Rabada can become Test cricket’s greatest quick

Ronan O'Connell Columnist

By Ronan O'Connell, Ronan O'Connell is a Roar Expert

Tagged:
 , ,

141 Have your say

    South Africa levelled their four-Test series against Australia yesterday by recording a six-wicket win in Port Elizabeth. Here are three of the major talking points nine days’ ahead of the third Test in Cape Town.

    Australia need a lift from Nathan Lyon
    Leading into this Test series Lyon was the in-form Test spinner in the world, having taken 63 wickets at 23 last year, including five five-fors in 11 Tests. He had finally conquered Asia, bowling well in India and dominating in Bangladesh, and had then been a major factor in Australia’s 4-0 Ashes win.

    Nathan Lyon of Australia prepares to bowl

    (AAP Image/Richard Wainwright)

    Lyon had seemingly earned the complete faith of his skipper Steve Smith, who routinely brought him on at key moments to try to conjure a wicket.

    As much was evident in the first hour of South Africa’s first innings in this series, when Smith called upon Lyon after just seven overs.

    SA had made a bright start and Australia’s new ball bowlers had been loose, so Smith asked Lyon to turn the tide. He did just that, dismissing quality batsmen Hashim Amla and Dean Elgar in his first over, and pushing the match firmly in Australia’s favour.

    It was a stunning start to the series for Lyon, one which suggested he may well torment SA. But in Lyon’s following 69 overs, stretching to the start of yesterday’s play, he took 1-194.

    Those figures are a touch unkind to the Aussie veteran, who delivered many good spells during that time. But the fact remains he has been clearly outperformed so far in this series by Proteas spinner Keshav Maharaj, who has snared 11 wickets.

    The strength of Australia’s attack in recent times has been how well they’ve meshed as a group, earning each other wickets with their relentlessness. Lyon must lift if the Australian attack is to return to its menacing best.

    Rabada could become the best Test quick of all time
    Incredibly, at just 22 years old, the South African prodigy already has more 10-wicket hauls in his career than Glenn McGrath, who many people consider to be the greatest Test paceman in history.

    Rabada’s 10-wicket haul yesterday was his fourth in Test cricket, and he’s still a year younger than McGrath was when the Australian made his Test debut.

    Kagiso Rabada

    Kagiso Rabada (Photo by Ashley Vlotman/Gallo Images/Getty Images)

    But the most astonishing Rabada stat is his Test strike rate of 38.9, which is the second-best by any bowler in history to have taken more than 100 wickets. The only man ahead of him in that category finished his Test career 122 years ago – England’s George Lohmann.

    In third place, after Rabada, is his Proteas teammate Dale Steyn, who is easily the best Test bowler of the past decade and ranks alongside the likes of McGrath, Malcolm Marshall, Wasim Akram, Curtly Ambrose, Dennis Lillee and Richard Hadlee as an all-time great.

    Rabada’s career trajectory is so steep that, if he avoids major injury problems, he could potentially eclipse all of those legends. He is a phenomenally well-rounded quick for someone so young. There is not an attribute he doesn’t possess – pace, bounce, accuracy, swing, guile, stamina and strength.

    Like all of the truly great fast bowlers in history, the state of the pitch doesn’t have a major influence on Rabada’s impact, he finds a way to either exploit favourable conditions or overcome unfavourable ones.

    The Australian batsmen will be mightily relieved if he is banned from the last two Tests for repeated poor behaviour.

    AB de Villiers has a huge amount of Test cricket left in him
    De Villiers has been, by a big margin, the best batsman in this series so far. The 34-year-old’s ton in the first innings of this match was one of the best Test hundreds scored against Australia in the past decade.

    In a match where most batsmen struggled for fluency, de Villiers cruised to 126no from 146 balls, with 21 boundaries.

    The ease with which he countered the reverse swing of the Aussie quicks was incredible. It was the same story yesterday as de Villiers arrived at the crease with SA under heavy pressure at 2-32 and with his batting partner Amla struggling against both Lyon and his nemesis Josh Hazlewood.

    De Villiers once more batted as if he was utterly unaffected by the circumstances, immediately turning the pressure back on to Australia by sprinting to 25 from 14 balls.

