View Full Version : Australia V's South Africa
TheRealBuzz
13 Jan 2002, 13:23
Not the greatest of starts. Gilly out with a wild shot from the very first ball of the innings.
Hayden was looking good, but was caught on 17.
Ponting is looking great. 37 from 38 balls.
Australia 2/54 from 12 overs.
kretchy
13 Jan 2002, 13:25
Was a pretty wild shot from Gilly to play first ball of the match.
Ponting is looking good though and in great touch.
TheRealBuzz
13 Jan 2002, 13:30
Only Gilly would contemplate playing a shot like that from the first ball of the match. But that's why we love him. :D
2/62 from 14 overs.
NICK THE PIE MAN
13 Jan 2002, 16:09
Pffft...
All out for 198.
We will need to bowl very well.
Need somebody to step up, come on Warney and Dizzy!
TheRealBuzz
13 Jan 2002, 16:40
Pretty dissapointing.
Few guys got a start, but no one really went on with it.
Another all-rounder failed again. Will Shane Lee be the next one to get a go. :rolleyes:
Bring back Moody. ;)
Hopefully Brett Lee sends down a few lightning bolts at the South African batsmen.
The Old Dark Navy's
13 Jan 2002, 20:30
Terrible loss. The batsman were shocking. The bowlers were good. Warnie very good. Lee a great second spell. Gillespie accurate and Bichel dangerous. Just not enough runs.
A bit rough to lose it off a boundary coming from Rhodes elbow or body though.
dogboy23
13 Jan 2002, 20:39
I think it is fair to say that if Ian Harvey was playing we probably would have won.In the end it was Symonds bowling along with our poor batting Symonds included that cost us.
London Dave
13 Jan 2002, 20:42
You only win odi's with 200 on the board if the batting side commits suicide, a la Friday
Bomber Spirit
13 Jan 2002, 20:45
During the Tests this summer Hayden and Langer did the job at the top of the order, usually at better than 4 an over.
With 0 wins from 2 games so far this season, I'd be seriously looking at putting Langer into the one-day squad and moving Gilchrist down the order.
What was the crowd tonight?
Bomber Spirit
13 Jan 2002, 20:57
Originally posted by Dan26
What was the crowd tonight?
62,621
NICK THE PIE MAN
13 Jan 2002, 21:00
Originally posted by dogboy23
I think it is fair to say that if Ian Harvey was playing we probably would have won.In the end it was Symonds bowling along with our poor batting Symonds included that cost us.
Pfft what are u basing that on?
Harvey really set the world on fire aginist NZ didn't he? :rolleyes:
You have no logic with that comment.
It was just yesterday that the cricket board was debating whether Harvey was overrated.
To say that the result would have been different if he played is just ignorant.
The Old Dark Navy's
13 Jan 2002, 21:04
It ended up being a bit exciting towards the end and really brought out the best in some of the bowlers and fielders. It was unfair to expect Symonds to do the job of restricting the South Africans but geez, I thought he would drop that catch for all money. To get to it is one thing but then to time your lunge at full speed and keep your eye on the ball the whole time was impressive. I know that is what they get paid for but many a time I have seen those get dropped dismally or a fieldsman run on the spot and let the ball bounce once to them. Great effort to keep the game alive. In the washup, Klusener won the game in two balls.
Second loss in a row, not looking good
However, i think that the opening partnership of Gilchrist and Hayden should be kept for at least another game.... but knowing the selecters Mark Waugh will be back in a flash :rolleyes:
dogboy23
13 Jan 2002, 21:23
Originally posted by NICK THE PIE MAN
Pfft what are u basing that on?
Harvey really set the world on fire aginist NZ didn't he? :rolleyes:
You have no logic with that comment.
It was just yesterday that the cricket board was debating whether Harvey was overrated.
