Pakistan were rescued against Australia by a last-wicket stand of 84,
though whether even that will be enough remains to be seen..

It seems that SA made an error in deciding to bat on winning the toss
against India, with Siraj imitating Stuart Broad against Australia at
Trent Bridge in 2015, and blowing the opposition away inside the first
session. SA 55 all out in 23.2 overs, with Siraj finishing with 6-15
from 9 overs. Quite a turn-around from the previous match!
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 10:47:42 UTC, John Hall wrote:
> Pakistan were rescued against Australia by a last-wicket stand of 84,
> though whether even that will be enough remains to be seen..
>
> It seems that SA made an error in deciding to bat on winning the toss
> against India, with Siraj imitating Stuart Broad against Australia at
> Trent Bridge in 2015, and blowing the opposition away inside the first
> session. SA 55 all out in 23.2 overs, with Siraj finishing with 6-15
> from 9 overs. Quite a turn-around from the previous match!

That's the 7th-lowest all-out 1st-innings total by a men's Test team after electing to bat first, and the 3rd-lowest by a home team. The 3 lowest (by either side) since 1948 have all been at Cape Town.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;innings_number=1;orderby=team_score;orderbyad=reverse;qualmin1=10;qualval1=team_wickets;template=results;toss=1;type=team;view=innings

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 1:26:39 PM UTC, David North wrote:
> On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 10:47:42 UTC, John Hall wrote:
> > Pakistan were rescued against Australia by a last-wicket stand of 84,
> > though whether even that will be enough remains to be seen..

some rather odd tactics by oz bowlers against ?jamal, seems he has
1 favoured shot the pull, and they gave him plenty of practice.

> >
> > It seems that SA made an error in deciding to bat on winning the toss
> > against India, with Siraj imitating Stuart Broad against Australia at
> > Trent Bridge in 2015, and blowing the opposition away inside the first
> > session. SA 55 all out in 23.2 overs, with Siraj finishing with 6-15
> > from 9 overs. Quite a turn-around from the previous match!
> That's the 7th-lowest all-out 1st-innings total by a men's Test team after electing to bat first, and the 3rd-lowest by a home team. The 3 lowest (by either side) since 1948 have all been at Cape Town.
>
> https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;innings_number=1;orderby=team_score;orderbyad=reverse;qualmin1=10;qualval1=team_wickets;template=results;toss=1;type=team;view=innings

At this rate it'll be finished in under 2 days, maybe even 4 sessions. i posted earlier
on another forum something like amazing comeback by india when they were 150-4,
never expected quite a collapse like 6-0. Is the pitch going bananas?

mike

In message <96add15b-2b0b-47cb-942d-cc537ba4b4c1n@googlegroups.com>,
mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 1:26:390 >> On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 10:47:42 UTC, John Hall wrote:
>> > Pakistan were rescued against Australia by a last-wicket stand of 84,
>> > though whether even that will be enough remains to be seen..
>
>some rather odd tactics by oz bowlers against ?jamal, seems he has
>1 favoured shot the pull, and they gave him plenty of practice.
>
>> >
>> > It seems that SA made an error in deciding to bat on winning the toss
>> > against India, with Siraj imitating Stuart Broad against Australia at
>> > Trent Bridge in 2015, and blowing the opposition away inside the first
>> > session. SA 55 all out in 23.2 overs, with Siraj finishing with 6-15
>> > from 9 overs. Quite a turn-around from the previous match!
>> That's the 7th-lowest all-out 1st-innings total by a men's Test team
>>after electing to bat first, and the 3rd-lowest by a home team. The 3
>>lowest (by either side) since 1948 have all been at Cape Town.
>>
>>
>>https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filte
>>r=advanced;innings_number=1;orderby=team_score;orderbyad=reverse;qualmi
>>n1=10;qualval1=team_wickets;template=results;toss=1;type=team;view=innings
>
>At this rate it'll be finished in under 2 days, maybe even 4 sessions.
>i posted earlier
>on another forum something like amazing comeback by india when they were 150-4,
>never expected quite a collapse like 6-0. Is the pitch going bananas?
>
>mike

