South Africa v Australia at Port Elizabeth: 2nd Test

First topic message reminder :

Can South Africa fight back? Must say I was surprised just how easily Australia won that 1st Test. I reckoned they would be a handful for SA but not that Aus would win about as comprehensively as they did against England.
OK, SA are now Kallis-less and there have been question marks about health/fitness of their fast bowlers. But they are at home and they are, for the time being, the number one side in the world.
AB looked great in that first Test but hardly anyone else did. They are going to have to find a way to deal with Mitchell J. Taking evasive action and then getting out just doesn't cut it (or hook it!). What was unfamiliar, and just a tad shocking, was how SA's fielding disintegrated in that Aus second innings. That's another area they are going to have to improve on.
SA teams far inferior to this present one always had plenty of fight and constantly played above themselves. It's time for the current lot to step up. This could easily be 3-0 to the Australians if SA get off on the wrong foot in Port Elizabeth.

chicken and egg situation. Countries with good test attendances complain about global crowds, and the best solution is to play less test? Can't say test crickets death wasn't a group effort

On to the match itself - Australia were outclassed. But I'm not sure they can be too disappointed with themselves. They were victims of a freak session. I can't think of one of them who gave their wicket away.
Warner got done in by the slider, coming in at 90kph.
Doolan - got worked over, and was lucky to last 43 balls in the first place.
Marsh - Okay he gets a lot of ducks, which opens him up for criticism, but he got done in by a straightening ball.
Clarke - if cricketers were robots, then he'd have left it alone, but they aren't, and when a bowler is reversing it five stumps like Steyn (Starts at the "fifth stump - goes past leg), at 90mph - then leaving a ball on line isn't brave, it's stupid. Sure it ended a meter away from his stumps - but due to the circumstances he had to play it.
Smith - he got a filthy ball first up, no chance.
Haddin - Carbon copy - but you can't really blame him - The ball that got Clarke started on a similar length, moved about half ametre away. The one that got Smith started similar, woulda took leg - he has to make a guess essentially - and guessed wrong.
The rest are quite self explanatory... except Rogers - I'm not sure what he was thinking, but I suspect he thought Steyn was on next over, and thought Siddle was more than capable of seeing off Duminy, so he took a run at the first opportunity.

When Dale Steyn is in that kind of mood with the ball reversing, there is not a lot you can do as a batsman other than hope.

Only saw a few highlights of what turned out to be the last day but thought Steyn looked absolutely devastating.

Credit as well to Duminy and Elgar for not giving much away and picking up a couple of wickets. With Parnell injured, Smith could have been in a pickle if their combined first 4 overs had produced a return of 0/30.

PS Anyone know if it rained all day today?

It certainly didn't rain all day. Cricinfo had reported that Shane Watson and a few other Australians had trained on the ground as the expected rain didn't materialize.

Warner getting nonsensical yet again.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-australia-2013-14/content/story/722643.html

msp83 wrote:Warner getting nonsensical yet again.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-australia-2013-14/content/story/722643.html

why is it non sense?

Actually Aus are using him to point finger at some of the methods used by SA...and implying there was unfair assistance towards the reverse they got

they didn't use bottle top or dirt in the pocket to get the ball reversing. The Australians should accept that Steyn and co were better at generating reverse and that their batsmen were not up to dealing with it.

KP_fan wrote:

msp83 wrote:Warner getting nonsensical yet again.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-australia-2013-14/content/story/722643.html

why is it non sense?

Actually Aus are using him to point finger at some of the methods used by SA...and implying there was unfair assistance towards the reverse they got

Sigh ...same old. They tried this on England as well. Its one thing I really dont admire about the Australians.

I must say I find this quite poor. I watched most of the test and didn't notice anything different to how we handled the ball that they did.

I also think this type of accusation needs proof, if there is proof great then address it, but if the umpires are now going to warn us every time we drop the ball, or put a bit of sweat to the ball, or rub it on our thighs then it becomes pathetic.

