3rd Test: Australia vs South Africa, Newlands, March 1-5

[MinerBoy]

Reading the article on Cricinfo reminded me of something I didn't actually consider whilst watching that spell - Clarke's back doesn't actually allow him to sway or play extravegent pull shots.

Yeah, certainly something that could affect the way he plays for sure.

 

[Sea fog]

Did the people saying we can't lose from here watch the second test?

Also doubt we can lose from here. The difference is that we have batted first, they're a bowler down and the pitch may not be as abrasive as PE anyway. Think once we lost the toss we were halfway there. Hard to remember a pitch as flat as this for a first day. And with part-timers on for a good slice of the day it really was a cash in time. Batsmen will rarely have it easier. Hats off to Warner though for setting it up. Surprised that they would prepare pitches that don't encourage any sideways movement as that it is our shortcoming.

 

[Sea fog]

Reading the article on Cricinfo reminded me of something I didn't actually consider whilst watching that spell - Clarke's back doesn't actually allow him to sway or play extravegent pull shots.

Yep deer in the headlights.

 

[Sea fog]

Yes but he really wasn't watching the ball well. When you are out of form you will often make bowling look better than it is. That at the body line would be tough to face. Clarke was superb even if he wasn't doing his best against Morkel.

Would be interesting to see Morkel bowling this way on a pitch which actually offered him something.

 

[happy punter]

Captain courageous, love it!!!

Another 250 runs please so we can set attacking fields for the rest of the game. If Smith and Clarke can continue to consolidate in the morning session I can see Watto and Haddin have a free license to go after the bowling and really pummel the Saffers attach without Steyn.

 

[happy punter]

Went to bed a tea and woke up very happy. Some innings from the skipper. He really did look all at sea but battled through and is a good chance of getting one of his best 100's. Warner was superb last night, I was hoping he went big but it was not to be. SMith chipping in with 50 is also pleasing. He continues to grow as a cricketer. Obviously Steyn injured is a huge advantage to us but that is cricket sometimes.

I slept at tea and was dreading to see this morning a headline along of the lines of another Aussie collapse!!

 

[Bucking Beads]

Would be interesting to see Morkel bowling this way on a pitch which actually offered him something.

Like perhaps some variation in bounce that he did receive last night.

 

[free at last]

After watching the dismissal of Warner.Does any one think that Lyon will be some what of a handful on days 4-5?

 

[Zgope1]

also think it should be mentioned that Morkel's spell, although lethal and dangerous, really could've been better. He became predictable and just shelled balls at the body. Did not get enough full ones in and ask enough of Clarke

 

[Power Raid]

Reading the article on Cricinfo reminded me of something I didn't actually consider whilst watching that spell - Clarke's back doesn't actually allow him to sway or play extravegent pull shots.

That makes a heap of sense

 

[Power Raid]

After watching the dismissal of Warner.Does any one think that Lyon will be some what of a handful on days 4-5?

Lyon seems to be able to do his job even on day 1 wickets. He has developed into a very reliable and capable spinner.

 

[Joffaboy]

Like perhaps some variation in bounce that he did receive last night.

Like the first test pitch maybe?

Morkel has 5 wickets for the series. He bowled bodyline without the umpires intervening considering he was bowling 4 bouncers an over.

Morkel is a basically a dumb bowler, bangs it in short over and over exciting the neanderthals in the crowd, but look at the scoreboard, Clarke is 92 n.o.

Just an aside, Johnson now has free licience to bowl multiple bouncers per over, apparently 2 per over os now out the door, or is it just rule for the home side.

Dont like to see anyone hurt, but two can play he bodyline game, and Mitch has already put one Yarpie in hospital this series.

Hopefully he wont do that here, it is not what I want to see, but the neanderthals in the yarpie crowd should not get upset if their batters get the same treatment as Clarke.

Time will tell if they have the same courage as Clarke

 

[monty1104]

Like the first test pitch maybe?

