England v South Africa, 2nd Test , Leeds, 18-22 July

Furriner = champion of 5-a-side tournaments in Thailand.

I accept your abject apology and recognition of your fundamental lack of worth. It would help if you groveled less.

Cricket, gentlemen, please.

I personally see this as the first test of England's character in the series. When we roll up on the first morning, we'll either be proving how consistent, or inconsistent as the case may be, we can be with the bat or how well we can handle four consecutive days (in cricketing terms) in the field. In normal circumstances, this side would crumble comprehensively either side of an heroic effort from Pietersen, Sidebottom or Anderson, and one would expect them to perform similarly here. There was a hint in the last match of a little more character though, even if the pitch was flat, and also the odd sign of improvement in certain players' consistency levels. Lord's must go down as a decent performance from England against arguably a better side, and it will be interesting to see if they can string two such creditable performances together. I personally do not think they can and am still wallowing in the depths of pity, anticipating the imminent South African retaliation, but I shall remain hopeful of an entertaining day's batting, a decent bowling performance, and at long last the return of the Messiah.

Augustus to keep us on track.

The SA attack looked out of sorts (who is that spinner BTW?) and Ntini looked the worst among the pacers. But if you can consider the first test to be a tussle between two equal teams (in terms of actual performance, not potential), I doubt whether going forward England can do much better, whereas SA can still substantially raise their game.

Ntini looked the worst

More racism.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Spanked a tenner on Super Vaughany to be England's top batsman.

Kallis is 7 to 1 with some bookies to be South Africa's best batsmen. Might have some of that.

Augustus wrote:Cricket, gentlemen, please.

I personally see this as the first test of England's character in the series. When we roll up on the first morning, we'll either be proving how consistent, or inconsistent as the case may be, we can be with the bat or how well we can handle four consecutive days (in cricketing terms) in the field. In normal circumstances, this side would crumble comprehensively either side of an heroic effort from Pietersen, Sidebottom or Anderson, and one would expect them to perform similarly here. There was a hint in the last match of a little more character though, even if the pitch was flat, and also the odd sign of improvement in certain players' consistency levels. Lord's must go down as a decent performance from England against arguably a better side, and it will be interesting to see if they can string two such creditable performances together. I personally do not think they can and am still wallowing in the depths of pity, anticipating the imminent South African retaliation, but I shall remain hopeful of an entertaining day's batting, a decent bowling performance, and at long last the return of the Messiah.

I'm thinking Trent Bridge last year v India having had the better of the Lords test...

I'm thinking Headingley 2002 and 2003.....

Two of the biggest cock ups in English cricket in recent times.

Henry wrote:I'm thinking Headingley 2002 and 2003.....

Two of the biggest cock ups in English cricket in recent times.

I remember the Saffie Test. Great entertainment.

Just a thought - if Colly wasn't being picked, surely he'd be playing for Durham now? Someone would have had a quiet word and told him to find some form with his county? Bit pointless having him on drinks duties when he could be batting for his county.

Often thought about that - anomaly, no doubt.
And the only answer I can come up with is that, as Colly's a centrally contracted player, Durham
probably get a wodge of cash from the ECB for his services.

Unless they're really farked, why upset a balanced team?
Give Colly a holiday and pocket the loot from the ECB.

Or is that not how it works?!

They're just trying to make Colly feel better by waiting until the last minute to leave him out. Typical, "You're not really dropped, just rested for a bit" cotton wool wrapping from England.

Unless they're gonna drop Broad and retain Collingwood, thinking that Colly's dobbers are ideal for Headingley.

I suppose you can't blame the selectors for delaying the final selection to the last minute. perhaps they want to see how Siders pulls up. That having been said, if they are minded to play five bowlers, why hasn't an additional bowler been added to the squad if they are worried about his fitness?

Can't Wobbles just go and take the place of someone else tomorrow when he is released?

Thought that was the way it worked. No point in having him at Durham in the field is there!?

They may drop Jimmy.













Or Timmy.

Basil wrote:That having been said, if they are minded to play five bowlers, why hasn't an additional bowler been added to the squad if they are worried about his fitness?

Tremlett's not playing for Hants today. Perhaps he's been asked to sit this one out, "just in case".

Yeah, just in case he breaks again.

Dello wrote:

Basil wrote:That having been said, if they are minded to play five bowlers, why hasn't an additional bowler been added to the squad if they are worried about his fitness?

Tremlett's not playing for Hants today. Perhaps he's been asked to sit this one out, "just in case".

Hmmm. Jonah didn't play for us yesterday either - then again neither did 8 out of the side that took the field!

Considering the Pro40's going to be dumped 2 years from now it makes you wonder why Div 2 sides will bother much tbh...

Can see a lot of young players given a run out

Should be pretty obvious Flintoff's batting too high at six especially with Ambrose imploding at seven. Just asking for trouble really.

Logical move is for Flintoff to come in for Broad- like for like number 8 batsmen and Flintoff's a much more pentrative bowler. Collingwood will be much a better bowling option on a typical Headingley pitch and so has his all round skills to bail out his sorrowful batting form.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Just a thought - if Colly wasn't being picked, surely he'd be playing for Durham now? Someone would have had a quiet word and told him to find some form with his county? Bit pointless having him on drinks duties when he could be batting for his county.

I think they want to keep the South Africans in suspense. Bet Graeme Smith is sh!tting himself with worry over whether Collingwood or Broad will be the fifth bowler.

Plus I think they want cover for Ryan's Side bottom back strain and in the unlikely event of the pitch being a green swinger (aka Headingley 2000) go in with 4 seamers and 7 bats as they did that time.

Wisely put.

Gary 111 wrote:
I think they want to keep the South Africans in suspense. Bet Graeme Smith is sh!tting himself with worry over whether Collingwood or Broad will be the fifth bowler.

True.

We did our best to keep Monty in the team.

60 overs of filth

Aye - he's no Paul Harris...

Filth? That's what you get up to on the old webcam. But it wasn't what Monty was bowling.