Australia include Usman Khawaja for Boxing Day Test

By Nadene Smith

HOBART, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 18, 2012: After losing skipper Michael Clarke to a hamstring injury during Hobart Test, the Australia selectors have included left-hand top-order batsman Usman Khawaja in the squad for the Boxing Day Test against Sri Lanka.

The selectors have also included Tasmanian bowler Jackson Bird in the squad for injured Ben Hilfenhaus and there are healthy chances that the pacer may make his Test debut at the Melbourne Cricket Ground.

The two players have made it to the 13-player squad but while Jackson Bird almost has the chance to get selected for the Melbourne Test, Usman Khawaja may still have to sit out because Michael Clarke is working extensively to regain his fitness for the second Test.

Michael Clarke told reporters, “It's not too bad. I've got a bit of time leading up to the Boxing Day Test, I'll be having plenty of treatment but I'll be confident I'll be right for Boxing Day. I'm always going to be positive because I know I'm in great hands with Alex [Kountouris], I know how good a physio he is, I know how good my physio is in Sydney over the next few days. They'll communicate and I'm really confident with eight days turnaround, I'll be giving myself every opportunity to be right. Mickey and the selectors will give me as much time as required leading into the game. My preparation will be a bit different in the lead up to this Test match but I've done a fair bit of batting so I'm confident if I can do everything in my power, I'll be right for Boxing Day. It's a strain, to what level I don't know, the scans were pretty positive and I'm in really good hands."

Talking about inclusion of Usman Khawaja in the squad, selector John Inverarity said, “Usman turns 26 today, just one week younger than Jackson Bird, and he has been in good form this season. He has played especially well on occasions when conditions for batting have been very difficult. If Michael is not able to take his place in the side then Shane Watson will captain the team. Shane acquitted himself well when he deputised for Michael in the ODI series in the Caribbean earlier this year in March."

The 13-man Australian squad for Melbourne Test includes David Warner, Ed Cowan, Phillip Hughes, Shane Watson, Michael Clarke (captain), Michael Hussey, Usman Khawaja, Matthew Wade (wk), Mitchell Johnson, Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc, Jackson Bird, and Nathan Lyon.

Read More

Australia drop pacer Mitchell Johnson for Hobart Test

By Jamie Pearce

HOBART, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 13, 2012: The National Selection Panel (at the Cricket Australia (CA) decided on Thursday to rest fast bowler Mitchell Johnson for the first Test match against Sri Lanka starting from Friday at the Bellerive Oval in Hobart.

Although, the Australian selectors picked up three seamers for the Hobart Test where experts are anticipating a lively wicket, Mitchell Johnson failed to find his name in the final list of players for the first Test.

Australian team consists of Michael Clarke (captain), David Warner, Ed Cowan, Phil Hughes, Shane Watson, Mike Hussey, Matthew Wade, Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc, Ben Hilfenhaus, and Nathan Lyon.

Aussie skipper Michael Clarke announced the team here according to which Ben Hilfenhaus, Peter Siddle, and Mitchell Starc will constitute a strong Australian fast bowling attack while offspinner Nathan Lyon will support them with the change of pace as per the requirements.

Mitchell Johnson, who has also won ICC Cricketer of the Year Award in 2009, joined the national side after a long time in the Perth Test against South Africa which the home team lost by 309 runs but the left-armer is still part of the plans as he was retained as 12^th man for the Hobart Test.

Talking at a news conference here, Michael Clarke said of Johnson’s exclusion, "Obviously a tough selection getting 12 down to 11, especially with the way that Mitchell bowled in Perth, but this is the team we've selected for this test match. At the end of the day you've got to do what's best for the Australian team, you have to pick the best 11 players to help you win the test match. It's a nice problem to have when you've got 12 players that really want to play and have performed well, but unfortunately someone has to miss. Mitchell will be fine, he'll have to work hard and wait for another opportunity and try to grab it with both hands."

Both Ben Hilfenhaus and Peter Siddle were not part of the Australian playing eleven in the Perth Test while Mitchell Starc made his Test debut against the world’s number one Test side where he captured six wickets for 154 runs.

Clarke spoke high of the 22-year-old left-arm pacer. He said, “For me, I'm not looking at the Ashes at all. The reason that Starc is there is because he's been next in line in the queue for a while. He's performed really well in the shorter form of the game for Australia. He got one test in Perth and got six-for and 70-odd with the bat so that's not a bad start as well."

While Australia will be without services of their former legendary skipper Ricky Ponting who announced his Test retirement after Perth Test, Sri Lankans are also going through a transition phase as their skipper Mahela Jayawardene has announced to give up captaincy after the current Australia tour.

Sri Lanka have never defeated Australia in a Test match in Australia but the home side did lose to New Zealand when the last time they played in Hobart.

The three-match Test series will also have matches in Melbourne from December 26 and in Sydney from January 3, 2013.

Read More

Australia-South Africa Test Series: Top Performers

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 5, 2012: The high-profile Test series between the two best Test teams in the world, Australia and South Africa, has just concluded with Proteas winning the three-match series 1-0 as they won the Perth Test by 309 runs.

TheSportsNEXT.com’s cricket analyst Adrian Meredith has given marks to all the players from both sides on the basis of their performances.

9.5 - Michael Clarke (576 runs at 144.00, 7 catches) - Double centuries in each of the first two tests was the difference between Australia losing and drawing in the first and an obvious draw and a probable Australian victory in the second. He finished with some 200 runs more than anyone else in the series and his average was higher than anyone else bar Faf du Plessis - who was out just twice with two not outs. The only possible fault is that he was unable to get that win that was so needed in the second test, failing to use the bowlers properly, and also in the third test when a spectacular batting collapse - that he was a part of - put South Africa into a winning position, when before that they were losing badly. Deservedly the player of the series, he will be incredibly annoyed that South Africa ended up winning the series 1-0 in a series that Australia were ahead in for most of the series.

9.5 - Faf du Plessis (293 runs at 146.50) - You could say that he benefited from two not outs, and even had a failure in his fourth innings, but it isn't just the runs that matter but the way that he scored them. In his first innings, he top scored, then in the second he not only scored an unbeaten century to also top score but batted for the best part of two days to make sure of an unlikely draw. He didn't do quite as well in the second test but still did enough to help South Africa along to a victory. It is very picky to fault him for failing in the 2nd innings of the 2nd test, especially when South Africa already had the game won by that stage. The only real fault was that he was expected to bowl a bit to cover JP Duminy - but his batting more than made up for it.

8 - Michael Hussey (295 runs at 59.00) - From the first innings, when he scored a run a ball century to first bring Australia back to level pegging and then to get them ahead until the very end, he fought hard for his runs. In the Australian team it was him + Clarke doing most of the work and when both failed in the first innings of the third test, Australia fell apart. He may be 37 years of age but he is still Australia's best batsmen and the selectors won't let him retire.