Morkel has 5 wickets for the series. He bowled bodyline without the umpires intervening considering he was bowling 4 bouncers an over.

Morkel is a basically a dumb bowler, bangs it in short over and over exciting the neanderthals in the crowd, but look at the scoreboard, Clarke is 92 n.o.

Just an aside, Johnson now has free licience to bowl multiple bouncers per over, apparently 2 per over os now out the door, or is it just rule for the home side.

Dont like to see anyone hurt, but two can play he bodyline game, and Mitch has already put one Yarpie in hospital this series.

Hopefully he wont do that here, it is not what I want to see, but the neanderthals in the yarpie crowd should not get upset if their batters get the same treatment as Clarke.

Time will tell if they have the same courage as Clarke

Bodyline does not equal bouncers. A majority of the balls that troubled Clarke were around chest height, technically not a bouncer. The square leg umpire did indicate a couple of times that the ball was between shoulder and head height, again, perfectly legal to do that once an over.

I thought it was a great, hostile spell from Morkel. Ultimately it didn't work, but it was enthralling viewing,

 

[Kram]

If he had any brains he would have pitched the occasional one up when he had Clarke jumping around.

 

[Joffaboy]

Bodyline does not equal bouncers. A majority of the balls that troubled Clarke were around chest height, technically not a bouncer. The square leg umpire did indicate a couple of times that the ball was between shoulder and head height, again, perfectly legal to do that once an over.

I thought it was a great, hostile spell from Morkel. Ultimately it didn't work, but it was enthralling viewing,

Pack the Le side and bowl at the body, of thats right not bodyline, but leg theory

Thats right the ball we chest high, that why Clarke had his gloves and bat protecting his head and was hit in the head once.

Michael Holding stated almost ever ball was a bouncer. Anyway Mitch now has licence to dish out the same. He wont though as he is not a stupid oaf like Morkel and will actually try to get the batters out. He will bowl one or two then pitch it up a bit wide the shaken yarps will follow it.

Morkel is too dumb to do that (shows with a pathetic 5 wickets in this series) and Smith is too poor a captain and too arrogant to actually direct Morkel to bowl like a test bowler.

 

[monty1104]

Pack the Le side and bowl at the body, of thats right not bodyline, but leg theory

Thats right the ball we chest high, that why Clarke had his gloves and bat protecting his head and was hit in the head once.

Michael Holding stated almost ever ball was a bouncer. Anyway Mitch now has licence to dish out the same. He wont though as he is not a stupid oaf like Morkel and will actually try to get the batters out. He will bowl one or two then pitch it up a bit wide the shaken yarps will follow it.

Morkel is too dumb to do that (shows with a pathetic 5 wickets in this series) and Smith is too poor a captain and too arrogant to actually direct Morkel to bowl like a test bowler.

I never said it wasn't Bodyline, I said they weren't bouncers.....

Clarke was hit in the head after the ball came off his glove/forearm, so no, not really a bouncer. Also, if you actually watch Clarke bat, he ducks while protecting his head. Had he stood up straight, the ball wouldn't have been head height.

You're not going to get an argument from me that Morkel didn't bowl smart though. He could've tried pitching one or two up to Clarke after the bouncers, but he didn't. Got carried away with bouncers, and with the crowd behind him, it's hard to blame him. Got caught up in the moment.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Bodyline does not equal bouncers. A majority of the balls that troubled Clarke were around chest height, technically not a bouncer. The square leg umpire did indicate a couple of times that the ball was between shoulder and head height, again, perfectly legal to do that once an over.

I thought it was a great, hostile spell from Morkel. Ultimately it didn't work, but it was enthralling viewing,

Actually its now do that twice an over. But I agree, it was a great spell of bowling.

Pack the Le side and bowl at the body, of thats right not bodyline, but leg theory

Thats right the ball we chest high, that why Clarke had his gloves and bat protecting his head and was hit in the head once.

