A perfect example of Boycott's suggestion always to 'add a couple of wickets to the score' to decide whether it's good or not. Here we had eight of them going in four 'pairs'.
Have just been reading up on pitch speed and bounce. The WACA in Perth, where this match is taking place, is reckoned to be the fastest in the world, with big bounce.
The batters have to get used to playing off their back foot and possibly with the ball coming up high at them. As The Roar says "As the bounce on these pitches is good, batsman can play expecting the bounce and generally there will never be uneven bounce. So it may be difficult for a batsman to start the innings but once the batsman gets set, then he can start timing the ball well."
That certainly seems to be reflected in the fall of the wickets. But right now the SA partnership of Duminy and Elgar are looking good, and the score is 94/2. If they can stay in for the rest of the day then SA will be in the stronger position.
And that wraps up day two, with SA on 104/2 and Australia having thrown away the opportunity to put themselves in a very commanding position. Wonder which way day three will go?
Steyn went off injured almost immediately after getting Warner out. And Amla is out already, and AB de Villiers isn't playing. Unless between Faf du Plessis, Temba Bavuma and the increasingly impressive Quinton de Kock, SA can run up a decent total, I reckon Australia still has better odds.
Good show from debutant spin-bowler Keshav Maharaj, who took three wickets.
Yes, a lead of 336 with six wickets and two days remaining is promising. Though if Australia mows down the last six wickets in a session and a half, there might still be a game to be had.
But even then, the highest-ever fourth innings total at the WACA is SA 414/4 in 2008, and before that 381/7 for Australia against New Zealand in 2001. The WACA isn't the place to chase.
HP, re: using different wickets. Yes it can make one boundary shorter than the other (and test matches will tend to use the most central wickets) but that can be mitigated by moving the boundary ropes. The pitch doesn't go right up to the stands so you can shift the ropes out or in to balance the amont of playing space.
So, Steyn is out for six months and will probably have to have surgery after fracturing the same shoulder he broke previously. He admitted that he rushed his recovery, which I guess is understandable with a tour of Australia and only a few wickets needed to overtake Shaun Pollock. Sad to see a great bowler in decline though.
ISA have enough runs in the pocket to attack the Australians, and the openers are gone. But it will take something special from the three specialist bowlers to get the other eight wickets.
Maybe a few more run-outs like Bavuma's extraordinary dismissal of Warner will help.
85 all out, and Smith the only player to make it past 10. Is this Australia team really that bad? The names on the teamsheet aren't intimidating like Oz teams in the past, but they don't look that terrible.
San Bernardhinault wrote: What on earth is happening in Hobart?
Australia 40 odd for 6 at lunch? One of which was a run out? And Philander off the field after a weird shoulder-barge incident?
I like this post. I imagine it as spoken by a Calfornian Valley Girl who has somehow got interested in test cricket. You can't beat a high-rising terminal.
Plus Aus 85 all-out is great anyway. And SA 42-0 at tea?
Just been watching the wickets. What was Warner doing flailing at a wide one in the first over? Why have Australia picked Callum Ferguson for a debut when he turns 32 next week? Can they continue this muddled thinking for another year?
Meanwhile, England's women have qualified for next year's World Cup.
Nine months ago we were wondering how badly South Africa were in decline, and maybe in batting they still are (and they lack a spinner) but you'd fancy them to do both Australia and England with these bowlers. Had Philander been fit at home v England, who knows?
There's not much to choose between the Top 5 at present; it's more about who's fully fit and on form. Australia are a joke if they can't get to 100 every time the ball swings around or the pitch has some juice, not to mention their woes in Asia. India are a dubious No. 1 given how they fared in England and seem to rely on spinning tracks at home (Pakistan are arguably a more balanced side than India, albeit an ageing side in batting).
San Bernardhinault wrote: 85 all out, and Smith the only player to make it past 10. Is this Australia team really that bad? The names on the teamsheet aren't intimidating like Oz teams in the past, but they don't look that terrible.
Some Australian, possibly Tom Moody, pointed out that on the provincial circuit there's no uncapped player with a first-class average above 40. The cupboard really seems to be bare, until a new generation comes through.
Australia 40 odd for 6 at lunch? One of which was a run out? And Philander off the field after a weird shoulder-barge incident?
I like this post. I imagine it as spoken by a Calfornian Valley Girl who has somehow got interested in test cricket. You can't beat a high-rising terminal.
I hadn't even realised I was doing it.
But now I think I'll read all commentary on Australian cricket on Cricinfo in Valley Girl Accent.
Half an hour later of a supposed desperate Australian rearguard and they've lost another 3. They seem to have the mental strength of a late-80s England team.
Chin up, Australia! It must be truly dreadful for your fans to witness such a series of losses. But I'm sure you'll be on the up again before too many years have passed. The whole cricket world needs an Australian team who can compete at Test level and we patiently await that day coming around once again, whenever it may be .
Comment