8 - AB de Villiers (276 runs at 55.20, 8 catches, 1 stumping) - It might not look like much but A B de Villiers, when he scored that 33 in the second innings of the second test, was one of the best 33s you are likely to see, as he batted for almost an entire day, blocking everything and destroying the will of the Australian bowlers - so much so that they were unable to bowl in the third test. He capitalised with an easy century in the third test to set up the victory - his first century as a wicket keeper in test cricket since taking over from Boucher - and is showing that there is a chance that he will get to keep the gloves, rather than giving them to the young Quinton de Kock. de Kock may have to come in purely as a batsman and wait for de Villiers to retire now.

8 - Morne Morkel (14 wickets at 28.50) - The best bowler on display for either side, Morne was supposed to be the worst of the 3 South African fast bowlers but instead was the best. While Steyn was erratic and Philander hopeless - not to mention Kleinveldt and especially not mentioning Tahir - Morne just kept taking wickets. He had variety, he had depth, he had everything.

7.5 - Jacques Kallis (339 runs at 56.50, 2 wickets at 24.50, 5 catches) - He was superb in the second test, first taking two quick wickets to crush Australia, then injuring himself, and coming out to bat twice to score valuable runs to help South Africa to draw it, making sure that his injury didn't cost them much. He then came back in the third and was mature and excellent. His seniority, level headedness and determination was invaluable.

7.5 - Mitchell Starc (68 runs without being dismissed, 8 wickets at 26.12) - The calls for him to play in both the first two tests reached fever pitch when his absence almost certainly cost Australia any chance of winning the second test, after Pattinson was injured, and as a result he played in the third, was the highest wicket taker, taking 2 quick wickets in the first innings and coming back for 6 in the second to be clearly the best bowler on display. When all was lost, he then showed his batting skill, smashing 68 runs in no time flat - at a T20 strike rate of 143 - and wasn't dismissed in either innings. His performance in the third test once again showed that the Australian selectors were, once again, largely responsible for Australia's failures in this test series, as they left out their best bowler, an unforgivable act. Hopefully now Starc will not be left out again.

7 - Mitchell Johnson (6 wickets at 27.33, 4 catches) - He came back brilliantly after such a long time out of the side, and in South Africa's second innings was involved in virtually every dismissal, taking 4 catches to go with his 4 wickets. He had heart, he had intimidation, and he had accuracy. He wasn't quite as good as he was last time he played at the WACA - but it is hard for him to get much better either. A very good performance and he showed that he should have been considered as the "experienced bowler" ahead of both Siddle and Hilfenhaus for the first and second tests as well.

6 - Robin Peterson (6 wickets at 28.50) - He was considered to be the second best spinner on the tour, behind Imran Tahir, but after Tahir bombed out in the second test in helpful conditions, South Africa surprised a little by picking him - perhaps because their only other alternative was the misfiring Kleinveldt. While the conditions weren't helpful, and he wasn't the most damaging of the bowlers, he nonetheless took a lot more wickets than he was expected to. Perhaps he benefited from the work done by other bowlers but nonetheless he had good figures, even if they are perhaps a bit flattering.

6 - Matthew Wade (121 runs at 30.25, 8 catches, 1 stumping) - Wade lost the wicket keeping battle in terms of runs but still managed to stay on par with de Villiers in terms of dismissals - both finishing with 9 - and had a tidy display behind the stumps. While some of his batting was pretty poor, in the first innings of the third test, he was the only batsman that played the conditions properly, and gave some hope for Australia to still win it. He is still a bit inconsistent with the bat but he is showing that potential that he could be something very special, and in tough conditions he did very well here.

6 - James Pattinson (5 wickets at 38.40) - The figures don't look that great but he was comfortably Australia's best bowler in the first test before breaking down in the second. While Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Lyon were all hopeless, Pattinson was actually taking wickets. Ultimately, it was all too much for one young bowler, and I have to wonder if Starc had been in the side - let alone Johnson - he wouldn't have got his injury. Just the same, by becoming injured so early in the 2nd test, he cost the side any chance of victory. They still should have won, but had he stayed fit, it would have made certain of it. Sadly, he is out for the summer now, and, along with Pat Cummins, there will be real question marks over his ability to stay fit.

5 - Graeme Smith (255 runs at 42.50, 10 catches) - He defied the critics with a century in the first test, but then failed in every other innings for a somewhat disappointing series. His captaincy was good and helped to keep South Africa in the series but he will want to improve on his batting, as he led South Africa into a path of destruction far too often. Still not the worst series though.

5 - Hashim Amla (377 runs at 62.83) - Take out his final innings of 196 and he scored just 181 runs at 36.2, somewhat highlighting why he is being given such a poor rating. He failed in the first test, was ordinary in the second, and continued to be ordinary in the first innings of the 3rd test. Then, somehow, South Africa learned how to play at the WACA, seemingly overnight, as he realised that the only way to play on that ground is to attack - which is what he did with great success. If it weren't for that innings, he would have scored a 2 or 3, but he gets lifted up to a 5 for the series, and ends up with a nice little average for what was overall a pretty disappointing series for him.

4 - David Warner (206 runs at 41.20) - The figures look nice, but, other than a run a ball century in the second test, he didn't do an awful lot. He looked dangerous every time he was out there, a bit like Sehwag or Gayle, but he was too easy to out think and fell cheaply far too often.

4 - Dale Steyn (12 wickets at 30.83) - For a bowler ranked as the best bowler in the world, this was a horrible series for Steyn, as he was wayward, easily dealt with, and far below Morne Morkel. He did well while Australia were in panic mode in the first innings of the third test, which boosted his average for the series, but otherwise this was pretty disappointing for him. He lost that fear factor about him and the Australian batsmen were more worried about Morkel than Steyn.

4 - Ed Cowan (228 runs at 45.60) - Like Warner, Cowan scored a century and not much else. Unlike Warner, Cowan was scoring at closer to a run every two balls. Other than for his surprising century, Cowan looked out of his depth and he surely doesn't belong at test level. Sadly for Australian cricket fans, that century means that he won't be dumped in a hurry, and will probably play for the entire next test series, giving cheap wickets to opposition bowlers.

4 - Nathan Lyon (12 wickets at 40.50) - He actually finished as the leading wicket taker for Australia, in spite of twice bowling on pace friendly conditions, at Brisbane and Perth, when most people would have thought that Australia should have gone in with 4 fast bowlers - especially considering how talented the fast bowlers are in Australia. He did better than his overall FC record this season, which is a plus, and on occasion actually bowled well; but for the most part he was carted all around and was no threat. Sadly, with the selectors insisting on playing 2 experienced bowlers in Siddle and Hilfenhaus, he didn't have a lot of competition.