To say that the result would have been different if he played is just ignorant. Im basing that on the fact that Symonds bowling is sub-district standard and he was absolutely punished for over 6 an over off 5 or 6 and if you think of Harveys bowling he simply would not have been hit for that amny and in the end what cost us besides our **** batting was the fact our all rounders bowling(Bevan and symonds) was always a burden.The fact that Waugh was forced to replace him with Bevan shows that Symonds didnt do his job.And ignorant hey what grade of cricket do you play?You do realise that in a onedayer an allrounder is expected to bowl 10 overs dont you.Harveys economy rate is 45 and he usuall bowls at the end of an innings so you work it out.Obviously its a fairly big statement to say that one player cost us the game but IMO we missed the tight bowling of Harvey we might aswell have played a 5th bowler.
What cost us?
Waugh throwing his wicket away with over 10 overs remaining.
No fifth bowler thanks to McGrath's petulance and the selectors incompetance.
Martyn 's brain fade. Well done Marto, great cricket brain there.
Oh yeah, and Gilclang's effort in the first over. Though his catch to get rid of Kallis was pretty good.
Santos L Helper
14 Jan 2002, 07:07
Originally posted by Dave
What cost us?
Waugh throwing his wicket away with over 10 overs remaining.
No fifth bowler thanks to McGrath's petulance and the selectors incompetance.
Martyn 's brain fade. Well done Martyo, great cricet brain there.
What about the sudden exposure of Bevan as an imposter on the international scene? Can't bat, can't bowl and can't field.
Originally posted by Santos L Helper
What about the sudden exposure of Bevan as an imposter on the international scene? Can't bat, can't bowl and can't field.
Now that the ICC have allowed one bumper per over he's going to struggle. When he came in last night he really put the brakes on the innings.
kretchy
14 Jan 2002, 07:16
Originally posted by Dave
Now that the ICC have allowed one bumber per over he's going to struggle. When he came in last night he really put the brakes on the innings.
He also got bogged down in the match against Kiwis which I reckon resulted in a momentum change towards the Black caps.
Originally posted by Santos L Helper
What about the sudden exposure of Bevan as an imposter on the international scene? Can't bat, can't bowl and can't field.
Can not help but agree with this statement. Not only is his all round game average but he manages to bring down the game of the other batsman also.
Almost looked like Ponting intentionally ran him out last night.
I said almost.
London Dave
14 Jan 2002, 07:25
boy, a couple of losses and the knives are out
interesting call on the Bevan-short ball rule change, but we will probably have to wait until the end of the summer before the careers of these guys can be terminated or not.
Is this the cycle coming to an end?????
agree the loss of Mcgrath was pretty important though.
Originally posted by London Dave
boy, a couple of losses and the knives are out
Not at all, creadit where credit is due and criticism likewise.
interesting call on the Bevan-short ball rule change, but we will probably have to wait until the end of the summer before the careers of these guys can be terminated or not.
Yes, though in Bevan's case he's already shown he cannot handle them. That's it's only one per over might save him.
Is this the cycle coming to an end?????
Perhaps. What I think the selectors need to stop is this rotation bs. We do NOT have 15-29 players good enough to play at the top level.
agree the loss of Mcgrath was pretty important though.
Along with Warne he's been our best bowler for a long time. HAd BRacken come in instead of Symonds perhaps the result may have been different as we really struggled past the first 4 bowlers.
On a brighter note, great to see punter back to some form (was I the only one who thought Klusener could have done a little more to get out of the way?) and Dizzy get through his spell. Oh yeah, and the form of the fat leggie whatshisname.
Macca19
14 Jan 2002, 08:13
Originally posted by Dave
(was I the only one who thought Klusener could have done a little more to get out of the way?)
Probably....Klusener was still appealing for the lbw. Ponting ran into Klusener about a split second before the stumps were hit, so if Klusener wasnt there he still woulda been run out by 2 metres anyway.
