3rd Test: Australia vs South Africa, Newlands, March 1-5

[PAdman]

Has tonight's team been named yet?

 

[Kram]

Don't think so.

 

[FLYINV]

Leave Clarke and Smith at 4 and 5, Watson at 6 with Rogers and Warner opening. The only question mark we still have is no.3 as I'm not sure Doolan has the quality to be a long term first drop even if he has the technique and temperament to consistently make starts. In the last two tests he came in when Australia had the momentum, and stalled.

If one of Doolan, Hughes or Marsh really makes big runs in the last couple of games of the shield season, i'd really like to see that player given the no.3 spot for our next test series.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Leave Clarke and Smith at 4 and 5, Watson at 6 with Rogers and Warner opening. The only question mark we still have is no.3 as I'm not sure Doolan has the quality to be a long term first drop even if he has the technique and temperament to consistently make starts. In the last two tests he came in when Australia had the momentum, and stalled.

If one of Doolan, Hughes or Marsh really makes big runs in the last couple of games of the shield season, i'd really like to see that player given the no.3 spot for our next test series.

I'd like to see them give Doolan more of a shot at test cricket. He was just facing the best team in the world in their own patch. He needs to be given more than 3 matches in a row. Fed up with the lucky dip approach to players. If they think they are worth picking for test cricket, bloody well find out if they are by letting them settle some into the role.

 

[Mego Red]

What's your opinion on Allan Border who always batted at 5 despite being the teams best bat?

Sachin Tendulker and Steve Waugh board.

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

I'd like to see them give Doolan more of a shot at test cricket. He was just facing the best team in the world in their own patch. He needs to be given more than 3 matches in a row. Fed up with the lucky dip approach to players. If they think they are worth picking for test cricket, bloody well find out if they are by letting them settle some into the role.

Could not agree more, especially now when it comes to Doolan. He's clearly demonstrated his ability against South Africa and tried to battle at PE but ultimately failed, which happens on occasion.
He deserves a go against Pakistan in the UAE and India at home, at least, before he's dropped. I think he'll do very well and should be in the side for the Ashes next year. Players come and go and demonstrate clear faults in their game but Doolan's only apparent and consistent fault across FC and Test cricket so far has been his propensity for losing his head around the 30 mark. He'll be very good at 3 for us if he gets the chance to receive excellent coaching and settle into the national setup.

 

[Sylvia Saint]

Could not agree more, especially now when it comes to Doolan. He's clearly demonstrated his ability against South Africa and tried to battle at PE but ultimately failed, which happens on occasion.
He deserves a go against Pakistan in the UAE and India at home, at least, before he's dropped. I think he'll do very well and should be in the side for the Ashes next year. Players come and go and demonstrate clear faults in their game but Doolan's only apparent and consistent fault across FC and Test cricket so far has been his propensity for losing his head around the 30 mark. He'll be very good at 3 for us if he gets the chance to receive excellent coaching and settle into the national setup.

Can't agree with this. No new batsman - especially one that hasn't really performed well enough - should be given a set-in-stone timeframe in the side. For all batsmen, runs equal credits and the more credits you have the better the job security. IMO, Doolan earnt just enough credits to get the #3 spot for Pakistan, but certainly not much further than that.

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

Can't agree with this. No new batsman - especially one that hasn't really performed well enough - should be given a set-in-stone timeframe in the side. For all batsmen, runs equal credits and the more credits you have the better the job security. IMO, Doolan earnt just enough credits to get the #3 spot for Pakistan, but certainly not much further than that.

I think Doolan, if he's earned the right to be in the side, has earned the right to prove himself under different conditions, that's what I'm trying to say. Copping South Africa on their turf and Pakistan in the formidable UAE is a tough start.
You're not wrong when talking about what 'credits' he's earned, as such, but I think he should have the chance to prove himself at home and in more comfortable conditions as well as in torrid, doctored away conditions. Braving Ajmal and Pakistan in the UAE after facing Steyn, Morkel and Philander in SA could just be the making of him as a Test batsman. Confident he'll do very well against India at home and against England in the Ashes, but yes - he MUST make runs beforehand.

 

[the distributer]

You realise cricket is a game that requires a lot of luck?

Hahaha, Kden.

 

[the distributer]

Warner would've kept going through the 90s - would've got his century quicker - A clear team directive came out with Doolan.

Unbelievable.

 

[the distributer]

Nah but when you're batting on TURF PITCHES you should be able to get around 35-36 off every over.

