Re: South Africa vs Australia

by ten years after Mon 23 Mar 2009, 09:07

taipan wrote:Well in two of the Aussie wins SA effectively played with 10 men.

This is a good point. A couple fewer overs at Sydney and SAF would have won the serieseses 3-2.

by Red Mon 23 Mar 2009, 09:32

The One wrote:aus shades it for me. as has been mentioned the saffies needed freak performances to win the live tests while the aussies dominated in their wins

at the end of the day though its a series apiece. and thats what matters

Although in fairness they chased a record 414 runs and won with one leg in the air. Not really freak because their batting lineup performed evenly; no more freaky than Johnson's amazing spell which got them into trouble in the first place. They then won by nine wickets in Melbourne.

To answer Henry's query about the tosses, the commentators said the other night that if Punter wins the toss in the first Ashes test, he will equal the record for the most successive toss wins.

by JGK Mon 23 Mar 2009, 09:34

taipan wrote:Well in two of the Aussie wins SA effectively played with 10 men.

Aust played with 9 in Cape Town and 10 in Perth and Melbourne before we got rid of Bung.

by Invader Zim Mon 23 Mar 2009, 09:46

taipan wrote:Well in two of the Aussie wins SA effectively played with 10 men.

Are you sure you're not a subi? Suspect

by taipan Mon 23 Mar 2009, 09:47

Invader Zim wrote:
taipan wrote:Well in two of the Aussie wins SA effectively played with 10 men.
Are you sure you're not a subi?

Nah, that involves sooking, not a statement of fact. I didn't claim a moral victory did I?

by Henry Mon 23 Mar 2009, 10:10

Australia's worst cricket was poorer than South Africa's worst cricket. Remember the Duminy/Steyn partnership in Melbourne? Aus were a clueless rabble. South Africa's worst day of the 6 tests was day 1 at Durban when Katich and Hughes piled on the runs. The first hour of their first innings on day 2 of that test was also something of a nightmare, but that's because Mitchell Johnson bowled so well.

by JGK Mon 23 Mar 2009, 10:29

South Africa's worst day of the 6 tests was day 1 at Durban when Katich and Hughes piled on the runs.

Was that worse than Midges 5 for bugger all spell?

by skully Mon 23 Mar 2009, 10:31

Trev has selective memory.

by Henry Mon 23 Mar 2009, 10:35

South Africa played poor cricket on day 1 at Durban. I'm trying to give credit to an Aussie bowler for the other times South Africa were in trouble FFS. Rolling Eyes

by JGK Mon 23 Mar 2009, 10:56

Henry wrote:South Africa played poor cricket on day 1 at Durban. I'm trying to give credit to an Aussie bowler for the other times South Africa were in trouble FFS.

Sorry - that was a bit subtle for us simple colonials.

by Red Mon 23 Mar 2009, 11:22

JGK wrote:
taipan wrote:Well in two of the Aussie wins SA effectively played with 10 men.

Aust played with 9 in Cape Town and 10 in Perth and Melbourne before we got rid of Bung.

True, but they were sidled with McKenzie for five tests. Very Happy

by taipan Mon 23 Mar 2009, 11:23

Red wrote:
JGK wrote:
taipan wrote:Well in two of the Aussie wins SA effectively played with 10 men.

Aust played with 9 in Cape Town and 10 in Perth and Melbourne before we got rid of Bung.

True, but they were sidled with McKenzie for five tests.

Um, isn't the word "saddled"

by Henry Mon 23 Mar 2009, 11:23

McKenzie was 'siddled' quite a few times......

by doremi Mon 23 Mar 2009, 11:26

Surely, it's Harris who edges it for the Saffies.

by Red Mon 23 Mar 2009, 11:47

taipan wrote:
Red wrote:
JGK wrote:
taipan wrote:Well in two of the Aussie wins SA effectively played with 10 men.

Aust played with 9 in Cape Town and 10 in Perth and Melbourne before we got rid of Bung.

True, but they were sidled with McKenzie for five tests.

Um, isn't the word "saddled"

It was a pun on his crab-like batting! sherlock

by Sponsored content