England tour of South Africa 09/10

[Ayub 95]

It does. Not bad record, eh? Takes a 4 or 5 wicket haul in every 3 innings he bowls so far.

----

Mmm, cake.

Anyway, I do think that while Bell does need to score hundreds when we are in bad positions. Having someone who knocks in hundreds when others do is vital, why? Well look at this match, would we have won without Bell's 140? I highly doubt it.

Bell is legend. End of story

 

[Fatal Shot]

We deserved to lose. We were clearly outplayed by England this whole game. I hope this lights some sort of fire under us, because we have played without any intensity for a long time now.

 

[angryangy]

I hope this lights some sort of fire under us

In South Africa, they don't just settle for effigies...

 

[Shevchenko]

What has Cook done to get picked ahead of Dean Elgar?? Elgar averages 43 in first class cricket as opposed to Cook's 39. Elgar averages 69 this season with 4 100's and 4 50's. Cook averages 63 this season but only has one hundred and 6 50's. Cook's averages is greatly boosted by that 100 being a 390.

Elgar is the better player.

Also AB should stay at 5 with prince/duminy at 6.

I do agree on it, but boys don't win you matches men do, Cook's far more matured than Elgar, we need people who are settled, if we were looking young stars then why was Parnell left out? De Wet is at 29, a far more better decision than the younger guys and so to Cook, he's had more games than Elgar and if we are starting to name guys then Andrew Puttick also comes to mind, not only is he a leader in his domestic team but he's also a very good batsman but this domestic level means absolutely nothing, look at where Prince ended this season? He only managed 483 runs in 12 Inns and Johan Botha nearly out scored him with only 8 inns if I am not mistaken and we all know that Prince is far more superior in the batting department.

 

[stefan]

I do agree on it, but boys don't win you matches men do, Cook's far more matured than Elgar, we need people who are settled, if we were looking young stars then why was Parnell left out? De Wet is at 29, a far more better decision than the younger guys and so to Cook, he's had more games than Elgar and if we are starting to name guys then Andrew Puttick also comes to mind, not only is he a leader in his domestic team but he's also a very good batsman but this domestic level means absolutely nothing, look at where Prince ended this season? He only managed 483 runs in 12 Inns and Johan Botha nearly out scored him with only 8 inns if I am not mistaken and we all know that Prince is far more superior in the batting department.

You want experience then we should go for Alviro Pieterson who is in the squad. He also prefers to bat as an opener. Parnel was left because he hasn't yet done the job in first class cricket, doing great in odi and t20 but struggling in the longer version.

 

[BackwardPoint]

Simply pathetic, hopefully the selectors get the message and drop Ntini for good.

 

[Shevchenko]

I did notice the mentioning of Alviro, it's a sad tale that we aren't putting as much effort in to keeping our young guys in shape, SA cricket can learn a lot from SA Rugby, the money is there it's just this ridiculous quota system and government

 

[Dutch]

It does. Not bad record, eh? Takes a 4 or 5 wicket haul in every 3 innings he bowls so far.

----

Mmm, cake.

Anyway, I do think that while Bell does need to score hundreds when we are in bad positions. Having someone who knocks in hundreds when others do is vital, why? Well look at this match, would we have won without Bell's 140? I highly doubt it.

Ha ha! Whatever happened to your cake thread?????? Did you get any helpful information!!!!

I personally don't care when Bell makes centuries: he makes them! I am sure a lot of players would like to get centuries before, after, during, whenever!!!!!!!

 

[madmusician]

Fair enough. He done good this time and congratulations to him. I will fully change my opinion when he digs us out of trouble. He seems not to be too good in a crisis, but he can be a fantastic player, no doubt about that.

 

[Mercules]

Still can't believe it, certainly our most impressive result since I started watching cricket a couple of years ago.

 

[Dutch]

Still can't believe it, certainly our most impressive result since I started watching cricket a couple of years ago.

Isnt it fanatstic to at last have a team showing real consistency in the test arena at least! And to boot a number of really world class match winners!

 

[nikhil_99]

Swann got 9 wickets in the test match, bowled really well...Even Broad bowled really well specially in 2nd ings, he and Anderson has the ability to swing the ball in the air...

 

[Owzat]

I believe that Colin was actually talking about Bell, whose nine centuries look thus:

Eng v Ban, June 2005, Chester le Street: Trescothick got 161 before Bell's 162*

Eng v Pak, November 2005, Faisalabad: KP got his hundred first IIRC, and that's what the partnership stats appear to suggest too.

Eng v Pak, July 2006, Lords: both Cook and Collingwood got hundreds before Bell.

Eng v Pak, July 2006, Old Trafford: Cook got one first

Eng v Pak, Aug 2006, Headingley: KP got one first

Eng v WI, May 2007, Lords: Cook and Collingwood got one first

Eng v NZ, March 2008, Napier, Strauss got one first

Eng v SA, July 2008, Lords, KP got one first

Eng v SA, December 2009, Durban, Cook got one first

So, he really is a "cake icer".

