What's new

Australia v South Africa | 1st Test | Perth | Nov 3-7, 2016 | Day 3

You know you're up too late when the cricket is startung again in Aus before youve even slept.
 
Most likely the deciding session, in fact hour.
 
4:30 AM starts aren't ideal, but no point in moaning.
First session is key, if we can lose a max of 2 wickets I'd consider it decent.
However with Steyn missing we need 360+ to even consider ourselves to be in a winning position.
We aren't getting that in any case.

Any score can be chased in Australia, we South Africans should know better. Two bowlers and a spinner won't be enough unfortunately.
 
soso_killer said:
4:30 AM starts aren't ideal, but no point in moaning.
First session is key, if we can lose a max of 2 wickets I'd consider it decent.
However with Steyn missing we need 360+ to even consider ourselves to be in a winning position.
We aren't getting that in any case.

Any score can be chased in Australia, we South Africans should know better. Two bowlers and a spinner won't be enough unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Will he bat?
 
This guy Cook is making the team for his father. Since his debut 115, his scores are 25, 20, 56, 4, 0, 12. That 56 against NZ was one of the shakiest I have seen, made in 201 minute, surviving a drop & one DRS over rule. I am not sure why at 34, he is being invested.
 
Australia obtained surprising amounts of reverse swing nine months ago in the second innings in Wellington.

Today it took precisely ONE BALL before Dave Warner threw a return to the keeper at high speed straight into the dirt rather than to the keeper.

Two points here.

Firstly, if the ICC says that using your fingernails is ball-tampering but using abrasive surfaces isn't, then it is effectively endorsing a return to bottle tops, zips etc.

Secondly, Mickey Arthur needs to get the Pakistan batsmen to complain loudly and demonstratively to the umpire after EVERY SINGLE return from a fielder into the ground.
 
JP in great touch - hitting Josh straight like that takes some skill at WACA.
 
Mitch Marsh on - he is actually, almost at per with Keith Miller - just needs to improve batting average by 60% & reduce bowling average also by 60% - net, net equilibrium.
 
One of them needs to score a big hundred.
 
MMHS said:
Mitch Marsh on - he is actually, almost at per with Keith Miller - just needs to improve batting average by 60% & reduce bowling average also by 60% - net, net equilibrium.
Click to expand...

Yup. Australian selectors see something in him which I fail to
 
MMHS said:
Mitch Marsh on - he is actually, almost at per with Keith Miller - just needs to improve batting average by 60% & reduce bowling average also by 60% - net, net equilibrium.
Click to expand...
[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] will be surprised, but I have a lot of time for Mitch Marsh.

He is like Mohammad Nawaz: a work in progress.

Australia is batting him too high at 6: he really should be batting at 7, which would free him to be the Stokes-like batsman that we all know he can be. He just hasn't got the First Class record of hundreds to be a Test number 6, and it's unfair on him.

I still have an issue with Lyon's overall Test record: if he averages 33 and can't bat then I'd rather pick Glenn Maxwell knowing that he will average 37 with the ball but will have an impact with the bat.

My ideal Australian "bottom half" is probably:

6. Cameron Bancroft keeping wicket (yes [MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION], I know he doesn't even do it for WA).
7. Mitchell Marsh
8. Glenn Maxwell
9. Mitchell Starc
10. Pat Cummins or James Pattinson
11. Josh Hazelwood

I can only get Marsh in by going from a specialist wicketkeeper to a batsman who is a part-time goalkeeper. But I don't think that matters, because I've replaced my spinner with Maxwell.
 
Junaids said:
[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] will be surprised, but I have a lot of time for Mitch Marsh.

He is like Mohammad Nawaz: a work in progress.

Australia is batting him too high at 6: he really should be batting at 7, which would free him to be the Stokes-like batsman that we all know he can be. He just hasn't got the First Class record of hundreds to be a Test number 6, and it's unfair on him.

I still have an issue with Lyon's overall Test record: if he averages 33 and can't bat then I'd rather pick Glenn Maxwell knowing that he will average 37 with the ball but will have an impact with the bat.

