England v South Africa, 4th Test, Old Trafford, 4-8 August, 2017

beamer wrote:Doesn't take much to trigger a Yarpitulation these days...

They don't appear to need a cup up for grabs nowadays to choke. Maybe Mick the Dick will be appointed coach. The spirit of Hansie continues to guide Saffie cricket. Time to play some tough youngsters who have not been molly coddled in the elite school system?

horace wrote:Time to play some tough youngsters who have not been molly coddled in the elite school system?

11 black kids from Soweto?

Hehe....at least there's be some 'tude.

So only two players from each side average over 40 with the bat for the series.
Root & Bairstow for England.
Philander & Amla for South Africa.

Great bowling? Or crappy batting or useless Pomgolian pitches?

WideWally wrote:So only two players from each side average over 40 with the bat for the series.
Root & Bairstow for England.
Philander & Amla for South Africa.

Crikey, that's embarrassing.

Still, a bowler dominant series is a much better spectacle than a batathon.

horace wrote:Great bowling? Or crappy batting or useless Pomgolian pitches?

There was nothing wrong with the pitches. We have become too used to tests being played on roads.

Yeah, there was a fair bit of movement as the weather was generally unsettled, but on the whole they were decent pitches that provided a contest between bat and ball. Certainly no Edgbaston 1995 minefields...

With 3 centuries and 27 fifties, the conversion rate was laughable... while perhaps it indicates pitches you were never quite "in" on, it also shows the batsmen on both sides didn't have the patience to play match-defining innings.

We must also remember the SA batting was completely unsettled by the notion that Duminy was a no 4. This was further underlined by the ludicrous selection of Kuhn for all 4 tests. Then we had the QDK balls up.

I could go on and on about the mistakes. I would also like the full story on Duminy pissing off once he was dropped.

The only criticism of the pitches might be, because they clearly deteriorated, unlike many of ours which play truly throughout, the toss became more important than usual. All matches were won by the team winning the toss.

Having said that, England looked the superior team. SA's batting was more fragile than England's because the latter has a lower order which can bail them out. That could be fraught with danger moving forward though. Both sides would love more quality at the top of the order.

SA's issues were compounded by fielding much poorer than as is customary and the absence of AB, Steyn and Abbott always presented challenges for them. Philander's injury was untimely and Smith has questioned his fitness levels.

Surely they have to put their faith in Markram at the top. Morkel was almost in career best form and was a positive for them.

England is left with batting questions in addition to some confusion about their best bowling line-up. The unforgiving pitches here may challenge the hyphen, Wood and Ali.

Care to explain the wide on for Abbott?

Red wrote:The only criticism of the pitches might be, because they clearly deteriorated, unlike many of ours which play truly throughout, the toss became more important than usual. All matches were won by the team winning the toss.

Having said that, England looked the superior team. SA's batting was more fragile than England's because the latter has a lower order which can bail them out. That could be fraught with danger moving forward though. Both sides would love more quality at the top of the order.

SA's issues were compounded by fielding much poorer than as is customary and the absence of AB, Steyn and Abbott always presented challenges for them. Philander's injury was untimely and Smith has questioned his fitness levels.

Surely they have to put their faith in Markram at the top. Morkel was almost in career best form and was a positive for them.

England is left with batting questions in addition to some confusion about their best bowling line-up. The unforgiving pitches here may challenge the hyphen, Wood and Ali.

Pitches are supposed to deteriorate

Basil wrote:

Red wrote:The only criticism of the pitches might be, because they clearly deteriorated, unlike many of ours which play truly throughout, the toss became more important than usual. All matches were won by the team winning the toss.

Having said that, England looked the superior team. SA's batting was more fragile than England's because the latter has a lower order which can bail them out. That could be fraught with danger moving forward though. Both sides would love more quality at the top of the order.

SA's issues were compounded by fielding much poorer than as is customary and the absence of AB, Steyn and Abbott always presented challenges for them. Philander's injury was untimely and Smith has questioned his fitness levels.

Surely they have to put their faith in Markram at the top. Morkel was almost in career best form and was a positive for them.

England is left with batting questions in addition to some confusion about their best bowling line-up. The unforgiving pitches here may challenge the hyphen, Wood and Ali.

Pitches are supposed to deteriorate

Oh FFS Bas, don't confuse Red with facts.

skully wrote:

horace wrote:Time to play some tough youngsters who have not been molly coddled in the elite school system?

11 black kids from Soweto?

11 white kids from Soweto (and/or Langa) would be even more daring.

Are there 11 white kids in Soweto?

Unforch it may be that black Africans still associate cricket and rugger with the history of white oppression inc their elite schools. Interesting that soccer and basketball seem to be far more popular in terms of kids playing the game.

While cricket is the most popular summer sport in Oz, Rugby remains the upper class game and lacks the participation enjoyed by leeeeeeg and AFL.

horace wrote:Unforch it may be that black Africans still associate cricket and rugger with the history of white oppression inc their elite schools. Interesting that soccer and basketball seem to be far more popular in terms of kids playing the game.

While cricket is the most popular summer sport in Oz, Rugby remains the upper class game and lacks the participation enjoyed by leeeeeeg and AFL.

Domestic Rugby League competitions outside of NSW & Qld are secondary to Union competitions (while obviously AFL is king)

Rugby has been usurped by 'soccer' in most states now, too. Just NSW and metropolitan Brisbane holding their own re rugby.

It makes one wonder why soccer is the most popular ball sport in the world

You need a couple of hoops for the basketball (a mark on the wall doesn't really do it), and four jackets - or at least a chalked wall - for football, but those and a decently serviceable ball are pretty much all you need for those two games. Refereeing is of course a bit of a lottery or random, but otherwise ....

Cricket, rugby are much more complex in set-ups, protocols, arbitrating a lot of close decisions etc. - and you need at least about 12 for any sort of rugby, you can get all sorts of injuries if you don't play by some sort of rules of chivalry or have a good refereeing/medical team ... and in cricket, you need a lot of gear, you have to go and fetch the ball from a long way, a lot of ground, flat in the middle, marked out ... all these presuppose a lot of overarching order, layout, a bit more deferred gratification. Football and basketball are two of the sports where you can get your kicks quite fast without a lot of bother or fuss, and very cheaply.

Surely the "logistical issues" go a long way to explaining the relative popularity of these and other sports at ground level?

PeterCS wrote:You need a couple of hoops for the basketball (a mark on the wall doesn't really do it), and four jackets - or at least a chalked wall - for football, but those and a decently serviceable ball are pretty much all you need for those two games. Refereeing is of course a bit of a lottery or random, but otherwise ....

Cricket, rugby are much more complex in set-ups, protocols, arbitrating a lot of close decisions etc. - and you need at least about 12 for any sort of rugby, you can get all sorts of injuries if you don't play by some sort of rules of chivalry or have a good refereeing/medical team ... and in cricket, you need a lot of gear, you have to go and fetch the ball from a long way, a lot of ground, flat in the middle, marked out ... all these presuppose a lot of overarching order, layout, a bit more deferred gratification. Football and basketball are two of the sports where you can get your kicks quite fast without a lot of bother or fuss, and very cheaply.

Surely the "logistical issues" go a long way to explaining the relative popularity of these and other sports at ground level?

I think we all know that. BTW basketball is not big in SA.