LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: England in South Africa
England 7 down with 4 overs left.
England 7 down with 4 overs left.
England in South Africa
- Thread starter Caesar
- Start date
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: England in South Africa
There is only one Pakistan.
mas cambios;383531 said:
There is only one Pakistan.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: England in South Africa
Broad Gone.
Surely not.
Broad Gone.
Surely not.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: England in South Africa
Bell gone.
Unbelievable.
Bell gone.
Unbelievable.
eddiesmith
Active Member
Re: England in South Africa
Test match cricket shits over that T20 crap, that was much more entertaining than the pyjama crap earlier tonight
Test match cricket shits over that T20 crap, that was much more entertaining than the pyjama crap earlier tonight
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: England in South Africa
SA were in a similar position as England were at the SCG last year and Smith was bowled in the 2nd last over.
No they can't get the last wicket, feel a bit for them.
They at least deserve to be 1-1.
But England had the same problem against the Windies, it happens.
SA were in a similar position as England were at the SCG last year and Smith was bowled in the 2nd last over.
No they can't get the last wicket, feel a bit for them.
They at least deserve to be 1-1.
But England had the same problem against the Windies, it happens.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: England in South Africa
Well you have to preface that by saying that most of today's play was fairly dull, it would have been better if SA had sey 400 as the target, because England could well have gone for it.
A great finish sure but lets be realistic here.
eddiesmith;383543 said:
Well you have to preface that by saying that most of today's play was fairly dull, it would have been better if SA had sey 400 as the target, because England could well have gone for it.
A great finish sure but lets be realistic here.
Re: England in South Africa
South Africa bowled 141 overs at England, if the bowlers couldn't do the job then that is no fault of Graeme Smith. Smith declared earlier than I thought he would which I thought was a pretty good move and it certainly gave them more than enough time to bowl England out.
SA had England 5/160 when Trott was out yet they let an out-of-form Ian Bell, Paul Collingwood, Matt Prior and the tail bat for another 70 overs. The Proteas had almost five sessions overall at England and about two and a half to claim the last five wickets yet they still couldn't knock them over.
The bowling just wasn't good enough, simple as that. Blaming Smith is very harsh.
It should have been 2-1 but that's the way cricket goes. South Africa should have won the first test and also the third but they didn't take their opportunities whereas England did in the second test.
Anyway, Graeme Smith was Man of the Match for his second innings century. The fourth and final test begins on January 14 in Johannesburg.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT;383526 said:
South Africa bowled 141 overs at England, if the bowlers couldn't do the job then that is no fault of Graeme Smith. Smith declared earlier than I thought he would which I thought was a pretty good move and it certainly gave them more than enough time to bowl England out.
SA had England 5/160 when Trott was out yet they let an out-of-form Ian Bell, Paul Collingwood, Matt Prior and the tail bat for another 70 overs. The Proteas had almost five sessions overall at England and about two and a half to claim the last five wickets yet they still couldn't knock them over.
The bowling just wasn't good enough, simple as that. Blaming Smith is very harsh.
LIONS Then DAYLIGHT said:
It should have been 2-1 but that's the way cricket goes. South Africa should have won the first test and also the third but they didn't take their opportunities whereas England did in the second test.
Anyway, Graeme Smith was Man of the Match for his second innings century. The fourth and final test begins on January 14 in Johannesburg.
eddiesmith
Active Member
Re: England in South Africa
Well people tried to blame Ponting and even Hodgey when an attack with Warne and McGrath couldnt bowl a side out in 120 or so overs
Well people tried to blame Ponting and even Hodgey when an attack with Warne and McGrath couldnt bowl a side out in 120 or so overs
mas cambios
Active Member
Re: England in South Africa
Lightening has now struck 3 times. England have been lucky up to now but their luck has to change.
hattrick;383552 said:
Lightening has now struck 3 times. England have been lucky up to now but their luck has to change.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: England in South Africa
What are you saying exactly?
That England should be worried about what will happen at Cape Town.
It is staggering that England nearly lost that game last night, I watched most of it and Bell and Collingwood never looked like getting out and then boom boom.
Broad also strikes me as someone who is very unlikeable, why on earth did he review that dismissal, he punched it into the fieldsmen's gloves?