My ideal Australian "bottom half" is probably:

6. Cameron Bancroft keeping wicket (yes [MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION], I know he doesn't even do it for WA).
7. Mitchell Marsh
8. Glenn Maxwell
9. Mitchell Starc
10. Pat Cummins or James Pattinson
11. Josh Hazelwood

I can only get Marsh in by going from a specialist wicketkeeper to a batsman who is a part-time goalkeeper. But I don't think that matters, because I've replaced my spinner with Maxwell.
Click to expand...

I am not taking the bait boss - you are welcome to pick Max over Lyon & Ansari over Jadeja & Nawaz over Yasir :19:
 
Smith is losing the plot - over bowling the pacers. He should have brought Lyon against 2 lefties, bowling against the wind.
 
marsh is definitely more of a bowler than batsman. Don't know why everyone insists on seeing him a an allrounder.
 
MMHS said:
Smith is losing the plot - over bowling the pacers. He should have brought Lyon against 2 lefties, bowling against the wind.
Click to expand...

Firstly, he has always been a very conservative skipper. He doesn't really have any instincts, let alone attacking ones.

Secondly, he clearly shares my views about Lyon's limitations, which I failed to bait you into discussing! :)

Can you carry around a mediocre off-spinner whose main weapon is overspin on home wickets?

I'd rather go for a Moeen Ali or Glenn Maxwell who will at least make a splash with the bat.
 
Nikhil_cric said:
marsh is definitely more of a bowler than batsman. Don't know why everyone insists on seeing him a an allrounder.
Click to expand...

If you are Australia or South Africa, a fast-bowling all-rounder is like gold dust.

The ideal is a Kallis or Flintoff or Stokes, but even a Shane Watson or Corey Anderson allows you to balance your team with 4 quicks and 1 spinner.

Mitch Marsh doesn't deserve to bat at Number 6 at this stage, but he is a work in progress and so the selectors are hoping and praying that he will grow into the role.

Part of the problem is that as a bowler he isn't great either unless the ball has been doctored and is taking reverse swing.
 
Junaids said:
If you are Australia or South Africa, a fast-bowling all-rounder is like gold dust.

The ideal is a Kallis or Flintoff or Stokes, but even a Shane Watson or Corey Anderson allows you to balance your team with 4 quicks and 1 spinner.

Mitch Marsh doesn't deserve to bat at Number 6 at this stage, but he is a work in progress and so the selectors are hoping and praying that he will grow into the role.

Part of the problem is that as a bowler he isn't great either unless the ball has been doctored and is taking reverse swing.
Click to expand...

If you are SA or Australia, why not just play 4 quicks and one part time SLA/offspinner instead? It's not like SA or OZ have world class spinners anyway. In the case of SA, you can get quicks to bowl and Elgar/Duminy to bowl a few overs of spin and keep it tight.
 
Love listening to the Aussie commentators when they are losing... torture listening to them otherwise. A bitf like better versions of the Bangladesh commentators
 
Strange from Smith to not give a single over to Lyon today. Next over has to be Lyon
 
What a ball. Theres enough happening but these 2 have batted superbly
 
I think, only reason Aussies are trying desperately for Mitch to succeed is that they don't have a really good spinner, who can bowl 50+ quality overs. With the fitness record of their pacers, they are not comfortable with 3+1 combination. Besides, this team doesn't have couple of players like Lehman, Mark, Steve or North who can share 25 overs.

I would have preferred Smith continuing his bowling & make a partnership with Lyon to bowl around 55 overs/Test; then they can drop Mitch & play 3 pacers & 6 batsmen. At this moment, this hybrid formula didn't work in SRL, & it'll be embarrassing in India, where they will need 2 spinners at least.
 
Nikhil_cric said:
If you are SA or Australia, why not just play 4 quicks and one part time SLA/offspinner instead? It's not like SA or OZ have world class spinners anyway. In the case of SA, you can get quicks to bowl and Elgar/Duminy to bowl a few overs of spin and keep it tight.
Click to expand...

That's my argument for picking Glenn Maxwell instead of Nathan Lyon.