    It remains to be seen just how much longer de Villiers will play Test cricket. Before this series he had played just four Tests in the prior two years, having sat out for a lengthy period for a variety of reasons.

    Whether his body can withstand the rigours of several more years of being a full-time Test cricketer I cannot claim to know. But it is abundantly clear de Villiers remains one of the truly elite Test cricketers in the world, a man capable of bending even the best bowling attacks to his will.

    Ronan O
    Ronan O'Connell

    Ronan O'Connell has been a journalist for well over 13 years, including nine at daily newspapers in WA. He now traverses the world as a travel photojournalist, contributing words and photography to more than 30 magazines and newspapers including CNN, BBC, The Toronto Star, The Guardian, The South China Morning Post, The Irish Examiner and The Australian Financial Review. Check out his work and follow him on Twitter @ronanoco

    Rebuild announcement

    Have Your Say



    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (141)

    • March 13th 2018 @ 7:39am
      Christo the Daddyo said | March 13th 2018 @ 7:39am | ! Report

      Rabada’s only real problem is his poor attitude. If he doesn’t make some major adjustments there will be plenty of suspensions ahead for him…

    • March 13th 2018 @ 7:55am
      Jeff said | March 13th 2018 @ 7:55am | ! Report

      Sorry, but nobody has come close to Wasim Akram. Rabada has enormous promise but he has nowhere near the skill that Wasim possessed at the same age.

      • March 13th 2018 @ 11:57am
        Harvey Wilson said | March 13th 2018 @ 11:57am | ! Report

        Waqar would be in that conversation too. Unparalleled experts at swing.

        • Columnist

          March 13th 2018 @ 12:18pm
          Ronan O'Connell said | March 13th 2018 @ 12:18pm | ! Report

          When Waqar was exactly the same age (to the day) that Rabada is now Waqar had an even better Test record – 121 wickets at 19.6 with a strike rate of 37.9

          Waqar had taken a 5-wicket haul once per 3.3 innings compared to Rabada’s ratio of once per 5.7 innings.

          Then Waqar suffered a serious injury at the age of 23 and was never again the same bowler:

          Before injury ……… 190 wickets at 19 (strike rate of 36)

          After injury ………… 183 wickets at 28 (strike rate of 51)

          • Roar Guru

            March 13th 2018 @ 12:25pm
            spruce moose said | March 13th 2018 @ 12:25pm | ! Report

            Lol. There’s be stacks of bowlers that would settle for his after injury stats.

            A supremely talented man.

            • March 13th 2018 @ 1:05pm
              Kangajets said | March 13th 2018 @ 1:05pm | ! Report

              Wasim akram
              waqar ykunis
              Malcolm Marshall
              Curtly Ambrose

              Probably the 4 best fast bowlers I’ve ever seen

              Putting McGrath and Hadley in the great fast medium category.

              • Roar Guru

                March 13th 2018 @ 1:46pm
                spruce moose said | March 13th 2018 @ 1:46pm | ! Report

                I was too young for Hadley and Marshall.

                I’d add Dale Steyn into the mix as well. And I’ve said in other articles, but I think injuries denied the world the chance to see Shane Bond in the greats chats.

              • Roar Guru

                March 13th 2018 @ 2:00pm
                Matt H said | March 13th 2018 @ 2:00pm | ! Report

                Shane Bond did not make the 100 wicket cut off, but he is the only other bowler of significance to have a 38 ball career strike rate. A brilliant bowler. As is Rabada.

              • March 14th 2018 @ 9:43am
                Perry Bridge said | March 14th 2018 @ 9:43am | ! Report

                A guy like Hadlee was a supreme technician – a bit tear away initially but through the 80s he was just class.

                And that’s where a guy like Marshall too – bustling and busy but he also became a superb technician – when guys can bowl at express pace but also swing and cut both ways it makes batting very tricky.

                Reverse swing is interesting to read about – it seems that Sarfraz Nawaz was the conscious inventor of it and via Imran to Akram and Waqar – the Pakistanis mastered it.

    • March 13th 2018 @ 8:07am
      Bazza said | March 13th 2018 @ 8:07am | ! Report

      You can’t talk about strike rate until someone near the end of the career. steyn is fair as he is near the end.

      The 10 wicket hauls stat is great.