3 - Shane Watson (35 runs at 17.50, 1 wicket at 46.00) - Not the best return, but one hell of a lot better than Rob Quiney, and he added that extra genuine bowling option, as well as just adding that genuine all rounder. He didn't deliver this time around but he looked very dangerous and South Africa were clearly wary of him, both with batting and bowling.

3 - Alviro Petersen (200 runs at 33.33, 1 catch) - He ranged from bad to awful, and was very lucky that he wasn't facing Australia's best bowlers - instead only up against Hilfenhaus and Siddle. Why he is in the South African set up is anybody's guess as the guy is clearly a long way below test level. South Africa have so many much better options than him.

2.5 - Peter Siddle (9 wickets at 38.00) - He has heart. He can bowl forever. All great if trying was an important factor in test cricket. The problem is that it is all about skill and the ability to turn that skill into results. Peter Siddle doesn't have either of these. He might be okay bowling for a weaker side but right now he is outside of the top 10 best fast bowlers in Australia and should not have been considered. He bowled terribly all series long, shocking batsmen with that odd decent ball, that a couple of times took wickets, simply because the South African batsmen didn't take him seriously. He was included because the selectors were afraid to have too many inexperienced youngsters. But his inclusion was a large part of what cost Australia the series. The difference in quality between the attack in Perth and that shown in the first two tests was huge.

2 - Ben Hilfenhaus (6 wickets at 35.50) - He was economical and helped other bowlers to take wickets. That is always a good thing. The problem is that the only bowler good enough to take wickets was James Pattinson, who was doing it all alone. Hilfenhaus might be useful if the other 3 were all quality bowlers, but when you have Siddle and Lyon as 2 of the 3, simply being economical isn't good enough. The guy should not have been in the mix for this series, and it is shameful that he was given two tests.

1 - John Hastings (1 wicket at 153.00, 52 runs at 26.00) - He looked to be bowling quite well but after an early breakthrough he didn't manage another as other bowlers took wickets and when South Africa were going berserk, he, like everyone else, couldn't get a breakthrough. He batted quite well, it must be said, but unfortunately he was mainly there as a bowler. Like Clint McKay, he may now be considered to be a limited overs specialist. Given his poor ODI and T20 record, though, he may not be playing much more internationally in any format though.

1 - Vernon Philander (4 wickets at 49.75) - At least he took a couple of wickets in the third test, after being hopeless in the first test and then having a rest for the second (sorry, injured!) The guy looked a shadow of his former self and perhaps he will never return to that level. He was supposed to be one third of the best fast bowling trio in world cricket, but instead it became pretty much a one man band.

1 - Jacques Rudolph (74 runs at 18.50) - He was very lucky to last two tests, or indeed to be given the first test, and really seemed to be superfluous to requirements, as the frontline bowlers were batting better than he was. Luckily for Rudolph, his replacement, Dean Elgar, did worse; but unfortunately for him, when JP Duminy comes back, Rudolph will go, as, unlike Rudolph, Faf du Plessis is going to keep his place in the side.

0.5 - Rory Kleinveldt (4 wickets at 60.75, 1 catch) - He had one of the worst bowling debuts ever seen and then, after Philander pulled out on the morning of the second test, earned a surprise second test! He did slightly better but was still hopeless and surely will never play for South Africa again. He really looked out of his depth.

0.5 - Ricky Ponting (32 runs at 6.40) - He had his worst ever series at home, in spite of being in the form of his life domestically, and, along with Quiney's hopeless form and the inconsistency of the openers, left far too much to do for Clarke and Hussey and the tail. He retired at the right time, but perhaps should have retired after Matthew Hayden retired some 4 years earlier, as since then Ponting's heart hasn't been in the game.

0 - Rob Quiney (9 runs at 3.00) - Apparently his 9 off 10 balls in the first test was a "good 9". Nonsense. He was out trying to hit a 6 when the team was already in trouble after an early wicket. He did take a couple of good catches, but followed up his poor judgement in the first test with some outright terrible batting and, fingers crossed, will never play international cricket for Australia again. A poor choice to start with, there was no justification to keep him for the second test, and now, hopefully, that will be it.

0 - Imran Tahir (0 wickets, 260 runs) - It is rare that 2 players get a score of 0, but such was the difference between good and bad players in this series that we had this. Imran Tahir scored more runs than Quiney but nonetheless he was there as a bowler and he now owns the record for most runs conceded in a test without taking a wicket. Oh dear.

0 - Dean Elgar (0 runs at 0.00) - He had the perfect debut - in reverse - getting out for 0 in both innings - as did Rob Quiney - though at least Quiney had managed 9 runs in the previous match. You don't get much worse than this. Elgar was also supposed to be an all-rounder but didn't manage a wicket, and he capped off a trio of hopelessness, along with Quiney and Tahir, to highlight that this was the test series that selectors got wrong.

N/A - J P Duminy (did not bat, did not bowl, did not field) - He actually played in the first test, which, despite his returns, did not wash out and was not abandoned. JP Duminy was fit and healthy heading into the second day, after South Africa were still batting at the end of the day, but then injured himself during post-game practice! Oh dear! He couldn't bat, or bowl, and turned South Africa from a winning position to one where they were lucky to escape with a draw. Unlucky perhaps, but perhaps they should be more careful about how they are practising!

Read More

South Africa vs Australia Test Series Review

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 3, 2012: So after three classic test matches, we finished with a 1-0 series result, with South Africa finishing victors, retaining top spot (they would have gone to second had they lost the series, and Australia would have gone to first) and, according to some, they "dominated the series".

As a quick review, the first test, in Brisbane, started well for South Africa before JP Duminy got injured, during the break between days 1 and 2, and then, after that, Australia fought back, from being way behind, to being further behind, to eventually actually being on top. Notable points were just how badly Philander was bowling for South Africa, and just how stupid the decision was to play Rob Quiney, an ODI specialist batsman, in place of the all rounder Shane Watson. Rory Kleinveldt had one of the worst debuts you will ever see - though Rob Quiney was probably worse.

The second test, in Adelaide, started well for South Africa with two early wickets to Jacques Kallis before he, too, was injured, giving Australia a chance. Australia fought back and ended up well on top. Then James Pattinson, Australia's best bowler, was out injured. It didn't seem to matter though. Kallis was batting fine, just not bowling or fielding, and that gave South Africa a chance. And Faf du Plessis, supposedly playing as an all-rounder to replace JP Duminy, highlighted that, at least occasionally, ODI specialists can make the transition to tests.

