Bob-Dubery
Despite Kallis's attempt to use up all the hot water SA are looking good for a win here. India 7 down at lunch and 7 runs ahead. The one possible thorn in SA's side is Rahane, but he is going to have to bat some to get India to tea with enough runs to stave off defeat.
Lets hope the light holds out.
chris77
Man, a result here looked a million miles away for most of the test. A bit of mumbling about the Kohli and Khan dismissals from the Indian supporters, but not using DRS was their bright idea, so boo-hoo.
I never really got into this tour after the BCCI held us hostage over everything from who our board's CEO should be, where the games should be played, when they will be played and how many will be played. Cherry on the cake was when they summoned Supersport's man in charge to their dressing room to tell him what footage they are allowed to show and not show. >☹ So ja, I'm not too sad to see them going home after this test and if it is with their tales between their legs after defeats in both the ODIs and Tests then so much the better.
Bob-Dubery
The issue with Supersport may well turn out to be a thumb suck story that got into the press *. Nobody who was actually there disputes that a meeting took place, but they all deny that particular matter being on the agenda. Not that boards or teams have not complained to broadcasters before...
I caught Robin Peterson on some news show last night, and he was saying that the stats show that Durban usually serves up lots of wickets on the last day.
Anyhoo... strange things have happened in games of cricket before, and it's never wise to count the chicks until they've hatched, but this is looking probable for SA now.
* a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away I was working (I use the term loosely) for what is now ESPNCricinfo and got to cover one match from the Wanderers. India v SA actually. We were in the press box and I got to meet some of the journos I admired and also two notable Indian ex players in "Jimmy" Amarnath and Sunil Gavaskar. Anyhooo... during that match there was some sort of on-field incident when Azharuddin was dismissed. Interestingly in the press box you get lots of TV screens, but no commentary and the stump mics turned up real loud. But it was hard to see what the stink was about as Azhar stopped halfway to the boundary, turned around and started shouting at somebody.
At this point the disciplinary process kicked in and in the press box we got a constant stream of updates. We knew within minutes that Azhar would be talking to the match ref. A few minutes later we knew the charge. There was constant flow of information - all via the UCB's chief press officer who was empowered to talk to the press on behalf of the ref. Before the press box was emptied we all knew that only Azhar had been charged, that he had been fined and that he had testified that there was no provocation from any SA player. So far, so good.
But two visiting journos - and I heard this myself - cooked up a story that it was all Shaun Pollock's fault. This was on the basis that Pollock had brandished his fist (Clive Rice style) as the wicket fell and this must mean "up yours" because it certainly doesn't "up MINE". They then started typing up the story.
After we'd packed up I went to the press conference (I had a media pass, so what the heck). There was Bob Woolmer saying that he had instructed his players to say NOTHING when a wicket fell, and that if you watched the footage that's what they said - nothing.
Then the Indian manager was up and he said that Azhar had pleaded guilty and when asked if he'd been provoked by word or deed said he had not been.
That didn't stop the Sunday Times (the SA paper) running a picture of Shaun Pollock with a caption to the effect that he was giving Azhar a mouthful on dismissing him.
Sigh....
There was also a reporter from a local radio station who didn't know who Donald Bradman was.
I wouldn't tar all the press with this brush, but some of them seem to not care about the game and/or thorough journalism.
Dicky Rutnagur was there - he's a good journalist with a well earned reputation and he wouldn't have written the sort of nonsense I'm describing here (and definitely knows who Donald Bradman was). Also Colin Bryden, who had nothing to do with the captioning of the Shaun Pollock picture. Trevor Chesterfield (I think he was working for the Pretoria News at the time) was cautious, proper and thorough.
Trevor Quirk was very helpful to me (the new kid in the box) and paid attention to the details. On the last day when Cyril Mitchley wouldn't let play resume after rain Quirk dug out the playing conditions for the match (in those days these were agreed between the two teams), found the rule that said that the safety of the fielders was the responsibility of the fielding captain and informed the press box that "Cyril is full of s--t!" A bit brusque, but he was right and nobody else had spotted this.
It's a mixed bag.
psyx
Hey, we won!!
Wel done boys! I thought that there would not be enough time to finish the match, but our bowling and fielding made short work of the Indian team!