      • March 13th 2018 @ 10:28am
        soapit said | March 13th 2018 @ 10:28am | ! Report

        no doubt good but he hasnt had warne in the team snatching 700 wickets to limit his opportunities for 10 fors like mcgrath did.

        • March 13th 2018 @ 12:11pm
          Perry Bridge said | March 13th 2018 @ 12:11pm | ! Report

          #soapit

          Warne and McGrath helped each other get wickets ‘at the other end’ and to do so under greater pressure and at greater risk. So – swings and roundabouts on who got the wickets perhaps but certainly helped re SR and avg/econ stats.

          Rabada already has 4 4wI’s and 9 5wI’s and 4 10wM’s. From 51 bowls in 28 matches.

          So,
          51 bowls – 135 wkts -> 4,9 and 4. avg 21.45 and SR 38.9 Econ 3.3
          Starc is a very good quick,
          80 bowls – 180 wkts -> 10, 9 and 1 avg 27.5 and SR 48.4 Econ 3.4
          Brett Lee career
          150 bowls – 310 wkts -> 17,10 and 0 avg 30.81 and SR 53.3 Econ 3.46
          Dale Steyn career
          157 bowls – 419 wkts -> 25,26 and 5 avg 22.32 and SR 41.5 Econ 3.22
          and for all time greats of a generation earlier
          Glenn McGrath
          243 bowls – 563 wkts -> 28,29 and 3 avg 21.64 and SR 51.9 Econ 2.49
          Wasim Akram
          181 bowls – 414 wkts -> 20,25 and 5 avg 23.62 and SR 54.6 Econ 2.59
          Malcolm Marshall
          151 bowls – 376 wkts -> 19, 22 and 4 avg 20.94 and SR 46.7 Econ 2.68

          Just looking at the sample above – his numbers are seriously good. Simple as that. At no even 23 yet – if he can hold his body together then by the age of 28 he’ll could have a seriously great ‘body of work’. He’s exciting.

          An avg so far that is between Marshall and Steyn, near enough to McGrath.

          An Econ rate better than Starc but slightly bettered by Steyn – not really comparable to the previous generation where sub 3 an over was more likely for the good bowlers.

          His S/R is better than all those listed above. Only Steyn is anywhere near Rabada’s neighbourhood (there’s historic/political irony in that phrasing). His conversion rate of 4+ to a 5+ is excellent, i.e. 9 from 13 or ratio of 4:9 with a +5 on the 5wI side. Marshall (+3) and Akram (+5) had a positive variance here too but on a larger base. Clearly getting that 5th or 6th wicket helps in being able to make it a 10 wkt match.

          • March 13th 2018 @ 1:07pm
            soapit said | March 13th 2018 @ 1:07pm | ! Report

            could have saved yourself some time mate. i totally agree he’s very good (i admit i just said good above). just pointing out that the 10 for stat was a hard one for mcgrath specifically to rack up and so him being already behind the youngster could be a little deceptive. i expect youd find the same in the windies teams in the 70’s and 80’s

            but yes its obviously not a sign he’s a bad bowler and the other stats show him in a very good light.

            • March 14th 2018 @ 9:09am
              Perry Bridge said | March 14th 2018 @ 9:09am | ! Report

              #soapit

              no worries – – I was curious anyway.

              I haven’t actually seen enough of him myself on tele – but going by stats – – he looks super.

              The irony is for me that the bowler he reminds me the most of is B.P.Patterson – – just a much better version!!

    • March 13th 2018 @ 8:36am
      WQ said | March 13th 2018 @ 8:36am | ! Report

      How does Rabada get the same fine as Warner for hardly making contact with Smith, fair dinkum their shirts hardly touched.
      On the other hand Warner has to be physically restrained not once but at least 4 times to avoid a confrontation.
      As South Africa have pointed out there is no consistency at all.

      • March 13th 2018 @ 9:09am
        AdrianK said | March 13th 2018 @ 9:09am | ! Report

        Only one of them made actual contact.
        It’s all about precedent. If it becomes ok to nudge or bump another player how long until every big bowler is “accidentally” bumping a batsman…

        • Roar Guru

          March 13th 2018 @ 9:24am
          PeterK said | March 13th 2018 @ 9:24am | ! Report

          very true.

