South Africa 459 and 0/30 need a further 153 runs to defeat Australia 394 and 247 (R Ponting 99, D Steyn 5/67): Second Test Day 4 at Melbourne Cricket Ground.
At the start of today's play Mark Nicholas, introducing proceedings on Channel 9, got the series sponsor's name wrong (it's not nPower). He corrected himself quickly, which was more than the Australian team, apart from the captain and a couple of others, was able to do.
The movement of the match out of Australia's reach continued in the first hour when the score went from 0/4 via 0/37 to 3/49. Matthew Hayden seemed to be finding some touch when he drove Dale Steyn to short extra cover for a not entirely convincing 23; Simon Katich played himself in then snicked a wide one to the keeper; Mike Hussey was given out caught when the ball touched his helmet (and nothing else).
Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke steadied things, not without some awkward moments until, and then beyond, lunch. But Clarke, in contrast to the first innings, surrendered his wicket cheaply to a poor ball from Steyn. Andrew Symonds, Brad Haddin and Brett Lee all failed (the last two after showing some brief promise) making Australia 7/180.
Mitchell Johnson dug in and supported the captain who, conscious of his team's predicament, became more introspective as he moved towards his second century of the match. He was caught at short extra cover for 99/169b (7x4). While this was not a flawless innings, Ponting had worked hard enough to earn his second century of the match, but it wasn;t to be.
The last two wickets, thanks to Johnson's 43 no/ 85b (5x4) added 35, leaving South Africa to amke 183 to win.
Brett Lee, determined as ever, opened the bowling, and bowled Neil McKenzie off a no ball. At the other end Graeme Smith was in ominously good touch, scoring 25 of his team's 0/30 at stumps.
Rain is forecast for Melbourne tomorrow. If it prevents a South African victory that will be a greater injustice than Ponting's dismissal for 99, unless, and this is a very big unless, Australia can rise like a phoenix from the ashes of their burnt expectations. Not likely I think, notwithstanding the other reversals of fortune in this series so far.
Scorecard
Showing posts with label Mark Nicholas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Nicholas. Show all posts
Monday, December 29, 2008
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Playing the man
Paul Toohey in The Australian, usually regarded as a knowledgeable reporter on NT and indigenous matters, is trying to reinvent himself as a cricket and/or media commentator by putting the boot into Mark Nicholas, the front man of the Channel Nine cricket commentary team.
"Unctuous" is Toohey's description of him. IMO it's unfair. Nicholas's accent and general demeanour may ruffle some Australian feathers in the same way as the wind ruffles his hair, but he can, and often does, go beyond the usual commentary box cliches. He can read a game well, has strong onscreen presence which enables him to lead discussions with his fellow commentators and can communicate his views clearly.
Although we don't see much evidence of this in Australia, he can write well and to deadlines. During the recent Australia - India test series he filed reports on each day's play with the UK Telegraph which were published online soon after the close of each day's play. Check them out.
Several of the commenters on Toohey's piece have brought the ABC radio commentary into the discussion. IMO this isn't above reproach either. The commentators rarely describe field settings nor do they invariably give the score at the end of each over or after each run. It often looks to me as if they focus on the TV image instead of trying to paint their own picture.
I don't want to get into rating commentators but if I did Nicholas would be near or at the top of the list of this year's radio and TV practitioners. "Unctuous"? Rubbish. Try "authoritative".
"Unctuous" is Toohey's description of him. IMO it's unfair. Nicholas's accent and general demeanour may ruffle some Australian feathers in the same way as the wind ruffles his hair, but he can, and often does, go beyond the usual commentary box cliches. He can read a game well, has strong onscreen presence which enables him to lead discussions with his fellow commentators and can communicate his views clearly.
Although we don't see much evidence of this in Australia, he can write well and to deadlines. During the recent Australia - India test series he filed reports on each day's play with the UK Telegraph which were published online soon after the close of each day's play. Check them out.
Several of the commenters on Toohey's piece have brought the ABC radio commentary into the discussion. IMO this isn't above reproach either. The commentators rarely describe field settings nor do they invariably give the score at the end of each over or after each run. It often looks to me as if they focus on the TV image instead of trying to paint their own picture.
I don't want to get into rating commentators but if I did Nicholas would be near or at the top of the list of this year's radio and TV practitioners. "Unctuous"? Rubbish. Try "authoritative".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)