South Africa and the West Indies battled each other in the 3rd and last 5-Day Cricket Test at Newlands, Cape Town. The Test ran from 2 to 6 January 2015.
The 2nd Test in Port Elizabeth was a bit of a disapointment, with wet weather spoiling the Test and forcing a draw. Better weather was expected and delivered in Cape Town for the 3rd Test.
Play started on schedule on Day 1, at 10:30 SA Time (08:30 GMT).
The score cards were updated at regular intervals, here on Rugby-Talk.com.
The West Indies won the toss and elected to bat.
The first West Indies wicket fell with their score on 30. At Lunch on Day 1 the West Indies were on 80 / 2 after 27 overs and at Stumps on Day 1 the West Indies were 276 / 6, after the day’s 90 overs.
The Proteas wrapped up the West Indies tail relatively quickly on Day 2 (within 9.5 overs), with the West Indies all out for 329 after 99.5 overs. The Proteas started batting and lost the wicket of Dean Elgar at 48 / 1. At Tea on Day 2 the Proteas were 135 / 2, after 42 overs. With the Proteas on 227 / 3, rain interrupted play… which should lead to Stumps – Day 2.
On Day 3 the Proteas resumed batting and lost the wicket of Hashim Amla on 63, with the Proteas on 254 / 4. Proteas were on 313 / 5 at Lunch – Day 3, still 16 runs behind. AB de Villiers easily reached his TON after Lunch on Day 3 and eventually perished on 148 as he tried to hit it out of the park. Proteas lead by 92 at the Innings break, having scored 421 All Out.
The West Indies 2nd Innings started off well for them and after the first 10.5 overs they were on 23 / 0 before Morné Morkel struck, making it 23 / 1 after 11 overs. The 2nd wicket fell shortly afterwards, on 27. The West Indies soldiered on and were 88 / 2 at Stumps – Day 3.
Morning Day 4… it is raining and the outfield is soaked. Prospects of play did not look good for the rest of Day 4. Play eventually resumed at 15:00 on Day 4. The West Indies hung in for most of the afternoon, till the wickets started falling rather fast, losing the last 7 wickets for just 33 runs. West Indies All Out for 215 in their 2nd Innings, a lead of 123. This leaves the Proteas needing 124 for the win, with a Day and a few overs remaining in the Test. Alviro Petersen falls without troubling the scorecard, with the Proteas on 9 / 1 after 2.3 Overs, as Stumps was called on Day 4.
The Proteas needed 115 runs for the win on Day 5 of the Test and lost the wicket of Faf du Plessis with the score on 51 / 2, leaving 73 runs to win. South Africa won the Test before Lunch on the final Day, a win by 8 wickets.
West Indies:
First Innings – 329 All Out (99.5 Overs)
Second Innings – 215 All Out (79.5 Overs)
South Africa:
First Innings – 421 All Out (122.4 Overs)
Second Innings – 124 / 2 (37.4 Overs)
South Africa won by 8 wickets
| West Indies 1st innings | R | M | B | 4s | 6s | SR | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KC Brathwaite | c Elgar b Steyn | 7 | 58 | 35 | 1 | 0 | 20.00 | |
| DS Smith | b Harmer | 47 | 119 | 86 | 8 | 0 | 54.65 | |
| LR Johnson | lbw b Harmer | 54 | 109 | 84 | 9 | 0 | 64.28 | |
| MN Samuels | c du Plessis b van Zyl | 43 | 106 | 70 | 6 | 0 | 61.42 | |
| S Chanderpaul | st †de Villiers b Harmer | 9 | 72 | 48 | 1 | 0 | 18.75 | |
| J Blackwood | lbw b Steyn | 56 | 168 | 113 | 6 | 0 | 49.55 | |
| D Ramdin*† | c & b Steyn | 53 | 113 | 103 | 6 | 0 | 51.45 | |
| JO Holder | c van Zyl b Steyn | 23 | 52 | 34 | 4 | 0 | 67.64 | |
