Well the South African captain - Greame Smith no doubt should have considered his decision a million times or else repent regarding the same a million times when he chose to field first in a test match and that too involving Australia against whom he has had a series loss in the ODIs. There are hardly any cases in a test match where a captain wins the toss and chooses to field first because, in most of the cases, the pitch gets deteriorated day by day making it tough for the batsmen. In such a case, anyone who faces the bowlers first will have the initial advantage.
It has been more than two years since South Africa faced Australia be it on their home soil or outside. In the last two times since the two teams have met each other, both of them have walked away with a series. Much to anybody's surprise, South Africa won the series 2-1 in Australia while Australia won the series by the same margin in South Africa in the return series. This time, the series is scheduled at South Africa and if anybody has to go by the history, then it should be Australia walking with the honors. However, that has a long way to go.
In the first day's play at Cape Town, the scorecard clearly suggests that the pitch was a tough one to bat on with the way the Australian batsmen scored losing 8 wickets in between. There was Michael Clarke who scored an unbeaten century and Shaun Marsh who supported by scoring a handy 44 runs. In the end, the Australian run-rate was 3.89 runs an over. Though one side of the story suggests that the pitch was tough for batsmen, there was Michael Clarke who scored runs at a quick pace by ending the day scoring 107* runs from 114 balls.
With rain taking away almost 40 overs of the day's play, a lot of excitement has been stripped off the match making people wait for 24 hours more to see their favorite teams play it out there. One has to congratulate the South African wicketkeeper Mark Boucher for claiming his 500th victim behind the stumps. This was not something achieved by either a batsman or a bowler. Very rarely do wicketkeepers and fieldsmen make news for the good reasons unlike batsmen and bowlers. With none of the wicketkeepers making it to even 400, Boucher's efforts and achievement should never go unnoticed.
Showing posts with label Michael Clarke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Clarke. Show all posts
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Friday, June 18, 2010
When good performance would be pointless
Well this is regarding the only one day international match between Ireland and Australia which was played yesterday at Dublin. And, needless to be said, Australia did win as expected despite putting a modest of all totals when they lost 9 wickets for a score of just 231 runs on the board. The reasons for the same might be many like, Australia were playing a game away from home though they were facing Ireland who are yet to attain some dignity in international cricket. On the otherhand, Ireland were playing a game under conditions similar to their home nation which is just hundreds of miles away.
However, Australia did win the game though not convincingly when the margin of victory was just 39 runs which is way behind Australia's success in terms of number of runs scored against any strong nation say Pakistan and West Indies offlate. The other reason for Australia to put up such a under rated performance against the Irish would be that they might have underestimated the opposition for which most of the teams have paid the price. And, last but not the least, the match under discussion is totally inconsequential and the performance of Australia does not matter to any extent.
Of course, had Australia lost the match, that would have surely made headlines. But, a win will never ever make one. I bet that hardly anybody would be aware that there was a match held between Australia and Ireland yesterday at Dublin. Australia has got nothing to lose in case they get away with a marginless win for they are not involved in any triangular series to worry about a bonus point nor are they going to face any big opposition for them to carry forward some confidence with this game. But, still, one has to imagine why Australia went into the match with a full fledged team involving Ponting, Watson, Clarke and Bollinger?
In terms of the number of extras conceded, Ireland has an upperhand when the Irish bowlers conceded just 13 of them and with the leg byes and byes being excluded from the list, the number drops down to just 7 as against the 17 extras that included 14 of them in the form of wides and no balls bowled by Australia. This might not mean that the Irish bowlers were more accurate in their bowling as compared to Australia for, the experimenting factor comes into the picture at which the Aussies rank number one in the world. When there is no experimenting, there is little scope for errors but more scope for stagnation.
However, Australia did win the game though not convincingly when the margin of victory was just 39 runs which is way behind Australia's success in terms of number of runs scored against any strong nation say Pakistan and West Indies offlate. The other reason for Australia to put up such a under rated performance against the Irish would be that they might have underestimated the opposition for which most of the teams have paid the price. And, last but not the least, the match under discussion is totally inconsequential and the performance of Australia does not matter to any extent.
Of course, had Australia lost the match, that would have surely made headlines. But, a win will never ever make one. I bet that hardly anybody would be aware that there was a match held between Australia and Ireland yesterday at Dublin. Australia has got nothing to lose in case they get away with a marginless win for they are not involved in any triangular series to worry about a bonus point nor are they going to face any big opposition for them to carry forward some confidence with this game. But, still, one has to imagine why Australia went into the match with a full fledged team involving Ponting, Watson, Clarke and Bollinger?