Australia had the best part of two days to bowl South Africa out but instead Faf du Plessis and AB de Villiers just went block crazy and, just barely, denied Australia victory. South Africa had a lot of luck and certainly wouldn't have won had Pattinson not been injured. The odd decision not to play Mitchell Starc really seemed to hurt more than anything, especially after Pattinson was out, and the decision to play Quiney again, in spite of Watson being fit, seemed all the more ludicrous. From South Africa's perspective, Rory Kleinveldt was horrible but Imran Tahir was worse - having the worst ever performance of a bowler ever.

The third test, in Perth, started poorly for South Africa and highlighted the difference it made for Australia having the best bowlers. But then a bad decision against David Warner early on day two - not overturned due to the inadequacies of DRS - led to a flurry of wickets with bad strokes and generally Australia lost the match by failing to bat properly.

Matthew Wade showed them how it was done and John Hastings was pretty decent too, but it was too little too late as Australia sacrificed a first innings lead.

Then South Africa somehow batted like madmen, at for a long time more than six runs per over, and then kept going and going. They blocked for a while, then went like madmen again. They must have read a book on how to bat at Perth, because, quite simply, that is what you have to do. If you are defensive at Perth, you get out. You need to be aggressive, and it is safer to score at 5 per over than to score at 2 - quite the opposite to Adelaide.

Australia batted better in their final innings but it was too little too late, and, importantly, they forgot the rule of aggression. 632 runs as a target were never going to be overhauled - a full 200 more than the highest ever chased down. Australia were never ahead in the chase, and it was only towards the end that the tail enders showed how to bat on this pitch, with Mitchell Starc getting a quick fire 60 at the death.

It wasn't even so much that South Africa outplayed them - rather they realised, like an idea bulb, how to bat at Perth. Why South Africa are better at batting at Perth than Australia is anybody's guess - but perhaps because Perth plays like many grounds in South Africa. South Africa always do well at Perth, and won their last match here too.

Player by player review:

Australia

David Warner showed that he is not out of form at all with a quick fire century, but also failed to capitalise on starts in other innings and had some low scores too. He showed potential, and seems to be a bit like a Chris Gayle or Virender Sehwag type of player, who can succeed, but, as luck would have it, he didn't really in this series.

Ed Cowan was widely praised for his 1st test effort, where he scored a century when wickets were falling all around him, though ultimately Michael Clarke's 200 and Hussey's 100 overshadowed it somewhat. He failed abysmally in every other innings and still looks out of his depth in test cricket. The guy barely averages 30 in test cricket. While he might be good at batting out a draw and stonewalling, he is never going to score very many runs and is somewhat useless for the team effort. He reminds me of the utterly useless Daren Ganga and I really hope that they dump him before it is too late.

Rob Quiney played the first two tests and was beyond hopeless. In his first test, he was aggressive and was caught going for a 6 - when his score was 9 and we had already lost an early wicket. If that stupidity wasn't bad enough, after people claiming he should replace Warner or even Ponting, based on that 9, he followed it up with 0 and 0 and was promptly dumped. This guy is a one day specialist and should never have been in contention here. He is not in form and is not a good enough player to play test matches. If this was a hunch from left field, fair enough, but once he failed he should have been dumped. He should not have been given a 2nd test. And now he should never play test cricket again.

Shane Watson only played one test, and, while he was widely criticised, he was still one hell of a lot better than Quiney. He may have only bowled 9 overs in each innings, but he is recovering from injury, and he at least took a wicket - Quiney never looked like doing that. He also scored a fair bit more than Quiney's 9, even if he wasn't totally succeeding. He is still an invaluable member of the team and one of the best players. He was injured for the 1st test but should have played in the 2nd. It is shameful that Rob Quiney of all people was preferred to him.

Ricky Ponting was supposed to be in the form of his life - domestically he has been for the whole last 12 months! But perhaps international bowlers simply know how to get him out now, because he failed worse than he ever has in his career. This was the worst 3 test series of his life. He could get some solace in knowing that he wasn't the worst player - he was still better than Rob Quiney, and also better than Imran Tahir and Rory Kleinveldt for South Africa - but he was definitely a burden and it was the right time to retire. There isn't anyone obvious to replace him though, but if the selectors think a bit and use a tried and true limited overs player, in George Bailey, they could have the answer to Faf du Plessis.

Michael Clarke played rescue man on more than one occasion. It started in the first test after Warner, Quiney and Ponting were out cheaply, and he came out with a big double century. He repeated this in the 2nd test, after Cowan, Quiney and Ponting were out cheaply. Then in the 3rd test, after Cowan was out fairly cheaply, Watson was out fairly cheaply, Ponting was out fairly cheaply, and Warner was out fairly cheaply, he failed to capitalise. Perhaps he needs the team to be absolutely in horrific trouble to get the most out of it. Or perhaps he was just out of luck. He was clearly the best batsman in the series - just ahead of Faf du Plessis - and he deserved the player of the series award as well as the number 1 ranking as the best batsman in the world - also noting that he won the ICC test and overall player of the year award. Pity that the others all failed.

Michael Hussey was batting way down at number 6 and boy would it have been nice if he was batting a bit higher. Maybe if Clarke and Hussey are the only two consistent batsmen, they should be batting at 3 and 4 rather than 5 and 6. Hussey once again had a wonderful series, once again showing that he is nowhere near retirement level, and making many of us wonder why his YOUNGER BROTHER David Hussey is still yet to make his test debut. He is too old apparently, yet Michael, 2 years older, is not. Go figure.

Matthew Wade had a poor start to the series but in the 2nd and especially 3rd test he really came out of his shell and was brilliant. Some will still be calling for Brad Haddin - or even Tim Paine - to replace him - and realistically Peter Nevill isn't far behind and is probably the legitimate 2nd best now - and he has a way to go to genuinely solidify his spot, but he still did well enough - for now.

James Pattinson had such a wonderful series, being clearly the bowling attack leader, doing so well in the first test, and then injured himself after just 9 overs of the 2nd test, and of course didn't play in the 3rd. He also batted really well. He may have to fight with Ryan Harris for the overall title of best bowler in the country, but of those that were fit, he was certainly the best, and boy would it have been nice had Pattinson been lucky enough to have had Mitchell Starc bowling alongside him. But the selectors chose to pit experience ahead of quality, so that was never going to happen.

Mitchell Starc wow he did well when he finally got to play in the 3rd test. He started off bowling up a storm with 2 early wickets that set up the innings, then he took 6 wickets in the 3rd innings - in spite of them getting over 500 - and then finished it off with 60+ not out at more than a run a ball. They were easy runs and made no difference to the result but boy is he in form. WHY THE HELL DIDN'T HE PLAY IN ALL MATCHES???? I cannot comprehend why he wasn't there. Sure, so perhaps Pattinson is better, but not by much! The fact that he was left armed and would have offered much needed variety would have made all of the difference. I am extremely confident that, had he played in the 2nd test, Australia would have won the test. We may have even won the 1st. His test bowling average is under 30 now so surely now he won't be kept out again.