Is Markram batting on a different pitch to everyone else? Without him,
your suggestion that India could win in under four sessions might well
have come to pass.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On 1/4/2024 1:23 AM, John Hall wrote:
> In message <96add15b-2b0b-47cb-942d-cc537ba4b4c1n@googlegroups.com>,
> mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 1:26:390 >> On Wednesday 3 January
>> 2024 at 10:47:42 UTC, John Hall wrote:
>>> > Pakistan were rescued against Australia by a last-wicket stand of 84,
>>> > though whether even that will be enough remains to be seen..
>>
>> some rather odd tactics by oz bowlers against ?jamal, seems he has
>> 1 favoured shot the pull, and they gave him plenty of practice.
>>
>>> >
>>> > It seems that SA made an error in deciding to bat on winning the toss
>>> > against India, with Siraj imitating Stuart Broad against Australia at
>>> > Trent Bridge in 2015, and blowing the opposition away inside the first
>>> > session. SA 55 all out in 23.2 overs, with Siraj finishing with 6-15
>>> > from 9 overs. Quite a turn-around from the previous match!
>>> That's the 7th-lowest all-out 1st-innings total by a men's Test team
>>> after electing to bat first, and the 3rd-lowest by a home team. The 3
>>> lowest (by either side) since 1948 have all been at Cape Town.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filte
>>> r=advanced;innings_number=1;orderby=team_score;orderbyad=reverse;qualmi
>>> n1=10;qualval1=team_wickets;template=results;toss=1;type=team;view=innings
>>
>> At this rate it'll be finished in under 2 days, maybe even 4 sessions.
>> i posted earlier
>> on another forum something like amazing comeback by india when they
>> were 150-4,
>> never expected quite a collapse like 6-0. Is the pitch going bananas?
>>
>> mike
>
> Is Markram batting on a different pitch to everyone else? Without him,
> your suggestion that India could win in under four sessions might well
> have come to pass.

The match would have been over under 4 sessions IF Rahul took this EASY
CATCH when Markram was on 73, though.

27.3 Bumrah to Markram, no run

edged and Rahul has dropped it! The keeper snatches at the ball and
can't catch it on the rebound either. Rears up from a length and
straightens away outside off, Markram flays at it but is surprised by
the variable bounce. He stabs an outside edge that flies in and out of
Rahul's gloves

On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 12:22:42 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 1:23 AM, John Hall wrote:
> > In message <96add15b-2b0b-47cb...@googlegroups.com>,
> > mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 1:26:390 >> On Wednesday 3 January
> >> 2024 at 10:47:42 UTC, John Hall wrote:
> >>> > Pakistan were rescued against Australia by a last-wicket stand of 84,
> >>> > though whether even that will be enough remains to be seen..
> >>
> >> some rather odd tactics by oz bowlers against ?jamal, seems he has
> >> 1 favoured shot the pull, and they gave him plenty of practice.
> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > It seems that SA made an error in deciding to bat on winning the toss
> >>> > against India, with Siraj imitating Stuart Broad against Australia at
> >>> > Trent Bridge in 2015, and blowing the opposition away inside the first
> >>> > session. SA 55 all out in 23.2 overs, with Siraj finishing with 6-15
> >>> > from 9 overs. Quite a turn-around from the previous match!
> >>> That's the 7th-lowest all-out 1st-innings total by a men's Test team
> >>> after electing to bat first, and the 3rd-lowest by a home team. The 3
> >>> lowest (by either side) since 1948 have all been at Cape Town.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filte
> >>> r=advanced;innings_number=1;orderby=team_score;orderbyad=reverse;qualmi
> >>> n1=10;qualval1=team_wickets;template=results;toss=1;type=team;view=innings
> >>
> >> At this rate it'll be finished in under 2 days, maybe even 4 sessions.
> >> i posted earlier
> >> on another forum something like amazing comeback by india when they
> >> were 150-4,
> >> never expected quite a collapse like 6-0. Is the pitch going bananas?
> >>
> >> mike
> >
> > Is Markram batting on a different pitch to everyone else? Without him,
> > your suggestion that India could win in under four sessions might well
> > have come to pass.
> The match would have been over under 4 sessions IF Rahul took this EASY
> CATCH when Markram was on 73, though.

Probably, if the regulations allow lunch to be delayed if a finish is imminent. It's doubtful whether they would have finished before the scheduled lunch interval, as India would probably have needed about 45 in 3 overs, given that there were 4.1 overs and 34 runs between the drop (at 128/7) and Markram's dismissal.

