Cricket

27 wickets in less than two days? If this was being played on the subcontinent, a few questions might be getting asked right around now.

 

Tbf it was said tongue partly in cheek.

 

evidence so far suggests it will be a big ask, batting last on a pitch no side has exceeded 212 (yet)

that said, and low scorers are the bestest games, bugger 4 day Tests, make 'em all 3 and force sides to push for wins with quick scoring and good bowling, it is still not a big total and 2-3 batsmen get in who knows

but some in game stats, well one, the highest individual scores thus far

72 Webster (AUS 1st Inns) off 92 balls
66 Smith (AUS 1st Inns) off 112 balls
58no Starc (AUS 2nd Inns) off 136 balls
45 Bedingham (SAF 1st Inns) off 111 balls
43 Carey (AUS 2nd Inns) off 50 balls
36 Bavuma (SAF 1st Inns) off 84 balls

so is possible to bat 90+ balls, although only in aussie 1st innings did two batsmen do it in the same innings. issue may as much be the saffer batting as the pitch, 6 off 44 balls, 2 off 13 balls, 13 off 39 balls some of the lowlights

Starc reality is that aussie batted longer than any saffer so far and faced more balls (136) than the EIGHT lowest scoring saffers combined (127), does include a 0no but doesn't matter as we're counting balls not another stat where it might be an issue - call it seven if you prefer

 

yes, but one key difference is neither side was the home side as it isn't being played in eg India (picked at random, honest guv ) but in England which is neither South Africa nor Australia

nowt wrong with a low scorer, aussies have played better and had what advantage there is to batting first and indeed bowling last

do have to wonder if the saffers made the right decision, always seems a bit negative to win the toss and bowl. I mean sometimes you run through the top order, but more often you might get 1-4 wickets and then batting gets much easier, isn't often batting last "gets much easier"............

 

they are capable of losing it from the "their's to lose" situation

indeed


both sides just lost too many early wickets in their innings before this

aussie 1st inns : 67/4 (23.2 overs), scored 145/6 thereafter, bear in mind that is the lower order
saffers 1st inns : 30/4 (20.2 overs), scored 108/6 thereafter
aussie 2nd inns : 73/7 (24.5 overs), scored 134/3 thereafter
saffers 2nd inns : 70/2 (17.4 overs)

point is you can see that both sides lost way too many wickets in the first 25 overs until this last innings, whether it is now a "road" or simply Markram and Bavuma have seen them through to the point at which batting gets easier will be conjecture given little evidence to follow as to how well it will now play ie the target is not big enough to be sure of anything other than the above, get past 25 overs and it's less hazardous

(and yet 145/6 and 108/6 are hardly great either, but fewer remaining batsmen to score the runs and still 2-3 times as many runs as the 4 down score returned, put another way had it continued at those rates of loss neither side would have scored 180)


anyway, who cares, nice to see some good battles of the lower scoring variety, where people say bowlers "have it easy" but actually you have to put the ball in the right place or a four ball remains a four ball, except in a low scorer you can't afford to give too many of them away, or extras, or drops, or misfields, runs are precious

also great fun when tails wag, saffers must have thought they'd be chasing more like 175-200 when Starc came to the crease, 147 ahead with 3 wickets in hand, not chasing double it.....


oh and Lyon, not much of a roar, 0/60 thus far, spin has been in the back seat. Is Green injured in the sense of unable to bowl?!? 4 and 0, not bowled, not that Khawaja 0 and 6 did much better, nor Labuschagne opening particularly paid off, have to ask if Green and Labuschagne had batted where they have in the past if aussies loading better players of the new ball up top might have given them the game.... Smith was in at 16/2 and 28/2, did well enough 1st innings but maybe he might just as well have opened he was in before the lacquer cracked

s'a bird innit?

find it farcical not only that it stood, cheating crims, but they called it a stumping

now to me, and I'd guess most folk, a stumping is where the ball is in the wicket-keeper's gloves as they sweep the bails off, not throwing it from afar whilst the batsman who thought the over was done and thus a dead ball was ambling around

I also strongly suspect Carey was up looking at the laws as they didn't seem to know what a clean catch was when they thought a spilled catch on hitting the ground was 'fair' - no you dummies, you have to complete the catch and be in control of it otherwise 'catches' would include all the spills going. I know players throw it up in the air to celebrate, but that's not diving full length and it popping out as you hit the ground now is it

funny thing, when we were kids one of the gang was into yankball and had a smaller yankball we played a bit of 3-4 a side once or twice. I caught a pass and threw it down to celebrate and they claimed I hadn't been in control of it! trust me, for me to be throwing it up or down I was in control of it. then again playing hockey practice at uni once we used benches as the goal and I blocked a shot with stick horizontal right in front of my foot. the twerp "refereeing" gave a goal, it was only practice and he should have taken my word it did not hit my foot, if it had you'd also know about it. then again did score one myself, the best defender let me go wide, I did run into the wall (literally) but not before flicking the ball against the bench!

 

Was kinda annoying watching Starc bat, but the day improved for the Saffers. Fair to say they have been bit a lucky with the conditions, but still have had to play well.

I am really glad Aussies ain't going to steal another trophy, which looked like a possibility when Starc was batting.