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

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Botha bowling alright at the moment too.

"Performing with the ball", please.

Assume Peterson would be next off the rank tho; better bowler than he was five years ago but not a test spinner for my quid.

[Riggins]

Originally Posted by TT Boy

Botha isn't.

really?

[TT Boy]

Originally Posted by Riggins

really?

Well he is available for selection, he just isn't available when South Australia are playing. Also, the last time he played First Class cricket in the Republic was in 2010, so he hasn't been an option in test cricket for 2 years.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Heboric

"the horrible douchebag" did take over 100 test wickets and did what he was picked for - for the most part.

People always conveniently forget this

Plus Botha's action has been cleared so he doesnt chuck, so careful with these uninformed outbursts

Yes, thank god we got to the stage where we can clear a bowler for life...such a wonderful advancement. Fortunately there's zero difference between a human bowler and a bowling machine.

[Heboric]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Yes, thank god we got to the stage where we can clear a bowler for life...such a wonderful advancement. Fortunately there's zero difference between a human bowler and a bowling machine.

Oh good grief

[uvelocity]

@ briony: mate if that was a shocker from south africa hate to see what you call it when they lose or don't manage 400

wouldn't paste either sides bowling too much. amla, kallis, clarke are all in all time form, all gave chances nonetheless, hussey a proven performer coming in under no pressure, cowan making a career defining (and both of those last two not chanceless either) hundred.

just because it's fashionable doesn't make it true.

[Scaly piscine]

Well Australia didn't deserve to win with their lack of intent. Yea we'll just piss about in our comfort zone and get some not outs, cost ourselves 5-10 overs but our average will go up. Then we'll just do the same when we're bowling, not even try to bowl the overs quicker and just take our time.

I mean seriously why is it so widely accepted that teams do this in Test cricket? If they showed the same lack of intent in ODIs or T20 they'd get dropped and hammered in the press. Test cricket? Perfectly acceptable.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

Well Australia didn't deserve to win with their lack of intent. Yea we'll just piss about in our comfort zone and get some not outs, cost ourselves 5-10 overs but our average will go up. Then we'll just do the same when we're bowling, not even try to bowl the overs quicker and just take our time.

I mean seriously why is it so widely accepted that teams do this in Test cricket? If they showed the same lack of intent in ODIs or T20 they'd get dropped and hammered in the press. Test cricket? Perfectly acceptable.

lol surely you're kidding yourself. Clarke declared earlier than anyone expected. And addressing your 'not rushing through the overs thing', I'm sure that extra 3 overs they missed out on was crucial in the end.

Test cricket is all about taking your time with the ball and getting it right. Rushing through won't allow you to produce quality, otherwise you'd just bowl David Hussey all day and bowl 150 overs a day... just that they'd be ****. At the end of the day that three extra overs they could have gotten through if they rushed through to your satisfaction wouldn't have made a difference.

The reason Australia or South Africa couldn't win was because a full day was lost. Not because some bowlers took an extra 20 seconds an over.

[wellAlbidarned]

Originally Posted by Heboric

Oh good grief

He has been done for chucking in the past while still managing to be thoroughly mediocre. If you're going to cheat, at least make it worthwhile ffs.

[TNT]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

Well Australia didn't deserve to win with their lack of intent. .

They didnt win. It was a draw.

[uvelocity]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

Well Australia didn't deserve to win with their lack of intent. Yea we'll just piss about in our comfort zone and get some not outs, cost ourselves 5-10 overs but our average will go up. Then we'll just do the same when we're bowling, not even try to bowl the overs quicker and just take our time.

I mean seriously why is it so widely accepted that teams do this in Test cricket? If they showed the same lack of intent in ODIs or T20 they'd get dropped and hammered in the press. Test cricket? Perfectly acceptable.

probably because it's not as easy as in your dreams

[Briony]

Originally Posted by uvelocity

@ briony: mate if that was a shocker from south africa hate to see what you call it when they lose or don't manage 400

wouldn't paste either sides bowling too much. amla, kallis, clarke are all in all time form, all gave chances nonetheless, hussey a proven performer coming in under no pressure, cowan making a career defining (and both of those last two not chanceless either) hundred.

just because it's fashionable doesn't make it true.

The bowlers had a shocker, only taking four wickets and bowling a shedful of no balls and innocuous offerings. There was a lack of venom and ill-discipline in spades.

Their batsmen weren't shocking but their lack of intent caused a loss of momentum for them.

[Heboric]

Originally Posted by wellAlbidarned

He has been done for chucking in the past while still managing to be thoroughly mediocre. If you're going to cheat, at least make it worthwhile ffs.

Well I think he has done alright for himself, I am sure he doesnt care about some over critical forum user - ffs

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

lol surely you're kidding yourself. Clarke declared earlier than anyone expected. And addressing your 'not rushing through the overs thing', I'm sure that extra 3 overs they missed out on was crucial in the end.

Test cricket is all about taking your time with the ball and getting it right. Rushing through won't allow you to produce quality, otherwise you'd just bowl David Hussey all day and bowl 150 overs a day... just that they'd be ****. At the end of the day that three extra overs they could have gotten through if they rushed through to your satisfaction wouldn't have made a difference.

The reason Australia or South Africa couldn't win was because a full day was lost. Not because some bowlers took an extra 20 seconds an over.

This is the exact pathetic attitude that is echoed throughout cricket. It really does baffle me why it is perfectly okay to just give away time to win the game. It's not even as though it was a mistake. It's a wilful act because people want to protect their stats. It's absolute ****e. The same people will accept this after berating someone for costing a run with an overthrow. Or giving a wicket away with a lazy shot. Or Dhoni for guiding his team to defeat in a limited overs chase by batting too slowly. Every ball, run and wicket counts. It's just a piss poor attitude to say it's only such and such.

Australia had Lyon and Clarke who could get through overs quickly, it doesn't really diminish the effectiveness at all when Quiney and the other part-timer Hilfenhaus bowled however many overs without ever threatening.

The extra 5-10 overs might have won Australia this game - it probably wouldn't have but it might have meant instead of being 8-1 they were 6-1. It isn't just the fact that they could have taken 4 wickets in those extra overs. But that it would have put more pressure on South Africa earlier in the innings - they were never under serious threat once Amla was reprieved.

[Spark]

Wow