1st Test: South Africa v India at Johannesburg Dec 18-22, 2013

[TheParraboy]

They batted like they were 9 down with 50 to get from 3 overs

that's when you shut up shop totally

 

[TheParraboy]

The way Morkel and Tahir bat...it wouldn't have been out of the ordinary for them to go within 3 overs. Was smart to at least get in a situation where you can't lose. Take the draw, move on to Durban.

So whats the worst that happens they lose by 10-12 runs, they lose by 1-2 runs?
And the talk is how brave the chase was

Or do they bat normally, get their ones, go for broke in the last over - 10 balls, and win it, and go down in South African and cricket folklore for all time

Now the talk is how gutless they were after all the hard work was done, in 10 years time they will talk about these last 3 overs on par with the amount of runs scored in the 4th innings

 

[lockyno1]

It was one thing not to take outlandish risks 3 overs out. But what possibly reason was there to not take singles?

Why risk a run out...and Philander taking 90% of the strike is smart, he is the better bat!

 

[Iafeta]

Wow. The cricket uninitiated to the fore. If SA went for it, India would have put blokes on the fence and bowled wide on both sides. Australia did it to New Zealand in Brisbane about 10 years ago when it became obvious New Zealand were going to win.

 

[umina panther]

3 overs left. The peartheart Saffas could of done it in ones and twos with almost no risk

 

[vvvrulz]

Wow. The cricket uninitiated to the fore. If SA went for it, India would have put blokes on the fence and bowled wide on both sides. Australia did it to New Zealand in Brisbane about 10 years ago when it became obvious New Zealand were going to win.

I remember that run chase, it was much steeper than 16 off 18 balls and McGrath had the skill to bowl wide hard-to-hit deliveries. Most importantly Cairns, Macca and Parore were obviously after the runs and were not content with playing out the draw. They were willing to take risks to chase an unlikely win. All they could manage was hitting singles towards the end and they took every one of them.

That is completely different to this match, SA *refused* singles.

If Philander was the 'better bat' then why would Steyn also refuse them? They played out a maiden each.

I have yet to hear any logical argument from anybody as to why South Africa refused to take singles. Nor have I heard any good justification as to why 16 off 18 balls with three wickets in hand is too risky to chase.

 

[vvvrulz]

Why risk a run out...and Philander taking 90% of the strike is smart, he is the better bat!

How the f*ck is tapping the ball to deep long on a run-out risk.
They could stroll a single.

 

[Iafeta]

I remember that run chase, it was much steeper than 16 off 18 balls and McGrath had the skill to bowl wide hard-to-hit deliveries. Most importantly Cairns, Macca and Parore were obviously after the runs and were not content with playing out the draw. They were willing to take risks to chase an unlikely win. All they could manage was hitting singles towards the end and they took every one of them.

That is completely different to this match, SA *refused* singles.

If Philander was the 'better bat' then why would Steyn also refuse them? They played out a maiden each.

I have yet to hear any logical argument from anybody as to why South Africa refused to take singles. Nor have I heard any good justification as to why 16 off 18 balls with three wickets in hand is too risky to chase.

We both know it was no different. It had both teams middle and lower orders within striking distance. Australia had to enact the tactic. India would have done exactly the same. End result is with the same tactic you are no chance. From memory it happened also in an England Zimbabwe test in the late 90s.

 

[vvvrulz]

We both know it was no different. It had both teams middle and lower orders within striking distance. Australia had to enact the tactic. India would have done exactly the same. End result is with the same tactic you are no chance. From memory it happened also in an England Zimbabwe test in the late 90s.

Similar run chases but with key differences.

- The equation that day was harder than 16 off 18 balls.
- McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and Lee was the quality of the attack and they were able to stop NZ on their tracks. The Indian attack is nowhere this and would have struggled to stop 16 off 18 if SA hadn't given up.
- Cairns, Parore and McMillan took every run on offer and went at over a run a ball. Most importantly they didn't give up once.

The point you are missing here is that South Africa *gave up*. That's the single problem here. SA had a more gettable run chase than NZ against a weaker attack and they threw in the towel.

That decision is the problem. Nothing else.