On 1/4/2024 5:55 AM, David North wrote:
> On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 12:22:42 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 1/4/2024 1:23 AM, John Hall wrote:
>>> In message <96add15b-2b0b-47cb...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 1:26:390 >> On Wednesday 3 January
>>>> 2024 at 10:47:42 UTC, John Hall wrote:
>>>>>> Pakistan were rescued against Australia by a last-wicket stand of 84,
>>>>>> though whether even that will be enough remains to be seen..
>>>>
>>>> some rather odd tactics by oz bowlers against ?jamal, seems he has
>>>> 1 favoured shot the pull, and they gave him plenty of practice.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems that SA made an error in deciding to bat on winning the toss
>>>>>> against India, with Siraj imitating Stuart Broad against Australia at
>>>>>> Trent Bridge in 2015, and blowing the opposition away inside the first
>>>>>> session. SA 55 all out in 23.2 overs, with Siraj finishing with 6-15
>>>>>> from 9 overs. Quite a turn-around from the previous match!
>>>>> That's the 7th-lowest all-out 1st-innings total by a men's Test team
>>>>> after electing to bat first, and the 3rd-lowest by a home team. The 3
>>>>> lowest (by either side) since 1948 have all been at Cape Town.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filte
>>>>> r=advanced;innings_number=1;orderby=team_score;orderbyad=reverse;qualmi
>>>>> n1=10;qualval1=team_wickets;template=results;toss=1;type=team;view=innings
>>>>
>>>> At this rate it'll be finished in under 2 days, maybe even 4 sessions.
>>>> i posted earlier
>>>> on another forum something like amazing comeback by india when they
>>>> were 150-4,
>>>> never expected quite a collapse like 6-0. Is the pitch going bananas?
>>>>
>>>> mike
>>>
>>> Is Markram batting on a different pitch to everyone else? Without him,
>>> your suggestion that India could win in under four sessions might well
>>> have come to pass.
>> The match would have been over under 4 sessions IF Rahul took this EASY
>> CATCH when Markram was on 73, though.
>
> Probably, if the regulations allow lunch to be delayed if a finish is imminent. It's doubtful whether they would have finished before the scheduled lunch interval, as India would probably have needed about 45 in 3 overs, given that there were 4.1 overs and 34 runs between the drop (at 128/7) and Markram's dismissal.

You ASSUMED that Rabada, Ngidi and Burger would have survived 56 balls
IF Rahul took the easy catch at 27.3 over of Markram and SA would have
lasted for 36.5 overs total.

But you were right that lunch would probably have to be delayed for
India to score the remaining runs to WIN to finish in 4 sessions.

On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:55:24 PM UTC, David North wrote:
> On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 12:22:42 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > On 1/4/2024 1:23 AM, John Hall wrote:
> > > In message <96add15b-2b0b-47cb...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> > >> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 1:26:390 >> On Wednesday 3 January
> > >> 2024 at 10:47:42 UTC, John Hall wrote:
> > >>> > Pakistan were rescued against Australia by a last-wicket stand of 84,
> > >>> > though whether even that will be enough remains to be seen..
> > >>
> > >> some rather odd tactics by oz bowlers against ?jamal, seems he has
> > >> 1 favoured shot the pull, and they gave him plenty of practice.
> > >>
> > >>> >
> > >>> > It seems that SA made an error in deciding to bat on winning the toss
> > >>> > against India, with Siraj imitating Stuart Broad against Australia at
> > >>> > Trent Bridge in 2015, and blowing the opposition away inside the first
> > >>> > session. SA 55 all out in 23.2 overs, with Siraj finishing with 6-15
> > >>> > from 9 overs. Quite a turn-around from the previous match!
> > >>> That's the 7th-lowest all-out 1st-innings total by a men's Test team
> > >>> after electing to bat first, and the 3rd-lowest by a home team. The 3
> > >>> lowest (by either side) since 1948 have all been at Cape Town.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filte
> > >>> r=advanced;innings_number=1;orderby=team_score;orderbyad=reverse;qualmi
> > >>> n1=10;qualval1=team_wickets;template=results;toss=1;type=team;view=innings
> > >>
> > >> At this rate it'll be finished in under 2 days, maybe even 4 sessions.
> > >> i posted earlier
> > >> on another forum something like amazing comeback by india when they
> > >> were 150-4,
> > >> never expected quite a collapse like 6-0. Is the pitch going bananas?
> > >>
> > >> mike
> > >
> > > Is Markram batting on a different pitch to everyone else? Without him,
> > > your suggestion that India could win in under four sessions might well
> > > have come to pass.
> > The match would have been over under 4 sessions IF Rahul took this EASY
> > CATCH when Markram was on 73, though.
> Probably, if the regulations allow lunch to be delayed if a finish is imminent. It's doubtful whether they would have finished before the scheduled lunch interval, as India would probably have needed about 45 in 3 overs, given that there were 4.1 overs and 34 runs between the drop (at 128/7) and Markram's dismissal.