          One actually made contact.

          It is an assumption that Warner would have made contact, he may have stopped just short and screamed at him.

          Also one was on public view whilst playing.

          The other was based on CCV video released that should have been kept private.

          Also you ignore the aggressive sendoff’s that Rabada gives.

          • March 13th 2018 @ 9:54pm
            peter chrisp said | March 13th 2018 @ 9:54pm | ! Report

            Have to agree i guess there is no love lost between either side but gee give it a rest i mean how many times do they have to play the so called incidents either side is not backing down on what they think & who was in the right or wrong and we all have our opinions can we move on?

      • March 13th 2018 @ 10:38am
        Rod said | March 13th 2018 @ 10:38am | ! Report

        If you want to put the blame on anyone, it should be Faf. He *knew* before this Test (and series) his key quick was hanging on a thread to stay in the game. He should have done everything possible to make sure Rabada went nowhere near outgoing batsmen. Players should have rushed in to congratulate him on a wicket and also pull him away from the departing batsman. Not only has he lost his key quick, but that quick worked brilliantly in tandem with the miserly Philander. Some of the shot selection from the Australians was pure frustration at being stifled. Don’t blame the ICC or complaining Aussies – blame poor captaincy.

      • March 13th 2018 @ 11:42am
        Jeff said | March 13th 2018 @ 11:42am | ! Report

        He made contact though so fair enough. But there’s definite inconsistencies when it comes to the second charge. How is Rabada’s send off to Warner any worse that Davey boy mouthing off at AB after he ran him out in the 1st Test? Old Davey boy gets off with not even a point deducted.

        I wish umpires will stop being afraid of India and Australia and come down just as harshly on them as they do with the other teams. At the moment, the double standards are clear for everyone to see.

        • Roar Rookie

          March 13th 2018 @ 12:10pm
          Matthew Pearce said | March 13th 2018 @ 12:10pm | ! Report

          Warner wasn’t mouthing off at AB. He was actually giving Markram a spray for running him out. Not exactly a send-off if it’s not directed at the dismissed batsman.

          Ugh. This line again? Seriously, there’s no excuse for willful ignorance in this day and age: https://www.icc-cricket.com/about/cricket/rules-and-regulations/code-of-conduct

          • March 13th 2018 @ 12:23pm
            Jeff said | March 13th 2018 @ 12:23pm | ! Report

            So I take it that verbals against dismissed batsmen are treated differently than to non strikers? That’s a bit daft.

            In that case, did Lyon get a demerit point against him for dropping the ball on AB? You guessed it, nope is the answer. Isn’t that physical contact as well? How is it that he only gets 15% of his match fee deducted while Rabada gets 2 demerit points for a shoulder graze? Both should receive 2 points if they are being consistent.

            • Roar Rookie

              March 13th 2018 @ 12:39pm
              Matthew Pearce said | March 13th 2018 @ 12:39pm | ! Report

              Yes. Send offs are specifically against the dismissed batsman. Per JamesH just below, mouthing off at the other bloke is just regular sledging.

              Um, Lyon did receive a demerit point, actually. Besides, wut? Dropping the ball near (not actually on) a bloke is physical contact? You do realise physical means you actually have to touch the other person?

              Rabada actually received 3 demerits, per physical contact being a level 2 offence. Seriously, if you’re going to argue a dumb point, you can at least make sure your facts are actually right.

            • March 13th 2018 @ 1:30pm
              Ouch said | March 13th 2018 @ 1:30pm | ! Report

              “did Lyon get a demerit point against him for dropping the ball on AB? ”

              He didn’t drop the ball on him

              • March 13th 2018 @ 2:19pm
                Jeff said | March 13th 2018 @ 2:19pm | ! Report

                This footage clearly shows the ball hitting AB so it did make contact which is no different to Rabada’s incident. From the reports I have read, it only says that he was deducted 15% of his match fee. Even if he was handed one demerit point, it’s still not consistent with Rabada’s punishment.

              • Roar Rookie

                March 13th 2018 @ 2:52pm
                Matthew Pearce said | March 13th 2018 @ 2:52pm | ! Report

                The ball just brushes de Villiers and its trajectory is unaffected by it, so no, he didn’t drop it “on him”.

