England tour of South Africa 09/10

[drainpipe32]

Just saw the Pietersen wicket.

The rules say Trott should have been out.

 

[Themer]

No they don't.

Trott was within his ground before Pietersen was behind the line therefore Pietersen should have gone.

 

[drainpipe32]

Was he? I saw Pietersen behind the line when the bails were broken.

Anyhow, the game is over.

 

[pcfan123]

If trott never left his crease then Pietersen could be all the way at the long on boundry and he would still be run out

 

[Owzat]

No they don't.

Trott was within his ground before Pietersen was behind the line therefore Pietersen should have gone.

I'm sure TMS would have been commenting on it if it should have been Trott run out. If Trott was in his crease, or if both were in Trott's crease, then KP had to go. If one is in his crease and the other isn't, the one not in a crease is run out. If they are both out of crease, THEN the one nearest the run out end has to go.

 

[Fatal Shot]

Smith obviously lacks faith in his bowling attack.

Yes, why not gamble in the opening match of a four match test series, by giving England an achievable target, and possibly risk going down 1-0, rather than at least maintaining a 0-0 result. To make this statement of yours even more delightful is the fact that our main fast bowler is not playing. Oh the joy of such a challenge!

He doesn't lack faith, he simply is a smart cricketer, and won't risk going down early in the series.

Even another 10 overs or so with that second new ball would have won you the match.

We scored about 70 runs in our last 10 overs, so we should have given England a target of around 290? Good thinking indeed!

Even if Pietersen was out earlier, you wouldn't have shifted Collingwood all day.

Since you know everything and can predict the future and what could and could not have happened, why not just tell us the end result of the second match and how either team won or lost for that matter as well. Will be waiting for your next post. Cheers!

 

[MUFC1987]

Yes, why not gamble in the opening match of a four match test series, by giving England an achievable target, and possibly risk going down 1-0, rather than at least maintaining a 0-0 result. To make this statement of yours even more delightful is the fact that our main fast bowler is not playing. Oh the joy of such a challenge!

He doesn't lack faith, he simply is a smart cricketer, and won't risk going down early in the series.

So what, South Africa can't win tests without Dale Steyn? What rubbish. You pick bowlers to win test matches, what's the point in turning up if you don't think you can win? South Africa spent 95% of that match on top, yet refused to try to win the game. Negative.

We scored about 70 runs in our last 10 overs, so we should have given England a target of around 290? Good thinking indeed!

:doh

If you'd declared earlier, you would have attacked earlier as well (i.e. scoring at a quicker rate), how is that not obvious? And setting England 290? I didn't realise we closed on 300-9, I could have sworn it was a lot less than that.

Since you know everything and can predict the future and what could and could not have happened, why not just tell us the end result of the second match and how either team won or lost for that matter as well. Will be waiting for your next post. Cheers!

How mature. If South Africa are meant to be this great side, then why not try to win Tests, rather than waiting for the other teams to throw it away? Lack of ambition. Look at Australia, even with a weaker team than they've had in the past, they still go out looking to win games, which is why they're so succesful. Would you be happy with a 0-0 series draw, with South Africa dominating, just because Smith won't give your bowlers a chance?

 

[Fatal Shot]

what's the point in turning up if you don't think you can win?

What match were you watching? It was that partnership of Pietersen and Trott which saved the match for England. The bowlers gave it their all, but they batted well. But we kept toiling hard, and came close to the jaws of victory. How could somebody predict that England would collapse like that at the end? We had more than enough overs, but good batting from both of them wasted enough overs, that there were not enough left at the end. How many times have you seen a side lose seven wickets in a session? Ya the new ball helped, but Smith was going to play safe and make sure that a defeat was never possible. If he was uncertain about winning the next matches he would have declared earlier and went for the kill, but he's confident in his team, that they can still win the series, so he played it safe. I see his move as a sign of confidence that he believes his team can beat England, so he decided not to risk it all in the opening match.

If you'd declared earlier, you would have attacked earlier as well (i.e. scoring at a quicker rate), how is that not obvious? And setting England 290? I didn't realise we closed on 300-9, I could have sworn it was a lot less than that.

We didn't have enough runs on the board. When Amla and Boucher were batting they couldn't blast away yet. The most important thing was to take us to safety, and to avoid defeat at all costs, especially in the opening match. There is still a lot of Cricket to be played so obviously he wasn't going to set a target of 280 and give England any chance of winning. He thought that he had enough overs in the bank, and he was slightly off. Again it just shows his confidence, that he thought his bowlers could take the wickets required in the amount of overs they had.

How mature. If South Africa are meant to be this great side, then why not try to win Tests, rather than waiting for the other teams to throw it away?