In terms of the number of extras conceded, Ireland has an upperhand when the Irish bowlers conceded just 13 of them and with the leg byes and byes being excluded from the list, the number drops down to just 7 as against the 17 extras that included 14 of them in the form of wides and no balls bowled by Australia. This might not mean that the Irish bowlers were more accurate in their bowling as compared to Australia for, the experimenting factor comes into the picture at which the Aussies rank number one in the world. When there is no experimenting, there is little scope for errors but more scope for stagnation.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Too late for the Kiwis
As expected, it was Australia who walked away with the honors in the first test against New Zealand at Wellington when they beat the Kiwis by 10 wickets. New Zealand had given hints about their downfall the day the match started when Aussie batsmen piled up a mammoth 459 runs on the board and following that, the Kiwi batsmen played exactly the way the Aussies expected them to. Lose wickets at regular intervals and then get some sympathy owing to which a decent score compared to that expected from them is found to be put up on the board by the Kiwis.
After New Zealand batsmen ruled out every possibility of an innings win for Australia, the second best thing to that did happen when Australia took home a 10 wicket victory in the game. New Zealand had ended their fourth day with the scoreboard reading 369 runs for the loss of 6 wickets which eventually ended at 407 for the loss of all ten wickets. Had the same score been scored by them in the first innings, things would not have been that difficult for the Kiwis though that might not guarantee them a victory against the Aussies. But, their brains were found to work a bit later than expected.
But, had the score of 407 been their first innings total for the Kiwis, then may be the second innings would have ended with the New Zealand batsmen putting up just 157 runs on the board reversing what happened in the present situation. But, had that been the case, Australia would have had to bat once again with their lead being just 52 runs. And, Australia would have had to bat for yet another day with pressure building on them enroute to piling up atleast 300 runs in addition, incase victory could be a reality for the Aussies. But, "ifs" and "buts" form a different story altogether.
The only satisfaction for the New Zealand team was that, as mentioned earlier they didn't lose the game by an innings and neither did the match end well before the end of the fifth day. If the first innings of the New Zealand team is given a close look at, they should have got out for the second time well before the fourth day itself which fortunately for New Zealand didn't happen. And, there was Daryll Tuffey who scored a handy 47 runs which provided some interest in the match with a bowler doing a job left by some of the top order batsmen from New Zealand. But, the match would not have been complete without the Kiwis being unable to take even one wicket which still didn't happen.
After New Zealand batsmen ruled out every possibility of an innings win for Australia, the second best thing to that did happen when Australia took home a 10 wicket victory in the game. New Zealand had ended their fourth day with the scoreboard reading 369 runs for the loss of 6 wickets which eventually ended at 407 for the loss of all ten wickets. Had the same score been scored by them in the first innings, things would not have been that difficult for the Kiwis though that might not guarantee them a victory against the Aussies. But, their brains were found to work a bit later than expected.
But, had the score of 407 been their first innings total for the Kiwis, then may be the second innings would have ended with the New Zealand batsmen putting up just 157 runs on the board reversing what happened in the present situation. But, had that been the case, Australia would have had to bat once again with their lead being just 52 runs. And, Australia would have had to bat for yet another day with pressure building on them enroute to piling up atleast 300 runs in addition, incase victory could be a reality for the Aussies. But, "ifs" and "buts" form a different story altogether.
The only satisfaction for the New Zealand team was that, as mentioned earlier they didn't lose the game by an innings and neither did the match end well before the end of the fifth day. If the first innings of the New Zealand team is given a close look at, they should have got out for the second time well before the fourth day itself which fortunately for New Zealand didn't happen. And, there was Daryll Tuffey who scored a handy 47 runs which provided some interest in the match with a bowler doing a job left by some of the top order batsmen from New Zealand. But, the match would not have been complete without the Kiwis being unable to take even one wicket which still didn't happen.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Ponting's decision to declare?
As expected, the second day also belonged top Australia when they amassed 459 runs on the board by scoring 143 runs extra compared to their score at the end of the first day's play. And as usual, the batting of the New Zealand side started collapsing like glaciers in snow mountains. The first four wickets of the New Zealand side fell with less than 50 runs on the board. The scoreboard of the New Zealand batting read 43 runs when the fourth New Zealand wicket fell. No needs to be given any sort of appreciation for tumbling the New Zealand wickets for it was the Kiwis who flattered.
The Australian bowlers did nothing extra ordinary to bowl the New Zealand batsmen out for a partly score. Since the fall of the fourth wicket at the score of 43 on the board, the New Zealand team didn't lose another wicket until the end of the day. The scorecard at the end of the day read 108 runs for the loss of four wickets meaning 65 runs in addition to 43 were scored without losing a wicket. The first three New Zealand batsmen went back to the pavilion scoring single digit scores of 9, 0 and 5 respectively. However, the scorecard read 31 runs when the 3rd wicket fell.
