3rd Test: South Africa v Australia at Cape Town Mar 1-5, 2014

[Hutty1986]

We'll get brutalised again if we serve up the utter shit we did in the 2nd test. Its pretty obvious we can compete with these wankers but we need to be at our best

 

[hineyrulz]

Clarke in this line up should be batting 4 no question, it's not like we have Ponting and Hussey coming on ahead of him. Smith was also doing a fantastic job at 5.

 

[shiznit]

It's been an interesting series... It's a shame that the South Africans don't seem to get the crowds like the Aussies and Poms to test cricket...

It's a great series.

I don't mind who wins either way... But I hope it's a good final test.

 

[Twizzle]

I'm OK with Clarkie at 4 if we have a good enough no 3 but right now we dont. Moving him to 5 to me is showing a weakness, its like we are trying to protect him.

As skipper he should be leading from the front not taking the easy route, dont like it one bit.

 

[shiznit]

I always thought he batted lower down the order because he was the best player of spin in the side.

My assumption could be wrong but I always assumed that you put your best player of spin batted at 5-6.

 

[JJ]

1. twizzle agrees with me
2. shiznit. I disagree, but regardless not important against RSA anyway, they don't have a spinner...

What makes it worse is he's captain, could you imagine Crowe, Border (he went up to 4 when they were weak), Chappell (either one), and anyone tbh dropping themselves down the order against the world's #1 team?? People say Lehmann is coach, but if Clarke said f**k this I am batting 4, what will happen - how on earth anyone could think a 3-4 combination of any of Marsh, Doolan, Watson or Hughes is better than one with Clarke in it is beyond me... I said it before and after the 1st test, IMO it's piss weak, and it'll remain piss weak regardless of how the 3rd test goes...

He batted 4 against England, that went ok...

 

[Red Bear]

but as he says everyone does it, so what is the point exactly, and why does it become relevant when the Aussies get skittled?

South Africa have recent history of all tampering though, so who knows

We probably just got skittled.

We're more than capable of beating them again though. Harris and Siddle both seem down on pace/performance this tour, so that's a concern, Watson might help there.

We shouldn't panic though after one test loss.

 

[JJ]

South Africa have recent history of all tampering though, so who knows

We probably just got skittled.

We're more than capable of beating them again though. Harris and Siddle both seem down on pace/performance this tour, so that's a concern, Watson might help there.

We shouldn't panic though after one test loss.

I agree on the not panic, you've won 6 of your last 7, impressive stuff...

But, RSA are a fine team, their performance in the first test was an aberration. Harris and Siddle aren't at their best, but I think they're important so changes there are unlikely.

As above, I just don't see the sense of waiting until 5, 6 and 7 to have your best players in... some have suggested Clarke at 3 and Smith at 4, I am not in favour of that, but definitely 4 and 5, the Jaapies won't keep dropping Warner's chances, Rogers played well in the last test but isn't really a threat, and the stars might align for Marsh or Watson, but realistically that's unlikely - which adds to a fair chance you're 3 for bugger all too frequently...

 

[Hutty1986]

Rogers...3 tons in 4 tests, 20,000+ FC runs, can handle any conditions...but hes not a threat?

 

[shiznit]

1. twizzle agrees with me
2. shiznit. I disagree, but regardless not important against RSA anyway, they don't have a spinner...

What makes it worse is he's captain, could you imagine Crowe, Border (he went up to 4 when they were weak), Chappell (either one), and anyone tbh dropping themselves down the order against the world's #1 team?? People say Lehmann is coach, but if Clarke said f**k this I am batting 4, what will happen - how on earth anyone could think a 3-4 combination of any of Marsh, Doolan, Watson or Hughes is better than one with Clarke in it is beyond me... I said it before and after the 1st test, IMO it's piss weak, and it'll remain piss weak regardless of how the 3rd test goes...

He batted 4 against England, that went ok...

It can go both ways though... If you have a young developing top order... pushing Clarke back up the order could been seen as a lack of confidence in them.

I understand the sentiment though... As a leader you would think if they were struggling he would put his hand up to take control of the issue.

But sometimes the toughest decision is to stay in your best position... and have confidence in your youngsters to do the job they were selected to do.