Combine that with his penchant to step on a cricket ball and he comes across as someone who thinks he can do whatever he pleases.
What are you saying exactly?
That England should be worried about what will happen at Cape Town.
It is staggering that England nearly lost that game last night, I watched most of it and Bell and Collingwood never looked like getting out and then boom boom.
Broad also strikes me as someone who is very unlikeable, why on earth did he review that dismissal, he punched it into the fieldsmen's gloves?
Combine that with his penchant to step on a cricket ball and he comes across as someone who thinks he can do whatever he pleases.
a for effort
Active Member
Re: England in South Africa
Yeah but he's a proper English lad and
Yeah but he's a proper English lad and
eddiesmith
Active Member
Re: England in South Africa
Nothing wrong with Broad, but with only a couple of wickets left and a couple of reviews handy it was worth the risk, could have been a no ball (Actually I think it was but they didnt focus much on it) and he probably wasnt sure if his glove came off the bat before contacting the ball
Nothing wrong with Broad, but with only a couple of wickets left and a couple of reviews handy it was worth the risk, could have been a no ball (Actually I think it was but they didnt focus much on it) and he probably wasnt sure if his glove came off the bat before contacting the ball
Sober Symonds
Member
Re: England in South Africa
Whilst it's plenty of time to bowl a side out in normal circumstances, it's also time enough to bat it out if you're not aiming to win the game. What LtD is saying is that perhaps SA ought to have set a more appealing target in order to lure England into going for the win. That way, of course, the batting team will be in two minds for much longer and that will count for plenty as they play their shots more willingly.
Smith and/or the team culture need to come to terms with the reality that you need to be prepared to lose in order to win. It may pay to be bold rather than conservative. Fortune favours the brave, as they say.
Just on that, it seems every time this sort of thing happens it's usually because SA dawdled during their first or second innings and end up paying for it. Now I can't knock their run rate on a difficult 1st day, and they did pretty well to score over over 4-an-over in the 2nd dig (mind you, they got there thanks to some late aggression). However, coming off a ton and with a game to set up, would it be fair to say Kallis dragged his feet?
He has done this time and time again, despite being a truly formidable batsman in world cricket. He simply can not, or will not, push himself into upping the ante unless he is totally in the mood. Does this have anything to do with why he has never been the leader of this very good team?
Ljp86;383549 said:
Whilst it's plenty of time to bowl a side out in normal circumstances, it's also time enough to bat it out if you're not aiming to win the game. What LtD is saying is that perhaps SA ought to have set a more appealing target in order to lure England into going for the win. That way, of course, the batting team will be in two minds for much longer and that will count for plenty as they play their shots more willingly.
Smith and/or the team culture need to come to terms with the reality that you need to be prepared to lose in order to win. It may pay to be bold rather than conservative. Fortune favours the brave, as they say.
Just on that, it seems every time this sort of thing happens it's usually because SA dawdled during their first or second innings and end up paying for it. Now I can't knock their run rate on a difficult 1st day, and they did pretty well to score over over 4-an-over in the 2nd dig (mind you, they got there thanks to some late aggression). However, coming off a ton and with a game to set up, would it be fair to say Kallis dragged his feet?
He has done this time and time again, despite being a truly formidable batsman in world cricket. He simply can not, or will not, push himself into upping the ante unless he is totally in the mood. Does this have anything to do with why he has never been the leader of this very good team?
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: England in South Africa
I thought 460 was excessive, 400 - 420 would have been a better target, if England chase that down then they would have likely chased down 460 anyway.
Apart from Steyn the rest of the bowling is pedestrian, I can't see any bowler apart from Steyn getting into the Australian bowling lineup, SA need to start setting attainable totals rather then closing the other team of.
If the other team loses quick wickets then they'll shut up shop anyway, whether they are chasing 420 or 460. It just gives you more time to get the 20 wickets.
By rights SA deserve to be 2-1 up and they are not which will be frustating.
I thought 460 was excessive, 400 - 420 would have been a better target, if England chase that down then they would have likely chased down 460 anyway.
Apart from Steyn the rest of the bowling is pedestrian, I can't see any bowler apart from Steyn getting into the Australian bowling lineup, SA need to start setting attainable totals rather then closing the other team of.
