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

[Ruckus]

Did Ponting even have to play at that ball? It looked like a pretty soft dismissal to me, but I might have to see it again when I can find highlights.

[Scaly piscine]

Interesting scoring rates. That was a good day for Australia. South Africa didn't score quickly or rack up a big total. So they've made it really difficult for themselves to win this game.

Australia can really crank up some pressure if they can get past 300 with 5 wickets left. Can't believe they're 61-1 with one bookie. Is the weather forecast really bad or something?

Australia even if they manage a modest total of 350 are bowling against a team that always has a cheap total in them and Oz can win just the same as they did against West Indies when Clarke declared from behind. Get a good total and South Africa have to bat maybe 70 overs or so.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Ruckus

Did Ponting even have to play at that ball? It looked like a pretty soft dismissal to me, but I might have to see it again when I can find highlights.

Well if he left it his stumps wouldn't have been in trouble, but yeah you're going to play at that 95+% of the time when you're on 0 and it's delivered at that pace. I really don't rate Morkel at all and I hate it when he takes jammy wickets but credit to the bowler there.

[Ruckus]

There's really not that much batting left though...I mean after these two there is only Wade and Hussey. So to get a decent total at least one of these two will probably have to ton up, and a fairly big one too.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Well if he left it his stumps wouldn't have been in trouble, but yeah you're going to play at that 95+% of the time when you're on 0 and it's delivered at that pace. I really don't rate Morkel at all and I hate it when he takes jammy wickets but credit to the bowler there.

yeah fair enough. When I saw it though it just looked to me like such a typical Ponting dismissal of the last sort-of 2 years or so. I don't wanna take anything away from the bowler, but you have to draw the line somewhere between a genuine wicket taking ball and one which probably shouldn't have taken one...would that ball have been too good for Amla or Kallis or Clarke? I dunno...

[Justo]

Originally Posted by Ruckus

yeah fair enough. When I saw it though it just looked to me like such a typical Ponting dismissal of the last sort-of 2 years or so. I don't wanna take anything away from the bowler, but you have to draw the line somewhere between a genuine wicket taking ball and one which probably shouldn't have taken one...would that ball have been too good for Amla or Kallis or Clarke? I dunno...

He had Clarke playing and missing(and not by far) to a similar delivery in the same spell. So quite possible that it could do.

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by Ruckus

There's really not that much batting left though...I mean after these two there is only Wade and Hussey. So to get a decent total at least one of these two will probably have to ton up, and a fairly big one too.

South Africa are a man down and you'd be rubbing your hands if you got 2-3 early wickets.

Australia need to cash in once they're set, but that goes without saying really. If guys get in they will score quickly and there are no demons in the pitch.

The bookies are expecting Australia to make 340-350. The odds are shorter than 2-1 for 400+.

I would quite like to see how South Africa respond to 400 personally. Say there you go Saffies, 50 ahead with 120 overs to go. Ironically you can only win if you collapse in a heap, lets see how you handle it with some big guns gone and 4 slips in all the time.

[Spikey]

sorta goes without saying...but australia are 61/1 to win because they're a 61/1 chance of winning. it's that simple. aus are in danger of having to follow on, it's a big step from that to smacking 400, bowling SA out for 100 and getting home with time to spare

[Briony]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

South Africa are a man down and you'd be rubbing your hands if you got 2-3 early wickets.

Australia need to cash in once they're set, but that goes without saying really. If guys get in they will score quickly and there are no demons in the pitch.
The bookies are expecting Australia to make 340-350. The odds are shorter than 2-1 for 400+.

I would quite like to see how South Africa respond to 400 personally. Say there you go Saffies, 50 ahead with 120 overs to go. Ironically you can only win if you collapse in a heap, lets see how you handle it with some big guns gone and 4 slips in all the time.

There's merit in what you say but a docile pitch should mean that SA shouldn't have too much trouble surviving even a man down. If it turns into a minefield Australia has to bat last.

[Ruckus]

well it will be a ****ing woeful effort if we can't even avoid the follow on, but yeah it's incredibly unlikely we have a chance of winning here. Given SA's 'tactics' in their first innings as well I have doubts as to how risky they'll play it if given the opportunity to make some quick runs and bowl at us again...especially seeing as though they know that we have batsman capable of quickly chasing down a smallish total. Think if we get a total of 350 or roundabouts, a draw is practically gonna be a certainty.

[Briony]

Originally Posted by Ruckus

well it will be a ****ing woeful effort if we can't even avoid the follow on, but yeah it's incredibly unlikely we have a chance of winning here. Given SA's 'tactics' in their first innings as well I have doubts as to how risky they'll play it if given the opportunity to make some quick runs and bowl at us again...especially seeing as though they know that we have batsman capable of quickly chasing down a smallish total. Think if we get a total of 350 or roundabouts, a draw is practically gonna be a certainty.

With a man down it's hard to see them taking undue risks, especially if the pitch stays true.

BTW haven't most of their collapses been at their jinx ground Durban? They held their nerve in England.

[Noble One]

It will be interesting how South Africa respond if Australia form a strong partnership.

Kleinveldt is a liability unless he sorts his nerves out and J.P must surely have been expected to bowl a good bulk of others when giving the quicks a rest.

[Briony]

Originally Posted by Noble One

It will be interesting how South Africa respond if Australia form a strong partnership.

Kleinveldt is a liability unless he sorts his nerves out and J.P must surely have been expected to bowl a good bulk of others when giving the quicks a rest.

Kallis will probably have a trundle tomorrow and they might get Petersen to roll his arm over.

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by Briony

There's merit in what you say but a docile pitch should mean that SA shouldn't have too much trouble surviving even a man down. If it turns into a minefield Australia has to bat last.

It's a pretty regulation game of Test cricket. Australia could easily have taken wickets early but it didn't quite happen for them - a lot of Kallis edges went past 2nd slip as well. Good batsmen cash in. Australia lost three quick wickets early on but have the beginnings of a platform.

It is partly the psychology of the situation that makes my hypothetical scenario interesting. Batting first up is completely different to batting when you're merely trying to avoid defeat. Australia would know that they have everything to gain and could surround the bat.

South Africa have been for a few years been capable of grinding out massive scores against any attack in world cricket, but also getting knocked over for 150-200 against any attack in world cricket. It's because they're so top heavy.

[andyc]

Originally Posted by Noble One

It will be interesting how South Africa respond if Australia form a strong partnership.

Kleinveldt is a liability unless he sorts his nerves out and J.P must surely have been expected to bowl a good bulk of others when giving the quicks a rest.

Pretty interested to see who they give the ball to when (if) it comes time for some spin. IIRC despite bowling a bit earlier in his career, Smith has since made it clear that he doesn't really want to bowl?