| JE Taylor | c Steyn b Morkel | 13 | 17 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 108.33 | |
| SJ Benn | c Bavuma b Morkel | 5 | 19 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 45.45 | |
| ST Gabriel | not out | 4 | 15 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 80.00 | |
| Extras | (lb 5, w 8, nb 2) | 15 | ||||||
| Total | (all out; 99.5 overs; 424 mins) | 329 | (3.29 runs per over) | |||||
Fall of wickets: 1-30 (Brathwaite, 13.2 ov), 2-80 (Smith, 26.6 ov), 3-131 (Johnson, 38.3 ov), 4-162 (Samuels, 51.1 ov), 5-172 (Chanderpaul, 56.1 ov), 6-266 (Ramdin, 85.2 ov), 7-299 (Blackwood, 94.1 ov), 8-316 (Holder, 96.3 ov), 9-319 (Taylor, 97.1 ov), 10-329 (Benn, 99.5 ov)
| Bowling | O | M | R | W | Econ | 0s | 4s | 6s | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DW Steyn | 25 | 6 | 78 | 4 | 3.12 | 119 | 9 | 0 | (3w) | |
| VD Philander | 19 | 2 | 73 | 0 | 3.84 | 83 | 12 | 0 | (1nb) | |
| M Morkel | 19.5 | 1 | 83 | 2 | 4.18 | 81 | 12 | 0 | (1nb, 1w) | |
| SR Harmer | 26 | 5 | 71 | 3 | 2.73 | 120 | 10 | 0 | ||
| S van Zyl | 8 | 2 | 13 | 1 | 1.62 | 38 | 1 | 0 | ||
| D Elgar | 2 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 3.00 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| South Africa 1st innings | R | M | B | 4s | 6s | SR | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AN Petersen | run out (Blackwood) | 42 | 130 | 85 | 3 | 1 | 49.41 | |
| D Elgar | lbw b Holder | 8 | 58 | 30 | 1 | 0 | 26.66 | |
| F du Plessis | st †Ramdin b Benn | 68 | 150 | 122 | 8 | 0 | 55.73 | |
| HM Amla* | c †Ramdin b Holder | 63 | 189 | 150 | 7 | 0 | 42.00 | |
| AB de Villiers† | c Gabriel b Samuels | 148 | 323 | 194 | 15 | 1 | 76.28 | |
| T Bavuma | b Gabriel | 15 | 53 | 41 | 2 | 0 | 36.58 | |
| S van Zyl | lbw b Samuels | 33 | 91 | 63 | 3 | 0 | 52.38 | |
| VD Philander | run out (Holder/Benn) | 0 | 8 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |
| SR Harmer | lbw b Taylor | 10 | 37 | 48 | 2 | 0 | 20.83 | |
| DW Steyn | run out (Johnson) | 0 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |
| M Morkel | not out | 4 | 11 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 80.00 | |
| Extras | (lb 7, w 13, nb 10) | 30 | ||||||
| Total | (all out; 122.4 overs; 521 mins) | 421 | (3.43 runs per over) | |||||
Fall of wickets: 1-48 (Elgar, 11.5 ov), 2-104 (Petersen, 27.1 ov), 3-157 (du Plessis, 49.1 ov), 4-254 (Amla, 75.1 ov), 5-288 (Bavuma, 86.5 ov), 6-384 (van Zyl, 108.2 ov), 7-385 (Philander, 109.4 ov), 8-404 (Harmer, 119.5 ov), 9-408 (Steyn, 120.4 ov), 10-421 (de Villiers, 122.4 ov)
| Bowling | O | M | R | W | Econ | 0s | 4s | 6s | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JE Taylor | 20 | 2 | 80 | 1 | 4.00 | 83 | 9 | 0 | (1nb, 1w) | |
| ST Gabriel | 17 | 2 | 64 | 1 | 3.76 | 70 | 3 | 0 | (7nb, 3w) | |
| JO Holder | 24 | 4 | 87 | 2 | 3.62 | 107 | 12 | 0 | (2nb, 1w) | |
| MN Samuels | 16.4 | 0 | 68 | 2 | 4.08 | 68 | 8 | 1 | ||
| SJ Benn | 45 | 9 | 115 | 1 | 2.55 | 202 | 9 | 1 |
| West Indies 2nd innings | R | M | B | 4s | 6s | SR | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KC Brathwaite | b Harmer | 16 | 64 | 45 | 1 | 0 | 35.55 | |
| DS Smith | c †de Villiers b Morkel | 7 | 50 | 36 | 1 | 0 | 19.44 | |
| LR Johnson | c Amla b Morkel | 44 | 112 | 76 | 6 | 0 | 57.89 | |
| MN Samuels | c Elgar b Harmer | 74 | 225 | 150 | 9 | 2 | 49.33 | |
| S Chanderpaul | run out (Bavuma) | 50 | 203 | 113 | 5 | 0 | 44.24 | |