Ah, ok. Still a better mix of teams with only two against BAN/WIN compared with Cook's four.

Of course saying someone else "got one first" doesn't take into account how crucial the "icing" was. If England pile on the runs like Bell did against South Africa, then it forces home the advantage.


162no vs Bangladesh. I think we would have won that with seven bowlers and four keepers, bowled Bangladesh out for 104 and won by an innings. That said, Bell and Banger scored 313 of England's 447/3d

115 vs Pakistan. Crucial runs, took England to within 16 runs of Pakistan's 1st innings total so you can't criticise him for it.

100no vs Pakistan. Others did score hundreds, but the 528/9d gave England a 83 run lead on 1st innings

106no vs Pakistan. Pakistan were all out for 119, Cook made 127 but other than him, noone else passed 50 as Bell helped pile on the misery for Pakistan and England won by an innings.

119 vs Pakistan. The "icing on the cake" that Bell scored meant England were only 23 runs behind on 1st innings, but England won thanks to a Strauss 2nd innings 100 and Pakistan's 2nd innings collapse (155) Don't underestimate the value of hundreds that keep/kept England in the game

109no vs West Indies. Four centurions in the innings, a fifth for England 2nd innings to West Indies' nil.

110 vs New Zealand. England won by 121 runs, Bell's 2nd innings 110 made up most of that. Makes me laugh this "icing on cake" theory, Tests comprise totals made up of batsmen's scores and rarely do sides bat on needlessly ie all runs are deemed important to the match effort or sides DECLARE. Maybe he didn't score the first hundred of the match, but he made sure England had enough runs to win it.

199 vs South Africa. Shared a 4th wicket partnership with KP to take England from 117/3 to 403/4. Bell was last out (of eight wickets) making sure we posted near 600 and had a sniff of victory.

141 vs South Africa. Bell came to the crease at 297/4 with England still 46 runs behind. When Bell had lost his wicket, England were 226 runs ahead and set up to try and force the win. As it happens South Africa fell apart, but they were important runs at a time when South Africa were still in the Test (just about)


So tell me which of those wasn't important to the match result? If we'd been all out for say 400 in Durban then the match could have swung either way and perhaps the saffers wouldn't have been so poor without the pressure. His 199 took England from a poor position to a potentially winning one, his 110 vs New Zealand set up a target to bowl at, his 119 vs Pakistan kept England from conceding a big 1st innings deficit as did his 115 against the same opposition.

It's kind of farcical to say "someone else got one first" since he batted at six for FIVE of them, five for two and four for two. Unless he was the first with the keeper chipping in one, or the only centurion, the chances favour him not scoring it first by virtue of him only coming to the crease when FOUR batsmen are out! (five if a nightwatchman is used) I'd take a century from our batsmen in any situation, maybe sometimes the batsmen/keeper come in when it's 400/4 or 5 and there's not so much pressure, but how many of those scenarios apply with Bell?

PRESSURE?

LOW. 162no vs BAN - Bell came in at 105/2, one run ahead on 1st innings
HIGH. 115 vs PAK - Bell came in at 39/2, 423 behind on 1st innings, and got bad not long after at 107/3
MEDIUM. 100no vs PAK - Bell came in at 321/4, adding 120 with Collingwood for the 5th wicket
LOW. 106no vs PAK - Bell came in at 288/4, England already 169 ahead
MEDIUM. 118 vs PAK - Bell came in at 192/4
MEDIUM. 109no vs WIN - Bell came in at 219/4
LOW. 110 vs NZE - Bell came in at 140/3 with England 227 runs ahead in their 2nd innings.
HIGH. 199 vs SAF - Bell came in at 117/3
MEDIUM. 141 vs SAF - Bell came in at 297/4, 46 runs behind

So taking into account situation, I make that only three low pressure situations out of nine hundreds with two high and four medium pressure. Medium pressure being where the game is in the balance, low pressure where the game is significantly in the side batting's favour and high where failures could cost England the game - don't forget, batting at six may mean runs are already on the board but it can equally mean the number six, seven etc are what's left of the batting in a perilous come hopeless position.

You could argue 192/4 and 219/4 are a bit more than "medium" pressure, how the 5th wicket pair fare can determine whether the side falls apart for less than 250, whether they make it to 300 or just beyond, or indeed a good partnership with one of them MAKING A HUNDRED can make the difference. Add one to the wicket column for the totals when Bell came in and see if you think that they are all "icing on cake" situations.

 

[King Pietersen]

Didn't realise that Test runs counted for 0 when someone else has scored. Bell doesn't score and he's criticised, and then he scores a potentially match winning 140 and he's still criticised. Really winds me up.

 

[mattfb]

Scoring in pressure situations is a skill for batsmen. I speak from experience after 2 years of pure frustration that NSW skipper Dominic thornley couldnt score more then 30 when the pressure was on. So it doesnt matter if someone else has scored first, if you score under pressure its fantastic.