View Full Version : Offical Thread- South Africa Vereses Australia At Adeliadide Oval
Australia won the toss and elected to bat first
they are currently 0/75 with hayden on 29 and langer on 40
GoEagles
14 Dec 2001, 13:09
It's now 1/140 :
Langer 64*
Ponting 37*
Ponting had a very close call a few overs ago. He was caught off a no ball.
Langer just brought his century up with a nice little six.
Ponting was run out for 54.
Mark Waugh out, caught behind off Heyward for 2.
Aus 3/199
kretchy
14 Dec 2001, 19:08
Stumps 6/272
Martyn 37*
Warne 7*
Claude Henderson was probably the best of the bowlers with 3/55 off 18 overs he dismissed the Waugh brothers (Steve given out when he wasn't by umpire Venkat) and Gilchrist.
Similar story to the other tests against the kiwis top order performs and then a collapse however it probably wasn't as great this time.
whats the story with these collapses after the top order??
ive always thought our strength stems from having a strong batting lineup until we get right down the bottom of the list
hopefully the batsmen will get back into some form in the next innings
daddy_4_eyes
14 Dec 2001, 21:23
The collapses are becoming increasingly common. We saw it against NZ, in England the batsmen didn't exactly have a day out agaisnt poor opposition, and now agaisnt SA.
Why this is happening i hear you ask? Because the starting 11 has been stagnant for far too long. There is no competition for places. Look how well Langer performed after he got dropped, same thing happened with Hayden when he returned to the side and Martyn when he was trying to break into the team. M.Waugh also performed excellently last year when there were rumours that he may be pushed into retirement.
Neither of the Waugh brothers has don't anything since returning from England, maybe they need a little bit of incentive to kick start them. I for one would like to see some fresh faces in the team, maybe Katich??
I'm with you, daddy_4_eyes. This starting 11 has been stagnant for too long. The only trouble is, no one is really pushing for a spot. you can name names - Katich, Hussey, Maher, Love, Clarke, etc etc - but none of them are really standing up and saying "Pick Me". That's the real reason players like Ponting and Martyn can endure slumps in relative ease, and also why Steve Waugh can decide to stay captain until doomsday.
This summer should be ringing a few alarm bells. Our lower order are batting way better than they bowl, and that's not what they are there for. We still haven't located an all rounder of any note, or a spinner, off or leg, to put pressure on Warne for a spot. Both the Waughs are struggling for form, but the questions which should be asked - for instance, what is the benefit of persisting with them at the expense of developing the next generation? - are only asked politely and apologetically.
There's not a single bowler putting pressure on the current four for a spot. Our future should be ok, considering the relative youth of Lee and Gillespie, but they need to know they aren't automatic selections, and they are right now.
As I post, South Africa are 0/61. Our vaunted attack is once again struggling to make any inroads. I've said this before, but Steve Waughs crusade to make this team the best of all time is going to have a horrible impact on our future.
well,just updating the cricket now,south africa just lost kirsten for 7 on the last ball before stumps and are 2/17 chasing 380 odd,i cant remember to be honest:(
that should put us right in the drivers seat now for the final day tomorrow:D :D
SpecialBruce
17 Dec 2001, 19:43
That was ridiculous what Steve Waugh did. They should have declared with a lead of 320 - 350. They have shut South Africa out of the game and they will now force a draw. South Africa won't be interested in winning or chasing the runs.
South Africa lose 2 wickets before stumps on day 4
The Hippie
17 Dec 2001, 21:36
Originally posted by SpecialBruce
That was ridiculous what Steve Waugh did. They should have declared with a lead of 320 - 350. They have shut South Africa out of the game and they will now force a draw. South Africa won't be interested in winning or chasing the runs.
Bulldust, it was a reasonable declaration. Maybe he could have declared at drinks, instead of going on for a couple more overs.
What if he declared at 320 ahead and they lost 1 wicket for about 60, they'd only be looking at another 255 in the day and a pretty long batting lineup, the pitch hasn't been playing all that badly, provided you use a bit of common sense. Look at the way Hayden batted, it didn't hold any fears for him.
