South Africa in Australia Nov-Dec 2012/13

[midgetwars]

 

[aussie1st]

All that extra batting depth could pay off now.

 

[Sedition]

I try to cheer Wade on, then look over and realise he's made half our score batting at #8.

 

[Left_Hander]

Wade needs someone to go with him. Hussey and Clarke are allowed a failure considering their efforts in the first two Tests. Warner's shot was just stupid.

 

[midgetwars]

Australia need not a Langer/hayden opening pair but a Katich/Watson opener. 0/70-100 was practically guaranteed.

 

[angryangy]

Either/or

 

[midgetwars]

This bowling wide and short is INDIA bowling from earlier this year where Warner scored his 100.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

south africa's big guns finally come to the party. I think they found a little reassurance in seeing steyn finally trouble australia, it's introduced some normality for them.

 

[Umair7]

RSA will win very easily now

 

[midgetwars]

This can go two ways. Australia get SMASHED, or Australia does a miracle chase thanks to Ponting magic for his final innings.

 

[angryangy]

It's not exactly normal for South Africa to score so quickly. I think there's a combination of factors leading to that. For a start, when the wicket dries out, the pace means there's a lot of value for shots. We've seen that time and time again. Warner last year against India, Gilchrist and Clarke in the Ashes 06/07, Gayle 09/10, Viv Richards in 1988, Roy Fredericks against Lillee and Thomson back in 1975. Hayden's 380. And let's not forget that record run chase last time South Africa toured.

The loose ball does warrant a feature, but more so, what you've got here is a batsman coming to the crease and deciding he's going to play shots off the back foot. Amla made runs in Brisbane, but he barely played any shots to the seamers, much less off the back foot. Perhaps the impetus was there to take the game on, perhaps he just felt really good in the middle. Whatever the case, he has used the punch and the flick to knock the bowlers off a reasonable length without necessarily taking them to the fence; that comes when they start searching for a good ball.

Starc seemed the most ill at ease and chaotic; he was really what contributed to Greame Smith's scoring rate, producing that rarest of things for Smith, runs through cover and point. On the other hand, Johnson demanded the most respect and he was bowling almost exclusively short balls. To some extent it was more width than length, but by taking on the straight ball, the bowlers were forced wider. You could argue that they didn't try to york anybody, but it's not like they were going to bowl a few overs of that.

I guess the simplest analysis is that there was mainly life with the new ball, with the ball swinging around for a few hours being enough to cut through the middle order. Now the ball doesn't seem like it will favour the new ball specialists as much, more favouring bowlers who hit the deck.

 

[midgetwars]

I don't think that when any batsman comes out to bat they want to play aggresively in tests.

It's the consistent bounce that makes things easy for batsmen and we saw in all innings with fast scoring was that the bad bowling makes for such each runs.

Most Aussie bowlers would just not bowl length and line that hits the stumps. Short wide bowling contributed to the saffer's attack and they got very comfortable and started to pound the ball.

 

[spooony]

It's not exactly normal for South Africa to score so quickly. I think there's a combination of factors leading to that. For a start, when the wicket dries out, the pace means there's a lot of value for shots. We've seen that time and time again. Warner last year against India, Gilchrist and Clarke in the Ashes 06/07, Gayle 09/10, Viv Richards in 1988, Roy Fredericks against Lillee and Thomson back in 1975. Hayden's 380. And let's not forget that record run chase last time South Africa toured.

The loose ball does warrant a feature, but more so, what you've got here is a batsman coming to the crease and deciding he's going to play shots off the back foot. Amla made runs in Brisbane, but he barely played any shots to the seamers, much less off the back foot. Perhaps the impetus was there to take the game on, perhaps he just felt really good in the middle. Whatever the case, he has used the punch and the flick to knock the bowlers off a reasonable length without necessarily taking them to the fence; that comes when they start searching for a good ball.

Starc seemed the most ill at ease and chaotic; he was really what contributed to Greame Smith's scoring rate, producing that rarest of things for Smith, runs through cover and point. On the other hand, Johnson demanded the most respect and he was bowling almost exclusively short balls. To some extent it was more width than length, but by taking on the straight ball, the bowlers were forced wider. You could argue that they didn't try to york anybody, but it's not like they were going to bowl a few overs of that.

I guess the simplest analysis is that there was mainly life with the new ball, with the ball swinging around for a few hours being enough to cut through the middle order. Now the ball doesn't seem like it will favour the new ball specialists as much, more favoring bowlers who hit the deck.

There is one reason they score so quickly. In the last test match between SA and England the same sort of thing happened. The new ball is doing a lot on a pitch that quicken up since day 1. SA successfully saw of the new ball and are trying to get the lead as big as possible before the 2nd new ball arrive. Like in England who batted at a pace who was actually in race to get as close as possible before the new ball and they fell well short and the last batsman was removed with it.

So once the ball is old is a good track to bat on but the new ball is doing a lot. This is how a cricket wicket should be. It will separate the flat track bullies from the all pitch specialist who can grind out centuries on any type of wicket.

 

[sifter132]

Just a complete lack of patience in the Aussie bowling last night - from bowlers AND CAPTAIN. When Mitch Johnson bowled the 29th over it was the first time any bowler had got more than 3 overs in a spell, as Clarke kept chopping and changing to try and match the rate that SA had taken wickets. You could almost feel the desperation, but in the end the desperation only led to crappy bowling, a lack of a plan and leaking LOTS of runs. Bowlers didn't deliver and deserve most of the blame, but if the captain is going to hook you after one poor over, then it doesn't promote much confidence in your bowling attack.

Warney was on twitter calling for Australia to slow the game down, calm down a bit - couldn't have been more right. It was an awful display in that last session, and Smith and Amla pounced on it beautifully.

Smith has Australia really scrambling with his exaggerated forward and across movement, and Aussies can't work out whether to bowl even wider, or just keep it in the channel. I would have thought the bouncer was the obvious counter to that movement, but Mitchell Johnson seems the only one willing to bowl it at Smith. Looking through the scorecard again, the first straight short one at Smith came when he was already about 70! And what do you know short straight one got his wicket...Even if it doesn't get him out, it should stop him jumping across so far and keep his weight back a bit.

 

[spooony]

The old ball is doing nothing. So they are basically cannon fodder on the track. Only time you will get rid of a top batsman with the old ball where there is even bounce and ball comes nice onto ball is if he have a lapse of concentration