Australia v South Africa, 3rd Test, Adelaide, 24-28 November, 2016

Surely not "as expected"

Given the. regular collapses, I was expecting difficulties.

Despite the dead rubber, there is no doubt the yarps were fired up by theirskip being found to be a cheat.

Better effort from Oz and a comprehensive win was achieved. Interesting the yarp bowlers did not get the same amount of reverse as in Perth and Hobart.

However a great series win to the yarps.

taipan wrote:All too easy in the end.

Well SA made some errors in selection, Faf's declaration, and their batting was poor. Abbott continued to bowl well though.

Ussie's innings the difference, though Starc's runs were also crucial.  Oddly enough the latter couldn't make a run in the live rubbers.

Ussie surely for MOTM, de Kock MOTS?

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:All too easy in the end.

Well SA made some errors in selection, Faf's declaration, and their batting was poor. Abbott continued to bowl well though.

Ussie's innings the difference, though Starc's runs were also crucial.  Oddly enough the latter couldn't make a run in the live rubbers.

Ussie surely for MOTM,  de Kock MOTS?

The declaration was the right decision.

Surely the Fapper is mots.

Philander MOTS - think de Kock a bit hard done by. Vernon himself is surprised.

Vermin is mots

So is that the Paul Keating economic J-curve for Aus cricket?? Rock bottom in Hobart and now comes the resergence??

Not convinced about Madman and Renshaw will need to pick up his scoring but signs are better.

Red wrote:Philander MOTS - think de Kock a bit hard done by.  Vernon himself is surprised.

Boom Boom!

The idiot Koala will argue the Nifty and Reeks ffs hundreds will warrant their inclusion for the first test against the Stannies.

Nice win. shame that Smith got out with 2 runs to go.

Wonder whether the NSP will also want to give Bog another go.

horace wrote:Wonder whether the NSP will also want to give Bog another go.

Why not.  he can bat 5 with Wank at 6 followed by Nifty.

Maddinson must have been prayimg for a second dig

JGK wrote:Nice win. shame that Smith got out with 2 runs to go.

Might be an average skipper but he is no redinker.

horace wrote:Surely not "as expected"

Given the. regular  collapses, I was expecting difficulties.

Despite the dead rubber, there is no doubt the yarps were fired up by theirskip being found to be a cheat.

Better effort from Oz and a comprehensive win was achieved. Interesting the yarp bowlers did not get the same amount of reverse as in Perth and Hobart.

However a great series win to the yarps.

More grass on the pitch militates against this.

And less lolly action?

Oz moved the ball with greater consistency in this test.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:All too easy in the end.

Well SA made some errors in selection, Faf's declaration, and their batting was poor. Abbott continued to bowl well though.

Ussie's innings the difference, though Starc's runs were also crucial.  Oddly enough the latter couldn't make a run in the live rubbers.

Ussie surely for MOTM,  de Kock MOTS?

The declaration was the right decision.

Didn't think it was right at the time or in hindsight. How often would a skipper declare when he a specialist batsman is doing it easily at the crease and the guy at the other end is smashing it?

There were still plenty of overs left to bowl under lights and the total was relatively modest. They could easily have left thirty runs out there. Agree that it was a funky declaration and more experimental because of the pink ball factor.

The Warner situation should not have been a reason to change plans, he would have been more vulnerable under lights in theory than in the sun the next day. Ussie has a better technique and it forced him to concentrate. It was a gamble Faf lost.

horace wrote:And less lolly action?

Oz moved the ball with greater consistency in this test.

Abbott still moved the ball a lot, Philander did under lights, but they couldn't entice Renshaw to nick it.

Bat first, declare and lose.

I know it's happened a few time (Leeds 1981 for instance) but it can't be THAT common.

Red wrote:

horace wrote:Surely not "as expected"

Given the. regular  collapses, I was expecting difficulties.

Despite the dead rubber, there is no doubt the yarps were fired up by theirskip being found to be a cheat.

Better effort from Oz and a comprehensive win was achieved. Interesting the yarp bowlers did not get the same amount of reverse as in Perth and Hobart.

However a great series win to the yarps.

More grass on the pitch militates against this.

Of course the fact that it is also a totally different ball might have something to do with it.

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:All too easy in the end.

Well SA made some errors in selection, Faf's declaration, and their batting was poor. Abbott continued to bowl well though.

Ussie's innings the difference, though Starc's runs were also crucial.  Oddly enough the latter couldn't make a run in the live rubbers.

Ussie surely for MOTM,  de Kock MOTS?

The declaration was the right decision.

Didn't think it was right at the time or in hindsight. How often would a skipper declare when he a specialist batsman is doing it easily at the crease and the guy at the other end is smashing it?

There were still plenty of overs left to bowl under lights and the total was relatively modest. They could easily have left thirty runs out there. Agree that it was a funky declaration and more experimental because of the pink ball factor.

The Warner situation should not have been a reason to change plans, he would have been more vulnerable under lights in theory than in the sun the next day. Ussie has a better technique and it forced him to concentrate.  It was a gamble Faf lost.

Basically everyone here agreed with the decision.

Another 30 runs for the last wicket? 12 is plenty of overs?

The fact that it didn't work doesn't mean it wasn't the the correct decision at the time.

So it was a morally correct decision according to taipan.

This is becoming quite funny.

JGK wrote:Bat first, declare and lose.

I know it's happened a few time (Leeds 1981 for instance) but it can't be THAT common.

Possibly not, except this wasn't declaring from a position of strength as most declarations would surely be.

The pink ball tests cause captains to second guess a bit. Philander alluded to the experimental nature of them in his MOTS speech.

David Warner bowling shows how little Australia care for South Africa.

So Renshaw officially played and missed forty-two times.