Josh Hastings batted a lot better than expected and now, if you look at his stats, he looks like a top order batsman - except that his FC average suggests that he is a number 8. He bowled well enough but only took 1 wicket and perhaps demonstrated that maybe test cricket is not for him. Why not Clint McKay though? I would have thought that he would have done well. Or Alistair McDermott? But Hastings did show heart so may get another go. He did one hell of a lot better than Rob Quiney did, and Quiney got another shot. He really brought a lot to the match and his variety was very useful.

Mitchell Johnson really bowled up a storm, and, while he was a distance behind Starc, the two were so different that there is surely a justification for playing both in the same match on a regular basis. Two left armers might seem excessive but it is okay when they both bowl in a very different way. Starc is consistent while Johnson is erratic. Starc nags while Johnson strikes. Johnson was in reasonable enough first class form but it hardly demanded his selection. But the selectors went with a hunch and it really paid off. The question mark is whether it was just because it was at his favourite ground or whether he will be good at all grounds. He may be picked against Sri Lanka but it can't be guaranteed. His performances were really good though.

Nathan Lyon surprised by having much better figures than I expected, was the only Australian bowler to play in all 3 tests, and finished with the most wickets! Not bad for someone who was woefully out of form! He didn't bowl particularly well but he fitted into the team wonderfully, and his variety really hurt. It will be another matter entirely whether they want to risk him against Sri Lanka, who play spin well, but against South Africa, who play spin poorly, he did reasonably well. I still wouldn't have put him in the side as I am sure that there are fast bowlers who could have done better but if they were going to go in with 4 right armed medium fast bowlers, all same o same o, I would rather Lyon. Such a pity that Lyon didn't have the left armer Mitchell Starc to give him nice footmarks to bowl into, and to give his own variety. Would have been invaluable at Adelaide and could have won Australia the match.

Peter Siddle bowled his heart out, but, most of the time, wasn't bowling very well. Oh, he tries. He always tries. Sometimes trying gets him wickets, but usually it doesn't. The guy just isn't test quality. The only reason that the selectors picked him is because they were scared to expose 4 new bowlers to the side and they wanted some experience up top. Personally, I'd rather quality up top. You could see the difference in the attack when he was rested for the 3rd test. I sincerely hope that he isn't rushed back into the side. He can play in England and New Zealand, in conditions that suit. Not in Australia please.

Ben Hilfenhaus offered that swing bowling option. Wow. But doesn't Mitchell Starc swing the ball, does it a lot better, is left armed, and also gives footmarks for the spinner to bowl into? Hilfenhaus ranged from hopeless to economical and really was not threatening at all. There will be no South African batsmen having nightmares about Hilfy gently plodding in. Pattinson yes, Starc yes, and Johnson certainly, but not Hilfy. Hilfy just seems like someone you want to cuddle. Save him for overseas tours, or perhaps if playing in Hobart, or certain conditions that suit. In most conditions, he is nowhere near test level.

South Africa

Graeme Smith for the most part looked like he didn't belong, though he did get a century that at the time looked valuable. The rest of the time he looked like he should be retiring and making way for a better player. His captaincy skills were still impressive though.

Alviro Petersen I have to wonder how he got in the side in the first place, let alone how he stays there. There are many better batsmen in South Africa for them to have to bother with Alviro. If nothing else, it makes it confusing if Robin plays in the same match. He was still better than his counterpart Ed Cowan though - and better than David Warner too.

Hashim Amla started poorly but then came into his own, and finished with a match winning 196 at almost a run a ball - early on it was over a run a ball - that really won South Africa the game and the series and retained the number 1 spot. He is very consistent and is hard to dislodge, as one of the best batsmen in the world.

AB de Villiers wants to keep wicket for South Africa, after spending the best part of 10 years batting but not getting to keep as one of the best ever keepers in Mark Boucher was in the side. But the problem is that while keeping wicket his batting has gone downhill. But in this series it improved. He scored one of the best 33s you will ever see, that let South Africa draw the 2nd test that they should have lost, and then scored a big century to win them the match in the 3rd. He kept pretty well too. Quinton de Kock is a better batsman and is younger and pretty soon will be knocking down the door to at least make the South African team as a batsman, if not as their keeper. But for now de Villiers kept his spot. Quinton de Kock wasn't even on the tour, thankfully for de Villiers. If he was, both would be batting; but who would keep would be a big question.

Jacques Kallis did so well when he finally bowled, getting 2 cheap wickets to destroy Australia - but then got injured! But then he did a sneaky and batted with very little problems and came back for the 3rd test and did everything. He contributed very well for the team and made sure that his absence didn't hurt anywhere near as much as JP Duminy's did. He may forever have the mantle of "2nd greatest all rounder in keeper", behind Garfield Sobers; but he is still incredibly good.

JP Duminy didn't bat or bowl or field, and somehow or other managed to injure himself between days 1 and 2 of the 1st test, something which cost South Africa any chance of winning the test. Perhaps South Africa wouldn't have won; but they might have. Hopefully he learns not to do whatever he did to rub himself out.

Faf du Plessis was not expected to do much - after all, he is a one day specialist and has a poor FC record, who was brought in mainly because he can bowl a bit - but while his bowling stunk his batting was amazing - he finished with a batting average of over 100! He started with a solid 70 then scored a very slow match saving century, then another 70 before finally a low score during their big risky scoring in the 3rd innings of the 3rd test. Wow. What a start! Surely he can't keep it up, but he suddenly made the transition from ODIs to tests very well, making me think even more that George Bailey is the man for Australia.

Jacques Rudolph wasn't totally horrible, and not much was expected of him anyway, but he was pretty bad. Oh sure, he was probably still better than Ponting, and, other than that one century, was probably better than Ed Cowan too; but he was still pretty bad. And the fact that he has a poor overall record too meant that he was dropped. Luckily for him, though, his replacement, Dean Elgar, was even worse! The problem is that JP Duminy will come back, and there won't be room for Rudolph to come back - or for Elgar, as du Plessis is there to stay, for a while at least.

Bruce Elgar did a Rob Quiney, and managed two ducks. Unlike Quiney, Elgar didn't have that magnificent 9 to fall back on, and finished the series with a batting average of 0. Luckily for Elgar, unlike Quiney, he can bowl a bit, though he stunk in his only match. Unlike Quiney, Elgar is actually a good batsman though and actually has a career ahead of him. But it may have to wait a while longer after this terrible effort.

Vernon Philander was supposed to be the best bowler in the world but what we saw was someone desperately trying to show off his average and not actually bowling well. He was horrible in the first test, and while his figures were better in the third, he wasn't exactly good. He took the second test off, but probably did that on purpose. He isn't likely to be dropped in the short term but if this form continues he sure will be.

