Yea England have really let South Africa off the hook here, I've heard they wasted a few reviews though and it cost them with Ntini?
Sadly they've yet to realise what the review system is intended for and use them like tactical powerplays. Use them when you are sure the batsman is out (or not out if a batsman). If the players on the field aren't sure then why waste it on the offchance? Tennis is pretty wise with its reviews, they only waste them at the end of a set when they've nothing much to lose. I said a long time ago that the reviews needed to be controlled and used by the match officials as players aren't RESPONSIBLE enough to use them as they are intended ie to avoid glaring errors by officials. If they used it in football I'm sure they'd be used (more) wisely when players know the ball has crossed the line, when there's been a bad foul in the area or handball. Unfortunately cricketers ain't too clever and use reviews when they want a wicket rather than when they've got one that hasn't been given.
As for the match, England got into a strong position and p1ssed it away - TWICE. The saffers near enough doubled their total with the last five wickets and the decision to persist with Swann was dubious to say the least.
Good to see Strauss knock up near enough a run-a-ball fifty, beats me why he has been left out of the ODI team (in the past) when he can score as quickly as anyone. Could have done without losing Trott so early today, Cook looks set on crease occupation and I expect he'll crawl to somewhere between 50 and 66 before falling to leave England deep in it (with a silent 'sh') For England to get near a winning position they want to be getting to 400 or so asap, a run every three balls when everyone else is scoring a run a ball or run every two balls is just slowing us right down and selfishly playing for his place. We might almost have more chance of winning the Test if he got out, digging in when in trouble is one thing, but when you are one or two down and past 100 then it takes the p
Owzat added 6 Minutes and 41 Seconds later...
yes...what i said
Valaskjalf added 5 Minutes and 41 Seconds later...
Because he still thinks hes awesome.....he hasnt been that for the past few series.
Sadly quota systems do make you question if someone has been picked on merit or to fulfil a sense of balance based on colour, gender, sexual tendancy or species.
I thought I'd have a look at Ntini's recent series to see how good/bad he has been :
09/10 vs ENG : 2 wkts @ 72.00
08/09 vs AUS : 10 wkts @ 34.00
08/09 vs AUS : 9 wkts @ 50.00
08/09 vs BAN : 11 wkts @ 10.45
2008 vs ENG : 14 wkts @ 37.21
07/08 vs IND : 10 wkts @ 24.20
07/08 vs BAN : 5 wkts @ 25.40
07/08 vs WIN : 10 wkts @ 38.50
07/08 vs NZE : 6 wkts @ 30.00
07/08 vs PAK : 5 wkts @ 36.80
Too often in the mid to high 30s, pretty handy against Australia and India but either done well against minnows or not too well. I can see a reason to pick him based on 34.00 vs Australia, but surely South Africa need to look to the future. Maybe they want him to reach 400 wickets, but surely they are playing West Indies, New Zealand or Bangladesh sometime in the near future he can do that against?!?!
