South Africa in England July-Sept 2012
- Thread starter angryangy
- Start date
Dennis Mennis
School Cricketer
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2012
- Online Cricket Games Owned
OK fine, no problem if he regards himself as English. Where are the neutral commentators then? Don't forget, as sifter 132 did, that the broadcast you see and hear is the exact same one we get. If it's targeted at English people it's unfair since the game involves two teams who pull in the audience, and I suspect the SA team is the bigger puller! Only Pollock has anything good to say about SA, and quite frankly I'm a tad annoyed!
Sahil 7
Panel of Selectors
Good bowling performance from england to bowl out south africa. Anderson bowled really well for his 4 wickets. Now hope steyn and morne will do some magic and wrack up this england batsmens 
cricket_icon
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
Morgan is back!! Great innings, complemented nicely by Trott. Good to see Anderson with a few wickets and as much as I hate him, Dernbach was pretty damn good today.
Haha - I didn't forget...But they are the host broadcasters, and reserve the right to employ people that English viewers are familiar with. If they loaded their commentary team with SA guys, then they are effectively getting less value for the money that they paid for the cricket rights. They bought those rights based on getting a lot of English eyeballs and English advertisers - Holding will get more English viewers than Mark Boucher or Mike Hayesman would. At least they get Pollock - watch Channel Nine in Australia and they rarely ever get a guy in from the opposing country. Ian Smith if NZ are playing - that's it!
Anyway, I suggest if you are annoyed, talk to SKY about it...we've already gone off track enough in this thread.
So back to the cricket, sort of...is anyone else annoyed that the stories today are "England regains #1 ranking", because sure as the sky is blue, SA will win next time and we'll get a corresponding headline. They should update the rankings after each series IMHO, because headlines like that just cheapen the idea of the rankings ie. 1 win means you are on top of the world again.
Morgan will get the props, but I really liked Trott's innings last night actually. Luckily I was in the mood for something slower
Good to see Trott back to doing what he does best, essentially getting us over the line.
I'm really not sure what to think about Anderson bowling late in the game though. He seems to be bad at it when set batsmen are in, yet really good at mopping up a tail, so I guess I can understand why they keep him back. As he showed today, he's good at that.
Hopefully after his CB40 commitments, we see Woakes in action in this series though. Surely worth a look at Number 7, with his bowling complimenting that. Bopara and Patel as the 5th bowler just seems to hit and miss for my liking.
I'm really not sure what to think about Anderson bowling late in the game though. He seems to be bad at it when set batsmen are in, yet really good at mopping up a tail, so I guess I can understand why they keep him back. As he showed today, he's good at that.
Hopefully after his CB40 commitments, we see Woakes in action in this series though. Surely worth a look at Number 7, with his bowling complimenting that. Bopara and Patel as the 5th bowler just seems to hit and miss for my liking.
Can people knock on the head debates about commentators please, start a thread on it IF you must.
Need to be released at most every six months or they are just meaningless. Might just be my awareness, but are they suddenly releasing them all the time to maybe try and spice things up, or is it just nobody bothered reporting England's ranking before while the aussies were top and unmoving, England were far from top?
Be better if series were scrapped and only 3/4 team mini-tournaments were held once a year. It may gain more interest as well
The World Cup is THE ODI Championship], being number one in the world rankings is like being top of the league at any stage during a football season, doesn't count for a lot unless you're top at the end (except this is neverending)
England did well, the key is taking 10 wickets as I've said before. They bowled the saffers out, made the total attainable as their rate was under control.
Key elements are no saffer getting to 50, in fact 50 was their biggest partnership. England doubled that with Trott and Morgan, many have moaned about Trott's 'pace' of innings, but having bowled the saffers out for a very ordinary 211 England had a lot of time to build an innings.
Bit surprised at Parnell and Peterson being the 7 and 8, neither averaging 20 in ODIs and while both have decent SRs of around 77-80, neither has a particularly impressive record all round
Parnell : 177 runs @ 19.67 & 36 wkts @ 31.08
Peterson : 281 runs @ 17.56 & 53 wkts @ 34.70
Neither has a 50 to their name, Parnell a HS of 49.
Bopara needs to do something soon, the odd wicket here and there won't make up for 16 runs in two innings and a modest career average of 31.55. 10 fifties and no hundreds in 75 innings isn't great, compare it to Bell who has 22 fifties and two hundreds in 113 innings. Trott has 18 fifties in just 50 innings, averaging 49.09 and while his 75.04 SR isn't fantastic, runs on the board do count more than none.
Need to be released at most every six months or they are just meaningless. Might just be my awareness, but are they suddenly releasing them all the time to maybe try and spice things up, or is it just nobody bothered reporting England's ranking before while the aussies were top and unmoving, England were far from top?
