After seeing the footage of the Broad incident I'd have to agree he did more then just stop the ball with his foot. Not that anything will come of it with his Daddy's friends too scared to do anything about it :laugh
England tour of South Africa 09/10
- Thread starter Mike23
- Start date
BKB1991
Panel of Selectors
Been reading Gavaskar, have you? 
On that issue, I think it is kind a strange, have their been other cricketers whose parents have been members of the ICC when they were playing?
On that issue, I think it is kind a strange, have their been other cricketers whose parents have been members of the ICC when they were playing?
Valaskjalf
Club Captain
Hmmm saw the weather forcast for Cape Town tomorrow and its overcast. Not good new for us if we want to push on, dont expect SA to start motoring along at 5 an over again from the start - thats if we dont lose wickets early on. Not trying to be negative but we all know what has happened early on with the new ball basically right through this series. If we come out of it and reach the 450 lead then hopefully it's still overcast and we can clean up England.
stefan
International Coach
SA have reported the Broad incident to the match referee.
South Africa 'raise concerns' over Broad footwork | Cricket News | South Africa v England 2009/10 | Cricinfo.com
South Africa 'raise concerns' over Broad footwork | Cricket News | South Africa v England 2009/10 | Cricinfo.com
BKB1991
Panel of Selectors
Lets see what happens. I didnt see the incident but do remember the umpires checking the ball at one stage
Exactly. He acts like a prat on the field. You can tell he's a spoiled little girl. He gets away with much more too because of his daddy being a match referee.
Well done to Smith. Took the game by the scruff of the neck and gave his side control. England's bowlers problem is that they're inconsistent.
Stuart Broad protected by father: Sunil Gavaskar | The Australian
I was just jesting because of this article last week. Not that what Gavaskar said isn't stupid or anything as I actually sort of agree.
I was just jesting because of this article last week. Not that what Gavaskar said isn't stupid or anything as I actually sort of agree.
drainpipe32
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2008
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Actually, when all the legends were playing for us we beat you in five straight test matches during 2005/06 and were better in the draw at Perth.
Gazza_11 added 5 Minutes and 35 Seconds later...
Plus six consecutive victories in 2001/02.
mdoggie
Club Cricketer
I don't really get how stamping on the ball would have helped England since he could have stamped the shiny side and ruined the chance tof swing, but there were pictures of Anderson picking and possibly scratching the ball that I though might have being the problem.
ICC bring back Gender testing!!
:
ICC bring back Gender testing!!
:Oh no, "stampgate". I'm sure every bowler worth his salt can stop the ball with his foot every time and never stands on the ball. Didn't Glenda miss a Test because he trod on a ball?!?
As for the CRICKET, what a poor day for England. Got to within 18 runs then concede 300 for just two down and the game is out of sight. Saffers should bat on quickly to lunch, look to post a 450 target and declare with 4-5 sessions to bowl England out. Perhaps now people will look back at the nature of England's dismissals 1st innings and cast some blame at Strauss, KP, Collingwood, Trott, and lesserly Bell and Cook for having thrown their wickets away - the latter two when they'd got in.
Too many get-ins and get-outs this series for England :
4/4 : Trott (28, 69, 18, 20) - three scores between 18 and 28, one fifty that didn't go onto a hundred.
3/4 : Pietersen (40, 81, 31, 0) - before his ill-advised drive early in the 1st innings here, Pietersen had reached 31 three times and converted only one to a fifty - even then he ran himself out and put England in serious danger of losing
3/4 Collingwood (50, 26no, 91, 19) - the 26no aside when he was staving off defeat, Collingwood has made at least 19 every innings and made two unconverted fifties. The model of consistency and top of the averages for it, but despite having got in three times when he could have gone on further, he got out at least twice when you would have hoped for more
3/4 Cook (15, 12, 118, 65) - four starts of double figures or more, decent conversion rate so a bit harsh but that 65 was well set when he got out to a very poor shot.
2/4 Strauss (46, 1, 54, 2) - two scores four either side of 50, didn't go on.
1/4 Bell (5, 2, 141, 48) - didn't get in 1st Test, got out in this 1st innings with a poor shot but did convert his only other start.
Point is that, while it is harsh to criticise a batsman if he makes say 27 to anothers duck, but batsmen who get in need to go on. If all batsmen get in and then get out, you don't get the big totals you need in Tests.
England batsmen scores
0-12 : 6
13-28 : 6
29-65 : 8
70-99 : 2
100+ : 2
1/3 of the scores out between 29 and 65, not too clever. 75% of the scores were 13+, you can forgive batsmen who get out early, depending on the manner of their dismissal, but 1/8 of the innings ended in the 40s, SEVEN batsmen made it past 40 but didn't pass 70. Michael Yawn made an issue about not making enough hundreds, the batsmen seem to do enough to maintain a 40 average but with a bit more application once in they could probably average nearer 50.