But the way the Kookaburra plays, you still need to score your runs between overs 20 and 80. In effect, you require batsmen numbers 6, 7 and 8 to score a combined average of 110 runs per innings.

That means you need 110 runs per innings from EITHER:

Keeper + 3rd quick + 4th quick = 110 runs
Keeper + 4th quick + spinner = 110 runs

I think - like you - that replacing Lyon with a better batsman allows you to pick your 3rd quick on bowling ability, not batting ability.

But your 4th quick is always going to have to be picked on batting ability. There's no way out of that problem.

And currently Mitch Marsh is already a better batsman than any alternative Aussie 4th quick.
 
Still no Lyon. Bowl Hazlewood and Lyon in tandem. With this reverse, Hazlewood has a good chance of getting one of these left handers.
 
Junaids said:
Firstly, he has always been a very conservative skipper. He doesn't really have any instincts, let alone attacking ones.

Secondly, he clearly shares my views about Lyon's limitations, which I failed to bait you into discussing! :)

Can you carry around a mediocre off-spinner whose main weapon is overspin on home wickets?

I'd rather go for a Moeen Ali or Glenn Maxwell who will at least make a splash with the bat.
Click to expand...

Lyon averages 32 in AUS with 4 wickets/Test - that's actually better than Siddle. Why not drop Siddle & play Falkner or Max?
 
aliasad1998 said:
Still no Lyon. Bowl Hazlewood and Lyon in tandem. With this reverse, Hazlewood has a good chance of getting one of these left handers.
Click to expand...

Smith is the modern Aussie cricketer - can't play spin, don't know how to use spinners ........
 
Junaids said:
That's my argument for picking Glenn Maxwell instead of Nathan Lyon.

But the way the Kookaburra plays, you still need to score your runs between overs 20 and 80. In effect, you require batsmen numbers 6, 7 and 8 to score a combined average of 110 runs per innings.

That means you need 110 runs per innings from EITHER:

Keeper + 3rd quick + 4th quick = 110 runs
Keeper + 4th quick + spinner = 110 runs

I think - like you - that replacing Lyon with a better batsman allows you to pick your 3rd quick on bowling ability, not batting ability.

But your 4th quick is always going to have to be picked on batting ability. There's no way out of that problem.

And currently Mitch Marsh is already a better batsman than any alternative Aussie 4th quick.
Click to expand...

Boss, I try not to counter your post, but sometimes you post too much on your thoughts - what you like to happen. Yesterday, SAF took 10/89 from Over No. 35 to 70, with Kookaburra & with their spearhead down half way.

These formulas are good for blogs, but you have to put the ball on right spot, keep the pressure on & keep things tight - Pink/Red, Dukes/Kookaburra, Day/Night.... these are secondary, unless you bowl well & bowl with a plan. Today, Aussies came with a plan to blast with pace, SAF's batted really well to counter that & succeeded - if Aussies don't come up with something new & make 2nd ball count, Proteus will end the day at 380/4 ..........
 
Haven't seen duminy this solid in years looks much more composed and vehement their
 
MMHS said:
Lyon averages 32 in AUS with 4 wickets/Test - that's actually better than Siddle. Why not drop Siddle & play Falkner or Max?
Click to expand...

Interesting!

Darren Lehmann is a completely different man from Mickey Arthur, but they actually share much of the same philosophy: pick 4 guys who bowl 140+K and a spinner, but three of them have to be able to bat.

That's why Darren Lehmann did discard Peter Siddle, and I'm not sure that he was all that delighted when he did so well on his comeback at The Oval in 2015.

It's also why Jackson Bird has been dropped.......for his batting.
 
Junaids said:
Interesting!

Darren Lehmann is a completely different man from Mickey Arthur, but they actually share much of the same philosophy: pick 4 guys who bowl 140+K and a spinner, but three of them have to be able to bat.

That's why Darren Lehmann did discard Peter Siddle, and I'm not sure that he was all that delighted when he did so well on his comeback at The Oval in 2015.

It's also why Jackson Bird has been dropped.......for his batting.
Click to expand...