                How are they the same? The ball is not part of Lyon’s body, hence it is not physical contact. Also: https://www.cricket.com.au/news/nathan-lyon-demerit-point-fine-icc-sanction-ab-de-villiers-run-out-south-africa-first-test-durban/2018-03-05

                You shouldn’t need that anyway, you automatically get demerit points when you’re charged, which you’d also know if you actually knew anything about how it works.

              • March 13th 2018 @ 4:27pm
                Jeff said | March 13th 2018 @ 4:27pm | ! Report

                Wow Matthew, looks like you will go to any length to defend your Aussie team even to the point of trying to appeal to technicalities. Most would argue that Lyon’s case was even worse as he dropped a ball so close to AB that it was obvious that he wasn’t too bothered whether it had hit him or not. In fact, he’s bloody lucky that the ball fell a couple of inches away and did not hit AB directly but the intent was no doubt there.

                As the ball brushed him, that’s physical contact FYI. No different to Rabada who only slightly brushed Smith as well. Appealing to this argument that the ball isn’t part of Lyon’s body to defend Lyon is nonsense. Using your logic, a batsman could use his bat and hit a bowler with it and it doesn’t constitute as contact.

                You need to stop looking for ways to twist things and look at the facts. You seem incapable of doing that.

              • March 13th 2018 @ 4:54pm
                Jake said | March 13th 2018 @ 4:54pm | ! Report

                Hang on Jeff.

                First you state “This footage clearly shows the ball hitting AB so it did make contact ”

                Then you state “he’s bloody lucky that the ball fell a couple of inches away’

                So which one is it?

              • Roar Rookie

                March 13th 2018 @ 5:57pm
                Matthew Pearce said | March 13th 2018 @ 5:57pm | ! Report

                Yep. Well spotted Jake.

                No. It’s not. The ball is not part of his body, hence it is not physical contact. As you admitted just before, Lyon didn’t actually even drop the ball on him, so he wouldn’t have a case to answer there anyway.

                “Using your logic, a batsman could use his bat and hit a bowler with it and it doesn’t constitute as contact.”

                That’s not actually the same logic, because that involves the batsman deliberately using the bat as a club and swinging. Bat in hand = physical contact. Lyon has dropped the ball. Ball not in hand =/= physical contact. If he deliberately placed (not dropped, placed) the ball on AB, then you would have a case. But he didn’t, so you don’t.

                “You need to stop looking for ways to twist things and look at the facts. You seem incapable of doing that.”

                You might want to stay away from those sort of statements if you’re going to contradict yourself in the same breath.

              • March 14th 2018 @ 11:30am
                Jeff said | March 14th 2018 @ 11:30am | ! Report

                Jake, the intent was there and he was lucky it dropped just a few inches from AB. If it had fallen on AB directly, then he would have have not been able to be protected by the umpires, Aussie or not. However, it did roll on and hit AB therefore there was contact but Jeff Crowe showed his bias and let him off with just a grade one level offence.

                I expected Matthew to come up with the weak argument that the ball wasn’t in Lyon’s hand. Tell me then Matthew, does that meant if a batsman threw the bat at a bowler, that would not constitute as contact to you ? See Samuels v Warne in a Big Bash match a few years ago.

                We can go all day here, Matthew and I can and will continue to expose the massive holes in your argument.

              • March 14th 2018 @ 12:26pm
                Jake said | March 14th 2018 @ 12:26pm | ! Report

                Come on Jeff. You don’t know what the intent was. Nathan Lyon isn’t that sort of player. Maybe he didn’t want to throw the ball in celebration in case it landed on ABDV?
                Who knows?
                You think Jeff Crowe, a kiwi, is bias towards Australia? Thats a pretty big slur on a respected former player, former NZ captain and your fellow Kiwi.
                I think your insinuating things here to back up your argument.

              • March 15th 2018 @ 1:07pm
                Jeff said | March 15th 2018 @ 1:07pm | ! Report

                ” Maybe he didn’t want to throw the ball in celebration in case it landed on ABDV?”

                And here we have it, folks. Some Aussies are just not capable of objectivity when their countrymen are involved and will go to the most ridiculous lengths to protect their guys.

                You and Matthew should really get rid of the eye patch.