It's why England aren't a top Test side, the bowlers don't perform often enough and quite often disappear when it matters, and the batsmen throw their wickets away too often. Harsh to pick on Strauss' captaincy, but here are results by innings leads/deficits
Strauss (captain) - Results by 1st innings lead/deficit
LEADS
01-24 : P1 W0 D1 L0
25-74 : P0 W0 D0 L0
75-99 : P1 W0 D1 L0
100+ : P9 W6 D3 L0
DEFICITS
01-24 : P1 W1 D0 L0
25-74 : P0 W0 D0 L0
75-99 : P2 W0 D1 L1
100+ : P4 W1 D2 L1
The one "win" from 100+ behind was 331 runs, but a win by forfeit as the Pakistanis wouldn't come out to play. The other win from behind as it were was also against Pakistan in the same series, Pakistan bowled out for 155 in their 2nd innings. So when there are less than 25 runs in it at half-time, England have won only once (albeit only two examples), but when they have a 100+ lead they win 2/3 of the time. I find those kind of stats interesting, shows how much a captain relies on being on top to win, something you don't often hear when all the statistics about most wins, best ever captain etc are trotted out.
So talking of Michael Yawn, here's a scathing analysis of his craptaincy :
Michael Vaughan (captain) - results by opposition and 1st innings lead/deficit
vs WIN/BAN/NZE : P23 W20 D2 L1 (Won 86.96%)
vs AUS/SAF : P17 W6 D5 L6 (Won 35.29%)
vs PAK/IND/SRI : P11 W0 D7 L4 (Won 0.00%)
So all but six of his Test wins as captain came against peace poor opposition you could beat with both hands tied around your testicles and he never beat any of the asian super-powers. 35% is around the win rate of captains like Stewart, Hussain, Atherton and Gooch, they did play West Indies and New Zealand but well before they became so poor. I'd rate our 2000 win over West Indies as one of our best wins aside from the Ashes in recent years. We did it against a West Indies side containing Chanderpaul, Lara, Walsh and Ambrose. We also ground out RARE wins in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, look up when we previously won in either of those countries or indeed against West Indies before they became a third rate Test nation. If Nasser had had Jones, Pietersen and one or two others I'm sure his record as captain would have been far better.
LEADS
01-24 : P2 W1 D1 L0
25-74 : P2 W1 D1 L0
75-99 : P7 W5 D1 L1
100+ : P18 W15 D3 L0
The defeat having led on 1st innings was against Sri Lanka when we led by 93 runs, they scored 442 2nd innings and we were bowled out for 188. Bulk majority of Yawn's wins were when we led by 75+ on 1st innings, 20 of his 26 wins and reinforcing the naff opposition statement
DEFICITS
01-24 : P2 W1 D1 L0
25-74 : P2 W2 D0 L0
75-99 : P3 W0 D2 L1
100+ : P13 W1 D5 L7
The win when only a few runs behind was our 04/05 series win when there were EIGHT runs between the two sides. England batted 1st and won it in the 2nd innings, much like South Africa are set to. The win when over 100 runs behind was against New Zealand when they were skittled 2nd innings for 114, the other two wins from behind were when 65 runs behind New Zealand and West Indies, both sides made nearly 400 in their 1st innings but neither side made 250 in their 2nd innings.
So how much skill is there in captaincy? It is mostly down to how the batting and bowling performs. Could Strauss do anything about the batting or bowling? It's funny how a captain can bring someone on and if they take a wicket he's a genius, yet he probably does the same thing 50+ times in most matches and it happens once or twice.
As for the CRICKET, what a poor day for England. Got to within 18 runs then concede 300 for just two down and the game is out of sight. Saffers should bat on quickly to lunch, look to post a 450 target and declare with 4-5 sessions to bowl England out. Perhaps now people will look back at the nature of England's dismissals 1st innings and cast some blame at Strauss, KP, Collingwood, Trott, and lesserly Bell and Cook for having thrown their wickets away - the latter two when they'd got in.
Too many get-ins and get-outs this series for England :
4/4 : Trott (28, 69, 18, 20) - three scores between 18 and 28, one fifty that didn't go onto a hundred.
3/4 : Pietersen (40, 81, 31, 0) - before his ill-advised drive early in the 1st innings here, Pietersen had reached 31 three times and converted only one to a fifty - even then he ran himself out and put England in serious danger of losing
3/4 Collingwood (50, 26no, 91, 19) - the 26no aside when he was staving off defeat, Collingwood has made at least 19 every innings and made two unconverted fifties. The model of consistency and top of the averages for it, but despite having got in three times when he could have gone on further, he got out at least twice when you would have hoped for more
3/4 Cook (15, 12, 118, 65) - four starts of double figures or more, decent conversion rate so a bit harsh but that 65 was well set when he got out to a very poor shot.
2/4 Strauss (46, 1, 54, 2) - two scores four either side of 50, didn't go on.
1/4 Bell (5, 2, 141, 48) - didn't get in 1st Test, got out in this 1st innings with a poor shot but did convert his only other start.