Jars458
14 Jan 2002, 08:14
Bring back Darren Lehmann that's all I can say
Top of the runs in the ING cup and second in the Pura Cup (behind Bevan admitedly)
S Waugh figured that with 10 overs to go and six wickets in hand he should try and build up the total
Not his fault the rest of the order other than Bichel failed dismally
We were always a bowler short
Any criticism of Gilchrist is ridiculous. That's how he always plays and when it comes off he is a hero.
Bevan should go back to number 6. He deserves plenty of chances as he has been the best one day batsmen in the world for a while.
Symonds can't bowl against top quality opposition.
kretchy
14 Jan 2002, 08:44
I don't think Klusener can be blamed he was still appealing and didn't see Ponting coming. It is also partly Ponting's fault he ran across the pitch just to try and get in the way of the Rhodes throw.
Originally posted by Jars458
Bring back Darren Lehmann that's all I can say
Surprise ;)
Top of the runs in the ING cup and second in the Pura Cup (behind Bevan admitedly)
Hmm, that didn't seem to matter too much to selectors when they picked their initial squads
S Waugh figured that with 10 overs to go and six wickets in hand he should try and build up the total
Yeah and I think that was a bad call given the pitch and that he had his eye in.
Not his fault the rest of the order other than Bichel failed dismally
True.
We were always a bowler short
No!
Any criticism of Gilchrist is ridiculous. That's how he always plays and when it comes off he is a hero.
Batting yes, keeping no.
Bevan should go back to number 6. He deserves plenty of chances as he has been the best one day batsmen in the world for a while.
Mmmm, I'll reserve judgement on that until I see how he copes with the short stuff.
Symonds can't bowl against top quality opposition.
4 words of that sentence are redundant.
Originally posted by Jars458
Bevan should go back to number 6. He deserves plenty of chances as he has been the best one day batsmen in the world for a while.
At least push him back to five, preferably six. Thats when he scores most of his runs from pushing the singles. Also drop Gilly down the order and bring Martyn up. Martyn isn't a shot maker so towards the end of an innings he isn't the ideal batsmen to making the shots. Gilly however is.
What I believe would be a better batting line up:
Hayden/M Waugh
Martyn
Ponting
S Waugh
Bevan
Gilchrist
Symonds/Harvey
Warne
B Lee/whoever*
Gillespie/whoever*
McGrath
* Bichel, Williams etc...
I don't believe having Gilly as an opener is effective as he gets out too early playing the shots. Martyn has played as an opener before and suceeded. Bevan isn't suited for up the order play. Open to comments and criticism.
Jars458
14 Jan 2002, 09:44
Originally posted by Visro
I don't believe having Gilly as an opener is effective as he gets out too early playing the shots. Martyn has played as an opener before and suceeded. Bevan isn't suited for up the order play. Open to comments and criticism.
I don't believe thats a fair point
His ODI stats are
121 117 5 3871 154 34.56 89.56 6 22
Now from memory almost all games he has opened in apart from his first few.
So that average from that strike rate is pretty reasonable.
Also, you need Lehmann in your squad;)
TheRealBuzz
14 Jan 2002, 10:20
Nope, I reckon Gilly should remain an opener.
He takes a few risks, but when it works, it's fantastic to watch and he gets the run rate skipping along.
Marto and Bevan should swap places. I still think Bevan is a great player, just had a bad night.
One thing we can't question is the quality of the fast bowlers.
-Brett Lee seems to be getting back to his best, and has been fantastic in both matches.
-Dizzy had a great comeback match. Proved that he should never have been left out in the first place.
-McGrath is McGrath.
Gilly
Hayden
Punter
Marto
Tugger
Bevan
Harvey/Symonds
Warne
Brett Lee
Dizzy
McGrath
littlemissmes
14 Jan 2002, 10:32
This match was just one big mess!
gilly on the first ball was just the start of a big flop........The major things that worry me is that bevan didn't look to have a clue what was going on.....sure the bouncers rattled him..but he never really took off...what happened to our number 1 one dayer?
yes...we were one bowler short....but that can't be helped....at least we know that won't be for long.....for lee to bowl well he needs someone else down the other end keeping it tight so he can be expensive..because thats how he gets wickets.... gilly's form behind the wickets worried me at first..maybe it was those gloves that richie and the team spent 2 bloody hours whining over...but he still managed to take some good catches.