It's all a moot point now anyway, we have them 2 down going into the last day.
Papa Smurf
18 Dec 2001, 09:46
McGrath has taken a wicket maybe it won't be a draw afterall. We will know soon what it will be.
The Hippie
18 Dec 2001, 09:49
4/21. McKenzie LBW padding up, not offering a shot. Don't know about that one, I thought it may have been a little high.
Papa Smurf
18 Dec 2001, 09:53
Originally posted by The Hippie
4/21. McKenzie LBW padding up, not offering a shot. Don't know about that one, I thought it may have been a little high.
I don't beleive that was out.
:mad:
Hit him outside the line of off-stump. Fair enough that he wasn't playing a shot ... but i don't believe that ball would've hit the stumps.
Oh well ... SA are officially stuffed now :(
their stuffed even more so now topdon,5/54
klusner out off gillespie
how can Sth A suck so hard!
6/58
Boucher: c Gilchrist b Gillespie
(caught glove down leg side)
Pollock gone! for 1... geez... this is pathetic..
7/67
Pollock C. Ponting B. Warne
bat pad
that was a great catch by ponting also
SA are better than this :(
They didn't bowl well in the 2nd innings and their paying the price.
henderson out off warne caught by ponting in close in the first over after lunch
8/76 now
WCE2000
18 Dec 2001, 12:20
what a brilliant performance this has been from Australia.
After a rough series against New Zealand, they've bounced back brilliantly and have proved that this a brilliant side indeed.
I still think they have to conquer the sub-continent before they lay claim to the best of all-time (and they still have to conquer South Africa this summer), but i think they're more than capable of achieving both those feats.
gPhonque
18 Dec 2001, 13:28
Originally posted by WCE2000
what a brilliant performance this has been from Australia.
After a rough series against New Zealand, they've bounced back brilliantly and have proved that this a brilliant side indeed.
I still think they have to conquer the sub-continent before they lay claim to the best of all-time (and they still have to conquer South Africa this summer), but i think they're more than capable of achieving both those feats.
Blah. All Australia have done this test is win the toss.
Best of all-time? You're not serious are you?
They don't compare to the West Indies of the mid 80's and they never will!
yeah and get 400 odd and bowl south africansout for 375 and get 300 odd and get them at 9/118 they really havent done much
Pies rock
18 Dec 2001, 13:58
South Africa don't have enough genuine batsman to compete against the best in the world. Mckenzie seems alright, but Dippenaar is defnitely out of his depth - Randolph looks a better option at number 3. Klusener, while great at hammering sub-standard attacks all over the park, isn't good enough to be batting at Number 6. Gibbs is a bit flashy for an opener and will be found out against the likes of McGrath, but he is tremendoulsy talented. Kirsten and Kallis are their best batsmen. Boucher is good for a keeper and Pollock is OK, but can't score against decent attacks. Klusener should not be batting at 6. Randolph should come in for Dippenaar in Melbourne. Donald should replace Ntini (if they don't need teo black men). If they are to compete against Australia, they need a decent spinner and a batsman to replace Klusener, who is better suited to the one dayers.
South Africa are a very much overrated side. They are not better than what they have shown this test. In fact I was surprised they were within 65 in the first innings. Pollock would have to be the luckiest bowler in the history of the game. He is a good ordinary bowler who I would rate similar to Andy Bichel, I can't believe how he gets so many wickets. I suppose playing tests against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh helps...
well its all all over
kallis played a very good innings of 65 not out
funny thing is,when the last wicket fell it looked like the telecast was just starting for viewers in adelaide;) :p
Pies rock
18 Dec 2001, 14:09
Originally posted by gPhonque
Blah. All Australia have done this test is win the toss.
Best of all-time? You're not serious are you?
They don't compare to the West Indies of the mid 80's and they never will!
