Win provides Australia with vital encouragement

Third Test: Australia (445 & 257-4 dec) bt South Africa (327 & 272) by 103 runs

clipped from www.telegraph.co.uk Australia finally pulled themselves out of their 12-month slump with a breathless, last-ditch victory over South Africa. Just 10 balls of the match remained when Mitchell Johnson shattered Graeme Smith's stumps with a vicious inswinger. It was an unforgettable conclusion to a series that has matched the 2005 Ashes for sheer drama. For much of the final session, storms were rolling around Sydney, and lightning flashes could be seen behind the old green-roofed pavilion. Smith has a broken metacarpal in his left hand, as well as a torn tendon in his right elbow, and had not been expected to take any further part in the match. Smith may have started his international career as a brash loudmouth, but he has matured enormously and the Australian public have grown to respect and admire him. But the run was not there, and Johnson found a lethal delivery when it was most needed. Even without his handicaps, Smith admitted later, he might have struggled to keep this nip-backer out.

Player revolt in SA cricket?

Johannesburg - Some members of the national cricket team are allegedly threatening to withdraw from the tour of Bangladesh if disciplinary steps are taken against their coach.

South African cricket faces a serious rift as a result of a crisis caused by alleged interference in team selections by leading administrator Norman Arendse.

Arendse, chairperson of SA Cricket, and Proteas coach Mickey Arthur are on a collision course. It seems there is not enough room for both men in SA cricket. One of them will have to go.

Arendse has threatened to get rid of Arthur. The coach, in turn, said on Thursday he had obtained legal advice over an "insulting" email message from Arendse.

More.

NVDL: I saw Arendse wriggling and writhing on TV news last night. The reason they don't want this in the media is simple. The coach picks a team, some admin guy says: "Why didn't you choose these black players?" and the answer is pretty freaking obvious isn't it: "Because they weren't good enough for the team." He did the word play thing which is becoming so lame now; all the politicians and others worming their way out of trouble are doing it: "Well you see we are committed to transformation..." Let's say it the way it should be said - 'transformation at the expense of delivery'.
He was asked: "But aren't you interfering with the team?" Answer: "If pursuing transformation is interference then yes..." No, 'Yes' will suffice.