The day when wickets fell like ninepins at Newlands
Columnist By Kersi Meher-Homji, 11 Nov 2011 Kersi Meher-Homji is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, Michael Clarke, Proteas, Ryan Harris, Shane Watson, Vernon Philander
Michael Clarke leads Australia looking for a clean sweep over India at Adelaide Oval.
Related coverage
In my 60 years of watching cricket I have not seen a day’s play when wickets toppled so fast, literally like ninepins.
I am referring to the Australia v. South Africa Test at Cape Town last night. In all 23 wickets fell for 294 runs in a day. At one stage 18 wickets tumbled for 68 runs!
Australia resumed at 8 for 214 and were dismissed for 284, skipper Michael Clarke scoring a fluent 151 with 22 fours.
At lunch South Africa were 1-49. Typical good, honest Test cricket, three wickets for 119 runs in a session.
That all changed in a hurry after lunch. Shane Watson was given the ball and it was mayhem for the home batsmen. His figures were 5/17 off five overs.
Ryan Harris also joined in the fun with a 4-22 devastating spell and South Africa was all out for 96. The home team had lost nine wickets for a measly 47 runs.
Was I dreaming I asked myself?
But that dream turned into a nightmare as Australia started losing wickets too. At tea they were 3 for 13, openers Watson, Phil Hughes and number three Ricky Ponting back in the pavilion, Ponting for a duck.
Incredibly, 12 wickets had fallen for 60 runs in two hours of appeals and reviews.
But wait, the worse was round the corner for the Aussies post tea. They were 9 wickets down for 21 runs, about to make the lowest total in the 134 years of Test history.
Was the pitch that bad? I don’t think so. Although it had swing and bounce, it was a combination of superb accurate bowling and pathetic batting. The Australians were culpable for their shot selection.
That “honour” belonged to New Zealand who had managed a total of 26 runs against England at Auckland in 1954-55.
Australia’s lowest total was 36 against England at Birmingham in 1902.
The visitors avoided this ignominy as the last pair of Peter Siddle and Nathan Lyon added 26 runs, more than doubling the score for the final wicket.
They were the only Australians to reach double figures, number nine batsman Siddle making 12 and last man Lyons top-scoring with 14.
Debutant fast bowler Vernon Philander had marvellous figures of 5-15 and quickie Morne Morkel 3-9. What a debut for Philander with match figures of 8-78!
That there was no devil in the pitch was proved by the South Africa batsmen as they scored 1-81 at stumps last night, chasing a win target of 236. Experienced batsmen skipper Graeme Smith and Hashim Amla are unbeaten overnight with 36 and 29.
Now the home team needs 155 more runs to win this topsy-turvy Test on day-3.
One wishes Australian bowlers bowl with similar intensity and accuracy they did in the post lunch period yesterday to make the Test a thriller.
Else the Remembrance Day (11/11/2011) will be a day to forget for Clarke’s men.
The Cape Town pitch proved that batsmen today are good wicket bullies. But little juice in the pitch and they panic.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
November 11th 2011 @ 9:13am
Brett McKay said | November 11th 2011 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Kersi, it’s days like today, and innings like South Africa’s first and Australia’s second where I miss Vinay the most. I can only but imagine how the great man would have described such carnage…
November 11th 2011 @ 9:14am
sheek said | November 11th 2011 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Brett, very true – The Vinayisms, as Kersi used to call them, would have been flowing like champagne…..
November 11th 2011 @ 3:40pm
Will said | November 11th 2011 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
Where is Vinay?
I used to post here about a year or so ago, I remember Vinay. Loved his work.
November 11th 2011 @ 3:47pm
dasilva said | November 11th 2011 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
I’m afraid you missed this article a while back http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/03/08/vinay-verma-a-titan-among-cricket-writers/
November 11th 2011 @ 3:48pm
Ian Whitchurch said | November 11th 2011 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
Will,
Vinay died of a heart attack earlier this year. Vinay Verma, RIP.
Heres the epitath Kersi wrote
http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/03/08/vinay-verma-a-titan-among-cricket-writers/
November 11th 2011 @ 4:42pm
Kersi Meher-Homji said | November 11th 2011 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
Hi Will,
Vinay, my very good friend, passed away on 6 March. May his soul rest in peace!