        • Roar Guru

          March 13th 2018 @ 12:14pm
          JamesH said | March 13th 2018 @ 12:14pm | ! Report

          I’m pretty sure Warner’s mouthing off was at Markram (for running AB out), who was still batting, so it was just classed as – admittedly ugly – regular sledging. I wouldn’t have a had a problem with that being looked at though.

          The ICC seems to come down pretty hard on send-offs. They even pinged Mitch Marsh for sending off Rabada after Marsh was the one dismissed, lol. What would you even call that? A ‘sent off’?

      • Columnist

        March 13th 2018 @ 1:51pm
        Ronan O'Connell said | March 13th 2018 @ 1:51pm | ! Report

        Warner was very lucky he wasn’t also punished by the ICC for his manic screaming at Markram after his run out of AB in the 1st Test.

        The only thing which might have saved him is that it wasn’t a “send-off” as he was yelling at the not-out batsman and the ICC have made a point of cracking down on “send-offs” whereas they’re way more lenient on sledging of a not-out batsman.

      • March 15th 2018 @ 8:05pm
        DavSA said | March 15th 2018 @ 8:05pm | ! Report

        Rabada should rather have decked Smith . Then again smacking a child is illegal in SA.

    • Roar Guru

      March 13th 2018 @ 9:08am
      spruce moose said | March 13th 2018 @ 9:08am | ! Report

      Rababa copped three suspension points not necessarily for the shoulder contact, but because of his actions beforehand that caused that to happen.

      1. He consciously chose to give Smith a send off; therefore
      2. He chose to get right up in Smith’s face; therefore
      3. He didn’t change his line, and made no attempt to move out of the way; therefore
      4. He and Smith brushed shoulders.

      I’m of the belief that point 4 was accidental, but numbers 1,2 and 3 were deliberate and therefore, whether it was accidental or not is immaterial. He contacted Smith because he made zero effort to avoid it from happening.

      It’s the same philosophy as speeding and then accidentally hitting someone. You may not have intended to hit someone, but you did intend to speed and that is a consequence of such an action.

      • Roar Guru

        March 13th 2018 @ 9:16am
        spruce moose said | March 13th 2018 @ 9:16am | ! Report

        For clarity – that was a response to WQ. Not sure why it’s not under his post.

      • March 13th 2018 @ 9:16am
        Paul said | March 13th 2018 @ 9:16am | ! Report

        really good explanation, thanks.

      • Roar Guru

        March 13th 2018 @ 9:26am
        Corne Van Vuuren said | March 13th 2018 @ 9:26am | ! Report

        Just a question, should Smith not cop a fine for not altering his line?

        • Roar Guru

          March 13th 2018 @ 9:42am
          spruce moose said | March 13th 2018 @ 9:42am | ! Report

          Lol…see the reasoning behind it. A stretch though.

          But, it’s fairly apparent Rabada was walking directly toward Smith, while Smith was walking to consult with his partner on a review.

          Smith was not walking to Rabada, Rabada was walking to Smith.

        • March 13th 2018 @ 9:44am
          Jake said | March 13th 2018 @ 9:44am | ! Report

          No. Are you honestly suggesting Smith is in the wrong?

          • Roar Guru

            March 13th 2018 @ 9:09pm
            Corne Van Vuuren said | March 13th 2018 @ 9:09pm | ! Report

            I am not suggesting anything, merely questioning the outcome

        • March 13th 2018 @ 10:26am
          soapit said | March 13th 2018 @ 10:26am | ! Report

          given batsmen are required to walk off the field while the bowler can stay where he likes batsmen get right of way surely?

          • Roar Guru

            March 13th 2018 @ 11:22am
            JamesH said | March 13th 2018 @ 11:22am | ! Report

            Nope, because (a) batsmen are entitled to walk up to their partner and consult them about a review (which is what Smith did) and (b) if you watch the replay again Rabada quite clearly changed his line to deliberately get in Smith’s face (whether or not the actual contact itself was intended).

            Rabada is wholly responsible for what happened. It’s really disappointing because it tarnishes the reputation of an otherwise incredible young talent.