Using the media as a media for mind games is one thing, but suggesting a team is cheating needs investigation and proof.

Biltong wrote:I must say I find this quite poor. I watched most of the test and didn't notice anything different to how we handled the ball that they did.

I also think this type of accusation needs proof, if there is proof great then address it, but if the umpires are now going to warn us every time we drop the ball, or put a bit of sweat to the ball, or rub it on our thighs then it becomes pathetic.

Using the media as a media for mind games is one thing, but suggesting a team is cheating needs investigation and proof.

actually accusations do not need proof.....only punitive actions do....

the beauty of the Aussie approach is they send their guy with the image of being " Dim-Witted" to make insinuatory comments.....if it back fires...they will hide behind the "track record of stupid statements from this guy"

They do attempt every trick to turn even an inch of advantage for their team.......they drive the cut throat competitive spirit to the limit......

remember it was the same dim-wit image guy who made ( or was sent to make) the comment " Trott looks scared" just before he broke down

Nonstory - old Nine Lives is obviously looking for an advantage, it won't really affect the boys, who have bigger issues to focus on. Rather pathetic, but I don't expect any better.

All the junk accusing KP of using stickers on his bat to beat hotspot to cover up for their own failings was exactly the same.
At least Warner has the guts to do his own dirty work rather than hiding behind Warne or Piers Morgan like most of the Aussie cowards. Whats really sad is that much of the public is boorish enough to lap this stuff up and take it as fact.
The nonsense with Broad was equally as unpleasant.

kingraf wrote:Rather pathetic, but I don't expect any better.

True.

KP_fan wrote:

Biltong wrote:I must say I find this quite poor. I watched most of the test and didn't notice anything different to how we handled the ball that they did.

I also think this type of accusation needs proof, if there is proof great then address it, but if the umpires are now going to warn us every time we drop the ball, or put a bit of sweat to the ball, or rub it on our thighs then it becomes pathetic.

Using the media as a media for mind games is one thing, but suggesting a team is cheating needs investigation and proof.

actually accusations do not need proof.....only punitive actions do....

the beauty of the Aussie approach is they send their guy with the image of being " Dim-Witted" to make insinuatory comments.....if it back fires...they will hide behind the "track record of stupid statements from this guy"

They do attempt every trick to turn even an inch of advantage for their team.......they drive the cut throat competitive spirit to the limit......

remember it was the same dim-wit image guy who made ( or was sent to make) the comment " Trott looks scared" just before he broke down

this is not a court of law mate, my point stands. The accusations brought out without being diplomatic about it, or providing proof to the match referee is for one purpose only, stir $h1t.

Biltong wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Biltong wrote:I must say I find this quite poor. I watched most of the test and didn't notice anything different to how we handled the ball that they did.

I also think this type of accusation needs proof, if there is proof great then address it, but if the umpires are now going to warn us every time we drop the ball, or put a bit of sweat to the ball, or rub it on our thighs then it becomes pathetic.

Using the media as a media for mind games is one thing, but suggesting a team is cheating needs investigation and proof.

actually accusations do not need proof.....only punitive actions do....

the beauty of the Aussie approach is they send their guy with the image of being " Dim-Witted" to make insinuatory comments.....if it back fires...they will hide behind the "track record of stupid statements from this guy"

They do attempt every trick to turn even an inch of advantage for their team.......they drive the cut throat competitive spirit to the limit......

remember it was the same dim-wit image guy who made ( or was sent to make) the comment " Trott looks scared" just before he broke down

this is not a court of law mate, my point stands. The accusations brought out without being diplomatic about it, or providing proof to the match referee is for one purpose only, stir $h1t.

"stirring the sh1t" as you call it...doesn't harm the team doing the stirring but may hurt the opponents it is directed against........as Warne/ Warner / Clarke/ Boof teamed up and had visible effect on Cook, Trrott, Flower etal.....got under their skin and into their mind.

whether Proteas are as weak and as gullible, we will see....but this certainly doesn't hurt the team stirring the pot

KP_fan wrote:

Biltong wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Biltong wrote:I must say I find this quite poor. I watched most of the test and didn't notice anything different to how we handled the ball that they did.