He was a superb writer and a good human being who called an axe an axe.
He loved his sports – especially cricket – and wrote beautiful prose. And yes, he was a poet with two books on Poems published.
November 12th 2011 @ 12:02am
Will said | November 12th 2011 @ 12:02am | Report comment
That is very sad news. And some nice tribute pieces as well.
The thing I remember most about Vinay and his writing, especially about cricket, was that it always gave off a feeling that there whatever calamity Australia had suffered, or the game had endured, that there was always hope. Im not sure if people agree with me, but reading his work, it almost seemed like Vinay had a great spirit. Afterall, no-one has ever hoped like a cricketer.
He will be missed.
November 11th 2011 @ 9:13am
sheek said | November 11th 2011 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Hi Kersi,
It’s almost like a throwback to 100 years ago!
I haven’t seen any footage, & don’t really know if the pitch is really grotesque, or whether the batsmen have forgotten if they’re playing tests, limited overs or big bash!!!
Truly great captain’s knock by Clarke in the 1st innings…..
November 11th 2011 @ 10:37am
Matt F said | November 11th 2011 @ 10:37am | Report comment
The pitch was fine. You’d call it “challenging” but no more. It did a bit if you pitched it in the right areas (Copeland would have been perfect) but there were only 3 wickets in the 1st session and 1 in the last so it was really just one crazy session. We need more pitches like this one to be honest. Teams of 20+ years ago still would have made 2-300 on it, but then they didn’t get to play on roads 99% of the time so were used to the ball actually moving every so often.
It’s not quite as remarkable as this game however!
http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/27/27171.html
November 11th 2011 @ 12:11pm
mds1970 said | November 11th 2011 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
Matt F, that is quite a find. What a lopsided game.
Last night’s game was remarkable with both sides collapsing so spectacularly; and yet Clarke and the Australian tail did OK early and there were no problems for South Africa in their second innings.
November 11th 2011 @ 12:18pm
Matt F said | November 11th 2011 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
It’s officially the biggest margin in a cricket match. At least one that’s of a high enough level for records to be kept.
It was a remarkable day, or remarkable session really. The first session yesterday was 3/100 or so and the last was 1/81 which looks pretty stock standard. The second session though was 18/94! Clearly you can bat if you’re willing to grind it out. Getting a start is the problem.
November 11th 2011 @ 8:28pm
mds1970 said | November 11th 2011 @ 8:28pm | Report comment
Here’s a rather amusing one-sided game. Taken from “The Book of Heroic Failures” by Stephen Pile:
The Least Successful Cricket Match:
At the turn of the century in England, grown men were put to shame by two schoolboy teams in Cambridge. The match brought together Kings College Choir School and the Trophy Boys XI.
The Trophy Boys won the toss, batted and were all out for nought. Then Kings went in, and Trophy’s first ball was a no-ball.
This gave Kings Choir School a score of one and victory in the match.
November 11th 2011 @ 9:15am
Al said | November 11th 2011 @ 9:15am | Report comment
The funny thing is that Australia can still win this match!
November 11th 2011 @ 9:19am
Lolly said | November 11th 2011 @ 9:19am | Report comment
I thought the pitch was tougher yesterday,proper green patches on it, but god knows, the batsmen made it look like dynamite was being bowled today. There wasn’t much uneven bounce, the odd spitter but not really an unreliable track, if a track with good seam movement. Steyn and Philander got the ball swinging but the Aussies didn’t get much at all. It certainly was not at all dangerous.
It was a fantastic track, but the Aussies just love bat on ball so helped the bowlers immensely like that. Punter is falling over when flicking to leg even more than usual. Perhaps against the slower bowlers of India and New Zealand that won’t be such a problem.
Brad Haddin’s two dismisals in this test have been screamingly funny for their stupidity. Or at least they certainly made me laugh.
November 11th 2011 @ 9:28am
Brett McKay said | November 11th 2011 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Lolly, I reckon you’ve nailed the conditions from what little I’ve seen. Lively, but not ridiculous. Outstanding bowling, but ordinary batting. And yet the game’s in the balance..
November 11th 2011 @ 9:51am
Fisher Price said | November 11th 2011 @ 9:51am | Report comment
The top order is supposed to see off the new ball and build a platform but this is rarely the case.
