England v South Africa, 3rd Test, Lords, 16-20 Aug, 2012

Brass Monkey wrote:

lardbucket wrote:I find myself strangely torn between hoping, as I usually do when they are not playing India, that England gets utterly smashed, simply because they deserve it; and for a change hoping that they might contrive a win, thereby cementing the belief and burgeoning arrogance (seemingly clear for the first time to some of their fans over this last week or so) in this group of players.

Failing that, I guess there's always the Zimmy option - a couple of career-ending injuries, say to Anderson and Swann - to 'root' for.

Surprised you ever wanted Australia to win a Test.

ouch!

lardbucket wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

lardbucket wrote:I find myself strangely torn between hoping, as I usually do when they are not playing India, that England gets utterly smashed, simply because they deserve it; and for a change hoping that they might contrive a win, thereby cementing the belief and burgeoning arrogance (seemingly clear for the first time to some of their fans over this last week or so) in this group of players.

Failing that, I guess there's always the Zimmy option - a couple of career-ending injuries, say to Anderson and Swann - to 'root' for.

Surprised you ever wanted Australia to win a Test.

Of course I have absolutely no idea what you mean. It's only arrogance that upsets me.

I would guess Monkey is implying Australian players, journalists and supporters have often assumed the 'natural order of things' is for them to be on top. And have resented not being there .... to the extent of wanting broken legs and career-ending injuries on their opponents (which hardly suggests any sort of sporting spirit except vengeance).

Or something like that.

To repeat once again: I don't think arrogance is an endemic English vice. We will have to agree to disagree on this, obviously.

I think the personal immaturity (and in at least one case, rather low traditional IQ) of certain players is a problem, which has festered with the Pietersen issue.

Meanwhile, SAf move on from a Smiffy "first innings error" and look to make another big total.

England need someone to pull their effort together.

Maybe Kev could wave a banner of support from the pavilion, or something.

Or text/tweet someone out in the middle. Preferably an England player.

Nice Test bowling by England.

England on top now.

Anderson and Finn have looked threatening, but Broad was barely Paul Collingwood pace this morning- Averaged around 80mph and numerous balls at 77mph.

I refuse to believe he's not injured.

At second now Red will arrive and accuse Smith of making the wrong decision.

A mighty relief for the Poms to get Amla out early (esp early for him).

Might ease the disorientation in the England camp. Or possibly not.


As long as Lardy's farqin inbred Pom arrogance doesn't take over again with the fall of a couple of wickets ....

That is just a terrible decision.

Hmm, not sure how that was given. Looked out in real time, but replays seemed to indicate that the hand was off the bat. Fat Jack a bit unlucky.

Anywho - 4-54 and Engulund on top.

Vark off that was not out!!!

Test match spoilt by umpires who don't know the laws of the game. Both Petersen & Kallis' gloves not holding bat unless they were given out for handling the ball.

Odd for the DRS ump to overturn a not out on less than obvious evidence, sure enough.

Rudolph starts off as busily as ever. His best mode of batting.

PeterCS wrote:Odd for the DRS ump to overturn a not out on less than obvious evidence, sure enough.

Isn't the rule that there must be conclusive evidence to overturn the decision?

That's how I understood it.

A clear deviation, woody noise, or something.

Cracking last ball from Sturat just misses everything to end a cracking session for England. Hope the weather holds.

Kallis was very unlucky. The way I read it, Dharmasena gave it not out because he didn't think it touched Kallis's glove, and that when third umpire Tucker told him it HAD touched his glove, Dharmasena wanted it reversed.

In other words, it seems that the third umpire is only reviewing the REASON the on field umpire gave it not out, rather than the decision as a whole, and if Dharmasena had given it not out because Kallis gloved it but his glove was off the bat, then Tucker would have upheld that decision.

Allan D wrote:Test match spoilt by umpires who don't know the laws of the game. Both Petersen & Kallis' gloves not holding bat unless they were given out for handling the ball.

Echoes of 2005, of course.

PeterCS wrote:

lardbucket wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

lardbucket wrote:I find myself strangely torn between hoping, as I usually do when they are not playing India, that England gets utterly smashed, simply because they deserve it; and for a change hoping that they might contrive a win, thereby cementing the belief and burgeoning arrogance (seemingly clear for the first time to some of their fans over this last week or so) in this group of players.

Failing that, I guess there's always the Zimmy option - a couple of career-ending injuries, say to Anderson and Swann - to 'root' for.

Surprised you ever wanted Australia to win a Test.

Of course I have absolutely no idea what you mean. It's only arrogance that upsets me.

I would guess Monkey is implying Australian players, journalists and supporters have often assumed the 'natural order of things' is for them to be on top. And have resented not being there .... to the extent of wanting broken legs and career-ending injuries on their opponents (which hardly suggests any sort of sporting spirit except vengeance).

Or something like that.

To repeat once again: I don't think arrogance is an endemic English vice. We will have to agree to disagree on this, obviously.

I think the personal immaturity (and in at least one case, rather low traditional IQ) of certain players is a problem, which has festered with the Pietersen issue.

I don't think I've ever NSR'd you before!

lardbucket wrote:

Allan D wrote:Test match spoilt by umpires who don't know the laws of the game. Both Petersen & Kallis' gloves not holding bat unless they were given out for handling the ball.

Echoes of 2005, of course.

Indeed.

lardbucket wrote:

PeterCS wrote:

lardbucket wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

lardbucket wrote:I find myself strangely torn between hoping, as I usually do when they are not playing India, that England gets utterly smashed, simply because they deserve it; and for a change hoping that they might contrive a win, thereby cementing the belief and burgeoning arrogance (seemingly clear for the first time to some of their fans over this last week or so) in this group of players.

Failing that, I guess there's always the Zimmy option - a couple of career-ending injuries, say to Anderson and Swann - to 'root' for.

Surprised you ever wanted Australia to win a Test.

Of course I have absolutely no idea what you mean. It's only arrogance that upsets me.

I would guess Monkey is implying Australian players, journalists and supporters have often assumed the 'natural order of things' is for them to be on top. And have resented not being there .... to the extent of wanting broken legs and career-ending injuries on their opponents (which hardly suggests any sort of sporting spirit except vengeance).

Or something like that.

To repeat once again: I don't think arrogance is an endemic English vice. We will have to agree to disagree on this, obviously.

I think the personal immaturity (and in at least one case, rather low traditional IQ) of certain players is a problem, which has festered with the Pietersen issue.

I don't think I've ever NSR'd you before!

Stay on this Forum, and there's nothing you can't experience at least once!

Henry wrote:Kallis was very unlucky. The way I read it, Dharmasena gave it not out because he didn't think it touched Kallis's glove, and that when third umpire Tucker told him it HAD touched his glove, Dharmasena wanted it reversed.

In other words, it seems that the third umpire is only reviewing the REASON the on field umpire gave it not out, rather than the decision as a whole, and if Dharmasena had given it not out because Kallis gloved it but his glove was off the bat, then Tucker would have upheld that decision.

Trev makes a good point here.

Tucker may well only have been asked by the on-field umpire IF the ball hit the glove.

If so, there are still holes in the system.

A marginal decision upheld in favour of the sparklingly in-form DeV at least redresses a bit of balance.

AB looking ominous, though a wayward Finn has given him some assistance.


Incidentally, when can Blofeld be allowed to retire? He keeps blithering about the "RDS", declares De Villiers is on 97 (maybe he's a prophet?), misidentifies players and in general, rarely seems to know what's happening!

Shit, even Cook's catching well.