I agree that the rotation system has to go....its too confusing....and thank god we'll have mcgrath back for the next one. Although i'm a vic and love harvs.....i think lehmann deserves a go sooner or later.
oh well....bring on thursday
Originally posted by Santos L Helper
What about the sudden exposure of Bevan as an imposter on the international scene? Can't bat, can't bowl and can't field.
Exactly. Last night showed why he will never play test cricket again and why he shouldn't play one day cricket again.
Originally posted by bluecrow
Forgetting the fact that he is the best one day batsman in the world. :rolleyes:
Then why didn't he show it on Friday and yesterday? He only hogged the strike and slowed our innings right down.
Originally posted by bluecrow
Oh for goodness sake. He has a bad start. Have you ever noticed that he isn't playing in the #3 spot he should be? And that the rest of the middle-upper order were also pathetic? Geez.
So where will Ponting play then? Punter's in form, Bevan isn't, why should he be moved and replace a form batsman?
NICK THE PIE MAN
14 Jan 2002, 21:02
God, the daggers are out!
Were fine, we are having a bad start.
It happened in World Cup 99, and in last year's Carlton United One day Series.
We will get our sh*t together, and im very confident we will not only make the final, but win the bloody thing.
Bevan has had a few bad starts, so who gives a f*ck?
How many times has he proved himself? And how many times has he saved our arse?
He will re-find his form. I say put him back at number 6. He comes in and stacks on runs if our batsmen fail like the old days. Move Martyn to 4.
Hayden
Gilchrist
Ponting
Martyn
S.Waugh
Bevan
Symonds
Harvey
S.Warne
B.Lee
G.McGrath
that would be ideal in my opinion. With Gillespie in the rotation system with Lee. Ditto with Mark Waugh and Haydos.
GoEagles
14 Jan 2002, 21:22
Just a few quick comments:
- Martyn should be trialed as an opener at least ONCE during this VB series. He got 130 in Perth against Zimbabwe and was a big success, but he's pushed back to #6 where he's struggled.
- Bevan is coming in far too early. He has played his best cricket coming in at 6 or 7 (during the latter stages of the main core batting).
- The start has been out biggest letdown. We have lost a few cheap wickets and the rest crumbles like a game of Jenga. In the past we have been able to be around 0/60 or 1/75 after 15 overs.
dogboy23
14 Jan 2002, 21:42
Agree with the pieman its a bit early to start bagging the players already although I think Harvs is our only reasonable option for the all rounder otherwise I reckon where better off having a 5th bowler.
It's not so much the losses that bother me, rather that the team looks stale. The only batsman who looks in form (granted that we didn't get a good look at Hayden) is Ponting. I don't count Steve Waugh because he gave enough chances early on to be dismissed three or four times, and he seems to be really struggling against anything pacy.
When you look at the test matches, it's obvious our batting rode in on the back of Langer and Hayden, along with Martyn's contributions further down. Well, Langer's not even there, and Hayden is being rotated through, so the batting line up is weakened accordingly.
Bevan's not a bad batsman by any stretch, but right now he's not showing anything like his recent first class form. Everyone from 7 to 11 is panicking - Warne and Lee can bat all right, but they look more comfortable punishing a depleted attack, and they won't get a chance to do that in the one day games.
I still think we'll win most of the remaining games, but it won't just happen, and the attitude I saw from the players suggests they think it will.
For God's sake, pick a team on form, not just to appease a few egos. If Mark Waugh's not good enough, he has to go. Ditto Bevan and especially Harvey. Nothing in the Victorian games suggests he's an automatic selection.
Of course now that I've said that they'll all go out and smash big scores, probably.