I think that's a bit OTT and hysterical, Colin. We haven't deserved to have lost anything yet, the South African's completely failed to show any ability to finish 2 of the 3 test matches off, whereas we were comprehensive in finishing off our win. Not saying we've constantly played well, but we've not been bad.
England tour of South Africa 09/10
- Thread starter Mike23
- Start date
Dare
Chairman of Selectors
Like it was during the West Indies series it takes 20 wickets to win a test. In that series the West Indies were the team to manage that in one tests and so far England have done it in this series. Take nothing away from England, a win is a win and a draw is a draw. No matter if your middle order batsman end up fighting for the draw or your last 2.
MasterBlaster76
ICC Chairman
Apart from this morning, eh? What in the blue Hell happened there?
I reckon we can kiss goodbye to winning this series now, unless the rain helps out. Still, getting a draw here is a very good result.
Valaskjalf
Club Captain
Well I disagree....Any team deservant of a victory/lead dont leave it to their number 11 to save face on two occasions on stupendously flat pitches. It was always going to be difficult to bowl you guys out on the final day after we managed 470+ just the day before. I think England can be seriously lucky to have drawn those games, it was a matter of declaring earlier, not the fact that we couldnt finish the job.
In the first game it was more due to nostalgia and giving Ntini a supposed fairy tale 100th test which lead to England off the hook with him bowling the final over. And there will always be a lot of what-ifs in the Newlands test with Steyn bowling the spell of his life to Collingwood without luck. So its easy to say we balls it up, but one can also call us very unlucky.
England fully deserved to win the Durban test, as they did...we played rubbish. But for the other 2 tests we basically ripped the game away from England within 4 days after losing both tosses and we should get credit for that.
In this final test the weather might this time be England's saving grace as it is terrible for the rest of the 4 days...and England threw their wickets away and played appallingly. As they say "you cant win a test on the first day but you can lose it" and from the way England played today they sure as heck dont deserve to win.
Last edited:
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
in total fairness to england, and I'm not an england fan at all, both those tight draws were set up due to brilliant batting for most of the day and then suffering an almost fatal collapse just before the end.
you cannot deny that bell and collingwood, in particular, didn't bat outstandingly well to get to a point where south africa needed to take 4 wickets wickets in 13 overs.
57 overs on a last day pitch is a pretty phenomenal effort. If they had lost the 3rd test, it would have slightly harsh on them.
the 1st test england were perhaps a lot less deserving.
you cannot deny that bell and collingwood, in particular, didn't bat outstandingly well to get to a point where south africa needed to take 4 wickets wickets in 13 overs.
57 overs on a last day pitch is a pretty phenomenal effort. If they had lost the 3rd test, it would have slightly harsh on them.
the 1st test england were perhaps a lot less deserving.
Valaskjalf
Club Captain
Granted...Collingwood and Bell played exceptionally well. Yet you also cannot deny that Steyn, with the way he bowled, probably deserved the wicket of Collingwood early on.
drainpipe32
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2008
- Online Cricket Games Owned
What happened to Paul Harris?
England have perhaps thrown away this series and the Basil d'Oliveria trophy. The bowlers really need to step up here.
England have perhaps thrown away this series and the Basil d'Oliveria trophy. The bowlers really need to step up here.
Dare
Chairman of Selectors
They preferred to go in with 5 pace bowlers and one part time spinner so they dropped him. Apparently the wicket is made for fast bowlers.
drainpipe32
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2008
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Fair enough. He's crap at any rate 
This is Strauss' 20th Test as captain, it would be only his third defeat. Michael Yawn on the other hand lost three Tests in his first nine Tests as captain before a run of 12 Tests without defeat, although (no surprise), bulk majority of them were wins over West Indies (two series) and New Zealand (one series). Yawn did lose FIVE TESTS against South Africa despite the series win out here last time around, two in his first series when he took over (won two), one out here (won two) and two in his last series when we lost 1-2 at home.