It's the first match of a four match series. What do you not get about that. You wouldn't go all in, with a pair of Aces at the beginning of a poker match now would you? You would play it safe, like Smith did.

Lack of ambition. Look at Australia, even with a weaker team than they've had in the past, they still go out looking to win games

,

Like the Cardiff test, where they had enough overs right? You pretty much just contradicted yourself. Australia did the same thing as South Africa. Played it safe at the beginning, because there were still four test matches to be played.

Smith won't give your bowlers a chance

?

The bowlers had 96 overs to get them out, on a fifth day wicket. More than enough. That Pietersen/Trott partnership took the game away from us, before some really good bowling from De Wet and co. It was that second session which took away the game from us. We didn't pick up any wickets. Can't blame Smith for that. It was just pretty good batting from those two.

 

[pcfan123]

Hopefully Ntini will be dropped now, you got your 100th cap mate now give the youngsters a chance. Worst thing possible will be to play him for 3-4 more matches until he gets his 400th scalp.

He has set his place in Test cricket history, now is the time to gracefully step aside and let someone else have a chance. I think giving him the last over might have been a mistake, he never looked threatening all match (Strauss wicket was a fluke, like Amlas) and it was more a romanticism that he would take the last wicket than anything else.

Eagerly waiting the fitness report, as much as I want to see Steyn play, im sure the England boys dont.

 

[Fatal Shot]

Hopefully Ntini will be dropped now, you got your 100th cap mate now give the youngsters a chance. Worst thing possible will be to play him for 3-4 more matches until he gets his 400th scalp.

He has set his place in Test cricket history, now is the time to gracefully step aside and let someone else have a chance. I think giving him the last over might have been a mistake, he never looked threatening all match (Strauss wicket was a fluke, like Amlas) and it was more a romanticism that he would take the last wicket than anything else.

Eagerly waiting the fitness report, as much as I want to see Steyn play, im sure the England boys dont.

De Wet isn't exactly a youngster. He's already 29. But yes... maybe it is time for Ntini to hang up the boots.

 

[pcfan123]

Fatal, what are the odds of CJ DeVilliers playing for SA?

 

[Fatal Shot]

Fatal, what are the odds of CJ DeVilliers playing for SA?

Not too bad actually. He is quickly building a name in Domestic Cricket, and he can also bat a bit, which never hurts. He's already in the A side right now, so the next step is International Cricket, but his main problem will be Parnell and Morkel. Parnell is rated very highly by Mickey Arthur and Smith, but seeing how they recently dropped him from the test squad, I don't think they are in any hurry to bring him into the test side, and rightly so. He's not ready for Test Cricket yet. Morkel has all the potential, and both bowlers are pretty similar. Both are tall and get extra bounce. Morkel is rated higher though, because of his pace, so he get's the nod ahead of De Villiers. De Villiers just needs to string together a good series of performances in Domestic Cricket, to urge the selectors to pick him, and put his name ahead of a couple others.

 

[shravi]

What happened to Matthew Arnold? He was impressive in the U-19WC and was one of the fastest bowlers on show.

 

[Fatal Shot]

What happened to Matthew Arnold? He was impressive in the U-19WC and was one of the fastest bowlers on show.

Don't know actually. He hasn't been playing much. Only seen him a couple of times since the U-19 World Cup.

 

[King Pietersen]

Can't say I'd heard of him, but he's not played a FC game since 2007 and not played a List A game since 2008.

Amazed England haven't got another batsman in the squad. Could really do with Joyce, Carberry or Morgan in the squad, just as back-up for Bell incase he failed. I don't think Bell will be dropped though, be harsh to drop him after 1 bad Test; especially given how well he played in the 1st innings at The Oval. I'd rather see him keep his place, if it's Luke Wright that replaces him anyway. Wouldn't be too bothered if Plunkett came in, but Swanny would have to bat 7, far better player than Broad.

Strauss
Cook
Trott
Pietersen
Collingwood
Prior +
Swann
Broad
Plunkett
Anderson
Onions

Looks a decent side, but I'd still be a little worried about the depth in batting. Would undoubtedly strengthen the bowling though, but from what I've seen from Plunkett he is pretty reliant on swing, so if it doesn't move around we're pretty screwed still. Onions is the key to this bowling attack. He generally bowls a good line and length and normally looks threatening in every spell, unlike Anderson who doesn't seem to look remotely threatening after the first 15 overs, once the Kookaburra ball's stopped swinging. Why on earth don't we use the Dukes ball all round the world? Makes for a much fairer contest between bat and ball imo, swings for far longer and it tends to reverse earlier as well.