Michael Holding stated almost ever ball was a bouncer. Anyway Mitch now has licence to dish out the same. He wont though as he is not a stupid oaf like Morkel and will actually try to get the batters out. He will bowl one or two then pitch it up a bit wide the shaken yarps will follow it.

Morkel is too dumb to do that (shows with a pathetic 5 wickets in this series) and Smith is too poor a captain and too arrogant to actually direct Morkel to bowl like a test bowler.

It was a legitimate tactic against someone who has always struggled against the short ball. Also.. Mitchell Johnson's spell against England in the summer at times was almost entirely short. Players have protection these days and are better trained to deal with a short ball compared to the 1930's therefore there isn't anything wrong with the tactic. As Michael Holding said, the helmet means a batsman takes their eyes off the ball and accepts that he will get hit. A good batsman like Ponting just attacks the short ball instead.

 

[monty1104]

Actually its now do that twice an over. But I agree, it was a great spell of bowling.

I thought the second one was called a wide/no ball, but I could easily be wrong. It's pretty rare to see someone called for it.

 

[Bradesmaen]

I thought the second one was called a wide/no ball, but I could easily be wrong. It's pretty rare to see someone called for it.

It used to be one, now it's two. Two short pitched deliveries per over, after that they are called no-balls.

EDIT: It appears I'm stick in the 90's, apparently they changed it back to one in 2001. It is two in ODI cricket though.

EDIT2: It appears as though I was right and wiki was wrong... good old ICC backed me up.

law 42.6 (a) shall be replaced by the following:
a) a bowler shall be limited to two fast short-pitched deliveries
per over.

 

[Kim Hagdorn]

Clarke captain courageous, great innings.

 

[swansfan51]

Great start, and still with Pattinson to come who has a higher test average than Doolan

 

[free at last]

What I can't understand is why Clarke didn't call for an arm and chest guard when facing morkel especially when he chooses not to attack the short stuff.When morkels spell is finished he takes the safety gear off.

I would have been so pissed off if he'd had his arm broken and could no longer bat,which would make us extremely vulnerable at losing this test.

 

[D0CKERZ]

EDIT2: It appears as though I was right and wiki was wrong... good old ICC backed me up.

Does that mean you can bowl 6 short pitched deliveries as long as 4 are slower balls?
What's their definition of fast?

 

[Joffaboy]

It used to be one, now it's two. Two short pitched deliveries per over, after that they are called no-balls.

EDIT: It appears I'm stick in the 90's, apparently they changed it back to one in 2001. It is two in ODI cricket though.

EDIT2: It appears as though I was right and wiki was wrong... good old ICC backed me up.

So two an over not four?

If Morkel is allowed by poor umpiring to get away with it fine, thats the way it is.

If the umpires however decide that only Morkel is allowed to bowl multiple bouncers with no penalty, well I have a real problem with that.

Look I am not sticking up for Clarke, he has played test cricket for 10 years, and this will be remembered as one of his great hundreds if he gets there.

A just want consistency in the umpiring. Johnson reeked havoc in test 1 on a dodgy pitch, IMO, the umpires have not policed the short pitched delivery correctly this test according to the laws of the game.

If they call Mitch after letting Morkel get away with multiple bouncers at the batsmans body, I will be pretty scathing.

As for bodyline, it was bodyline as far as the rules nowdays allow. Smith packed the leg side, and Morkel bowled a line that was directed to hit the batsman. It is legitimate as it broke no rules, just like multiple appealing breaks no rules, just like Broad not walking broke no rules.

I do find it interesting however, if opposition countries do it and they are called, its Aussies whinging, but if the Aussies do it, it is imtidatory,aggressive, and they are labelled ugly Australians, and not in the spirit of the game etc.

All I want is fairness and the rules applied equally to both teams

 

[Sea fog]

Not sure Morkel bowled more than the requisite bouncers; many of them were only chest high.