180 isn't a good total on any pitch, certainly not these days when the days of dodgy low-scorers is banished by TV/grounds and the pitches they dictate. I doubt England will claw it back, probably not until the saffers have gained a strong position and the upper hand. Anderson is too hit and miss, so too is Broad and Sidebottom who has struggled a bit since his injury.
Has Broad proven worth his place? It seems he is always in the side, no doubt England still clinging to their fetish for bowlers who can bat, but is he too much like Giles in his runs are handy but don't compensate a lack of frontline bowler wicket-taking? He picked up a 5wi after the horse had bolted against Australia, six wickets of which the last four came when the aussies were already 291 runs ahead. He took another 5wi to win the next match, but that's 1/3 of his wickets in his last 10 Tests in just two innings. What did he do when we needed wickets in this series? He took out the middle order in their collapse when we won, but when we struggled in the 1st and 3rd Tests he took 1 and 2, 1 and 0 wickets respectively. So he chips away, one good bowl in every three Tests but don't we need a better wicket taker in a FOUR MAN BOWLING ATTACK?!? Especially if we play the SPINNER on ALL pitches, puts more responsibility on the quicks. Arguably we should have dumped Swann and gone with Onions, but then we'd be in deeper trouble for the want of Swann's batting which is a place or two too far down the order in my opinion. I reckon Swann should be batting as our new Flintoff at number seven, he currently averages 33.67 which isn't too shabby and better than Flintoff's career average. Fair enough he hasn't yet made 100, but he may have a much better chance if he gets the same chances afforded Prior. That could pave the way for a fifth bowler to come in, we'll probably never know what Swann can do if he is constantly batting down with the rabbits and ferrets (go in after the rabbits) Fair enough if you say he has a few not outs to boost his average, but he's chipped away and missed out on some potentially easy runs and maybe a 100 by not getting to bat in declarations against West Indies - he's played five Tests and batted just three times against them out of a possible 10 innings.
Swann by innings score
ducks : 1
01-09 : 6
10-19 : 3 (not out x2)
20-49 : 6 (not out x1)
50+ : 5 (not out x2)
His not outs are :
20no vs West Indies - England declared on 566/9, two players made 100s, three made 50s, and Prior and Broad helped themselves to 39 and 44 respectively. Swann missed out on a chance of scoring some easy runs because he was batting at #10
11no vs West Indies - England declared on 546/6, three players made 100s, Swann was at #8 this time but still not afforded the chance to bat for long
63no vs West Indies - this was his first stranded innings, he made the 2nd highest score in the 1st innings but someone decreed Broad and Bresnan should bat higher. I would have though, as he was making his debut, Bresnan should have batted below Swann. Swann scored his 63no off just 89 balls with a six and nine 4s, 89 balls were more than Broad and Bresnan faced between them. Once Bopara was out only nine more runs were added, batting #9 didn't afford Swann many partnerships.
47no vs Australia - this time England were bowled out and Swann was stranded at #10, his 47no was only bested by three 50s of which the highest was 69. That was the now tediously famous Cardiff Test, his battling and brave 21 helped save it. How we concluded Broad (19 & 14) and Anderson should bat above him 1st innings I'll never know. Are there any notts fans on here who know who normally bats higher up for the county?
10no vs South Africa - let's just say this is recent enough history that I'll just say we were clinging on for a draw and Swann was again batting #10, this time because Anderson was nightwatchman and Broad was above him as usual
180 isn't a good total on any pitch, certainly not these days when the days of dodgy low-scorers is banished by TV/grounds and the pitches they dictate. I doubt England will claw it back, probably not until the saffers have gained a strong position and the upper hand. Anderson is too hit and miss, so too is Broad and Sidebottom who has struggled a bit since his injury.
