South Africa vs Australia 3rd Test

[battye]

Unfortunately because of rain in Sydney it is more than likely going to be a draw. Symonds didn't do much with the bat in the first innings (made 12 from memory).

In my opinion, Clarke should replace Symonds. Symonds doesn't cut it at test level. Sure he had one good game, but he has to be consistent.

Also, when it comes to allrounders, Watson is more promising.

Went off track a bit there.. but really, there isn't much else to talk about, because as I said, it is more than likely going to be a draw (I mean, unless we got 4 or 5 quick wickets and bowled them out before they get to 150 )

[Tigers_eye]

yes, looks like a tame draw because of the rain.

Symond should get another shot. His quick fire enabled Australia to have an impossible score for SA with lots of time left. The only test Aus won.

[sadi]

yeah this time he got only one innings... watson is not ready to play test cricket as he is injured... so they got time....

[Tigers_eye]

With Hodge and Hussay coming along fine Aus can afford to test new players. Ultimately, I believe Hussay will open and clark will get his place back.

For this test, even if SA gets bundled out (which they shouldn't) in 150/160, plus the 90 run lead that would put Australia in playing for a draw in say 50 overs.

[sadi]

I dun see any other result but draw for this test. However, I don't think Hussay should open. He is so good with the lower order, Australia will be better off with him batting at number 5/6. I guess Clark have to fight it out with Hodge.

[Spitfire_x86]

Originally posted by battye
In my opinion, Clarke should replace Symonds. Symonds doesn't cut it at test level. Sure he had one good game, but he has to be consistent.

Yeah, I don't think Symonds will be able to retain his place in the long run. His performance in the last test kinda reminds me of Michael Bevan's 10 wicket + 85* against WI in 1996 Adelaide test.

[cricman]

Australia has got it in another gear now and it looks like their going to win. So it leads to this question, If SA loses

Has a team ever lost a match when they declared in both their innings?

[Zunaid]

Looks like Ponting and Haydn will bring it home.

[Navarene]

I just wonder why Smith needed to declare their second innings too early even with 4 wickets in hand. A target of odd 280 runs in circa 70 overs is very much achievable for a world class team like Aussies, doesn't the proty kaptan know that? What should we call it now? Over zealous? Smart as§? This is a worst decision taken by a captain from a team like S. Africa

[James90]

Good captaincy for mine. He was aggressive with a competitive sporting declaration. 280 in 70 overs is certainly not easy and it gave his bowlers the best possible chance to pull of a victory. The way Hayden and Ponting batted I doubt they could have taken the wickets in two days.

A draw was useless for South Africa. Australia would still win the series 1-0 so he needed to do everything possible to try and win to draw the series 1-1. If they were to go down 2-0 then so be it but Smith did the right thing in my opinion.

It's not his fault the bowlers couldn't take the wickets. You say he declared too early? They would have been better off setting Australia 340 in 50 overs and watch them stroll to a draw? Of course not. Good captaincy by Smith, poor bowling by the Saffies.

[Banglatiger84]

Originally posted by Navarene
I just wonder why Smith needed to declare their second innings too early even with 4 wickets in hand. A target of odd 280 runs in circa 70 overs is very much achievable for a world class team like Aussies, doesn't the proty kaptan know that? What should we call it now? Over zealous? Smart as§? This is a worst decision taken by a captain from a team like S. Africa

Australia won the match, but South Africa won the respect of cricket-enthusiasts

[Tigers_eye]

In the history, it will go down as 2-0. Noone will remember that it is actually a 1-0 series. But I guess in the ranking the SA will not lose that many points from having a 1-0 or 2-0 since Aus are the #1 team. It only hurts India, England who are trying to catch Aus.

[sadi]

I like what Smith did. He wanted to make a match out of it and too bad, Ponting is in such a good form. He wanted to give his bowlers as many overs as possible to get these aussies out but they failed miserably.

[Fazal]

It may be a brave decision but it’s a stupid one. He tried to make something out of nothing, and end up with basically nothing. In desperate time people makes desperate decisions, and most of the cases it back fires as it did in this case.

Backkoler Maitta Koliza Dangor Hoe





Edited on, January 6, 2006, 3:31 PM GMT, by Fazal.
Reason: typo

[pagol-chagol]

Kallis batted too slowly in the second innings aftere the openners collapsed early. Kallis and Pollock really openned up in the last 33 balls and scored about 45 runs. They should have continued a little while longer. Smith, I guess, had a lot of confidence in his bowlers + he wanted to make the Australian batsmen open up to get their wickets. If there was no chance of winning the Aussies would just play ultra defensively (like Nafees Iqbal against Zimbabuwe)

[sadi]

Well first of all, you have to give them a total they think they can go after and win. Unless you give them enough overs to get the runs, they will probably won't go for it and SA loses the chance to even the series. Thats why I think it was a good move. However, his bowlers couldn't back up his decision and thats where he lost the game.