It seems the Australian Test lineup is given their hand to be aggressive regardless of the pitch condition or match situation. In the few years leading up to the 2005 Ashes the score-fast approach brought rewards but relied on largely mediocre bowling and flat decks.
Whether this enthusiasm to ‘put bat on ball’ belies flawed defensive techniques across the board I don’t know, but – as with always choosing to bat first – it appears a flawed, unsuccessful strategy.
November 11th 2011 @ 9:57am
Kersi Meher-Homji said | November 11th 2011 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Yes, Brett and Sheek,
I can imagine a few Vinayisms like: Philander treated batsmen as shabbily as a philander treats women!
Or ducks had a field day floating over Newland pond.
Did you notice? Michael Clark scored more runs (151) than 11 SAFricans (96) and 11 Australians (47) put together!!
November 11th 2011 @ 12:39pm
DanielS said | November 11th 2011 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
It is unbelievable, the first day of the test looked pretty unremarkable, australia went out got 280 runs and lost 8 wickets, a truly slow day of test cricket, the following day, michael Clarke finishes with 151 not out, preceded by 22 players not managing to reach that mark in a 2 innings stretch.
Australia and South Africa seem to always find new ways to take cricket to new levels. There was the one dayer a couple of years ago, when the two teams both broke the world record for the highest one day score. there combined total was also a world record. one of the tests on the saffers last tour here had this incredible last last inning where they reached somthing like 430 in the final 2 days.
November 13th 2011 @ 1:11am
Bayman said | November 13th 2011 @ 1:11am | Report comment
Kersi,
Re Michael Clarke’s 151. The other side of that coin was that the other ten Aussie batsmen did not score more than 11 South Africans and 11 Australians. While the 284 was a reasonable return in the circumstances the rest only got 133 between them.
Mind you, that was still nearly three times more than they got in the second dig so perhaps we should be grateful.
November 11th 2011 @ 9:59am
mds1970 said | November 11th 2011 @ 9:59am | Report comment
So tired at work today. I should have gone to bed earlier, but couldn’t believe what I was watching on telly.
It all came so suddenly after lunch. The ball was moving around a bit, but that was just complete carnage.
I have seen a lower total before – on an RDO from work about 5 years ago I went to a Sheffield Shield game at the SCG and South Australia were bowled out for 29. But last night was amazing with both sides collapsing so spectacularly – and yet the first and last hour of the day so no fears in the pitch at all.
I hear it’s only the second time that one day has included parts of all four innings of a Test match.
November 11th 2011 @ 10:05am
TembaVJ said | November 11th 2011 @ 10:05am | Report comment
What is it with these two teams? I remember the one-dayer that SA chased that unreachable score.
Good stuff.
Bit of spice
November 11th 2011 @ 10:16am
Matt F said | November 11th 2011 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Long post time! (sorry in advance people!)
Forget a new low, this is the ultimate low. I guess when you’re batting hits rock bottom at least the only way is up. They will be saved the axe because Khawaja will probably have to replace the injured Marsh but they can consider themselves very lucky.
Admitedly I went to bed when we were 1/4 but watching it up until then, the pitch didn’t look that bad, despite SA only getting 96. Certainly not as difficult to bat on as the 1st test pitch against SL. The bounce looked pretty consistant and the ball was moving, but not too much. It was a pitch that rewarded good, accurate bowling. I think the problem is that too many cricket pitches are basically flat roads so batsmen aren’t used to facing bowlers on a pitch that does a little bit. For all the carnage in the second session there were only 4 wickets lost in the first and third sessions combined so it can’t be too bad once you get in on the wicket. I don’t blame T20. These players all played junior cricket before T20 existed and the T20 poster child (Warner) is carving up the Shield. The stupid theory that the only good pitch is a flat track is the problem.
It does pose many questions about our batting line up, or at least brings up the old ones which havent been dealt with.
1. With the extra bowling Watson is doing he must be moved down the order. There was only about 20 minutes between Watson’s last over with the ball and when he had to bat which doesn’t give him much time to prepare mentally. He either needs to give up bowling (which he is too valuable at) or move down the order.
