England tour of South Africa 09/10

[mattfb]

Go you Poms! Do a Pakistan and rout them Saffers on Day 1!

If Swann caught Smith they would of been on there way to doing just that.

 

[Owzat]

It's a quote from Jonathan Agnew. Any hundred is always important; it just happens that Bell's stats feed an impression that many people have of him already.
You've given the second innings average; now tell me how many of those runs were helping England win or save a match and how many were hitting a pretty 50 then getting out resulting in a defeat.

I didn't doubt it was some ponce in the media with so little Test experience himself that Boycs takes the p1ss and rightly so :laugh I like the way slaggers knocks Bell, even a Test fifty from Bell is more than Aggers ever did.

JP Agnew

3 Tests : 10 runs @ 10.00 (HS 5) & 92 overs, 4 wkts @ 93.25 (BB 2/97, SR 138.00)
3 ODIs : 2 runs @ n/a (HS 2no) & 21 overs, 3 wkts @ 40.00 (BB 3/38, SR 42.00)

G Boycott (Bowling only)

108 Tests : 148 overs, 7 wkts @ 54.57 (BB 3/47, SR 134.60)
36 ODIs : 28 overs, 5 wkts @ 21.00 (BB 2/14, SR 33.60)

OK, bit harsh on slaggers to compare his three matches with Boycott's career which was 36x and 12x as long in the respective formats, BUT Boycs didn't bowl many more overs in either format and took his wickets at a better SR despite only being a part-timers (he'd have to be to have played 12x as many ODIs and 36x as many Tests and have bowled only 73 more overs combined)

And for the record, in case it was lost in among previous stats, I concur entirely that ALL RUNS are important and more runs = more important, regardless of who scored what first.

But of course you've hit on what I had pretty much surmised after posting those stats, that criticising hundreds is all well and good, but it is when someone gets in and out that can actually cost the side. In which case it would be very difficult to cite to filter out those circumstances where a batsman threw his wicket away and those he was got out fighting hard. And again, how can you pin too much credence on it when Bell bats down the order so often when a match, if lost, is well and truly on its way to being lost?!?! If Bell comes in at six, four batsmen already out and England needing to bat three sessions to avoid defeat, how much blame can be pinned solely on Bell?!?!?!? If he does fail then it is highly unlikely England will lose because he and he alone failed. It's flawed logic, like saying Liverpool's woes this season are down to Kuyt and Lucas and no blame can be pinned on Torres, Gerrard, Mascherano, Carragher, Agger, Benayoun, Johnson and Reina (and the rest) TEAM implies ELEVEN in a side in BOTH SPORTS, yet some get singled out for criticism. Cook gets out between 50 and 66 way too often, you cannot argue that an OPENER who has got in so much as to reach fifty, should get out within 16 runs as often as he does without apportioning some blame

Impressions are often mis-portrayed, I've spent half this morning arguing with fools who supposedly watched Reading vs Liverpool and yet claim Kuyt had a stinker - maybe if you base it on most of the second half and disregard his contribution to the first. It is often what people want to believe, my current quote I use too often perhaps is "people believe what they want to believe" and it fits as snuggly to slaggers' quote about Bell as it does with match views on Kuyt.



Interesting decision by England to bowl again, obviously feeling that the ploy worked in the 1st Test and did them proud in the 2nd - nothing to do with a 2nd innings collapse.

I'm not at all shocked the saffers stuck with the same batsmen, thought perhaps they might shuffle the batting order and that would have saved Prince a right royal embarrassment. I had to :laugh:laugh at the saffers saying Ntini was in on merit one Test, then promptly dropping him for the next! :laugh:laugh But it is again Kuyt law of sorts, that one person pays the price for collective shortcomings. (price being criticism of Kuyt, dropping for Ntini) I guess cricket has the one advantage of performances being measurable, the only thing measurable in football is the bias of some people's views!

 

[Mihir Doshi]

This series is such a bore to watch.. SA have performed like underdogs..

 

[Owzat]

No! Dropped by Swann first bad thing he's done all series. Should have been caught that.

Unfortunately, when you opt to bowl first you need to take your chances. England could be in for a long haul in the field, I am somewhat mystified as to why they chose to, unless of course they subscribe to the theory that somehow getting bowled out for 133 in the way they were will have affected the saffers permanently. Different day, different match, different situation. No pressure of being over 200 behind with no hope of winning the match, while some of the errors were unforced in terms of silly leaves or shots, they were forced by the scoreboard

After England were skittled for 51 against windies they were put in twice, next Test was 7-0 when abandoned and the next completed Test England scored 566/9d and the windies just about hung on (370/9) thanks partly to England going OTT and setting a target of 502 when maybe 450 would have sufficed. It doesn't work as much as you might think, unless scores of around 100 or less are standard for the side in which case it wouldn't matter whether you bowled first or second. With only four bowlers, England's best tactic is arguably to bat first and put pressure on with a big total. It's generally best to bat first overseas anyway, quite often best to bat first anywhere including England.