I also think this type of accusation needs proof, if there is proof great then address it, but if the umpires are now going to warn us every time we drop the ball, or put a bit of sweat to the ball, or rub it on our thighs then it becomes pathetic.

Using the media as a media for mind games is one thing, but suggesting a team is cheating needs investigation and proof.

actually accusations do not need proof.....only punitive actions do....

the beauty of the Aussie approach is they send their guy with the image of being " Dim-Witted" to make insinuatory comments.....if it back fires...they will hide behind the "track record of stupid statements from this guy"

They do attempt every trick to turn even an inch of advantage for their team.......they drive the cut throat competitive spirit to the limit......

remember it was the same dim-wit image guy who made ( or was sent to make) the comment " Trott looks scared" just before he broke down

this is not a court of law mate, my point stands. The accusations brought out without being diplomatic about it, or providing proof to the match referee is for one purpose only, stir $h1t.

"stirring the sh1t" as you call it...doesn't harm the team doing the stirring but may hurt the opponents it is directed against........as Warne/ Warner / Clarke/ Boof teamed up and had visible effect on Cook, Trrott, Flower etal.....got under their skin and into their mind.

whether Proteas are as weak and as gullible, we will see....but this certainly doesn't hurt the team stirring the pot

Exactly, it is an attempt to hurt the other team in the manner in which umpires monitor them on the pitch, perhaps we should have someone in the SA team suggest Lyon is chucking certain deliveries and also Johnson, like you say, it doesn't mean much, but just maybe it puts some doubt in the umpires minds, eh?

You can say its effective but is it decent behaviour?
Ive found lying about about my realationship status improves my chances of getting laid, but it doenst make it something thats deemed acceptable by the majority of people.

Chucking accusations of cheating, and claiming the opposition only one because of it is cheap just to upset them is unsporting at best.
Are Australia that scared of the opposition that they dont dare play them in a straight sporting contest but instead have to rely on trying to put them off and causing genuine distress for people?

Its not good for the sport

It's difficult for me to properly critique Warner on this comment since, as many of you remember, I defended Warner during the Trott-gate. So I'm loathe to be overly critical as what's good for Tue goose is good for the gander. The difference here I suppose, is that he isn't just making a dim-witted comment, which is a poor (in taste) attempt at Gamesmanship, he's openly accusing fellow professionals of cheating, and not in the Stuart Broad way - openly blatantly cheating... Is it morally acceptable to draw the line here?

I doubt twill have an effect on the proteas, to be blunt. Clarke accused us of tailoring our pitches in the second test already, a ridiculous charge, if ever there was one, but we responded just fine.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:You can say its effective but is it decent behaviour?

is sledging ( which means abusing, threatening or making "dirty comments" the cricketer and his family) decent behavior?
From a moral standpoint....stirring the pot/ insinuating...on air / in media falls in the same moral bucket as sledging

kingraf wrote:I doubt twill have an effect on the proteas, to be blunt. Clarke accused us of tailoring our pitches in the second test already, a ridiculous charge, if ever there was one, but we responded just fine.

I hope you are correct....thouhg bear in mind...most cricketer are not rational analysts.....they are like performing artists.....temperamental & emotional...and do fall prey to mind games.

To me this adds spice and would be interesting to see how SA will respond.

Graeme Smith had already called out the Australians as big talkers. Don't think Captain Colossal's boys will be too bothered.

All I can say is this.

When we were thumped we didn't say too much, we didn't blames the pitch or ball, we didn't accuse anyone of cheating or attempting to cheat.