Well they said it was the shortest test in balls bowled even so. Markrams 100 was
the lonest of lone hands. horrible pitch to bat on, uneven bounce, couple of
shooters etc I can only think that safys asked for a seamers pitch and the curator
went overboard. Plus 2 tests is not a series. Not great for testcricket. I notice
that RSA have named 7 uncapped players - thats half the squad - for their tour
of NZ cos they want the big stars to play in some T20 junket scheduled at the
same time. It was Elgars last test as well.

mike

In message <287b08ad-43bf-461d-bf3f-960bf4012c1an@googlegroups.com>,
mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>Well they said it was the shortest test in balls bowled even so.

Which is remarkable, when you consider some of the pitches they played
on in the 19th century, and how weak SA were when they first came in to
Test cricket. (Their earliest matches were only recognised as Tests
retrospectively and probably shouldn't have been.)

> Markrams 100 was the lonest of lone hands.

Though he should have been out in the 70s, I think he deserved a bit if
luck and I'm glad that he got his ton.

> horrible pitch to bat on, uneven bounce, couple of shooters etc I can
>only think that safys asked for a seamers pitch and the curator went
>overboard. Plus 2 tests is not a series. Not great for testcricket.

Nope. And the pitch for the first match seems to have been pretty poor
as well.

> I notice that RSA have named 7 uncapped players - thats half the squad
>- for their tour of NZ cos they want the big stars to play in some T20
>junket scheduled at the same time.

Yes. Apparently SA have claimed that they aren't disrespecting Test
cricket, but I don't think many people will believe them.

> It was Elgars last test as well.

And because Bavuma was injured, he was the stand-in captain as well. Not
an ideal way to go out!
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On 2024-01-04, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>> It was Elgars last test as well.
>
> And because Bavuma was injured, he was the stand-in captain as well. Not
> an ideal way to go out!

Only the second batsman to be dismissed twice on the same
day in his last test.

On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 4:53:21 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <287b08ad-43bf-461d...@googlegroups.com>,
> mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >Well they said it was the shortest test in balls bowled even so.
> Which is remarkable, when you consider some of the pitches they played
> on in the 19th century, and how weak SA were when they first came in to
> Test cricket. (Their earliest matches were only recognised as Tests
> retrospectively and probably shouldn't have been.)
> > Markrams 100 was the lonest of lone hands.
> Though he should have been out in the 70s, I think he deserved a bit if
> luck and I'm glad that he got his ton.
> > horrible pitch to bat on, uneven bounce, couple of shooters etc I can
> >only think that safys asked for a seamers pitch and the curator went
> >overboard. Plus 2 tests is not a series. Not great for testcricket.
> Nope. And the pitch for the first match seems to have been pretty poor
> as well.

pitch at sydney seems to favour the bowlers too, well certainly oz batters struggled
on it and just when pak seemed to be batting themselves into a serious lead, they
lost 5 for 9 in 7 overs, with hazel takes 3wkts in the last over b4 the close. crazy
stuff!

> > I notice that RSA have named 7 uncapped players - thats half the squad
> >- for their tour of NZ cos they want the big stars to play in some T20
> >junket scheduled at the same time.
> Yes. Apparently SA have claimed that they aren't disrespecting Test
> cricket, but I don't think many people will believe them.