| J Blackwood | b Steyn | 13 | 35 | 26 | 2 | 0 | 50.00 | |
| D Ramdin*† | c Harmer b Steyn | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |
| JO Holder | c Amla b Harmer | 2 | 16 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 12.50 | |
| JE Taylor | c Elgar b Harmer | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |
| SJ Benn | c †de Villiers b Steyn | 0 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |
| ST Gabriel | not out | 2 | 9 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 20.00 | |
| Extras | (b 4, lb 3) | 7 | ||||||
| Total | (all out; 79.5 overs; 355 mins) | 215 | (2.69 runs per over) | |||||
Fall of wickets: 1-23 (Smith, 10.6 ov), 2-27 (Brathwaite, 13.5 ov), 3-95 (Johnson, 36.5 ov), 4-182 (Samuels, 64.5 ov), 5-202 (Blackwood, 71.6 ov), 6-204 (Ramdin, 73.1 ov), 7-213 (Holder, 76.3 ov), 8-213 (Taylor, 76.5 ov), 9-213 (Benn, 77.4 ov), 10-215 (Chanderpaul, 79.5 ov)
| Bowling | O | M | R | W | Econ | 0s | 4s | 6s | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DW Steyn | 23.5 | 3 | 75 | 3 | 3.14 | 110 | 11 | 0 | |
| VD Philander | 16 | 4 | 27 | 0 | 1.68 | 81 | 1 | 0 | |
| M Morkel | 14 | 7 | 18 | 2 | 1.28 | 74 | 2 | 0 | |
| SR Harmer | 24 | 7 | 82 | 4 | 3.41 | 106 | 9 | 2 | |
| S van Zyl | 2 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 3.00 | 9 | 1 | 0 |
| South Africa 2nd innings (target: 124 runs) | R | M | B | 4s | 6s | SR | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D Elgar | not out | 60 | 103 | 7 | 1 | 58.25 | ||
| AN Petersen | b Benn | 0 | 10 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |
| F du Plessis | c Blackwood b Benn | 14 | 77 | 69 | 2 | 0 | 20.28 | |
| HM Amla* | not out | 38 | 49 | 6 | 0 | 77.55 | ||
| Extras | (b 8, lb 2, nb 2) | 12 | ||||||
| Total | (2 wickets; 37.4 overs) | 124 | (3.29 runs per over) | |||||
Did not bat: AB de Villiers†, T Bavuma, S van Zyl, VD Philander, DW Steyn, M Morkel, SR Harmer
Fall of wickets: 1-9 (Petersen, 2.3 ov), 2-51 (du Plessis, 22.5 ov)
| Bowling | O | M | R | W | Econ | 0s | 4s | 6s | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JE Taylor | 7 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 2.85 | 34 | 3 | 0 | ||
| MN Samuels | 3.4 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 6.54 | 11 | 4 | 0 | ||
| SJ Benn | 17 | 8 | 24 | 2 | 1.41 | 89 | 1 | 1 | ||
| JO Holder | 5 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 3.80 | 23 | 3 | 0 | ||
| ST Gabriel | 5 | 1 | 27 | 0 | 5.40 | 20 | 4 | 0 | (2nb) |
Match details
Player of the match – tba
TV umpire – BF Bowden (New Zealand)
Match referee – RS Madugalle (Sri Lanka)
Reserve umpire – JD Cloete
Close of play
- – day 1 – West Indies 1st innings 276/6 (J Blackwood 45*, JO Holder 5*, 90 ov)
- – day 2 – South Africa 1st innings 227/3 (HM Amla 55*, AB de Villiers 32*, 68.3 ov)
- – day 3 – West Indies 2nd innings 88/2 (LR Johnson 37*, MN Samuels 26*, 34 ov)
- – day 4 – South Africa 2nd innings 9/1 (D Elgar 5*, 2.3 ov)
Match Notes – Day 5
- South Africa: 50 runs in 21.5 overs (131 balls), Extras 5
- Drinks: South Africa – 51/2 in 22.5 overs (D Elgar 32)
- Over 29.4: Review by West Indies (Bowling), Umpire – PR Reiffel, Batsman – HM Amla (Struck down)
- D Elgar: 50 off 86 balls (6 x 4, 1 x 6)
- South Africa: 100 runs in 34.6 overs (212 balls), Extras 12
- 3rd Wicket: 50 runs in 78 balls (D Elgar 22, HM Amla 24, Ex 7)
ryecatcher wrote:
agree with you 100%, sorry didn’t even mention it.