Has Broad proven worth his place? It seems he is always in the side, no doubt England still clinging to their fetish for bowlers who can bat, but is he too much like Giles in his runs are handy but don't compensate a lack of frontline bowler wicket-taking? He picked up a 5wi after the horse had bolted against Australia, six wickets of which the last four came when the aussies were already 291 runs ahead. He took another 5wi to win the next match, but that's 1/3 of his wickets in his last 10 Tests in just two innings. What did he do when we needed wickets in this series? He took out the middle order in their collapse when we won, but when we struggled in the 1st and 3rd Tests he took 1 and 2, 1 and 0 wickets respectively. So he chips away, one good bowl in every three Tests but don't we need a better wicket taker in a FOUR MAN BOWLING ATTACK?!? Especially if we play the SPINNER on ALL pitches, puts more responsibility on the quicks. Arguably we should have dumped Swann and gone with Onions, but then we'd be in deeper trouble for the want of Swann's batting which is a place or two too far down the order in my opinion. I reckon Swann should be batting as our new Flintoff at number seven, he currently averages 33.67 which isn't too shabby and better than Flintoff's career average. Fair enough he hasn't yet made 100, but he may have a much better chance if he gets the same chances afforded Prior. That could pave the way for a fifth bowler to come in, we'll probably never know what Swann can do if he is constantly batting down with the rabbits and ferrets (go in after the rabbits) Fair enough if you say he has a few not outs to boost his average, but he's chipped away and missed out on some potentially easy runs and maybe a 100 by not getting to bat in declarations against West Indies - he's played five Tests and batted just three times against them out of a possible 10 innings.
Swann by innings score
ducks : 1
01-09 : 6
10-19 : 3 (not out x2)
20-49 : 6 (not out x1)
50+ : 5 (not out x2)
His not outs are :
20no vs West Indies - England declared on 566/9, two players made 100s, three made 50s, and Prior and Broad helped themselves to 39 and 44 respectively. Swann missed out on a chance of scoring some easy runs because he was batting at #10
11no vs West Indies - England declared on 546/6, three players made 100s, Swann was at #8 this time but still not afforded the chance to bat for long
63no vs West Indies - this was his first stranded innings, he made the 2nd highest score in the 1st innings but someone decreed Broad and Bresnan should bat higher. I would have though, as he was making his debut, Bresnan should have batted below Swann. Swann scored his 63no off just 89 balls with a six and nine 4s, 89 balls were more than Broad and Bresnan faced between them. Once Bopara was out only nine more runs were added, batting #9 didn't afford Swann many partnerships.
47no vs Australia - this time England were bowled out and Swann was stranded at #10, his 47no was only bested by three 50s of which the highest was 69. That was the now tediously famous Cardiff Test, his battling and brave 21 helped save it. How we concluded Broad (19 & 14) and Anderson should bat above him 1st innings I'll never know. Are there any notts fans on here who know who normally bats higher up for the county?
10no vs South Africa - let's just say this is recent enough history that I'll just say we were clinging on for a draw and Swann was again batting #10, this time because Anderson was nightwatchman and Broad was above him as usual
MaD
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
South Africa owned England! Steyn did what he does best with his partner in crime Morkel!
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
probably, cricinfo summed it up well though, as a bowler you rely on luck.
look at asif against the aussies, clarke and ponting made massive scores. Asif practically had ponting out on 0, and he beat clarke numerous times.
MaD
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Smith and Amla :hpraise SAF are gonna kill today!
Valaskjalf
Club Captain
Yeah I sure as heck hope so! Its about time we beat the crap out of these poms...its been a long time coming and apart from that one innings where we faltered we kicked their a$ses this series.
Thing is, event though we're only 1 down at the moment that can change pretty quickly so hopefully we can get a lead of around 150. If Smith and Amla can bat until close to the end of the day id say we can easily push a 250 -300 lead. Id like to see England get out of that hole....especially without Don Onions at 11. I think leaving him out was a big mistake, he's been one of their most solid batsmen.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