WICKET DOWN : 46/2, we need to make most of it as we've dropped one already

Last five England series - results for side batting first

South Africa 2nd Test : Lost
South Africa 1st Test : Drew

Australia 5th Test : Won
Australia 4th Test : Lost
Australia 3rd Test : Drew
Australia 2nd Test : Won
Australia 1st Test : Drew

West Indies 2nd Test : Won
West Indies 1st Test : Won

West Indies 5th Test : Drew
West Indies 4th Test : Drew
West Indies 3rd Test : Drew
West Indies 2nd Test : Drew (abandoned at 7/0)
West Indies 1st Test : Lost

India 2nd Test : Drew
India 1st Test : Lost

Four losses for the side batting first, South Africa's because of their collapse in the 2nd innings. England lost against West Indies for the same reason while losing to the aussies last summer when bowled out for 102 in their 1st innings. England lost to India despite leading by 75 on 1st innings and having a sizeable target to bowl out as India reached 387/4 - more to do with a lack of bowling penetration (Panesar 0/105, Harmison 0/48, Anderson 1/51, Flintoff 1/64 and Swann 2/103)

So the common pattern in most defeats for the side batting first is that they collapsed inexplicably and inexcusably. England lost the infamous Test where Flintoff declared at 551/6, not because of the declaration, not because Giles dropped a clanger which might have made it four down before the aussies had reached 100, but because they were dismissed 2nd innings for 129. The other two might have eventually denied England a victory, but the collapse cost them a draw.

 

[MUFC1987]

We bowled first due to the overhead conditions and the grass on the pitch. Not because we were looking for some psychological advantage or whatever you're going on about.

I take it you agreed with Ponting in the Australia/Pakistan Test, just because it's the normal thing to do, right?

 

[stefan]

We bowled first due to the overhead conditions and the grass on the pitch. Not because we were looking for some psychological advantage or whatever you're going on about.

I take it you agreed with Ponting in the Australia/Pakistan Test, just because it's the normal thing to do, right?

The overhead conditions in Sydney was going to be there for the day while the weather conditions at Newlands will have changed by this afternoon. It was a risky call by strauss may have worked wonderfully if smith had been caught. But with swan in great form I would have batted first, newlands helps the spinner in the fourth innings.

 

[MUFC1987]

The overhead conditions in Sydney was going to be there for the day while the weather conditions at Newlands will have changed by this afternoon. It was a risky call by strauss may have worked wonderfully if smith had been caught. But with swan in great form I would have batted first, newlands helps the spinner in the fourth innings.

Maybe, maybe not. But lets face facts here, it's entirely possible that we could roll South Africa for 250 or so and with days 2 and 3 probably being the best to bat on, we could still get a decent lead. I think we made the right decision. There's been some help and will be for the rest of today (from the pitch at least) and we've got a bit out of it. It's much better this way than opting to bat and being knocked over by Steyn and Morkel. It all depends on the rest of the day really. It could be 200-7 or so at the close, or it could be 250-2.

 

[Fatal Shot]

How many times has this happened? Two early wickets fall, then Kallis and Smith must take South Africa to safety. They did it in the last test as well, in the first innings, and hopefully they do it this time as well. But we need Duminy to get in form. He is the one who takes us to a good score, after Smith, Kallis, and AB. We need him to be the one to take us from 300 to 400+.

 

[MUFC1987]

I'd be more worried about getting to 300 first.

 

[Highlander999]

HAHA, go on Jimmy, you legend :banana2

 

[Fatal Shot]

We have been outplayed by England. Simple as that really.

We need a really good stand here. 150+ at least.

Fatal Shot added 10 Minutes and 51 Seconds later...

Go and have a talk with him right now Kallis, and you too Boycott. Go down there and have a talk with him.

AB looked mad at himself though. Lucky to still be there.

 

[Fatal Shot]

Good recovery so far. We need these two to get us to about 180 or so. First priority should be to not lose any wickets in this session.

 

[barmyarmy]

Review system is still flawed without hotspot and snicko. England lose an appeal for a ball that was probably knicked and then are too scared to review a plum lbw
Maybe if the 3rd umpire can't tell and stays with the onfield umpire the fielding side shouldn't lose a review.

 

[Fatal Shot]

Review system is still flawed without hotspot and snicko. England lose an appeal for a ball that was probably knicked and then are too scared to review a plum lbw
Maybe if the 3rd umpire can't tell and stays with the onfield umpire the fielding side shouldn't lose a review.

He was out stumped on that knick (which I couldn't see), but they only appealed for the catch. Luck finally going our way for once.

 

[barmyarmy]

There was me thinking that the idea of the system was to take luck out of the equation
Of course stumpings are a referral not a review anyway...