Australia vs South Africa, 3rd Test, Day 4
More Bizarro World action on Day 3. Nathan Hauritz bowls Mark Boucher with the bail flying into the air then landing back on the stump where it poises delicately. Apparently, Hauritz is such an ineffectual bowler, he can't even remove the bails when he hits the stumps. That guy has no business being in the Test side (or the NSW side for that matter). What were the selectors thinking?
Then AB de Villiers performed an unforgiveable sin, getting run out. Even worse, jogging down the pitch (Damien Martyn style). Fortunately for AB, it's a dead rubber - if he'd been run out in a live game that decided a series, he would've become a cricketing pariah (Damien Martyn style).
The South African tail again put on a bucketload of runs courtesy of Boucher and Morkel until Siddle had an epiphany, realising that while bowling short to a tailender makes pace bowlers feel like big alpha males, bowling at the stumps actually gets them out. I've been waiting for years for someone to figure that out - huzzah it was an Australian who made the breakthrough!
Finally, Matt Hayden came out in what is surely his last Test innings. First over of the day, he plays the identical wafty cover drive that got him out so many times over the last few years. Luckily this one went over the fielder's head. Then he was struck plumb LBW that Billy Bowden failed to respond to. He must've been mentally rehearsing his drinks break hand signal instead. So Haydos lives for another day. Tomorrow will be enthralling just to see how he fares first thing in the morning. He'll undoubtedly come out guns blazing - whether he tours South Africa or not will depend on whether his luck holds out past the first drinks break. What a crap way to determine our Test opener for the rest of 2009.
As for the Test, common wisdom says only Australia can win it from here. But in Bizarro World, Australia have been in an unloseable position in the last 2 Tests and managed to eke out a resounding loss. So it's anyone's bet at this point...
| Posted by JC on Tue 6 Jan |  5 comments |
Posted by JC on 2009-01-06 16:05:38
Unusually un-conservative declaration.
Haydos averaging 11.
Oz lose the first Test.
Oz lose the 2nd Test.
Tell me, what would have been the odds on a SA Series win? Are the Aussies (or some of them) in the SA and Indian bookmakers pockets? Or is it the big gambling cricketing Mafia calling the results?
And what about the way Ponting gave his wkt away on 99 after trying to get out for 3 overs?
Then there was Graeme Smith's strange retired-hurt episode... had they both reached their upper or lower limits of betted runs for the series? Odds on Ponting getting 99 are highly favourable I would've thought. Odds of Aus losing the Series at home??? - HUGE! Someone is making serious money out of our sport and all we are left with is predetermined results.
Tell me, what were the bookies offering for a 414 run-chase?
Sorry, but it all reminds me of Allan Donald's so-called 'brain fade' running of himself out in that ODI with 1 run to win, Hansie Cronje dropping sitters, Jonty Rhodes' sudden emotional exit from cricket and, naturally, the 2005 Ashes farce. Umpires, players and coaches are all into it, lining their pockets as they go.
OK, so you may not go along with me here BUT check out all the bizarre umpiring descisions over the last few years! I think *I* know why LBW's and catches aren't sent to the 3rd ump...
Former great umps suddenly (as they approch pension-seeking age) go into some sort of relapse and start doling out ridiculous descisions! Makes you wonder. Young umpires - ain't none!
Consider this: Bob Woolmer and Hansie found out what happens if you get too involved and want out...
Posted by virtualgaz on 2009-01-06 17:15:41
I do agree that the things you are highlighting seems very strange and it is something to think about, but the phrase is "cricket is a funny old game". While I am certain that the betting world is still strong and active, I do think that Hansie's episode sent a strong message of non-tolerance.
Also, even though he looks remarkably similar to Americas worst president ever (bush), Ponting isn't the worst captain ever, and I don't think he is a guy with a dubious character.
Maybe Nathan Hauritz is the Luke Watson of Australia?
Posted by steyts on 2009-01-06 18:14:53
That Bush-Ponting thang - WHOAA, what a call! I always thought Bushy looked a lot like the MAD Comic dude but your call is even better!
As for Ponting himself, I do recall a time (as a newb to the side) when he got disciplined for behaviour and turning up for a match with a black eye. All I'm saying is that he is by no means a saint, a great batsman... but a dubious skipper. After all, Warnie could've actually won the 2005 Ashes for us but Punter was unable to take his strategy on board. Not my opinion, that one is fact - ask Warnie! Warne was extremely critical of him after the loss if you remember.
Perhaps cricket (or sport in general) has always been tampered with:
W.G.Grace clean bowled first ball. Umpire raises finger (as they had to do then), WG picks up the bails, puts them back on and says "They've come to see me bat, not you umpire". The game continued...
Posted by virtualgaz on 2009-01-06 18:42:27
That dropped catch by Hayden almost cost us. I guess he was thinking about being retrenched in this time of economic uncertainty.
BTW Ponting is nothing like Bush. Bush blames WMDs and terrorists for everything, while Ponting blames the pitches.
And I think Nathan Hauritz is more like the Kevin Rudd of cricket - boring.
Posted by woogah on 2009-01-07 18:30:03
Post New Comment
You need to be logged in to post a comment. If you're new, register here. Existing users, login via the right margin.