2. Hughes doesn’t look cut out for the level yet. His hundred last test in SL will keep him going for a while but his technique is horrible against good bowling. At 22 he has plenty of time and will be a star, but a few seasons in the Shield to work on his technique and confidence will work wonders.
3. Ponting fails again. When a team bats/performs like this how long can we give him to find form? It was a good strategy when we were winning matches but now that we’re losing he must be close to being dropped. The question is; is he a great player out of form or was he a great player who is now past it? It’s looking more and more like the latter.
4. Haddin doesn’t seem to score runs unless the ptitch is a road. He lacks the patience and technique to hold firm on a challenging pitch. Khawaja and Paine must have been the only happy people in the country after watching this (maybe Warner as well.)
5. Despite the bowlers dominating, Johnson has figures of 0/43 off 8 overs. He (and Siddle to an extent) has a chance to be the hero today but he wasted the new ball in the first innings and butchered any pressure that Harris created. Given how the pitch rewards accurate bowling I can only imagine how Copeland and Harris would have gone bowling together. They were the best thing to come out of SL yet the one thing we didn’t keep. Neither Siddle or Johnson are new ball bowlers so why aren’t they fighting it out for the one non-new ball spot?
November 11th 2011 @ 10:37am
jameswm said | November 11th 2011 @ 10:37am | Report comment
2. Hughes.
Matt – I’ve asked others as well, but why do you assume Hughes will one day be a star? He has a good eye, but he’s already had two chances to go away and work on his game, and this is what we get. It was so predictable it’s sad. He may have a problem that he’ll never fix. Others like Kat and Waugh have changed their batting styles mid-career, but these are exceptionally strong-willed, smart and tough characters. Not everyone can do that.
He certainly has to go back to the Shield, but I wouldn’t be surprised if during those few seasons guys like Maddinson move in front of him.
November 11th 2011 @ 10:48am
Matt F said | November 11th 2011 @ 10:48am | Report comment
Any time you look into the future you are assuming to a certain degree, I don’t deny that it’s all an opinion. History shows that almost all batsmen take until at least their mid 20′s to be consistent at the top level. Even great players like hayden, ponting, langer and the Waugh brothers took time to mature and refine their techniques etc. Hughes has a great natural eye and has achieved a hell of a lot for a 22 year old, more then most. For what it’s worth I rate Maddinson through the roof as well.
Hughes never really had a chance to work on his game. He was going through a horrible form slump and should never have been picked in the Ashes series last summer but that’s the selectors fault not his. He wasn’t/isn’t ready and it is showing but I think that, based on some of his achievements to date that he will be ready in a few (at least 2-3) years.
Keep in mind that everyone said Warner was nothing more then a glorified slogger who would never get close to test cricket but now, at 25, he’s seen as an inevitable selection. Sean Marsh was a young prodigy who struggled for years at Shield level but now, at 28, he looks like a test cricket (early stages I know.) Hughes needs to go back to Shield cricket to work himself out but he will be judged in 5-10 years time.
November 11th 2011 @ 11:16am
jameswm said | November 11th 2011 @ 11:16am | Report comment
That’s another question I have, Matt.
Hughes has now been “out of form” for about 18-24 months. My question is, is his form of the last 18-24 months his real form, and did he just have a purple patch before that? Just about any Shield batsman, even the young and very young ones, could have produced scores better than Hughes in his last 7 tests, and looked more secure in scoring them.
I just don’t get why we assume Hughes has the goods.
He has to go right now, and then we leave the rest up to him. If he shores everything up and scores a lot of runs to force his way back in, good on him. Others have done the same. But he isn’t up to it now and we can’t afford to have him learn on the job. I’d put Kat, Khawaja, Warner, Rogers, Klinger and several others ahead of him as test openers.
November 11th 2011 @ 11:35am
Matt F said | November 11th 2011 @ 11:35am | Report comment
I question him being out of form for 18-24 months. He was certainly out of form at the start of last shield season, and it showed in the Ashes but his last 4 innings in the shield last season were 54, 115, 136 and 93 so he was hitting form at the end of the season. Those last two innings were also in the final. The problem is that there hasn’t been any cricket from then until the SL series and he hasn’t played a shield match yet this season, though he did make hundreds against South Africa A and Zimbabwe in Aus A tour matches. He finished 7th for both runs scored and batting average (40.40) in the SL series when you combine both teams and 4th of the Australian players. His average there isn’t too bad when you take into account the disaster that was the 1st test pitch. Based on that alone he should be ahead of Ponting in terms of who to drop first. he also still averages over 50 in first class cricket (well until this current test is added I assume.)