Rory Kleinveldt was terrible and was lucky that his terrible debut was rewarded with a second match thanks to Philander's absence, when he did slightly better, but was still bad. He is going to have to improve dramatically to get another chance at the big time; but hey, at least he has the experience.

Imran Tahir missed the first test as South Africa played all pace, then played the 2nd and had the worst ever return for a bowler - 340 runs without taking a wicket. The mystery spinner was well and truly solved! Oh dear. He actually did well in the recent T20 World Cup. Is he out of form or just bad luck? Not sure, but it was certainly a bad test for him.

Robin Petersen was Tahir's replacement and actually did pretty well. He can bat a bit too. He wasn't amazing but he was a lot better than he was supposed to be.

Dale Steyn is meant to be the world's best bowler but he was a bit off as well. But then in the 3rd test he was a bit better. Still not up to his usual standard but not so terrible.

Morne Morkel was easily South Africa's best bowler. Without him, South Africa would have lost 3-0. He made Australia's out of form batsmen look terrible, and scared the in form ones too.

Overall:

The scoreline says South Africa but the series was very close. The 1st test had Australia in the position to win at the end but it finished in a draw. The 2nd test Australia were so far ahead it wasn't funny but South Africa remarkably fought out a draw. The 3rd test Australia were on top early before South Africa got slightly ahead, then capitalised, and finished up winning by a decent margin. Overall, Australia did better, but the scoreline is what matters and South Africa win it 1-0. It was a very close series with many twists and turns. Both teams had holes. But somehow South Africa covered theirs better.

Read More

Australia rule Adelaide Test as Clarke hits 2nd straight double ton

By Nadene Smith

ADELAIDE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) November 22, 2012: Australian captain Michael Clarke hit second straight double hundred as Australia ruled on opening day of the Adelaide Test against South Africa on Thursday.

Australia scored massive 482 for five on first day of the second Test after Clarke scored unbeaten 224 while David Warner (119) and Mike Hussey (103) also played vital role in giving Australia the advantage.

This is Michael Clarke’s fourth double century in Test cricket this year, a feat which not even Sir Don Bradman had achieved.

Australia’s first day total of 482 runs is their highest in a Test day since 1910 and all the credit goes to skipper Michael Clarke who is enjoying the best form of his Test career.

Michael Clarke, who made 259 not out in Gabba in the first Test, followed it up with another massive effort as he came out of the Adelaide Oval at 224 not out when umpires called it stumps.

Earlier in the day, David Warner resurrected his Test career with a flourishing knock of 119 from 112 balls and helped Australia take the initiative away from the Proteas who were rocked by the hamstring injury to their premier all-rounder Jacques Kallis who could only bowl four overs but not before taking two quality wickets in the morning session. Jacques Kallis is still available to participate in the match as a batsman but with his injury South Africa are now a bowler short for the whole match.

While David Warner expanded his wings to save his Test career, luck was not that friendly with Rob Quiney who suffered to an eight-ball duck after scoring only nine runs in the Gabba Test and it appears as if he won’t get another chance by the Aussie selectors, at least in this series.

Mr. Reliable, Mike Hussey, then joined his skipper for a massive 272 runs partnership before playing it on to his stumps what proved the final delivery of the day by Dale Steyn but not before completing his second consecutive century.

During the brief stint of Jacques Kallis as a bowler, he already had rocked the Aussies on the back-foot with two beautiful dismissals. Especially, the way he undid former Aussie skipper Ricky Ponting was exceptional who had no clue whatsoever about the delivery and was not only beaten all ends up but also fell down on the ground, thus giving a clear picture of demise of his super form he had already enjoyed at the Adelaide Oval before this Test.

Ed Cowan, Ricky Ponting, and Rob Quiney all failed to dismantle the confidence of South African bowlers who came running at them with fast pace and purposeful deliveries every now and then.

However, it all changed as soon as Michael Clarke and David Warner took the attack to them as the duo smashed them all across the park.

During the course of day one in Adelaide Test, Australia hit as many as 66 boundaries and nine sixes as they ended with a run-rate of 5.55 per over.

After the initial dominance, South Africa bowlers looked ordinary. The biggest disappointment was Imran Tahir who was manhandled by the Aussie batsmen brutally as he gave away 159 runs from his 21 overs with no wicket and no luck, and of course no discipline as the leg-spin bowler over-stepped five times during his spell. Nothing less than a sin!

Mike Hussey and Michael Clarke were in punishing mood in the final session of the day one where they notched up 202 runs and achieved their milestones on back-to-back deliveries off none other than Imran Tahir who was belted for a massive six over mid-wicket by Hussey to get to his hundred before Clarke launched him for a single towards the off-side to reach his double hundred.

South African skipper Graeme Smith’s tactics were not friendly to many minds inside the Adelaide Oval as well as the fans watching it on the television as he had had the chance to give his bowlers new ball before the two batsmen could reach their milestones. It was in the 82^nd over when Mike Hussey and Michael Clarke completed their tons and Graeme Smith missed a trick to impose pressure on the two batsmen by making them face the new cherry quite close to their landmarks.

Read More

Do Aussies Have Competitive Edge Over Proteas?

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) November 13, 2012: The problem that South Africa have faced when coming up against Australia since readmission is that both sides have a similar make up.

Both have an array of marvellous batting, both bat very deep, both have fantastic fast bowlers, good spinners and a wicket keeper.

During Australia's heydey, they boasted a better spinner (Warne), better batsmen and an equal wicket keeper (Gilchrist vs Boucher was a close contest), only Australia's keeper, Gilchrist, could bat a fair bit better than Boucher.

South Africa were ahead with all-rounders; but Australia were able to combat that.

South Africa kept losing their top order cheaply and kept fighting back at the end. While that worked okay in ODIs (T20s didn't exist in those days), it tended to fail in tests. And South Africa lost both home and away, as they couldn't really prepare pitches to favour their players, as Australia had the same strengths.

At various times South Africa used to have better bowlers (Allan Donald etc.) but Australia always had more on offer for their Proteas opponents.

And now, the situation is much the same. Both teams have similar make ups. The problem is that South Africa have it better.

If Shane Watson was playing, it could be argued that he is the equal of Jacques Kallis, at least with the form Watson is currently in. Kallis is a better batsman but Watson is a better bowler; so they kind of cancel out. Maybe Kallis would still win; but not by much. But without Watson - and without any attempt to even play an all-rounder, South Africa win that battle easily.

Amazing batsmen (average 50+):

South Africa have 3 (Smith, Amla and Kallis) while Australia have 3 as well (Ponting, Hussey and Clarke). The problem is that Kallis averages a lot more than 50 (about 58) and while Ponting used to average that high, it is now down to around 52 or so. So South Africa win this one, though it is a close contest.