The trio New Zealand batsmen scored just 14 runs if their individual scores are taken which means that the additional 17 runs should have been scored by extras. Even Australia lost just 4 wickets on their first day's play like New Zealand. Australia lost 4 wickets on day 1 after scoring 316 runs and New Zealand also lost 4 wickets but with a score that was just 208 runs less than what the Aussie batsmen could pile up on day 1. The Kiwi batsmen could not even score half of what the Australian batsmen could do on day 2. This was rather expected taking into consideration their caliber in test cricket.
Earlier, the Australian batsmen put up a score of 459 runs on the board as mentioned above. In the process, the Australian team lost just one wicket of Michael Clarke who scored 168 runs that is needless to be said. After Clarke retreated, Ponting declared the innings with a score of less than 500 on the board and with as many as 5 wickets in hand. This can rather be considered to be an unusual gesture in today's test cricket especially when a total of 400+ on the board can no longer be considered as safe. And, this was done outside home as far as Australia are concerned. With the likes of Haddin, North and Johnson, Ponting could have delayed the declaration to avoid cursing himself later. But, the decision can well be understood by Ponting alone.
The Australian bowlers did nothing extra ordinary to bowl the New Zealand batsmen out for a partly score. Since the fall of the fourth wicket at the score of 43 on the board, the New Zealand team didn't lose another wicket until the end of the day. The scorecard at the end of the day read 108 runs for the loss of four wickets meaning 65 runs in addition to 43 were scored without losing a wicket. The first three New Zealand batsmen went back to the pavilion scoring single digit scores of 9, 0 and 5 respectively. However, the scorecard read 31 runs when the 3rd wicket fell.
The trio New Zealand batsmen scored just 14 runs if their individual scores are taken which means that the additional 17 runs should have been scored by extras. Even Australia lost just 4 wickets on their first day's play like New Zealand. Australia lost 4 wickets on day 1 after scoring 316 runs and New Zealand also lost 4 wickets but with a score that was just 208 runs less than what the Aussie batsmen could pile up on day 1. The Kiwi batsmen could not even score half of what the Australian batsmen could do on day 2. This was rather expected taking into consideration their caliber in test cricket.
Earlier, the Australian batsmen put up a score of 459 runs on the board as mentioned above. In the process, the Australian team lost just one wicket of Michael Clarke who scored 168 runs that is needless to be said. After Clarke retreated, Ponting declared the innings with a score of less than 500 on the board and with as many as 5 wickets in hand. This can rather be considered to be an unusual gesture in today's test cricket especially when a total of 400+ on the board can no longer be considered as safe. And, this was done outside home as far as Australia are concerned. With the likes of Haddin, North and Johnson, Ponting could have delayed the declaration to avoid cursing himself later. But, the decision can well be understood by Ponting alone.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Clarke's performance not surprising
From the past one month or so, all news that Michael Clarke was able to make was regarding his break up with some female whose relation with Michael Clarke is needless at the moment and at the same time not clear as well. Clarke returned to the Australian cricket with a bang when he scored an unbeaten 100 runs in the first test at Wellington against New Zealand. It was not Bangladesh or the West Indies whom Clarke was facing to say that the weak opposition helped Clarke nor it was Brisbane or Sydney where Australia were playing to say that Clarke had the home team advantage.
In addition to Michael Clarke, there were other Australian players like Simon Katich and Marcus North who aided Australia in putting up a mammoth total of 316 on the board on day 1. This was achieved at a run rate of less than 4 which once again points towards Australia's losing momentum after the retirement of big guns a couple of years ago. However, this was more than enough for and against teams like New Zealand who are best suited for teams like Pakistan and may be England and that too under home conditions. The bowlers from New Zealand could get the wicket of just three Australian batsmen, with the other one being run out.
If not for Mike Hussey on a rare occasion, the rest of the Australian batsmen showed no signs of fear towards the New Zealand bowlers. There could have been only one bowler who could put pressure of some sort on the Aussie batsmen and that was Shane Bond who bid adieu to test cricket. If that is to be kept apart, the lone bowler who could do that job to some extent would be Daniel Vettori not because of his extraordinary bowling skills but due to the fact that Australians are bad players of spin bowling. But the other side of the coin is that so is New Zealand.
Even New Zealand fear spin bowling more than Australia due to the fact that atleast Australia have a decent batting run up which is not the same when it comes to New Zealand. It would not come as a surprise to anyone in case the same Michael Clarke who id much of the damage to the Kiwi bowlers turns up to do the same with the ball as well. Clarke would have two advantages, one owing to the fact of New Zealand's approach to spin bowling as stated earlier and two for having a mammoth total on the board which would persuade him to try and do different things. In case he fails in that, there is Ryan Harris and co who can settle things for Aussies.