Kallis is always slow and that doesn't help SA. He scores run consistently but puts a lot of pressure on his team as he eats up a lot of balls. Thats what happened here too. They should have really gone after the aussie bowling from the beginning for the day but they didn't do it. Check this out. This article talks about how slowly Kallis bats. Enjoy.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/colu...ry/231837.html

[Fazal]

1st Innings: SA 451/9 Decl (in 154.4 overs) RR= 2.9
2nd Innings: AUS 359/10 (in 95.1 overs) RR = 3.7
3rd Innings: SA 194/6 (in 42 overs) RR = 4.6
4rd Innings: AUS required 287 in 70 overs at RR=4

That raises some good question, whether that gamble was taken by desperation without much thought or it was a well planned gamble. I would say out of desperation. Why?


First two innings by both team scores 810 runs for 19 wickets. For the 3rd Innings SA lost 6 winckets but only to accelerate the run rate, they lost last three wickets. What makes SA think that in this pitch they can bowl out AUS within 70 overs and 286 runs at a RR of 4 ? Its not that AUS really need to win this match.. Now if you throw a bone, definitely they would try to grab it, and that’s what they did. But if Aus loose 2/3 wickets quickly, they would definitely go to defensive mode, still could survive 60+ overs.

This was just the 2nd match, and the series was still alive with ASU up by 1-0. And due to loss for rain, the game was a DRAW anyway before Smith give away the game. If needed, they could gamble in the 3rd TEST.

Moreover they were not agrresive from the begining, see their RR in 1st innings despite making 451/9. Plus their slow start in second Innings. This was not well planned, just a act out of desperation.

Now what happened? As far as series is concern, its all over.


You can pat in the back of Smith all you want, but the bottom line plain stupidly.


If the target was 320 in 65 overs, then I can understand that, but 287 in 70 overs in this pitch? In way



Edited on, January 6, 2006, 6:22 PM GMT, by Fazal.

[pagol-chagol]

Originally posted by Fazal

If the target was 320 in 65 overs, then I can understand that, but 287 in 70 overs in this pitch? In way

Edited on, January 6, 2006, 6:22 PM GMT, by Fazal.

320 runs in 65 overs. The way Aussies were going despite a 5th day pitch, they would have scored another 32 runs in 27 balls easily. They had 8 wickets left.

[sadi]

Definately they didn't look all that desperate till the moment they declared their second innings and this is where they lost the match and the series I guess. However, 280 runs in 70 overs is not as easy as it sounds specially in a 5th day of a test match. Ofcourse Australia came up with a really good reply and deserved the win.

Edited on, January 6, 2006, 7:12 PM GMT, by sadi.

[billah]

Is that the ugliest trophy ever or what?

[pagol-chagol]

Originally posted by billah
Is that the ugliest trophy ever or what?

:P

It looks like a combination of upside down "Ektara" musical instrument / a Wasa Water Tank / a Jelly Fish.

Whoever designed this has a certain sexual disease.

[James90]

Originally posted by Fazal
This was just the 2nd match, and the series was still alive with ASU up by 1-0. And due to loss for rain, the game was a DRAW anyway before Smith give away the game. If needed, they could gamble in the 3rd TEST.

This was the third test. I liked Smith's move. He gave Australia plenty of runs to score in a relatively short amount of time but enough time that Australia had a shot at winnings it and if they did go for it then South Africa would have their only chance of winning the series.

I don't think he could have made a better declaration. What ruined it was Kallis batting in his bubble and the bowlers not performing as he trusted they could. All credit to Ponting though, I put that innings up with his 100 at Headingley in 1997, his 257 in Melbourne in 2003 and his 156 at Old Trafford in 2005.

The amount of people who think Smith should have declared "later" just shows how little cricket knowledge some people have. Losing the series 1-0 would have been no good for them, they might aswell have done everything to get it 1-1 and if that means that the series ended up 2-0 then so be it. A series defeat is a series defeat regardless of the scoreboard.

By declaring later Smith would have thrown away any chance South Africa had at tieing the series and I for one think he's one of the best captains going around.

[Fazal]

Originally posted by James90

This was the third test.

Thanks for the correction. As I was not closely following the whole series, for some reason I thought its the 2nd TEST and there is one more left. Now it makes sense why he took the risk.

Still it doesn't explain why they were not agressive in 1st innings with 451/9 and RR =2.9, plus their questionable strategy for 2nd Innings.

[James90]

Originally posted by Fazal
Still it doesn't explain why they were not agressive in 1st innings with 451/9 and RR =2.9, plus their questionable strategy for 2nd Innings.

Blame it on Kallis' bubble.

Five Futile Declarations