Good batsmen (average 40+):

South Africa have 5 (the above 3 + Alviro Petersen and A B de Villiers) while Australia have just 4 (the above 3 + David Warner), and Warner only just makes the cut. South Africa therefore win this one quite comfortably.

Ordinary batsmen (average 30+):

South Africa have 7 (the above 5 + J P Duminy and Rudolph) while Australia have just 5 (the above 4 + Matthew Wade), so South Africa win this one too.

Weak batsmen (average 20+):

South Africa have 8 (the above 7 + Philander) while Australia have probably 8 (the above 5 + James Pattinson, Ed Cowan and probably Rob Quiney).

So, in other words, Australia are going to have the same number of players scoring big runs but really struggle when they get to the lower order. Had Starc played, they would have had all 11 with batting averages over 10, and been ahead of South Africa; but Lyon is a bit of a bunny.

There is really no way that Australia can win based on their batting. Sure, so Michael Hussey, Michael Clarke or Ricky Ponting could play blinders and win; but overall South Africa are going to be on top.

Even with home ground advantage, it is going to be tough.

Wicket keeper:

Australia's Matthew Wade is a pure keeper and hence should be ahead of South Africa's A B de Villiers. Had Wade been up against Mark Boucher, though, he would have lost. The problem is that, back when he first played, de Villiers was a full time keeper, and, while he is a bit out of practice, he is still a decent keeper. Wade might be slightly ahead, but Wade isn't exactly used to the big time yet, and the fact is that de Villiers bats a lot better than Wade, so he wins that battle. Of course, de Villiers is included for his batting already (above) so perhaps Australia wins this battle. They should take more catches and have less mistakes in the field. Perhaps. But Australia's fielding under Haddin and Paine fell so far that they are unlikely to catch up this quickly.

Fast bowlers with supreme averages (under 20):

South Africa have 1 (Philander) while Australia have 1 (Pattinson) - though Pattinson is actually over 20 now after the first day of the first test. Philander's average of 15 is a lot better than Pattinson's 18 anyway. It is a bit of a close contest though.

Fast bowlers with great averages (under 25):

South Africa have 2 (Steyn + the 1 above) while Australia still just have 1. Pattinson vs Philander might be close but Philander + Steyn vs Pattinson by himself is a bit of a mismatch.

Fast bowlers with good averages (under 30):

South Africa have 3 (Morkel + the 2 above) while Australia have 3 (Siddle and Hilfenhaus + the 1 above). Australia are equal here, presuming that Kleinveldt ends up being terrible. If he is decent, though, then Australia are behind. It should be noted that Australia's spinner (Lyon) also averages just under 30; so Australia wins, yay!

Bowlers of any kind with decent averages (under 40):

South Africa have 6 (JP Duminy and Kallis + the 3 above, and Kleinveldt, you would think, would be under 40 too) while Australia have 5 (Michael Hussey averages under 40, amazingly + the 4 above). Of course, with JP Duminy out injured, it gets back to 5 each, so Australia are in the hunt.

Spin bowlers:

Australia has 1 (Lyon).

Summary: How are Australia better?

1) Wicket keeper (Matthew Wade) is probably slightly better purely as a keeper than A B de Villiers, though he is considerably worse as a batsman.

2) Spin bowler (Lyon) is better than any spinners that South Africa might use.

So, put simply, Australia will need for the ball to spin a lot in order to have any chance of victory. Make it so that, suddenly, the wickets don't support pace. It has rained, so if they can just leave the pitch uncovered, the spinner could come into play.

They do have some chance now that a day has been washed out and JP Duminy is injured, without either batting or bowling. But it is pretty difficult.

Moving ahead to the 2nd test, what could Australia do to be better?

It is in Adelaide, which is usually very good for batting, and decent for spinners. But South Africa's spinners (Tahir and Robin Petersen) are better than Australia's (Lyon), and they will surely play at least one of them. It is a ground that you'd play an extra bowler, just to go for the victory, and you'd go in with 3 batsmen and 2 bowlers. It is a ground that Australia could consider playing James Faulkner as a bowling all-rounder as well as Glenn Maxwell as a batting all rounder that bowls spin. They could then play 5 proper batsmen - with Watson one of them if he is fit - plus keeper makes 8, Lyon makes 9, and your 2 best fast bowlers - Starc and Pattinson. Doing that, Australia would have the edge with both batting and bowling, as well as by having the extra spinner and more variety.

Read More

Australia vs South Africa: Brisbane Test Day 4 Review

A Draw is looming at Gabba in Aus-SA 1st Test

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) November 13, 2012: I have to amend my Day 3 review by saying that Ed Cowan was almost out, caught behind off Morne Morkel, in the second last over of the day! For some reason I missed that. He was originally given not out; but the South Africans were sure that he was out and reviewed it.

Given how rarely South Africans review decisions, we knew that there had to be something about this. Replays showed that he had hit it, at least with his glove. But, on checking the no ball part, they found that it was in fact a no ball - something that the umpire also missed. As such, South Africa didn't lose their review - because they were right and the umpire was wrong - but Ed Cowan wasn't out either.

Australia were 3/111 after 26 overs, with Cowan 49 not out and Clarke 34 not out, as part of an unbeaten 70 run partnership, still 339 runs behind.

Oh for Duminy! Oh for rain not washing out day 2!

Steyn started up the day with Philander, and while it should have been hostile, it really wasn't. Cowan and Clarke were a bit more watchful than they had been at the end of day 3; but nonetheless there were no chances and it wasn't really looking like South Africa were going to take a wicket.

Morkel replaced Steyn, and even tried around the wicket to start with but still it was nothing to worry about. Kleinveldt continued his horrible debut test by bowling no balls galore.

At least the runs were drying up, as Australia's run rate went from over 4 to around 3.5 overall as Cowan and Clarke were watchful, but not really in any risk of getting out.

Kallis came on to bowl but he was no worry either. Duminy would have been an extra string in South Africa's bow - not to mention that they might have managed 50 more runs too - but without that extra bowler, with a couple struggling it was tough.

Australia got to 150, then 170, and while the runs were being added it was a bit slow going.

Graeme Smith came on to bowl - as he does 1 in every 6 test matches - far too often, given his test bowling average of over 100!

Australia got to 200. And South Africa thought that there was a chance, except that it actually came off Cowan's helmet, not his bat.

And Australia went to lunch on 3/210, no wickets or even close to a wicket, 99 runs and 0 wickets, off 33 overs, at a run rate of exactly 3, far slower than they had been for the first 26 overs.

After lunch, it seems that Australia decided to lift the run rate. It seems that they had worked out that there were enough overs left in the match for them to win it - but only if they scored at 4 runs per over. If they scored at 3, then it was going to be a draw.