If the other team loses quick wickets then they'll shut up shop anyway, whether they are chasing 420 or 460. It just gives you more time to get the 20 wickets.
By rights SA deserve to be 2-1 up and they are not which will be frustating.
Re: England in South Africa
I couldn't see any other captain on the international scene who would have set England a much more appealing target. Most would have declared at or near the time Smith did, setting England a similar sort of run chase. England were out of the game after their day three effort anyway and I don't think setting a lesser target would have suddenly made England sit up and take notice and think "oh maybe we can win this game".
141 overs is a long time in a cricket game, South Africa gave themselves almost five sessions to dismiss England yet couldn't pull it off so they really don't have anyone else to blame but themselves. Whether or not the target score was an achieveable one, it was a pretty poor effort from the South African attack, especially as England lost their fifth wicket early into the morning session and left a schizophrenic middle order and the tail to bat out the remaining overs. Smith would be really disappointed and perhaps quite angry they didn't win a game which had been there's to win since the halfway mark of the test.
Perhaps. Kallis has always been slow and I guess everyone has become accustomed to that. Some players simply don't possess the tools to increase the run rate or the scoring rate, simply because they can't. I've played with guys who are solid top order players yet can't force the pace or have an inability to up the ante when it's needed. Kallis might be a one of those players.
On the other hand, Kallis may really only be in it for himself, "even if the teams plays badly as long as I do okay it's alright" might be his mentality which would come across as incredibly selfish. It may also explain what you've alluded to in your post with regards to his lack of leadership roles within the team. Some great players don't make good leaders though. We've seen with Ponting and his at times, fairly questionable and perplexing approaches with his captaincy yet he'll go down as the best Australian batsman since Bradman and maybe the best overall since the Don stopped playing cricket.
I guess this might be a one of those things we won't know about unless Kallis releases a book on his life and times when he is well into retirement.
Sober Symonds;383769 said:
I couldn't see any other captain on the international scene who would have set England a much more appealing target. Most would have declared at or near the time Smith did, setting England a similar sort of run chase. England were out of the game after their day three effort anyway and I don't think setting a lesser target would have suddenly made England sit up and take notice and think "oh maybe we can win this game".
141 overs is a long time in a cricket game, South Africa gave themselves almost five sessions to dismiss England yet couldn't pull it off so they really don't have anyone else to blame but themselves. Whether or not the target score was an achieveable one, it was a pretty poor effort from the South African attack, especially as England lost their fifth wicket early into the morning session and left a schizophrenic middle order and the tail to bat out the remaining overs. Smith would be really disappointed and perhaps quite angry they didn't win a game which had been there's to win since the halfway mark of the test.
Sober Symonds said:
Perhaps. Kallis has always been slow and I guess everyone has become accustomed to that. Some players simply don't possess the tools to increase the run rate or the scoring rate, simply because they can't. I've played with guys who are solid top order players yet can't force the pace or have an inability to up the ante when it's needed. Kallis might be a one of those players.
On the other hand, Kallis may really only be in it for himself, "even if the teams plays badly as long as I do okay it's alright" might be his mentality which would come across as incredibly selfish. It may also explain what you've alluded to in your post with regards to his lack of leadership roles within the team. Some great players don't make good leaders though. We've seen with Ponting and his at times, fairly questionable and perplexing approaches with his captaincy yet he'll go down as the best Australian batsman since Bradman and maybe the best overall since the Don stopped playing cricket.
I guess this might be a one of those things we won't know about unless Kallis releases a book on his life and times when he is well into retirement.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: England in South Africa
Kallis is a leader in the SA team, trying to say otherwise is absurd, from memory he never wanted to be captain but we really have little idea about leadership roles other then who is has the c next to their name.
Kallis is the most experienced player in the SA, from what I understand about SA is that they are trying to foster an environment where all team members contribute to the so called leadership group.
Kallis is a leader in the SA team, trying to say otherwise is absurd, from memory he never wanted to be captain but we really have little idea about leadership roles other then who is has the c next to their name.
Kallis is the most experienced player in the SA, from what I understand about SA is that they are trying to foster an environment where all team members contribute to the so called leadership group.