For sheer brilliance nothing compares to that Windies side. They could demolish you with a quick burst with the ball or with the bat. However, consistency was a big problem with them. Their fielding was sub standard and they couldn't concentrate for long periods of time. If they couldn't get a batsman out quickly, often they would let it get to them, which plays into the batsman's hands. Just as with the bat, if you tied Clive Lloyd, Gordon Grrenidge or Viv Richards down, they would try and slog their way out of trouble, which is a recipe for disaster.
To be questioning the standing of this Aussie side as one of the greatest of all time shows ignorance on your behalf. The standard of cricket played today is far greater than when the Windies dominated. Australia's side at that time was a joke and England and Pakistan weren't much better. Australia today has 3 batsmen who average over 50, which is almost unheard of. Blokes like Hayden, Ponting and Mark Waugh are three of the most brilliant batsmen in the world and can pulverise any attack. Justin Langer's fighting qualities have finally resulted in runs and he deserves a mention. None of our batsmen average under 40 - amazing. Warney is the greatest spinner of the modern era - unquestionable. McGrath and Gillespie rivals Thompson and Lillee at their best. Brett Lee will come good when he matures. He can swing the ball and at that pace, he has to be special...
Ok. I wouldn't get too excited just yet. We were 1-0 up against India over there, and everyone had orgasms. Best team ever, finally got the monkey off our back, etc etc. In a three test series, nothing's really proven until at least the second test is over.
I didn't believe it until a couple of days into this test, but this Australian team was quite obviously keyed up for this one. I'm not sure the entire team was primed (question marks over Lee especially, and also Gillespie, Steve Waugh and Gilchrist, just inasmuch as they didn't do a whole lot); but clearly Warne and McGrath were out to prove something, and Langer, Hayden and Ponting were terrific.
The toss helped. It might have helped South Africa to a draw if they'd won it. But the bowling on day 4 and the batting, even in the first innings, didn't look like match-winning stuff.
The big question now would be whether we rest on our laurels. If South Africa even bother to put together a strategy to counter Warne and McGrath (they didn't seem to have one this test, and some wickets were extremely soft), they're going to be a tougher proposition. They should have passed our first innings score, especially with the start they got.
But full credit to us. A good win, and days four and five were clearly ours.
gPhonque
18 Dec 2001, 15:12
Come on Pies Rock - if you knew your cricket, you'd realise Australia are not that good. (i'm not saying we're shhit, let's get that straight.)
NONE of our batsmen would know how to confidently handle Joel Garner or Michael Holding for a start. Viv Richards would hit Brett Lee for 6 all day long. Ponting would last 2 mins against the WI attack. Steve Waugh would be shhiting himself. MarK Waugh is too lazy and wouldn't last a minute. Hayden & Langer would handle themselves fine. (although against the WI attack, that doesn't mean much when the rest of the team are in the dressing room changing their dacks before they're even out there and praying they don't lose any wickets and that Hayden/Langer will make 0/500 so that they can declare.)
Warne would give their batsmen trouble on the right wicket.
McGrath would tie them down, but not for that long.
Gilly? He'd be interesting to watch against Garner and Co. He's just as likely to make 100 in 50 balls as he is to go out for a duck.
Really though, Australia (particularly in their batting) are nowhere near the class of the 84 WI side, or for that matter, the Invincibles. (very hard to compare them to anyone current though due to the time gap and Bradman..)
originally posted by Pies rock
The standard of cricket played today is far greater than when the Windies dominated.
What a load of horse shhit. If you seriously think that, you really have no idea! How is the standard of cricket "far greater" now than 15-20years ago? I'd actually say it's weaker than then - hence my belief that Australia aren't that good. And i think you'd find a lot of people would agree.
They bowled just as fast 15 years ago as they do now!
They swung the ball just as far 15 years ago as they do now!
They hit the ball just as hard as 15 years ago as they do now!
Really, to say the standard of cricket is far greater now is a pretty stupid and ignorant thing to say.
None of our batsmen average under 40 - amazing.
It's not amazing at all when you consider the quality of the bowling attacks they've been up against!