When I said that “he will be a star” I really meant that “I think he will be a star” so of course I could be wrong, but I think you’re being a little harsh on him, especially when compared to some other players in the test team. Of the players you put ahead of him right now (and i can’t argue with any of them) none of them (apart from Khawaja) had a better, or even comparable, record than Hughes when they were 22.
November 11th 2011 @ 3:21pm
jameswm said | November 11th 2011 @ 3:21pm | Report comment
He had 2 good games on roads at the end of last shield season, against less than threatening attacks. There’s a consistent theme here.
I don’t care what their record was when they were 22. They’re not 22 now. I care about how they’ve gone for the past couple of years.
And I’d drop both Hughes and Ponting. Not only do both not score any consistent runs, but they don’t look like it.
November 11th 2011 @ 4:07pm
Matt F said | November 11th 2011 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
Like I said I have no issues with him being dropped now, though your comment about roads could be applied to just about any player in world cricket these days.
My point about him being 22 had nothing to do with who should be picked now but was related to the question you asked a while back about what makes me think he will be a star? Maybe I should have been more clear. All those players you mentioned have improved enormously since they were 22 and I think that it’s reasonable to think that Hughes can do the same. There’s a reason batsmen don’t play their best cricket until their late 20′s to early 30′s.
I agree with you that both Hughes and Ponting should go, though Hughes’ century from SL will probably give him the summer in the selectors eyes and Ponting will, at worst, get a farewell tour this summer. It’s not nescessarily the right thing but it’s the most probable.
November 11th 2011 @ 10:59am
Fisher Price said | November 11th 2011 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Quite. I’d have thought Warner, Maddinson, Katich, Khawaja and Jaques would be more reliable opening bets for NSW.
November 11th 2011 @ 11:13am
Matt F said | November 11th 2011 @ 11:13am | Report comment
In Hughes’ defence (and I say this more as a bad joke/observation then a legitimate attempt to defend him) he was 3rd top scorer and more then doubled every other player (aprt from Siddle and Lyon obviously.) He was also 2nd for balls faced, facing a massive 22 balls!
November 11th 2011 @ 10:55am
Fisher Price said | November 11th 2011 @ 10:55am | Report comment
One thing Ponting has retained is his impetuousness when given out.
November 11th 2011 @ 10:20am
Ian Whitchurch said | November 11th 2011 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Im a Bangladesh supporter, so I’ve seen some dying sprees in my time. But that scorecard is completely and utterly unbelievable.
Something is wrong with modern batting.
November 11th 2011 @ 10:32am
jameswm said | November 11th 2011 @ 10:32am | Report comment
In the last 2 years, Hughes averages about 24, Ponting 25, and Haddin 27. Watson’s hardly scored a run since Kat left, so Kat’s departure has hurt both opening spots (Hughes averages low-20s).
The Aussies have struggled against any seam or swing for ages. Ponting can’t adjust, and goes too hard at the ball. Hughes’s technique (or lack of it) means he can’t handle any deviation. Clarke plays late and with soft hands, which is why he did well. Ditto Hussey, though he got out both times. Haddin plays reckless shots all the time.
They need to start building a batting lineup. The bowling is almost right (except for a spinner), but the batting has been spluttering for 2-3 years. How else do you lose 3 home Ashes tests in a series by an innings?
November 11th 2011 @ 10:45am
Justin said | November 11th 2011 @ 10:45am | Report comment
Cant agree the bowling is almost right James – huge questions marks on Siddle and Johnson (the runs flowed freely from these two) still IMO. I thought they had the balance wrong here and Copeland should have been used to tie up an end and keep the pressure on. Lets not forget how often (or rarely) we take 20 wkts these days.
