The England batsmen let the side down yesterday, a few too many nothing shots and we were only 21 runs on from the overnight total of 267/3 and left with Prior and the tail to salvage something.
No excuses for Bopara, that was a tame dismissal. Bell didn't cover his stumps and Cook didn't add much to his ovenight score which, if it were Strauss, we'd be quoting stats and making a big deal about. It was a shame because Cook and Trott in particular (186 runs) put us in a good overnight position which was undone very quickly. Fair play to Prior with a little help from Broad and Swann for pushing us up to 385, but I'd say we were a good 50-100 runs shy of where we should have been.
The saffers look set to replicate our innings, early wicket then second wicket pair put on a lot. I'd say England are still in box seat, but only because they have near enough 300 runs in hand as opposed to nine wickets to make those 300 runs. Ideally England will make early inroads, if England don't bag a couple of wickets in the morning session
minimum then it could be a long long day.
England will want South Africa out by around tea to have a decent lead, South Africa will want to bat all day and probably a little into Sunday in order to put pressure on England. If the pitch doesn't do much and South Africa reach say 500 then I think this will peter out into a draw. Whether England can do enough with the ball, or South Africa force the pace and push hard for victory I am already doubting. This may well prove to be a testing draw, testing in the sense of both sides testing each other without wanting to risk anything
----------
People forget that throughout his career, if the opposition are weak or the pitch excellent for bowling, he'll only get the scraps left over
And if he was as under-rated as you make out he'd have been given more opportunity/responsibility.
I often find the concept of "under-rated" and "over-rated" rather empty, especially when people are saying it of the same players in any sport. "He's massively under-rated" when more than a few people say it shows clearly he can't be or people wouldn't be saying it
It seems to be a popular yet pointless exercise/way of saying people rate him, when in truth he is probably rated where he is and those talking of "under-rated" and "over-rated" are just pushing to gain support in their high or low rating of a player.
Kallis is a good, steady bowler, not so good he'd be one of three quicks and probably not a fourth in a four, but good at being a fifth option for when the ball is doing something (or isn't) and noone else is having any joy. If he were good enough to fill a bigger role don't you think a COACH in a team he's played for would have exploited that (option) by now?!!?!? Like the "Glen Johnson should be tried at right midfield" claim, funnily enough several coaches and managers haven't thought so, but what would they know?
Hick would have got more wickets if he hadn't been second fiddle to any spinner in the side and mostly used for "an over before lunch" or when the side is really struggling and to give the frontline bowlers a rest. I could say he was "under-rated" but again I'm sure I wouldn't be alone, and who is to say how highly any given player is rated or not. I could argue Kallis is massively over-rated as a batsman, simply because so many rate him so highly, but then I'm sure there are enough people who would agree with me so can he be over-rated..........................?!?!?!?