Cowan, who went to lunch at 98, raced past his century, and then Clarke smashed a barrage of boundaries as he was heading for a century of his own.

Clarke got into the nervous 90s as he went from 97 to 98, still 98, 99 and then finally 100, crawling along for the last 3 runs required to get to a century.

Then it was all too easy, as Cowan-Clarke repeated the dose by South Africa's Amla-Kallis partnership, with both getting centuries, and it took a bad decision that South Africa failed to refer to get Amla, and a classic catch to get rid of Kallis. What would it take to get rid of Cowan and Clarke?

On 125, Rory Kleinfeldt all but got his first test wicket - the wicket of Ed Cowan. 4/269 would have given some hope for South Africa, while 1/65 would have looked at least respectable for Kleinfeldt. The ball flew high up into the air and either of Dale Steyn - who took that magnificent classic catch to get rid of Quiney on the boundary - or Jacques Rudolph - could have caught it. Steyn should have got it but Rudolph wanted to be the hero. Steyn made way to let Rudolph go for it but Rudolph realised he couldn't get there, so Steyn went; but in the confusion only managed to get a fingertip to it, and was unable to complete the catch. Cowan had a life, and South Africa's chances of victory were quickly slipping.

Smith and Kallis leisurely bowled the next few overs until the new ball was taken at the earliest possible time, after 80 overs. It seems that South Africa are not interested in trying to get reverse swing - or perhaps incapable of it, at least with the Kookaburra ball.

The new ball was taken but while Steyn took it, his partner should have been Morkel, not the misfiring Philander. But Philander it was, and because of that any hope that the new ball would do anything was gone.

The only thing that the new ball was doing was that whenever Clarke was facing, Cowan was backing up a long, long way, and the bowlers must have been tempted to try to run him out during the delivery stride. Ultimately, thankfully, that didn't happen - though it wasn't much better, as Clarke hit a straight drive off Steyn, Steyn got a fingertip to it, and it crashed onto the stumps, running Cowan out by a long, long way. He walked! It went for a review but he knew he was out so walked. He was out for 136 and Australia were 4/299.

South Africa still had a chance of victory, it should be noted. While the follow on had been avoided, they could still get a big lead, quickly get some runs, declare and go for a victory on the last day. But they needed quick wickets and a lead of about 100, or at least say 80.

But with Cowan out like that, it really gave no relief to the bowlers - not like it would have had Steyn been able to take that catch off Kleinveldt. A run out helps the fielding team, but it doesn't help any of the bowlers, and the batsmen know that they got themselves out - not the bowlers.

Michael Hussey walked out and immediately bashed the ball to all parts, as if to say that he was a better batsman than Cowan, it was now easy for batting, and he was going to capitalise.

Just on Cowan's innings - I had said that he shouldn't have played, and I wanted David Hussey or George Bailey in the side in his place. But here he was scoring 136, and having to get out run out off an unlucky fingertip. This against Steyn and Philander - ranked 1 and 2 in the world in test cricket - and also Morkel, who is pretty darn good. This against the number 1 test side. This while numbers 2, 3 and 4 all got out for under 10. This while the second best batsman in Australian history, Ricky Ponting, was out for a duck. Sure, so Clarke got more and Hussey will probably overtake him too; but Cowan did all of the work. Cowan won't be dumped for the next test. Quiney probably will but not Cowan. Not now. He is sure to play all series now.

Tea soon came afterwards and Australia were 4/306. They had scored 96 runs for the loss of 1 wicket off 28 overs in the lunch to tea session, and 195 runs for 1 wicket off 61 overs for the day so far.

Straight after lunch, Michael Clarke seemed to hit a ball through to the keeper, off Philander, with him on 126 and Australia 4/306. The umpire said not out, and South Africa reviewed it. There was a sound and also seemed to be deviation; but, while there was no alternative explanation for either the sound or the deviation, the review said that they couldn't be certain that he hit it either. He probably did, they just couldn't be certain, and benefit of the doubt still goes to the batsman if in doubt - or at least to the umpire - who had called it not out. Had it been given out originally, it probably would have stayed out on review.

Not long afterwards - with some big hitting in between - Morne Morkel had Michael Clarke definitely hit it as it was caught by the keeper - with his score on 135 and Australia 4/339. But it was a no ball. It was given as a no ball so no need to review it - though the TV replays showed that it had been hit anyway. 3 times Australian batsmen had edged it off no balls - Cowan off Morkel the day before, Clarke off Philander and Clarke off Morkel. Indeed, while Philander and Kleinfeldt were bowling no balls galore, Morkel had only bowled 2 all innings, and both of them would have had Australian batsmen given out if they weren't! Talk about costly!

The run rate was lifting, and after those two scares just after tea, it was otherwise pretty comfortable for Hussey and Clarke. Clarke had given chances - including being out off no balls - but Hussey had not, and Hussey capitalised.

South Africa went back to Graeme Smith bowling, not for that variety or trying to get a wicket, but just to give a rest to their main bowlers. Kallis didn't look like getting a wicket either, and even Hashim Amla came in to bowl - but not Jacques Rudolph who has 58 first class wickets and 12 in tests, at a decent average. Alviro Petersen had a go too. But not Rudolph, who is a better bowler than Smith, Amla and Alviro Petersen combined.

Australia went to 350, 400, and even 450 pretty easily, as they piled on the runs. The run rate increased so much that by the end of the day they were above 4 runs per over for the innings. Hussey had 86 off 109 balls, while Clarke got to a double century - 218 off 350 balls. Australia had a lead! They now lead by 37 runs, with only 4 wickets down! 4/487 with a full day's play to go, and extra overs too.

It may look like a draw, but now, suddenly, Australia look like the only team that can win - while for the first 3 days it was looking like South Africa was the only team that could win.

Australia will need to time their declaration carefully. Their best bet is to go for broke in the extended morning session and aim to declare at lunch with a lead of about 200-250. It might be easy for South Africa to get that - and if so then it will be a draw - but they might panic and get themselves out quickly. They will then have 60 or so overs to get them out - which might be enough time.

Australia lost 1/376 for the day, off 95 overs in the end. If they can go at 6 runs per over, and get about 200 runs off the 33 overs in the morning session, they can declare at lunch with a lead of 237 runs, with South Africa having to last 2 sessions, with only 10 men, missing JP Duminy.

South Africa can win, but they will need to take extra quick wickets. If Australia get to 550 even then it will be tough for South Africa, as they will need to bat quickly to set up a declaration and go for the win, but being 100 runs behind they will want to make sure they don't lose by an innings first, and that means a draw.

So most likely if Australia can bat quickly and declare at lunch, then they can hope for a win, but if anything else happens then surely it will be a draw. South Africa can win but it is very unlikely and probably 10:1 it will be a draw.

Read More