November 11th 2011 @ 10:53am
Matt F said | November 11th 2011 @ 10:53am | Report comment
I agree. Copeland might not get many wickets himself but the pressure he builds up allows his partner to cash in at the other end more often then not. Siddle is too short to use the new ball effectively and Johnson too erratic. A solid new ball partnership with one of Johnson OR Siddle as the 3rd bowler would work quite well but we can’t afford to carry two horribly inconsistent bowlers who wil single-handedly win us one test but be passengers for the next three or four.
November 11th 2011 @ 11:31am
jameswm said | November 11th 2011 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Nah I think you guys are tough on Siddle. He pounds in over after over, gets a bit of movement, is mainly accurate, and adds character to the bowling line-up. I decided last Ashes series that he had deserved his place.
Harris is a no-brainer of course – shame he isn’t 5 years younger.
After SL and the tour game, I had hoped Johnson was getting consistent. However I saw him bowling in their 1st innings too. It wasn’t horrible, but it was too loose to threaten them, and he’s impotent without that lat swing. I also don’t get how he reverse swings the new ball – ie it goes left when he means it to go right. No wonder he goes wide of off to righties and down leg to lefties.
Copeland is an interesting one. We haven’t seen much of him, and the question is, can a 122-125kmh bowler do the job as a specialist in test cricket? Is he a much better bowler than, for example, Andrew MacDonald? I’m not sure. MacDonald is very similar – tall, accurate, same speed, and wobbles it around. And he is a very good bat.
I think the right bowling group is there, and they’ll sort themselves out. However I wouldn’t really let Cummins near tests for another year, and I am paranoid about him losing his natural outswinger. He already seems to have lost it a bit. Pattinson, Hazlewood, Starc etc can continue to learn over the next couple of years. even Hilfy seems to be coming back to some form, and he was our best bowler 12-18 months ago.
I know I’m in the minority on rating Smith’s prospects as a bowling all rounder, but here’s a different lineup. Hughes, Ponting and Haddin are the three who must go. Very strong middle order, only two genuine quicks with two all rounders (Watson and MacDonald), plus a spinner who bats well. Top and middle order are more solid, question mark over taking 20 wickets. Maybe MacDonald loses out to a specialist seamer.
1. Katich
2. Khawaja
3. Marsh
4. Clarke
5. Hussey for now
6. Watson
7. Paine/Wade
8. MacDonald
9. Smith/SOK/Hauritz
10. Harris
11. Siddle
November 11th 2011 @ 11:45am
Matt F said | November 11th 2011 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Siddle, like Johnson, is capable of having brutal sessions which can get 4-5 wickets very quickly but only does them every ten tests or so. His hat-trick against England and his spell against SA at the SCG a few years ago are some examples. The problem is that, more often than not, he doesn’t make an impact. He looks good when he pitches the ball up but his natural length is too short to get the ball to do anything. If he pitched the ball up more then he would be fantastic but he doesn’t do it enough. This is the reason he rearly uses the new ball well.
Copeland has a first class average of 23 or so, hits the same spot every ball, builds up pressure by not going for runs, and gets the new ball to move just enough. He will never be the type of bowler who gets 5 wicket hauls but will always pick up 1-3 of them and builds up enough pressure so that his partner can cash in as they need to score pof the other bowler. He’s much better with the ball then McDonald (though McDonald is very underrated.)
We were deadly with the new ball in SL (on pitches not condusive to fast bowling) because Copeland and Harris were accurate, pitched the ball on the right spot and got it to move a bit. I’m more the happy for Siddle to be te first change bowler instead of Johnson but it’s clear that they will never drop Mitch and I can’t see the two of them working together as they’re both too inconsistent. I’ve always said that Johnsons best is better then Siddles best but Johnsons worst is worse then Siddles worst.
With Watson down the order you don’t need McDonald as Watson does the same thing but better.
November 11th 2011 @ 1:02pm
Fisher Price said | November 11th 2011 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
What is it that Johnson has on the selectors?
November 11th 2011 @ 12:58pm
Fisher Price said | November 11th 2011 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
But 90 Shield wickets at 20 suggests Copeland has something considerable to offer, no?
November 11th 2011 @ 3:22pm
jameswm said | November 11th 2011 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
Clearly FP. I just haven’t seen enough of him yet.
November 11th 2011 @ 11:01am
Fisher Price said | November 11th 2011 @ 11:01am | Report comment
The bowling is flawed also.