Australia v South Africa, 1st Test, Brisbane, 9-13 November, 2012

taipan wrote:

JGK wrote:

Big Dog wrote:Poor team selection & poor captaincy. Australia can have expected nothing better.

Poor coaching?

Poor dossiering?

The plan for the captain worked. Would have thought though that the unflappable Amla would have been one of the last you'd consider sledging.

Funny response from Pattinson re. the Duminy injury.

Australia's James Pattinson said he saw Duminy being carried off the ground, but was not focusing on the Proteas potentially being down to 10 batsmen.

"I'm just worried about getting Kallis and Amla out to be honest," he said.

You often see the cricketers kicking around soccer balls and wonder how long it will be before the serious injury ensues. And that's taken out cricket balls al la McGrath. Amazed that the coaches allow valuable commodities to play soccer with the danger of lower leg injuries.

All lefties are vulnerable early on. Had nothing to do ith the dossier

Jiminy won't be missed. SAf will declare before he is required on about 600, then Stain, Ostrich and Vern can go to work.

At least the new ball is available first up.

Apparently it was rugby they were playing and Duminy wasn't actually injured kicking a ball or getting tackled. Was just jogging around and rolled his ankle.

Henry wrote:Apparently it was rugby they were playing and Duminy wasn't actually injured kicking a ball or getting tackled. Was just jogging around and rolled his ankle.

Probably a hole in the outfield.

Looks like Duminy has ruptured his Achilles tendon and he will be likely to miss six months of action. Pretty devastating for him.

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:Apparently it was rugby they were playing and Duminy wasn't actually injured kicking a ball or getting tackled. Was just jogging around and rolled his ankle.

Probably a hole in the outfield.

Cricket ball?

It was an injury sustained not during the hours of play, and before Duminy had actually played a part in the match. I think South Africa should be allowed to replace him. If he was one of the batsmen already dismissed or still at the crease then fine, he shouldn't be replaced, but seeing as he hasn't done anything yet, it's unfair to effectively have a game where it's 11 vs 10.

Once the game has actually STARTED, I don't there's any allowance (at Test level) for a team substitution of the kind you propose, Trev.

I can't recall a precedent ... has there been one?

If there is no RULE against replacing a player in these circumstances, then it becomes a spirit of cricket thing, which the laws of the game encourage.

There has been several occasions where a player has got injured after the toss but before a ball has bowled and been replaced (Manou replacing Haddin in 2009 as already mentioned), but I'm not sure about a situation like this. I hope it's a common sense thing, and common sense would say that Duminy should be replaced.

At Headingley in 2009, Matt Prior became unwell moments before the start of the game, and Australia had agreed to allow Bruce French (FFS!) to stand in as England's keeper whilst Steve Davies made his way to the ground. As it turned out, England batted first and Prior recovered in time.

You wonder what Duminy was 'warming down' from.

Henry wrote:If there is no RULE against replacing a player in these circumstances, then it becomes a spirit of cricket thing, which the laws of the game encourage.

There has been several occasions where a player has got injured after the toss but before a ball has bowled and been replaced (Manou replacing Haddin in 2009 as already mentioned), but I'm not sure about a situation like this. I hope it's a common sense thing, and common sense would say that Duminy should be replaced.

At Headingley in 2009, Matt Prior became unwell moments before the start of the game, and Australia had agreed to allow Bruce French (FFS!) to stand in as England's keeper whilst Steve Davies made his way to the ground. As it turned out, England batted first and Prior recovered in time.

Nice idea Trev, can't see it happening though.

Red wrote:You wonder what Duminy was 'warming down' from.

You just don't "get" sport do you?

Funnily enough, it now looks like South Africa will miss Duminy's bowling more than his batting in this test.

Clarke can permit change to Saffie team

Standard Test Playing Conditions

1.1 Law 1.1 - Number of Players
Law 1.1 shall be replaced by the following:
A match is played between two sides. Each side shall consist of 11 players,
one of whom shall be captain.
1.2 Law 1.2 – Nomination of Players
Law 1.2 shall be replaced by the following:
1.2.1 Each captain shall nominate 11 players plus a maximum of 4
substitute fielders in writing to the ICC Match Referee before the
toss. No player (member of the playing eleven) may be changed
after the nomination without the consent of the opposing captain.
1.2.2 Only those nominated as substitute fielders shall be entitled to
act as substitute fielders during the match, unless the ICC Match
Referee, in exceptional circumstances, allows subsequent additions.
1.2.3 All those nominated including those nominated as substitute
fielders, must be eligible to play for that particular team and by such
nomination the nominees shall warrant that they are so eligible.
1.2.4 In addition, by their nomination, the nominees shall be deemed
to have agreed to abide by all the applicable ICC Regulations
pertaining to international cricket and in particular, the Clothing
and Equipment Regulations, the Code of Conduct for Players and
Player Support Personnel (hereafter referred to as the ICC Code
of Conduct), the Anti-Racism Code for Players and Player Support
Personnel, the Anti-Doping Code and the Anti-Corruption Code.
1.3 Law 1.3 - Captain
The following shall apply in addition to Law 1.3 (a):
The deputy must be one of the nominated members of the playing eleven

Henry wrote:Funnily enough, it now looks like South Africa will miss Duminy's bowling more than his batting in this test.

Will be interesting to see if they play Faf du Plessis in Adelaide or the crap keeper.

Taipan might know who they will call up as a batting replacement as you imagine they will.

Should be Elgar.

taipan wrote:Should be Elgar.

Not de Kock?

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:Should be Elgar.

Not de Kock?

If it thought it was going to be de Kock, i would have said de Kock.

After a predictable first innings early Smiffy, SAf starting to towel the living shyte out of Oz.

Still time to turn it all around, however. This is the game of cricket.

PeterCS wrote:After a predictable first innings early Smiffy, SAf starting to towel the living shyte out of Oz.

Still time to turn it all around, however. This is the game of cricket.

Care to explain how it was predictable?

SA is effectively three down and in a similar position to England on day one at The Oval. There is still hope for the Aussies especially now it has an extra player on the opposition.

taipan wrote:

PeterCS wrote:After a predictable first innings early Smiffy, SAf starting to towel the living shyte out of Oz.

Still time to turn it all around, however. This is the game of cricket.

Care to explain how it was predictable?

Smith is a powerful second-innings player. Generally scores heavily in second innings, is often vulnerable early first knock. It's a quirk.

Red wrote:SA is effectively three down and in a similar position to England on day one at The Oval. There is still hope for the Aussies especially now it has an extra player on the opposition.

There is always hope - but Clarke and Hussey will probably have to score big.