Point is that, while it is harsh to criticise a batsman if he makes say 27 to anothers duck, but batsmen who get in need to go on. If all batsmen get in and then get out, you don't get the big totals you need in Tests.
England batsmen scores
0-12 : 6
13-28 : 6
29-65 : 8
70-99 : 2
100+ : 2
1/3 of the scores out between 29 and 65, not too clever. 75% of the scores were 13+, you can forgive batsmen who get out early, depending on the manner of their dismissal, but 1/8 of the innings ended in the 40s, SEVEN batsmen made it past 40 but didn't pass 70. Michael Yawn made an issue about not making enough hundreds, the batsmen seem to do enough to maintain a 40 average but with a bit more application once in they could probably average nearer 50.
It's why England aren't a top Test side, the bowlers don't perform often enough and quite often disappear when it matters, and the batsmen throw their wickets away too often. Harsh to pick on Strauss' captaincy, but here are results by innings leads/deficits
Strauss (captain) - Results by 1st innings lead/deficit
LEADS
01-24 : P1 W0 D1 L0
25-74 : P0 W0 D0 L0
75-99 : P1 W0 D1 L0
100+ : P9 W6 D3 L0
DEFICITS
01-24 : P1 W1 D0 L0
25-74 : P0 W0 D0 L0
75-99 : P2 W0 D1 L1
100+ : P4 W1 D2 L1
The one "win" from 100+ behind was 331 runs, but a win by forfeit as the Pakistanis wouldn't come out to play. The other win from behind as it were was also against Pakistan in the same series, Pakistan bowled out for 155 in their 2nd innings. So when there are less than 25 runs in it at half-time, England have won only once (albeit only two examples), but when they have a 100+ lead they win 2/3 of the time. I find those kind of stats interesting, shows how much a captain relies on being on top to win, something you don't often hear when all the statistics about most wins, best ever captain etc are trotted out.
So talking of Michael Yawn, here's a scathing analysis of his craptaincy :
Michael Vaughan (captain) - results by opposition and 1st innings lead/deficit
vs WIN/BAN/NZE : P23 W20 D2 L1 (Won 86.96%)
vs AUS/SAF : P17 W6 D5 L6 (Won 35.29%)
vs PAK/IND/SRI : P11 W0 D7 L4 (Won 0.00%)
So all but six of his Test wins as captain came against peace poor opposition you could beat with both hands tied around your testicles and he never beat any of the asian super-powers. 35% is around the win rate of captains like Stewart, Hussain, Atherton and Gooch, they did play West Indies and New Zealand but well before they became so poor. I'd rate our 2000 win over West Indies as one of our best wins aside from the Ashes in recent years. We did it against a West Indies side containing Chanderpaul, Lara, Walsh and Ambrose. We also ground out RARE wins in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, look up when we previously won in either of those countries or indeed against West Indies before they became a third rate Test nation. If Nasser had had Jones, Pietersen and one or two others I'm sure his record as captain would have been far better.
LEADS
01-24 : P2 W1 D1 L0
25-74 : P2 W1 D1 L0
75-99 : P7 W5 D1 L1
100+ : P18 W15 D3 L0
The defeat having led on 1st innings was against Sri Lanka when we led by 93 runs, they scored 442 2nd innings and we were bowled out for 188. Bulk majority of Yawn's wins were when we led by 75+ on 1st innings, 20 of his 26 wins and reinforcing the naff opposition statement
DEFICITS
01-24 : P2 W1 D1 L0
25-74 : P2 W2 D0 L0
75-99 : P3 W0 D2 L1
100+ : P13 W1 D5 L7
The win when only a few runs behind was our 04/05 series win when there were EIGHT runs between the two sides. England batted 1st and won it in the 2nd innings, much like South Africa are set to. The win when over 100 runs behind was against New Zealand when they were skittled 2nd innings for 114, the other two wins from behind were when 65 runs behind New Zealand and West Indies, both sides made nearly 400 in their 1st innings but neither side made 250 in their 2nd innings.
So how much skill is there in captaincy? It is mostly down to how the batting and bowling performs. Could Strauss do anything about the batting or bowling? It's funny how a captain can bring someone on and if they take a wicket he's a genius, yet he probably does the same thing 50+ times in most matches and it happens once or twice.
TumTum
International Cricketer
^ love your work 
D
Dutch
Guest
Ah the joys of having both hands tied behind the testicles: happy days, happy days!
dutchad added 9 Minutes and 8 Seconds later...
South Africa are starting to put the foot down now: looking ominous for England. Where's Mike Atherton when you need him!?
Mmm bit too much swashbuckling from Mr Smith there. Great knock though. Class act.
dutchad added 9 Minutes and 8 Seconds later...
South Africa are starting to put the foot down now: looking ominous for England. Where's Mike Atherton when you need him!?
Mmm bit too much swashbuckling from Mr Smith there. Great knock though. Class act.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Dutch
Guest
Similar threads
- Poll