Nah, when you have a fully functioning brain you would realise how ridiculous the notion is, please explain to me the benefit of a dressing room ordered slow down when you're 350 in front on the 4th day with 9 wkts in hand, please, please please tell me bro.

From what I've seen all you're capable of are smart ass one line comments, tell the good people of this forum why we went slow.

Maybe you should stick to something you know about mate, just saying, that might involve a deck of cards and fast reflexes though.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Nah, when you have a fully functioning brain you would realise how ridiculous the notion is, please explain to me the benefit of a dressing room ordered slow down when you're 350 in front on the 4th day with 9 wkts in hand, please, please please tell me bro.

From what I've seen all you're capable of are smart ass one line comments, tell the good people of this forum why we went slow.

Quite frankly who gives a * why we all of a sudden batted slower the game is over. FFS move on

 

[PAdman]

Did the game tonight get rained out?

 

[the distributer]

Quite frankly who gives a **** why we all of a sudden batted slower the game is over. FFS move on

You do realise this debate started long before we "won" the game don't you? If you don't like the subject just scroll down mate.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

You do realise this debate started long before we "won" the game don't you? If you don't like the subject just scroll down mate.

I know it started before we won, this has been argued for pages now and is just going round in circles. The fact is none of us know why it happened and no matter how much longer you dribble on about is going to change what happened, so I repeat move on.

 

[the distributer]

I know it started before we won, this has been argued for pages now and is just going round in circles. The fact is none of us know why it happened and no matter how much longer you dribble on about is going to change what happened, so I repeat move on.

So the posters who think we went slow on team orders are fine, but I'm talking drivel because I'm quoting them?

What do you think mate? What's your opinion on the matter, did we deliberately go slow after being 350 in front with 9 wkts in hand on an absolute road against a team who has form in batting out draws? On a 4th day pitch mind you.

Seriously, if it wasn't so ridiculous I wouldn't be fighting it.

 

[copthat]

Nah, when you have a fully functioning brain you would realise how ridiculous the notion is, please explain to me the benefit of a dressing room ordered slow down when you're 350 in front on the 4th day with 9 wkts in hand, please, please please tell me bro.

From what I've seen all you're capable of are smart ass one line comments, tell the good people of this forum why we went slow.

Maybe you should stick to something you know about mate, just saying, that might involve a deck of cards and fast reflexes though.

At the time of our declaration, I thought it was pretty clear to everyone with a 'functioning brain' that once Rogers went out Clarke couldn't give a s**t about the scoring rate, as he had decided that a stint at SA before tea was the aim. He knew that batting at a normal rate for the most part would make the lead unreachable. Who knows why he did it? Maybe he wanted Doolan to try and cement his spot with a well made 50 or 60? It doesn't matter when runs weren't the issue, it was purely time.

I would say it was the main reason that we had them 3-15, which turned out to be a pretty crucial half an hour in the context of the rest of the test match. It allowed to Johnson to bowl consistent high 140's and nudge 150km/h, resulting in both Smith and Elgar shitting their pants.

I've noticed that you ignored my response to your gripe about Lyon not bowling over the wicket. I am interested as to why you think it would have been more effective for him to bowl over instead of around v SA.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

So the posters who think we went slow on team orders are fine, but I'm talking drivel because I'm quoting them?

What do you think mate? What's your opinion on the matter, did we deliberately go slow after being 350 in front with 9 wkts in hand on an absolute road against a team who has form in batting out draws? On a 4th day pitch mind you.

Seriously, if it wasn't so ridiculous I wouldn't be fighting it.

Poor choice of words I didn't mean just you. I was more referring to how some argue it was deliberate go slow, while others blamed doolan/warner for killing momentum.

From my pov is it just a frustrating argument as posters from both opinions are too pigheaded and stubborn to give ground (compromise) on their opinion and that is why I said move on as this argument has become tedious and repetitive.

I said people were dribbling on (didn't mean you personally) as no one knows why things happened as they did.

As for my opinion, I believed at the time and IIRC posted at the time that I believed the declaration was more about timing ( ie when we declared) than scoring rate as SA were always more likely going to shut up shop than try and chase it down. With this in mind I, personally was not overly annoyed at the manner in which doolan/ warner batted because I believed runs wasn't the main issue, declaration timing was.