In addition to Michael Clarke, there were other Australian players like Simon Katich and Marcus North who aided Australia in putting up a mammoth total of 316 on the board on day 1. This was achieved at a run rate of less than 4 which once again points towards Australia's losing momentum after the retirement of big guns a couple of years ago. However, this was more than enough for and against teams like New Zealand who are best suited for teams like Pakistan and may be England and that too under home conditions. The bowlers from New Zealand could get the wicket of just three Australian batsmen, with the other one being run out.
If not for Mike Hussey on a rare occasion, the rest of the Australian batsmen showed no signs of fear towards the New Zealand bowlers. There could have been only one bowler who could put pressure of some sort on the Aussie batsmen and that was Shane Bond who bid adieu to test cricket. If that is to be kept apart, the lone bowler who could do that job to some extent would be Daniel Vettori not because of his extraordinary bowling skills but due to the fact that Australians are bad players of spin bowling. But the other side of the coin is that so is New Zealand.
Even New Zealand fear spin bowling more than Australia due to the fact that atleast Australia have a decent batting run up which is not the same when it comes to New Zealand. It would not come as a surprise to anyone in case the same Michael Clarke who id much of the damage to the Kiwi bowlers turns up to do the same with the ball as well. Clarke would have two advantages, one owing to the fact of New Zealand's approach to spin bowling as stated earlier and two for having a mammoth total on the board which would persuade him to try and do different things. In case he fails in that, there is Ryan Harris and co who can settle things for Aussies.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Pakistan Never Wanted To Win The Hobart test
Well as expected, Australia defeated Pakistan by needless to say 231 runs in the third and final test at Hobart. This, if statistics need to be given a serious look, is the fourth time in succession that Australia has defeated Pakistan in a test series by winning all the three games that were scheduled. So, it would not be wrong to conclude that Pakistan are no match for the Aussies whatsoever. This was more so after their 36 run loss to the same in the previous test at Sydney when Pakistan let go a golden opportunity after Australia were bowled out for 127 on the first day and Pakistan took a 200+ lead there after.
Added to that, in the third test at Hobart, Pakistan went in without their wicket keeper batsmen Kamran Akmal, Younis Khan, Saeed Ajmal and Mohammed Sami who were all decent players in test cricket. And moreover, it was Mohammed Sami along with Mohammed Asif who ripped apart the Aussie batting line up when Aussies lost all their batsmen for 127 runs on board. On the other hand, someone like Sarfraz Ahmed, Mohammed Aamer who are aged 22 and 17 years respectively made it to the squad. Can anyone guess the reason for the same? MohammedAamer had until then played just 7 matches until then and it was Safraz' debut test.
Is it because that the Pakistanis had already lost the test series to Australia and a win or a loss in the Hobart test would have hardly made any difference to the Pakistanis that they went in for such a change? Or is it because Pakistan were less likely to win the test match at Hobart irrespective of whoever makes it to the squad that the playing eleven was chosen like that? The third reason for such a change that one can imagine is Pakistan had already got used to losing test matches after a they had a year without playing a single test match in 2008 and more so against Australia, wherein Pakistan had lost 3 earlier test series'.
If anyone could take pains to go through the Pakistan scorecard, only five Pakistanibatsmen players were found crossing the double digit mark, with two of them being tailenders in Mohammed Asif and Umer Gul who scored 29 and 38 respectively. However, the 7 match old Mohammed Aamer could bowl 31 overs returning with figures of 2/97 that included the price wicket of Ricky Ponting but not before the Aussie captain could score yet another double hundred. So, if these things are taken into consideration, it looks like Pakistan had decided well before the Hobart test started to lose the game or may be gift the game to the Aussies.
Added to that, in the third test at Hobart, Pakistan went in without their wicket keeper batsmen Kamran Akmal, Younis Khan, Saeed Ajmal and Mohammed Sami who were all decent players in test cricket. And moreover, it was Mohammed Sami along with Mohammed Asif who ripped apart the Aussie batting line up when Aussies lost all their batsmen for 127 runs on board. On the other hand, someone like Sarfraz Ahmed, Mohammed Aamer who are aged 22 and 17 years respectively made it to the squad. Can anyone guess the reason for the same? MohammedAamer had until then played just 7 matches until then and it was Safraz' debut test.
Is it because that the Pakistanis had already lost the test series to Australia and a win or a loss in the Hobart test would have hardly made any difference to the Pakistanis that they went in for such a change? Or is it because Pakistan were less likely to win the test match at Hobart irrespective of whoever makes it to the squad that the playing eleven was chosen like that? The third reason for such a change that one can imagine is Pakistan had already got used to losing test matches after a they had a year without playing a single test match in 2008 and more so against Australia, wherein Pakistan had lost 3 earlier test series'.
If anyone could take pains to go through the Pakistan scorecard, only five Pakistani
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)