            • Roar Guru

              March 13th 2018 @ 11:49am
              Chris Kettlewell said | March 13th 2018 @ 11:49am | ! Report

              Yes, I watched the replay a few times, and can definitely see Rabada’s line change in the direction of Smith as he got closer to him. And as someone who’s been sanctioned for shoulder bumping a batsman before, there’s absolutely no excuse.

              • Roar Guru

                March 13th 2018 @ 12:15pm
                JamesH said | March 13th 2018 @ 12:15pm | ! Report

                Chris! You thug.

            • March 13th 2018 @ 1:09pm
              soapit said | March 13th 2018 @ 1:09pm | ! Report

              cheers, obviously wasnt massively familiar with the fine detail of what happened

      • March 13th 2018 @ 10:46am
        WQ said | March 13th 2018 @ 10:46am | ! Report

        All good points spruce moose, I agree with all of them and believe that Rabada has been dealt with appropriately.
        My point here is about consistency, surely Warner has behaved as badly or in fact far worse than Rabada during this series?

        • Roar Guru

          March 13th 2018 @ 11:14am
          spruce moose said | March 13th 2018 @ 11:14am | ! Report

          I’m no Warner fan, but there’s no way one could say Warner has behaved as badly.

          All players were put on notice after the first test. It was made explicitly clear by the match referee that there was to be an immediate improvement in behaviour.

          The fact that Rabada seems to have ignored that directive – twice – in the very next test is his own fault.

          Rabada is copping a suspension because of sustained poor behaviour over 2 years. He’s let his team and his country down in a big way.

        • Roar Guru

          March 13th 2018 @ 11:16am
          JamesH said | March 13th 2018 @ 11:16am | ! Report

          Warner copped the same penalty as Rabada – three demerit points. He just didn’t have any points hanging over his head, whereas Rabada had a whopping five points.

          • Roar Rookie

            March 13th 2018 @ 11:22am
            Matthew Pearce said | March 13th 2018 @ 11:22am | ! Report

            And Rabada now has to completely pull his head in and remain spotless for the next twelve months, otherwise even a repeat level 1 offence would put him up to 12 demerits.

            Boy is this fellow skating on thin ice.

            • Roar Guru

              March 13th 2018 @ 12:17pm
              JamesH said | March 13th 2018 @ 12:17pm | ! Report

              Wouldn’t another level one offence only put him up to 10 points (1 + his current 9)?

              Amazingly, the first of his 9 current demerit points doesn’t expire for around 10 months.

              • Roar Rookie

                March 13th 2018 @ 12:42pm
                Matthew Pearce said | March 13th 2018 @ 12:42pm | ! Report

                I’m pretty sure getting pinged for the same offence twice within twelve months raises it to the next level. Although he only got one this time for the send off, which he’s done before very recently, so I might be wrong there.

              • Roar Guru

                March 13th 2018 @ 2:04pm
                Matt H said | March 13th 2018 @ 2:04pm | ! Report

                Yes he’s racked up quite a record over a short period.

    • March 13th 2018 @ 9:23am
      rock86 said | March 13th 2018 @ 9:23am | ! Report

      I think you are being a touch unfair to Lyon, he had 2 lean innings after the first in Durban but he really wasn’t used too much in the first innings in Port Elizabeth due to conditions favouring the seam bowlers. In those two lean innings he also only went for 2.66 an over, so while yes he didn’t get the wickets his skipper would have wanted, he did tie up an end to allow the fast bowlers to rest and rotate – this is also a vital role he needs to play (especially how much the conditions have been favourable to our quicks).

      Maharaj has been great, but in the same respect Rabada has also been much much better then any of our quicks – using that same logic does this not mean our quicks also need to lift their game since Rabada is showing them all up?

      • March 13th 2018 @ 5:51pm
        Fergus said | March 13th 2018 @ 5:51pm | ! Report

        If lyon wasn’t used too much in the first innings because the conditions were pace friendly one really has to question the logic of batting first.

        • March 13th 2018 @ 6:58pm
          Nudge said | March 13th 2018 @ 6:58pm | ! Report

          There was no problem with batting first. The ball reversed throughout the whole match. Conventional swing was at its most prominent in the first session of the match when Australia got through to 98 with out loss just before lunch. At 0-98 and 3-170 odd we just shouldn’t have been bowled out for 240. That’s where the test was lost

    Explore:
    , ,