I suspect that they will get paid far more to play in the t20 than tour NZ.

mike

In message <11807bfb-4abe-45d5-9c7d-b391ca090110n@googlegroups.com>,
mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 4:53:210 >> In message <287b08ad-43bf-461d...@googlegroups.com>,
>> mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> >Well they said it was the shortest test in balls bowled even so.
>> Which is remarkable, when you consider some of the pitches they played
>> on in the 19th century, and how weak SA were when they first came in to
>> Test cricket. (Their earliest matches were only recognised as Tests
>> retrospectively and probably shouldn't have been.)
>> > Markrams 100 was the lonest of lone hands.
>> Though he should have been out in the 70s, I think he deserved a bit if
>> luck and I'm glad that he got his ton.
>> > horrible pitch to bat on, uneven bounce, couple of shooters etc I can
>> >only think that safys asked for a seamers pitch and the curator went
>> >overboard. Plus 2 tests is not a series. Not great for testcricket.
>> Nope. And the pitch for the first match seems to have been pretty poor
>> as well.
>
>pitch at sydney seems to favour the bowlers too, well certainly oz
>batters struggled
>on it and just when pak seemed to be batting themselves into a serious
>lead, they
>lost 5 for 9 in 7 overs, with hazel takes 3wkts in the last over b4 the
>close. crazy
>stuff!
>
>> > I notice that RSA have named 7 uncapped players - thats half the squad
>> >- for their tour of NZ cos they want the big stars to play in some T20
>> >junket scheduled at the same time.
>> Yes. Apparently SA have claimed that they aren't disrespecting Test
>> cricket, but I don't think many people will believe them.
>
>I suspect that they will get paid far more to play in the t20 than tour NZ.
>
>mike

I don't think it's all down to the players. I think the South African
Board are desperate for their domestic T20 competition to be a success -
no doubt hoping it will earn them some much-needed cash - and hence have
prioritised it over the \\\\\\\\nz Tests.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On 04/01/2024 14:43, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 5:55 AM, David North wrote:
>> On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 12:22:42 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
>> wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2024 1:23 AM, John Hall wrote:
>>>> In message <96add15b-2b0b-47cb...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>>> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 1:26:390 >> On Wednesday 3 January
>>>>> 2024 at 10:47:42 UTC, John Hall wrote:
>>>>>>> Pakistan were rescued against Australia by a last-wicket stand of
>>>>>>> 84,
>>>>>>> though whether even that will be enough remains to be seen..
>>>>>
>>>>> some rather odd tactics by oz bowlers against ?jamal, seems he has
>>>>> 1 favoured shot the pull, and they gave him plenty of practice.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems that SA made an error in deciding to bat on winning the
>>>>>>> toss
>>>>>>> against India, with Siraj imitating Stuart Broad against
>>>>>>> Australia at
>>>>>>> Trent Bridge in 2015, and blowing the opposition away inside the
>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>> session. SA 55 all out in 23.2 overs, with Siraj finishing with 6-15
>>>>>>> from 9 overs. Quite a turn-around from the previous match!
>>>>>> That's the 7th-lowest all-out 1st-innings total by a men's Test team
>>>>>> after electing to bat first, and the 3rd-lowest by a home team. The 3
>>>>>> lowest (by either side) since 1948 have all been at Cape Town.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filte
>>>>>> r=advanced;innings_number=1;orderby=team_score;orderbyad=reverse;qualmi
>>>>>> n1=10;qualval1=team_wickets;template=results;toss=1;type=team;view=innings
>>>>>
>>>>> At this rate it'll be finished in under 2 days, maybe even 4 sessions.
>>>>> i posted earlier
>>>>> on another forum something like amazing comeback by india when they
>>>>> were 150-4,
>>>>> never expected quite a collapse like 6-0. Is the pitch going bananas?
>>>>>
>>>>> mike
>>>>
>>>> Is Markram batting on a different pitch to everyone else? Without him,
>>>> your suggestion that India could win in under four sessions might well
>>>> have come to pass.
>>> The match would have been over under 4 sessions IF Rahul took this EASY
>>> CATCH when Markram was on 73, though.
>>
>> Probably, if the regulations allow lunch to be delayed if a finish is
>> imminent. It's doubtful whether they would have finished before the
>> scheduled lunch interval, as India would probably have needed about 45
>> in 3 overs, given that there were 4.1 overs and 34 runs between the
>> drop (at 128/7) and Markram's dismissal.
>
>
>
> You ASSUMED that Rabada, Ngidi and Burger would have survived 56 balls
> IF Rahul took the easy catch at 27.3 over of Markram and SA would have
> lasted for 36.5 overs total.