On a side note I am keen to see how doolan does in the UAE as I believe he has the temperament for test cricket and if he is given time( let's say as much as Cowan was given) we will have a more accurate idea of if he is up to it, after all debuting against a world class pace attack in their backyard followed by Pakistan in the UAE is not easy introduction to test cricket and unlike some in this thread, I am willing to give him a decent chance to prove himself

 

[the distributer]

At the time of our declaration, I thought it was pretty clear to everyone with a 'functioning brain' that once Rogers went out Clarke couldn't give a s**t about the scoring rate, as he had decided that a stint at SA before tea was the aim. He knew that batting at a normal rate for the most part would make the lead unreachable. Who knows why he did it? Maybe he wanted Doolan to try and cement his spot with a well made 50 or 60? It doesn't matter when runs weren't the issue, it was purely time.

I would say it was the main reason that we had them 3-15, which turned out to be a pretty crucial half an hour in the context of the rest of the test match. It allowed to Johnson to bowl consistent high 140's and nudge 150km/h, resulting in both Smith and Elgar shitting their pants.

I've noticed that you ignored my response to your gripe about Lyon not bowling over the wicket. I am interested as to why you think it would have been more effective for him to bowl over instead of around v SA.

You need to reevaluate what a functioning brain is then.

 

[the distributer]

Poor choice of words I didn't mean just you. I was more referring to how some argue it was deliberate go slow, while others blamed doolan/warner for killing momentum.

From my pov is it just a frustrating argument as posters from both opinions are too pigheaded and stubborn to give ground (compromise) on their opinion and that is why I said move on as this argument has become tedious and repetitive.

I said people were dribbling on (didn't mean you personally) as no one knows why things happened as they did.

As for my opinion, I believed at the time and IIRC posted at the time that I believed the declaration was more about timing ( ie when we declared) than scoring rate as SA were always more likely going to shut up shop than try and chase it down. With this in mind I, personally was not overly annoyed at the manner in which doolan/ warner batted because I believed runs wasn't the main issue, declaration timing was.

On a side note I am keen to see how doolan does in the UAE as I believe he has the temperament for test cricket and if he is given time( let's say as much as Cowan was given) we will have a more accurate idea of if he is up to it, after all debuting against a world class pace attack in their backyard followed by Pakistan in the UAE is not easy introduction to test cricket and unlike some in this thread, I am willing to give him a decent chance to prove himself

Timing? So your think Clarke planed to be 500 in front with 140 overs to go compared to 500 in front with 155 overs to go, sorry mate, it makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

 

[Mateyman]

Timing? So your think Clarke planed to be 500 in front with 140 overs to go compared to 500 in front with 155 overs to go, sorry mate, it makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

Yes it does - it allows the bowlers to go hard for 45 mins before tea.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Timing? So your think Clarke planed to be 500 in front with 140 overs to go compared to 500 in front with 155 overs to go, sorry mate, it makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

As I have said earlier, this argument has been circling for quite a while now.
I am not going to continue arguing with you, I am going to forget this thread and move on, I suggest you do the same.

FWIW some may believe your argument makes 'absolutely no sense what so ever' matter of perspective ay?

 

[the distributer]

Yes it does - it allows the bowlers to go hard for 45 mins before tea.

Giving them less time to take 10 wkts? As the above poster said this debate isn't worth having, fact is Warner was protecting his ton double, why was Lehman so agitated over the last 30 minutes before lunch? Here's a hint, he wasn't agitated because Warner was scoring so fast, that's for sure.

 

[the distributer]

As I have said earlier, this argument has been circling for quite a while now.
I am not going to continue arguing with you, I am going to forget this thread and move on, I suggest you do the same.

FWIW some may believe your argument makes 'absolutely no sense what so ever' matter of perspective ay?

Not sure who made you god of what we can discuss regarding the 3rd test, as I said earlier, if you're not willing to man up and actually voice an opinion then don't attempt to stop any who does, and if you don't like the subject, * off!!

 

[Doodlesweaver]

I think Doolan, if he's earned the right to be in the side, has earned the right to prove himself under different conditions, that's what I'm trying to say. Copping South Africa on their turf and Pakistan in the formidable UAE is a tough start.
You're not wrong when talking about what 'credits' he's earned, as such, but I think he should have the chance to prove himself at home and in more comfortable conditions as well as in torrid, doctored away conditions. Braving Ajmal and Pakistan in the UAE after facing Steyn, Morkel and Philander in SA could just be the making of him as a Test batsman. Confident he'll do very well against India at home and against England in the Ashes, but yes - he MUST make runs beforehand.

Yes that's what I think. It's just daft to get rid of players after 2 or 3 tests. It's a big step up from first class to test cricket, players need to find their feet.