Looks like that strategy is back firing, may be Siddlle will make that up in 4th innings with bat. Siddle was dropped because he wasn't justifying his spot as 3rd pacer - made a come back & now playing for his bowling.
 
aliasad1998 said:
Lyon finally brought on and first ball goes for 4
Click to expand...

He'll bowl well, though from wrong end - should have bowled into the wind. But, Aussies will take the 2nd ball immediately, therefore Lyon won't get the time to settle in to a rhythm. He should have been bowling after 1st hour.
 
Droping jp to lower order once AB returns is too harsh.....he looks like a diff player on no 4 slot
 
Looks like SA will win this one. This has come out of nowhere! Well done to them.
 
Saw 2 mins of today's game at the very start with SAF at 115.

Left home for a dinner, came back, refreshed and it was 215 exactly. Very satisfying.

Duminy looked all class yesterday though, his drives have a bit of zest in them.
 
Problem for South Africa is that they need to make this count and stretch the lead to 450+.

They are a bower short and you can never discount a Warner special in the 2nd innings. A quickfire 130 from him and a 400 target will become 270 in no time.
 
The more SAF "Quota" players make the team on merit, the better. So fer, all 6 in this match has justified their selection - OK, may be not Amla, but, I guess he has done enough to enjoy that little favor.
 
street cricketer said:
Problem for South Africa is that they need to make this count and stretch the lead to 450+.

They are a bower short and you can never discount a Warner special in the 2nd innings. A quickfire 130 from him and a 400 target will become 270 in no time.
Click to expand...

AUS won't chase 275 here, with Styen, I would have made that 225. Normally, day 3 is best batting day at WACA; by lunch tomorrow, those cracks will be 5cm wide .....
 
That's technically is not a drop. Would have been great, just before the new ball.
 
Duminy has played a gem :bow: Good from Elgar too, old fashioned attritional batting. Aus may have to get used to it with the Pakistani Plodders touring next :yk :azhar
 
Surprised at how toothless the Australian bowling is looking. I am revising my estimate of Pakistan's chances upwards.
 
After the 1st innings collapse, Australia took SA for granted. They just haven't hit their lengths for a sustained spell or in tandem, pretty much wasted the reversing ball. While SA's application has been near perfect. To dig in like that on foreign soil, high class batsmanship.
 
Remarkable from Duminy..Completely unexpected.

Elgar is anyways a gutsy player out there.
 
Australians had a problem with that ball. It was leaving Duminys bat too quickly
 
As an Indian I guess I should be happy at Australia losing as it removes the threat of Australia taking the #1 ranking from India. SA is so far back that it is no threat.
 
Pakistan might get really lucky this summer.

The Aussie batting already had huge question marks against it - only numbers 1 (Warner) and 4 (Smith) are secure in their positions.

But the bowling looks wafer thin with Cummins and Pattinson out.

Hazelwood is terrific, but Mitch Starc is clearly not fit, and goodness knows how much he is reopening the wound on his leg.
 
Aussie attack is probably a bit monotonous - apart from Starc, other 3 are similar type & Smith didn't use Lyon much. This can work if the batting side surrenders without fight, but today this pair has batted outstandingly. Also, hottest day of the match & Smith has over used his pacers without success - now they are paying the toll.
 
Australian test cricket is simply not dynamic enough. They have no idea how to bowl dry and create pressure or to bat patiently and tire out opposition sides . All glory or bust. No wonder they struggle in Asia .
 
I can't believe that Australia turned to spin for the 7th over with a new ball at the WACA.

I have to say, Australia are getting buried here. They now have a 0% chance of victory - they have to try to hold out for a draw, like Mark Greatbatch so famously did for NZ against them 26 years ago.

Rod Marsh and Mark Waugh have a major set of problems as selectors now. The attack is basically a half-fit Mitch Starc plus nothing and is reliant on dodgy behaviour to doctor the ball for reverse swing

And the batting looks thin too.

My comments eighteen months ago about New Zealand's Test team look stupider than ever now. It's becoming fairly clear that in the home and away series v Australia a year ago we saw a mediocre Australia beat a poor New Zealand team.
 
