1st Test: South Africa v Australia at Centurion Feb 12-16, 2014

[JJ]

If Haddin is likely to bat 6 anyway, surely Johnson at 7 is ok?

Think you lot might be up for a reality check here

 

[HevyDevy]

I agree we could be in for a reality check here. It depends on our top order.

They failed miserably in the Ashes. In all 5 Tests we were in trouble in the first innings, only to be saved by out middle/lower order and our bowlers. Can't afford that in Sth Africa.

I see the bowling units as being pretty damn close, but our top order could be the problem. If they manage to fire, will be a very interesting series.

 

[herbert henry1908]

If Haddin is likely to bat 6 anyway, surely Johnson at 7 is ok?

Think you lot might be up for a reality check here

That would be the idea behind playing Pattinson.


Obviously our weakness is the batting. Rather than bolstering it to counter SA bowling , include another bowler to play to out strength.

Pattinson , Johnson & Harris bowling in short spells could be very dangerous.



That said , South Africa are going to miss Kallis a lot.

Their bowlers have had a lot of pressure taken off them by having Kallis in the line up. His overs & wicket taking have allowed the bowlers at the other end to be able to steam in , in short spells.

Without him presumably their will be more work for them to do allowing us to see more overs from tired bowlers.

Although I'm not sure who's going to replace Kallis yet.

 

[herbert henry1908]

I agree we could be in for a reality check here. It depends on our top order.

They failed miserably in the Ashes. In all 5 Tests we were in trouble in the first innings, only to be saved by out middle/lower order and our bowlers. Can't afford that in Sth Africa.

I see the bowling units as being pretty damn close, but our top order could be the problem. If they manage to fire, will be a very interesting series.

I don't think our batting line up failed miserably.

The biggest problem is they never batted as a unit.

Our top 6 scored 9 centuries during the ashes , that's definitely not 'failing miserably'

 

[HevyDevy]

I don't think our batting line up failed miserably.

The biggest problem is they never batted as a unit.

Our top 6 scored 9 centuries during the ashes , that's definitely not 'failing miserably'

They were mostly second innings hundreds scored when the pressure was off. We certainly didn't see a lot from them early on in games.

 

[herbert henry1908]

They were mostly second innings hundreds scored when the pressure was off. We certainly didn't see a lot from them early on in games.

Still , saying they failed miserably is over the top. We get carried away with the hyperbole sometimes.

3 of the 9 were first innings.

1 of the other 6 was when we trailed after the first innings.


They could have done better , but after the mid year ashes there were some encouraging signs IMO.

 

[hineyrulz]

If 3 quicks can't do the job other there i fail to see how 4 and then Lyon will make a difference.

If they are worried about a quick breaking down Moises is probably their best option, damn shame about Faulkner being injured he would have been handy over there.

 

[HevyDevy]

Still , saying they failed miserably is over the top. We get carried away with the hyperbole sometimes.

3 of the 9 were first innings.

1 of the other 6 was when we trailed after the first innings.


They could have done better , but after the mid year ashes there were some encouraging signs IMO.

Actually, I just re-read my original post and it does sound like I said they failed miserably as a whole. I meant they failed miserably in their first innings performances - sorry for the confusion.

But my point stands, we can't afford to be 3 or 4/100 all the time.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Numbers game over 3 tests VS numbers game over 50 FC matches


Hmmm, I wonder what better reflects his ability?


Not to mention his only tests were on spinning dust bowls in India.

You're right. The average of 29 that includes the mighty tour of Scotland and Ireland is more of an accurate reflection.

 

[herbert henry1908]

You're right. The average of 29 that includes the mighty tour of Scotland and Ireland is more of an accurate reflection.

:lol:


The overwhelming amount of games are from the Sheffield shield.


You don't attain an average of 29 in FC cricket if you can just bowl "A bit"


But considering who I'm dealing with here I doubt you're capable of admitting you're wrong.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Actually, I just re-read my original post and it does sound like I said they failed miserably as a whole. I meant they failed miserably in their first innings performances - sorry for the confusion.

But my point stands, we can't afford to be 3 or 4/100 all the time.

No doubt.

I'm fascinated to see what the loss of kallis does to their bowling line up though.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

If he's such a great bowler why isn't he in contention for a spot then? :lol:

He bowls military medium and has no great movement of the ball. He might be "good" in the shield and county cricket but he's not going to be anything special in tests.

 

[herbert henry1908]

If 3 quicks can't do the job other there i fail to see how 4 and then Lyon will make a difference.

If they are worried about a quick breaking down Moises is probably their best option, damn shame about Faulkner being injured he would have been handy over there.

My thinking is that it allows Johnson, Harris & Pattinson to really charge in.

Normally I'd agree bit Johnson & Harris are so much better in short spells IMO.

 

[BunniesMan]

Replacing Watson with a bowling all rounder makes no sense, but it is what I expect the selectors to do.

Our strength is our bowlers. There were plenty of tests where Watson hardly bowls at all and we've managed to do a pretty good job of getting 20 wickets.

Our major weakness is a frail batting order. You do not improve that by replacing someone you consider worthy of batting number 3 with a bowling all rounder and going in with just 5 recognised bats.

I want the ins to be Doolan and Hughes, but even Doolan and Marsh is better than just one of them and a bowling all rounder.

The bottom line is if Johnson AND Harris AND Siddle fail to do damage on what looks to be a very green pitch, Henriques will not be a gamechanger.

 

[herbert henry1908]

If he's such a great bowler why isn't he in contention for a spot then? :lol:

He bowls military medium and has no great movement of the ball. He might be "good" in the shield and county cricket but he's not going to be anything special in tests.

I never said he was great.

He's good. Bowls an impeccable line & length.


But he's clearly more than a batsmen who just picks up the ball from time to time.

If he plays hes being asked to bowl 10 overs a day, quality line & length bowling with an old ball can be very valuable.

 

[herbert henry1908]

If henriques plays its not like we're going to be leaving some superstar batsmen on the sideline.

Both Hughes & Marsh are failed test batsmen and doolans a rookie who's FC average of 37.

At this stage they're all pretty ordinary options tbh.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Starc and Patto both bat better than Watto has in the past 12 months.

f**k, Starc nearly got a ton in India. Watto has one ton, smashed when the lead was assured and the Ashes almost secured in Perth. Starc and Patto do it with the ball and do more with the bat than Watto / Doolan / S Marsh combined.

 

[Twizzle]

Without Watson in our top order we may get off to better starts, keen to see what Doolan can do.

 

[TheParraboy]

Without Watson in our top order we may get off to better starts, keen to see what Doolan can do.

If Sunshines replacement can contribute more than 74 runs with the bat for the match and not be involved in a run out nor use up a DRS, then we have improved that position in the top 6 greatly

 

[Red Bear]

If Haddin is likely to bat 6 anyway, surely Johnson at 7 is ok?

Think you lot might be up for a reality check here

Our record in South Africa is pretty sensational though, hopefully we continue that trend

Love beating South Africa.