I still feel for how badle Keegan got dumped last year, but I also understand that White wanted to rejuvenate things in the Sharks camp.
Like Nama said, Bissie “lead” them to a legendary victory in Christchuch, though I would put that down to shear passion and determination… then the Sharks also lost in two of the worst games this year, Brumbies and Stormers.
If Lambie is captain, this will allow for better management to Bissie and give Kyle Cooper more game time… and also keep Bissie fresh for when it really matters.
421 @ MacroBlom:
Gosh January syndrome.
Last year.
@ ryecatcher:
Oh and good morning Mr Rye
@ ryecatcher:
419 What Lambie has going for him
as captain,and I stress that this is my
opinion.
1.He is the best flyhalf in the country.
(not full back)
2.He is highly respected by his team mates
3.And something I place a high premium on,he has decency.Cannot imagine him arguing with refs.
He without sin cast the first stone.
Have a look and the Nigel Owens thread a few weeks back.
That’s Voldy type Bullshit.
@ Jeraldjay:
What did I do now?
When next you cheer the SARACENS or the CRUSADERS just for a minute consider what you are doing:
“Saracen, in the Middle Ages, any person—Arab, Turk, or other—who professed the religion of Islām. Earlier in the Roman world, there had been references to Saracens (Greek: Sarakenoi) by late classical authors in the first three centuries AD, the term being then applied to an Arab tribe living in the Sinai Peninsula. In the following centuries the use of the term by Christians was extended to cover Arab tribes in general; and, after the establishment of the caliphate, the Byzantines referred to all Muslim subjects of the caliph as Saracens. Through the Byzantines and the crusaders, the name spread into western Europe, where it was long in general use and has survived until modern times.”
“Crusades, military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by Western Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion. Their objectives were to check the spread of Islam, to retake control of the Holy Land, to conquer pagan areas, and to recapture formerly Christian territories; they were seen by many of their participants as a means of redemption and expiation for sins. Between 1095, when the First Crusade was launched, and 1291, when the Latin Christians were finally expelled from their kingdom in Syria, there were numerous expeditions to the Holy Land, to Spain, and …”
Source: http://www.britannica.com
“The crusades were a series of holy wars called by popes with the promise of indulgences for those who fought in them and directed against external and internal enemies of Christendom for the recovery of Christian property or in defense of the Church or Christian people. Crusades were characterized by the taking of vows and the granting of indulgences to those who participated. Like going on pilgrimage, to which they were often likened, crusading was an act of Christian love and piety that compensated for and paid the penalties earned by sin. It marked a break in earlier Christian medieval conceptions of warfare in that crusades were penitential warfare. Crusades combined the ideas of: a) Holy War and b) and Pilgrimage to produce the concept of “indulgence” (remission of penance and/or sin granted by papacy for participation in sacred activity).
Where were crusades fought? This is a matter of dispute among historians. “Traditionalists” would limit true crusades to expeditions aimed at recovering or protecting Jerusalem. “Pluralists” (and I count myself as one) regard any expedition preached as a crusade in which the participants took crusading vows and received crusading privileges should be regarded as crusades. If so, crusades were fought not only in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, but in Spain, the Baltic (Latvia and Prussia), Italy, Sicily, and southern France.
When were the crusades? The first crusade was launched by Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont in 1095. There is controversy over the last crusade. “Traditionalists” would end the crusades in 1291 with the fall of the last crusader castle of the Latin Kingdom, the city of Acre (on the northern coast of present-day Israel). “Pluralists” disagree, but one good candidate would be the Spanish Armada of 1588.
Difference between Augustinian “just war” and “crusade”:
The standard for a Christian “just war” as developed by Augustine (c. A.D. 400) is: “rightful intention on the part of the participants, which should always be expressed through love of God and neighbour; a just cause; and legitimate proclamation by a qualified authority.” (Quoted from J. Riley-Smith,The Crusades, Yale University, 1987.) The doctrine of holy war/crusade added two further assumptions: 1) Violence and its consequences–death and injury–are morally neutral rather than intrinsically evil, and whether violence is good or bad is a matter of intention. (The analogy is to a surgeon, who cuts into the body, thus injuring it, in order to make it better/healthier.) 2) Christ is concerned with the political order of man, and intends for his agents on earth, kings, popes, bishops, to establish on earth a Christian Republic that was a “single, universal, transcendental state’ ruled by Christ through the lay and clerical magistrates he endowed with authority.