Be better if series were scrapped and only 3/4 team mini-tournaments were held once a year. It may gain more interest as well
The World Cup is THE ODI Championship], being number one in the world rankings is like being top of the league at any stage during a football season, doesn't count for a lot unless you're top at the end (except this is neverending)
Morgan will get the props, but I really liked Trott's innings last night actually. Luckily I was in the mood for something slower
England did well, the key is taking 10 wickets as I've said before. They bowled the saffers out, made the total attainable as their rate was under control.
Key elements are no saffer getting to 50, in fact 50 was their biggest partnership. England doubled that with Trott and Morgan, many have moaned about Trott's 'pace' of innings, but having bowled the saffers out for a very ordinary 211 England had a lot of time to build an innings.
Bit surprised at Parnell and Peterson being the 7 and 8, neither averaging 20 in ODIs and while both have decent SRs of around 77-80, neither has a particularly impressive record all round
Parnell : 177 runs @ 19.67 & 36 wkts @ 31.08
Peterson : 281 runs @ 17.56 & 53 wkts @ 34.70
Neither has a 50 to their name, Parnell a HS of 49.
Bopara needs to do something soon, the odd wicket here and there won't make up for 16 runs in two innings and a modest career average of 31.55. 10 fifties and no hundreds in 75 innings isn't great, compare it to Bell who has 22 fifties and two hundreds in 113 innings. Trott has 18 fifties in just 50 innings, averaging 49.09 and while his 75.04 SR isn't fantastic, runs on the board do count more than none.
They do get calculated after every game, but yeah they've only come into focus because it is to close for the #1 rank at present. When Australia led the ODI rankings with a 10+ point lead for the last few years, I don't think anyone reported it all all (except for saying they were #1 ranked before every series...)
It's as tedious as when you get literal running commentary on D/L, sometimes even when there is no rain so the commentator can gauge where the sides are in relative terms
I see Tredmill has dropped Amla, that could be costly. I reckon if England don't bowl South Africa out then they'll lose
Last edited:
ferg512
International Coach
I wish the tests were still going, this has been a tough series to watch. I'm actually looking forward to the T20s (can't believe I'm saying this) one day cricket has just become so boring for me. The world rankings thing is also quickly becoming a farce.
----------
Yeah like a 2006 England ODI selection, they must've gone through a record amount of players during that period.
----------
Yeah like a 2006 England ODI selection, they must've gone through a record amount of players during that period.
I agree, I just can't stand watching ODIs anymore, don't know why.
England win this one, while they didn't bowl South Africa out they took enough wickets early enough to give them an attainable target.
Once England had them 174/6 after 43.2 overs that was it, the likes of Parnell et al were never going to push the total up far enough with four wickets and only 6.4 overs left - they did pretty well to add a further 46 runs.
From there on in it was simply a case of building partnerships for England, or literally one which decided the match once and for all of 141 for the 2nd wicket. Again though Bopara didn't impress, 22 runs in the series isn't what England could do with and it's just as well England have only had two modest chases. I doubt had someone else played in the 2nd ODI that we'd have won, the target was a bit too much, but whoever is in the side will need to do better than he has been.
The difference thus far between the two sides? England boast three batsmen who've scored 100+ runs to one from South Africa, they also boast three bowlers with 4+ wickets to South Africa's one.
Definitely have to wonder what Du Plessis is doing in the side, averages just 29.47 in 23 innings, HS of 72. He does score at a decent rate, but lacks substance. Peterson looks a nothing special bowler, likewise Parnell. Quite what McLaren offers the side I don't know, always thought he was handy when playing for Kent but 9 wkts @ 49.89 to go with 38 runs @ 5.43 and a HS of 12 makes you wonder what exact role he is fulfilling for the Proteas. It's not even like he's young, he'll be 30 in February.
Once England had them 174/6 after 43.2 overs that was it, the likes of Parnell et al were never going to push the total up far enough with four wickets and only 6.4 overs left - they did pretty well to add a further 46 runs.
From there on in it was simply a case of building partnerships for England, or literally one which decided the match once and for all of 141 for the 2nd wicket. Again though Bopara didn't impress, 22 runs in the series isn't what England could do with and it's just as well England have only had two modest chases. I doubt had someone else played in the 2nd ODI that we'd have won, the target was a bit too much, but whoever is in the side will need to do better than he has been.
The difference thus far between the two sides? England boast three batsmen who've scored 100+ runs to one from South Africa, they also boast three bowlers with 4+ wickets to South Africa's one.
Definitely have to wonder what Du Plessis is doing in the side, averages just 29.47 in 23 innings, HS of 72. He does score at a decent rate, but lacks substance. Peterson looks a nothing special bowler, likewise Parnell. Quite what McLaren offers the side I don't know, always thought he was handy when playing for Kent but 9 wkts @ 49.89 to go with 38 runs @ 5.43 and a HS of 12 makes you wonder what exact role he is fulfilling for the Proteas. It's not even like he's young, he'll be 30 in February.
Similar threads
