Big G wrote:
Feel a little hard done by for Amla! I'm convinced on the replays that it knicked the edge of his bat before hitting his pads! Shouldn't have been an LBW in my eyes!
We're playing against Oz with full DRS, and the umpires are Aleem Dar (excellent) and Richard Illingworth (good). You won't get too many dud decisions.
The difference is in the bowling. Apart from Morkel, none of our our bunch looked like imposing themselves on the batsmen - and Morkel couldn't sustain the intensity. Nathan Lyon is no Shane Warne but he is heaps better than any spinner we have.
Kepler Wessels identified the Oz bowling plan and it's simple. Harris, Siddle (who I think is underrated) and Lyon are disciplined and mentally tough. Siddle is the best example: He has zone that he is going to bowl in and he will not be deterred and you can start playing shots and he won't change his MO. You will play in his zone and he's not going to give you many bad balls. Because those three play with such discipline Johnson can be used as a shock weapon in short spells and not have to worry about runs or being hit because the other guys have kept it tight. Johnson comes snorting in at 145 ks and sticks it up your nose and in your ribs and enquires after the health of your parents and if you had any and if he doesn't get you out he'll leave you rattled.
Look at Duminy. Played Johnson very well and then got a soft dismissal against Lyon.
The Oz plan is not rocket science BUT they have a worked out plan and they have the discipline to stick to it.
Our bowlers all bowled like Shaun Pollock: Great first spell and then....
Oz are playing the same brand of cricket they played under Steve Waugh, and even though the players are not in the same class the approach plays off. They sustain the intensity and that means that you make one error - play a couple of loose shots, put a catch down - or take your foot off the pedal they are going to be all over you.
We can do a lot better. We're not number 1 in the world for nothing. But digit must be extracted soon.
Some comforting notes (remembering that we've only had two days)
1) Smith has a better record than any other test captain ever of electing to bowl first and winning *
2) Statistically the bold captain who choses to bowl first at Centurion often wins - especially if it's the home captain
3) The last few years SA have started a test series half asleep and got better as the series progressed (under Wessels and Cronje it was generally the other way around)
4) This test can still be drawn (SA have faced this sort of deficit before and survived)
* winning the toss and bowling is always a controversial decision. Captains who chose to bat first and get bowled out for 200 get less stick from the press than those who chose to bowl first and give the opposition 350. And perceived wisdom (as articulated by CB Fry) is that if you win the toss you should think about bowling and then you should bat. No captain has won the toss and decided to bowl as many times as Smith has, and no captain has opted to bowl and then won the match as many times as Smith has.
One more thing I would like to say: That Warner has a moer my gesig. He has taken over that role from Ricky Ponting.