It follows from this that the defense of the Christian Republic against God’s enemies, whether foreign infidel (e.g. Turks) or domestic heretics and Jews was a moral imperative for those qualified to fight. A Crusade was a holy war fought against external or internal enemies for the recovery of Christian property or defense of the Church or the Christian people. It could be wages against Turks in Palestine, Muslims in Spain, pagan Slavs in the Baltic, or heretics in southern France, all of whom were enemies or rebels against God.”
http://usna.edu/Users/history/abels/hh315/crusades_timeline.htm
All of this put yesterday’s Paris attack (and the USA & its allies havoc creation in Afghanistan, the Middle East & Mediterranean North Africa) in historical perspective. It’s a long time coming … and it’s going to escalate and last a lot longer. There are no clean hands in all of this …
The most perceptive comment I read about this topic was blogger, scrumdown’s plea for freedom FROM religion …
PS:
Imo the Saracens & the Crusaders are as inappropriate sports club names as, say, the IRAs & the Orangemen would be.
What next?
Perhaps a bunch of politicised thugs calling themselves the Mandela United Football Club? 🙂
@ gunther:
😆
Fokkol this time… But I’ll give you another 3 more post to cause kak again.
@ Jeraldjay:
What happened on the Nigel thread?
427 @ Angostura:
Even more distasteful is the pre game show having “crusaders” on their horses running the length of the field brandishing play broadswords.
Not to mention the Saracens supporters wearing their fez’.
430 @ Scrumdown:
I have to agree, It always made me feel uneasy.
Angostura wrote:
😆
The Iran Xerxes cricket team
407 & 408 @ ryecatcher:
I did not find it necessary to delete any comments and the warning from my side was not directed against you, Macro or Charo personally (rather meant to indicate that it could happen to ANYBODY and that no blogger has an elevated position over another).
The Comment was largely meant to warn about any possible escalation on the matter at hand.
It was a friendly reminder of what this site stands for and allows.
It was a reminder that MY DISCRETION on these matters is final, however flawed you perceive my stance to be.
It is a reminder that website administration and policy here is NOT A DEMOCRACY, it is laid down, finished and klaar!
It was a reminder that we cannot and will not allow the chaos of the Voldy regime, here on Rugby-Talk.com. It is not even nearly negotiable, really!
I hope you now find it clear, it is the last on the matter, if you find that you are still unhappy about it, then mail me at the rugby-talk.com webmaster mail address…. and that counts for EVERYBODY.
That’s it, it’s simple really!
432
Well I guess the Irani Persians would work better.
Hoert julle RT hiere, hoessit!
Crazy fktup people across the globe, from China to Gansbaai…
I work with Islamic customers daily, from Istanbul to the Emirates, hundreds of them, and I have never felt threatened by them in any way.
Had a few scary moment in the Gansbaai Saloon a few times though, while watching the Bulls vs WP!
Especially when there is the usual Wellington Brandy and Coke discount promotion during matches…even Cliffie Etzebeth keeps his distance nowadays, while checking out those rowdy locals from his corner spot, grinning and nodding knowingly….
@ gunther:
http://www.rugby-talk.com/2014/11/rfu-invstigating-homophobic-abuse-hurled-against-nigel-owens/
MacroBlom wrote:
No, it’s a suppository
gunther wrote:
You’ve been a naughty boy
Bend over to be spanked
Dammit
Ek is bly iemand het die onderwerp verander, want die meeste ouens wat hier kommentaar op die krieket gelwer het weet duidelik basies zero van krieket.
GBS.
Wat van ‘n weeklikse draad waar al die taboes opsy geskuif kan word?
Dan kan almal hulle werklike kommentaar lewer wat hulle wil,
en skeinheilig voortgaan om beskaaf met mekaar te wees op die 99% ander threads…
Jeraldjay…………@ 436…. in a pc world… indeed.
Definitely not one of the taboo topics for derision here.
just a thin veneer…………………………
440 @ shooter:
been done a few times in the past.
GBS calls it a “fight club” thread where the gloves are off and anything goes except for insults to peoples Mothers and the like.
443. ah, agter die paviljoen. 🙂
439 @ shooter:
Enige persoon wat n stelling soos dié maak voel natuurlik dat hy/sy EEN van die 10% is wat wel iets weet.
Geluk.
Users Online
Total 31 users including 0 member, 31 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,393,543 Page Impressions
_