No, I assumed that they would have survived 31 balls after the catch,
the same as they did after Markram was actually out, and that they would
therefore have been all out in 32.4 overs, for 142. Then there would
have been 6 minutes less playing time before the scheduled lunch
interval - 10 minutes for the change of innings, minus the 4 minutes
that were left when SA were bowled out (11:56 according to CI). That
would have knocked off at least 1 over from the 4.1 gained by bowling SA
out quicker, which is how I arrived at 3 overs being bowled before the
scheduled lunch.

--
David North

On 04/01/2024 16:45, John Hall wrote:
> In message <287b08ad-43bf-461d-bf3f-960bf4012c1an@googlegroups.com>,
> mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> Well they said it was the shortest test in balls bowled even so.
>
> Which is remarkable, when you consider some of the pitches they played
> on in the 19th century, and how weak SA were when they first came in to
> Test cricket. (Their earliest matches were only recognised as Tests
> retrospectively and probably shouldn't have been.)
>
>> Markrams 100 was the lonest of lone hands.
>
> Though he should have been out in the 70s, I think he deserved a bit if
> luck and I'm glad that he got his ton.
>
>> horrible pitch to bat on, uneven bounce, couple of shooters etc I can
>> only think that safys asked for a seamers pitch and the curator went
>> overboard. Plus 2 tests is not a series. Not great for testcricket.

Indeed. Another 2-Test series crying out for a decider.

> Nope. And the pitch for the first match seems to have been pretty poor
> as well.
>
>> I notice that RSA have named 7 uncapped players - thats half the squad
>> - for their tour of NZ  cos they want the big stars to play in some
>> T20 junket scheduled at the same time.
>
> Yes. Apparently SA have claimed that they aren't disrespecting Test
> cricket, but I don't think many people will believe them.

"Our hand has been forced. Everybody understands the SA20 has to happen.
SA20 has to happen because it is the lifeblood of South African cricket.
If it doesn't happen, we are not going to have Test cricket anyway."

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the SA20 shouldn't happen, so
that seems like a false argument. The question is whether it
particularly needs the best Test players to be involved, rather than
another bunch of not-quite-so-good Test players.

In any case, the SA20 runs from 10 Jan to 10 Feb, and the 1st Test
starts on 3 Feb, so the Test players could presumably have been
available for much of the SA20 anyway.

--
David North

On 06/01/2024 12:52, David North wrote:
> On 04/01/2024 16:45, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <287b08ad-43bf-461d-bf3f-960bf4012c1an@googlegroups.com>,
>> mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>> Well they said it was the shortest test in balls bowled even so.
>>
>> Which is remarkable, when you consider some of the pitches they played
>> on in the 19th century, and how weak SA were when they first came in
>> to Test cricket. (Their earliest matches were only recognised as Tests
>> retrospectively and probably shouldn't have been.)
>>
>>> Markrams 100 was the lonest of lone hands.
>>
>> Though he should have been out in the 70s, I think he deserved a bit
>> if luck and I'm glad that he got his ton.
>>
>>> horrible pitch to bat on, uneven bounce, couple of shooters etc I can
>>> only think that safys asked for a seamers pitch and the curator went
>>> overboard. Plus 2 tests is not a series. Not great for testcricket.
>
> Indeed. Another 2-Test series crying out for a decider.
>
>> Nope. And the pitch for the first match seems to have been pretty poor
>> as well.
>>
>>> I notice that RSA have named 7 uncapped players - thats half the
>>> squad - for their tour of NZ  cos they want the big stars to play in
>>> some T20 junket scheduled at the same time.
>>
>> Yes. Apparently SA have claimed that they aren't disrespecting Test
>> cricket, but I don't think many people will believe them.
>
> "Our hand has been forced. Everybody understands the SA20 has to happen.
> SA20 has to happen because it is the lifeblood of South African cricket.
> If it doesn't happen, we are not going to have Test cricket anyway."

I meant to put in a link for that quote:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/sa-vs-ind-2nd-test-shukri-conrad-if-sa20-does-not-happen-we-are-not-going-to-have-test-cricket-anyway-1415565

--
David North