Warney is the greatest spinner of the modern era - unquestionable.
Yes and no - Muralitharan is fast taking that crown away from him. (chucker or not.)
McGrath and Gillespie rivals Thompson and Lillee at their best.
They don't come close. McGrath is a great bowler - so is Gillespie - but they don't compare as a main attack next to Lillee/Thompson.
Ashes to ashes
Dust to dust
If McGrath don't get you
Gillespie must...
Nah. Not the same. Not even close. At one end, you had arguably the best bowler of all time - at the other you had arguably the scariest bowler of all time. I know which attack i'd rather be facing.
Brett Lee will come good when he matures. He can swing the ball and at that pace, he has to be special...
Yeah ok Bruce.....
Lee has pace and that's all. He's a big boy now. It's about time he learned how to actually bowl with just a hint of intelligence. There's more to it than just throwing it as fast as you can in the general direction of the batsman.....
yeah yeah gpounque you west indian lover...
you cant accept the fact that steve waughs team is the greatest side ever.
brett lee can imtimidate the tail
but the point iswho cares? just as long as were thrashing people im happy. im not a bandwagoner.
wagstaff
19 Dec 2001, 00:17
South Africa's weakness was that apart from Pollock they don't have a world-class bowler, just a solid attack that works around Pollock ( and Donald when fit).
On the evidence shown in this match, it beats me how Pollock has an average almost below 20. Not only wasn't he swinging it or moving it a great deal but he was barely above medium-pace; quite a shock that.
Also his captaincy was less then inspiring (as are his press conferences). As Ian Chappell said, Pollock shouldn't be going to Cronje for advice on how to beat the Aussies, he should go to Stephen Fleming, who while not quite having the team to win the series, certainly had the right attitude and got the maximum out of his side.
Certainly, Australia were quite impressive in this match and established once again their psychological hold over South Africa. While I think that Australia isn't quite at the levels they were a couple of years back, it's not going to matter against this dull and uninspiring side.
Bloodstained Angel
19 Dec 2001, 06:12
New Zealand has a worse attack than South Africa - then lost their best two fast bowlers.
And they still managed to make the Australians look barely competitive (lets face it Aussie fans - you were thrashed in Perth)
Yet South Africa, with a better attack, was barely able to make any headway at all against Australia in Adelaide
why ?
Poor captaincy is the main reason - Pollock stood and stared while the game got taken away from him on the 3rd and 4th day.
South Africa also failed in its preparation - they should have observed the tactics of the New Zealanders more closely. New Zealnd frustrated the Australian bowlers by leaving everything oputside off stump alone, forcing the Aussie bowlers to bowl straight at the stumps, bad balls were picked off accordingly and the NZ batting line-up surprised with its steadiness. South Africa didn't do this enough, failed to pay due respect to the Aussie attack, and paid for it accordingly.
The South African attack was dreadful - no Donald, but thats hardly an excuse for bowling too short and too wide. Their lack of a spinner cost them dearly as do the political interference in the selection processes - Nitini is a 'token' black man in the side, selected for reasons of political correctness, not talent. He is not a test level bowler.
... and attitude as well. Its obvious they went into this Test with no desire to win it. They obviously rationalised that without Alan Donald they couldn't bowl out Australia and so couldn't win the game.
Against the ruthless Aussies - this was pure suicide.
Talk about a losers mentality.
cheers
Fat Red
19 Dec 2001, 07:54
Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
New Zealand has a worse attack than South Africa - then lost their best two fast bowlers.
Talk about looking at the world through woollen glasses. Who are these best 2 fast bowlers?
What was the lowest score NZ dismissed Australia for?
Our batting in that series wasn't that impressive, but their bowling on the whole wasn't impressive either.
They had one good innings of over 500, but were soundly beaten for the rest of the series (barring the 1 day chase in brisbane where we declared for 80-odd)
Besides that one innings I think Australia made 350-500 in every innings, hardly thrashed at all.
SA got us out for 375 or so, which is about as well as NZ did in the entire series.