Smith was a bit opinionated about why Johnson were so successful, but other than that we kept our opinions to ourselves

KP_fan wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:You can say its effective but is it decent behaviour?

is sledging ( which means abusing, threatening or making "dirty comments" the cricketer and his family)   decent behavior?
From a moral standpoint....stirring the pot/ insinuating...on air / in media falls in the same moral bucket as sledging

As with sledging theres a line. This sort of thing crosses it. (Making comments about a players family is not accepted on the field anymore and can be punished)
Play the game on the field rather than trying to mess with individuals reputations in the press.

David Warner is the ultimate sh!t talker. 

Looking forward to Steyn knocking his block off in Cape Town.

I hope you enjoyed watching the bad-tempered one sitting forlornly in the SA dressing room yesterday afternoon.

What happened to him? Did he trip over a sour grape just outside the boundary rope?
He'll have plenty of time to air-punch the carpets and lockers in the SA dressing room no doubt.
He's quite aggressive for a small guy... you'd have to give him that.

I must say Warner's innocent remark has been totally vindicated via video evidence of ABDV giving the ball a work over with his gloves. Not for the first time either. Great batsman but an awful cheat.

David, on the other hand, paid the fine like a man and then went on to make a glorious 135 runs yesterday. Well worth the miniscule match fine.

Then we saw our magnificent captain survive a hostile barrage from Morne - and come out way on top by the end of Day 1.
Imagine how Graeme Smith will cope with Mitch later on today when Australia has around 500 runs on the board! I'm staying up to watch.

If it were a South African on the receiving end from one of our boys... they would have retired hurt or be propped up in the hospital ward by now and talking of "unfair tactics or uneven contest" to the gathering media... or some other pathetic and feeble excuse by now.

Anyway, what is the moral of the story?

Warner's honest commentary has been rewarded with some good Karma and Australia being in prime position at the end of Day 1; Smith's poor remarks to the press (and generally clueless captaincy) has resulted in yet another form of bad Karma for your lads who now have that "scared look in their eyes" and face an uphill battle. Steyn will now be regretting his "I bowl better the more I bowl" remark too.

I have a feeling it may well be 50-21 in the next few days.

Choke... I mean chew on that reality for a while.

(sorry Biltong... not aimed at you. For Gerry's eye's only)

Find a clause in the ICC manual that prohibits a 'Keeper from handling the ball, then you can call him a cheat. How dare AB hold the ball with his hands while he has gloves on... you'd swear he's the wicketkeeper or something!!

It was the deliberate abrasive rubbing action which caught the players eyes. I think they were well within their rights to question it. At least the ICC now have the matter brought to their attention and we'll see how game he is to try it again with the cameras even more focused on him.

Like I said find a clause which limits the keeper from being involved with the maintenance of the ball - Otherwise we should all wonder why Clarke wasn't handed a suspension, for swearing at Anderson with the stump mike on....

Maybe because Anderson swore first at Bailey within earshot of the umpire and Clarke himself. Hence Clarke's reaction which I accept was not a good thing to say.

oh, so he started it? and Clarke had to finish it? because Bailey wasn't sure about how to handle himself

Have you seen Bailey talk in public? He's a pretty shy bloke. He was simply shocked when Anderson threatened him. So yes, he didn't know how to handle it. No shame in that. I'm glad in a way that Clarke stood up for him (that surprised me too) but like you suggest - he could have chosen the words more carefully.

I wonder how Australia got the ball to reverse yesterday?



"It's a kind of magic......"

Keep an eye on Haddin too... he's nothin' but a filthy cheatin' country bumpkin!  

To be fair Faf did cast aspersions about why the Aussies were so insistent that they got to field the ball and throw it to the keeper, the Aussies started this mud slinging but its going all around.
Makes a change from arguing over sweets

He clearly nicked the first ball yesterday but the dullard Aussies didn't think to review it so I wouldn't trust any of Faf's aspersions. He's a hopeless but lucky conman.

I takes it, you doern't likes him much LB?

Biltong wrote:I takes it, you doern't likes him much LB?

Only kidding mate. I love Faf... as much as you love Davy Warner