someone like Kallis or Ponting would be paraded as a "real" test batsman who shows up the "hacks" of today.

well said.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

lol

The game has changed. Yes, these batsmen were caught with their pants down on this pitch against very good bowling.

It doesn't matter though, because these pitches are rare. There is no point crafting their strokeplay to suit pitch situations that very rarely exist in modern cricket.

It doesn't excuse them for what happened last night, because a good test batsman plays to the situation and the conditions as best as he can. Hussey and Haddin got out chasing wide ones, and Steyn/Philander/Morkel/Harris/Watson have bowled some beautiful deliveries out in any era.

Conversely, perhaps all time great bowlers from past eras would have their records dented in the modern game because of flatter pitches? Certainly Hadlee wouldn't walk out to the samenumber of green tops today than he would have in his own time.

How come it is fair to judge modern batsmen by the standard of yesterday, but we cannot judge yesterday's bowlers by modern pitches?

It's all hypothetical rubbish anyway and requires a lot of assumptions. Also, it really is boring to read. Personally, if these batsmen were playing in 1970 they would play very differently to how they do so today, and no one would raise a stink. Indeed, someone like Kallis or Ponting would be paraded as a "real" test batsman who shows up the "hacks" of today.

If you think the game is at its lowest ebb, good for you. I am really enjoying this test match, and I really enjoy watching a lot of these players. If this is poor cricket, I say let there be more.

Seems to be the NZers mostly who don't have as much of a problem with the standard of this match. Guess we've just been desensitized to hideous cricket from watching years of failure...

 

[Howe_zat]

Can't see why we're taking that post from social seriously, all I've ever seen him do is throw his toys out of the pram whenever Australia lose.

 

[tooextracool]

lol

The game has changed. Yes, these batsmen were caught with their pants down on this pitch against very good bowling.

It doesn't matter though, because these pitches are rare. There is no point crafting their strokeplay to suit pitch situations that very rarely exist in modern cricket.

You don't think it happens often enough? It's not the first time Australia have been caught with their pants down. Once at Headingley against Pakistan and another time at Melbourne against England. That's 3 times they have been dismissed for under 100 in about 15 months (Surprisingly enough, by the only 3 pace bowling attacks in the world that can be considered to be above average). There's plenty of sporting decks on offer these days, the problem is that no one notices because the quality of bowling is usually appalling.