They have come up with a game plan... While some may see it somewhat as cowardly staying down the order... Others would say that it takes real courage to stay true to your plan knowing full well that if they fail the pressure will fall on him.

 

[JJ]

Rogers...3 tons in 4 tests, 20,000+ FC runs, can handle any conditions...but hes not a threat?

He's solid, but obviously just a fill in given his age... obviously you disagree with that, and probably my general point

 

[JJ]

It can go both ways though... If you have a young developing top order... pushing Clarke back up the order could been seen as a lack of confidence in them.

I understand the sentiment though... As a leader you would think if they were struggling he would put his hand up to take control of the issue.

But sometimes the toughest decision is to stay in your best position... and have confidence in your youngsters to do the job they were selected to do.

They have come up with a game plan... While some may see it somewhat as cowardly staying down the order... Others would say that it takes real courage to stay true to your plan knowing full well that if they fail the pressure will fall on him.

Surely if there was a young developing player, he'd be better blooded at 6 (Ponting was at 5 or 6 from recall, against Sri Lanka too, not this lot)

But none of Marsh, Doolan (as I have learned) nor Watson are developing players - they're all journeymen - - the class of the lineup is Clarke, Smith and Haddin - Haddin's fine at 7, but the other two should be up one imo

I just don't understand it on any level - a player with a very good test record, the captain, more than 20 test centuries, top 10 in ICC rankings and he shuffles down the order to accommodate Marsh, Doolan and Watson??? Seriously??? Even if they normally bat 3, so the f**k what - Hussey normally opened, did a fair job at 5-6... Langer and Katich were normally middle order players, did a fair job opening... (still think if you have a mid 30's opener, it should be the Kat)

 

[Hutty1986]

He's solid, but obviously just a fill in given his age... obviously you disagree with that, and probably my general point

No, just curious, thats all. Fair call.

 

[Red Bear]

I agree on the not panic, you've won 6 of your last 7, impressive stuff...

But, RSA are a fine team, their performance in the first test was an aberration. Harris and Siddle aren't at their best, but I think they're important so changes there are unlikely.

As above, I just don't see the sense of waiting until 5, 6 and 7 to have your best players in... some have suggested Clarke at 3 and Smith at 4, I am not in favour of that, but definitely 4 and 5, the Jaapies won't keep dropping Warner's chances, Rogers played well in the last test but isn't really a threat, and the stars might align for Marsh or Watson, but realistically that's unlikely - which adds to a fair chance you're 3 for bugger all too frequently...

I thought Clarke at 4 and Smith at 5 was a solid long term option, f**king around with that to jam both doolan and Marsh in was a mistake, and hopefully it's Doolan-Clarke-Smith-Watson this upcoming test match.

Clarkes suffering his first real patch of poor form since becoming captain though, be interesting how he goes this test

 

[Twizzle]

Clarkie is a good player of spin but gee even openers have to face spin if they are gonna make a big score.

I dont think that was ever a factor tbh.

 

[shiznit]

Clarkie is a good player of spin but gee even openers have to face spin if they are gonna make a big score.

I dont think that was ever a factor tbh.

Yeah that was just a general assumption I've always had...

 

[BunniesMan]

I'm OK with Clarkie at 4 if we have a good enough no 3 but right now we dont. Moving him to 5 to me is showing a weakness, its like we are trying to protect him.

As skipper he should be leading from the front not taking the easy route, dont like it one bit.

I agree with every single word of this.

 

[herbert henry1908]

As maligned as Watson is, having his bowling for the 3rd test is invaluable.

We can't bowl them out for a reasonably low score with 4 bowlers if they produce another one of those decks.


Stick with doolan at 3, Watson at 6 and I'd consider Bird for siddle or pattinson for Harris just to mix things up. I realise you wouldn't ordinarily bring in a new bowler for a decider but some fresh legs could be of big benefit. Especially as south Africa will try for the draw IMO.

 

[herbert henry1908]

For mine marsh simply can't play this match.

The bloke is simply a mental midget. Cracks under the slightest bit of pressure.


I couldnt give two stuffs if he scored a ton only one match ago. He's proved time and time again he can't play the mental game.

 

[Twizzle]

or the physical game