If SA had to declare it, they would play till lunch tomorrow and set a target of 500 + for Aus to win.
 
I've just seen a still photo of Mitch Starc's missed catch and it shows it in a whole new light.

You will remember that it was a swirling skier coming back down to earth.

The photo just published by "The Guardian" shows that he was trying to avoid diving (presumably so as not to worsen the open wound on his leg) but that in the end he did dive, awkwardly and half-heartedly.

It emphasises that Starc is nowehere near fit, and it raises the possibility that he might have reopened the wound - especially given that he only bowled 3 overs with the new ball.
 
Junaids said:
I can't believe that Australia turned to spin for the 7th over with a new ball at the WACA.

I have to say, Australia are getting buried here. They now have a 0% chance of victory - they have to try to hold out for a draw, like Mark Greatbatch so famously did for NZ against them 26 years ago.

Rod Marsh and Mark Waugh have a major set of problems as selectors now. The attack is basically a half-fit Mitch Starc plus nothing and is reliant on dodgy behaviour to doctor the ball for reverse swing

And the batting looks thin too.

My comments eighteen months ago about New Zealand's Test team look stupider than ever now. It's becoming fairly clear that in the home and away series v Australia a year ago we saw a mediocre Australia beat a poor New Zealand team.
Click to expand...

Smith is almost forced to bring Lyon. First, we have seen what pacers have done whole day - only chance of the day was created by the spinner. But, critical mistake was over bowling the pacers with old ball & now they are running out of steam in this heat against 2 set batsmen.

Against 2 lefties, from 2nd hour, Smith should have used Lyon from one end & rotate 4 pacers for short spells - then he could have gone for all-out attack for 20 overs with new ball.
 
Really loose drive by Duminy. Look at the angle of his bat and how far he reached for that shot.
 
Yup. No hotspot but big spike on snicko. Duminy gone after playing what is probably a match winning knock
 
MMHS said:
Smith is almost forced to bring Lyon. First, we have seen what pacers have done whole day - only chance of the day was created by the spinner. But, critical mistake was over bowling the pacers with old ball & now they are running out of steam in this heat against 2 set batsmen.

Against 2 lefties, from 2nd hour, Smith should have used Lyon from one end & rotate 4 pacers for short spells - then he could have gone for all-out attack for 20 overs with new ball.
Click to expand...

Yep, I agree with every word!
 
Junaids said:
I've just seen a still photo of Mitch Starc's missed catch and it shows it in a whole new light.

You will remember that it was a swirling skier coming back down to earth.

The photo just published by "The Guardian" shows that he was trying to avoid diving (presumably so as not to worsen the open wound on his leg) but that in the end he did dive, awkwardly and half-heartedly.

It emphasises that Starc is nowehere near fit, and it raises the possibility that he might have reopened the wound - especially given that he only bowled 3 overs with the new ball.
Click to expand...

I thought, he missed the flight of the ball, then lost it in the sun - therefore didn't know which way to dive. At last moment when he saw the ball, forgot that he has an injury to protect. But, Guardian's Photo must has reveled something I didn't see in live telecast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cricket Warrior
Pakistan (242/7) defeat South Africa (239/9) by 3 wickets in a nail biting encounter to win the 1st ODI
18 19 20
Replies
2K
Views
29K
RizwanT20Champ
R
FearlessRoar
South Africa finish Day 1 at 82/3 after Pakistan posted 211 in the first innings of the first Test match
13 14 15
Replies
1K
Views
25K
topspin
topspin
Cricket Warrior
South Africa end Day 3 at 27/3 in their second innings, needing 148 to win the first Test against Pakistan
10 11 12
Replies
925
Views
18K
kron
K
Savak
Resume of the 90's team vs Resume of the 2003 team onwards
Replies
61
Views
2K
TheSultan
T
Cricket Warrior
Pakistan (329) defeat South Africa (248) by 81 runs to clinch the 3-match ODI series by an unassailable lead of 2-0
21 22 23
Replies
2K
Views
38K
SpiritOf1903
SpiritOf1903
Back
Top