England v South Africa, 1st Test, Lord's 10-14 July (II)

Dello wrote:

PearlJ wrote: I still can't see why they are picking Ambrose.

In the last Test he scored 67 - his third 50+ contribution in his first six Test matches.

That's why.

And all of those runs were scored in the Third man area.

♫ Harry Lime theme ♫

Henry wrote:I'm not sure they're all that concerned about dropping Collingwood because he's the unofficial vice captain now that Strauss has well and truly re-cemented his spot in the side.

Except that Strauss is not part of the ODI side and Strauss' stand-in performance as captain in 2006 obviously did not impress the selectors sufficiently as Freddie was preferred to him (fortunately for Strauss' sake in view of the outcome) as replacement skipper for the following Ashes series. The present bowling attack is perfectly suited for Headingley and there is no reason to add to it.

PeterCS wrote:♫ Harry Lime theme ♫

It's the cuckoo clocks I blame!

Starring Smiffy as Orson Welles, and Pietersen as Michael Rennie.

PearlJ wrote:

Dello wrote:

PearlJ wrote: I still can't see why they are picking Ambrose.

In the last Test he scored 67 - his third 50+ contribution in his first six Test matches.

That's why.

And all of those runs were scored in the Third man area.

It's not how, but how many...

Allan D wrote:

Henry wrote:I'm not sure they're all that concerned about dropping Collingwood because he's the unofficial vice captain now that Strauss has well and truly re-cemented his spot in the side.

Except that Strauss is not part of the ODI side

the ODI side should hold no sway over the selection of the test side. Re- Strauss - it's a different selection panel in place anyway....

JKLever wrote:

Allan D wrote:

Henry wrote:I'm not sure they're all that concerned about dropping Collingwood because he's the unofficial vice captain now that Strauss has well and truly re-cemented his spot in the side.

Except that Strauss is not part of the ODI side

the ODI side should hold no sway over the selection of the test side. Re- Strauss - it's a different selection panel in place anyway....

?????

Over an hour's play, and no sniff of a wicket.

The Preston elephant is back in the room (and trumpeting loudly).

PeterCS wrote:Starring Smiffy as Orson Welles, and Pietersen as Michael Rennie.

As the late Lord Deedes might have said,

"Shurely shome mishtake!"

Welles played Lime in Carol Reed's 1950 film and turned out to be a drug-dealing slimeball who gets his just desserts whilst Rennie played Lime in the TV series (1959-65) as an art dealer who solves crime in his spare time on the model of Leslie Charteris' character Simon Templar in "The Saint" (memorably portrayed by Roger Moore on TV). They played the same character but in different media and with totally different interpretations. Do you mean Joseph Cotten's character, Holly Martins, who turns out to be Welles' nemesis in the film or am I just missing the plot?

Apologies to those who have not seen the film as the above contains some spoilers but it's worth watching for the memorable soundtrack by the zither player, Anton Karas, which can be obtained on CD along with excerpts of dialogue (written by the novelist Graham Greene with the exception of Welles' "cuckoo clock" closing lines to Cotten in the Wurstelprater scene which, much to Greene's chagrin, became the most well-known in the film, despite containing wikipedia-type howlers).

I rest assured on my case.

PeterCS wrote:Over an hour's play, and no sniff of a wicket.The Preston elephant is back in the room (and trumpeting loudly).

Patience, my boy, allow Monty the snake-charmer to work his magic.

Wait for it ...

It's all a bit dour. South Africa's slow r/r is keeping them well and truly in trouble, but England haven't really looked threatening. Monty should have had McKenzie plumb LBW earlier, but that idiot Harper was on so he might as well have not bothered appealing. That Smith under-edge seems to have caused a palaver, but I've just seen the incident and I can't really say it looked or sounded out. In the strictest of senses it probably was out, but it looked very innocuous at first, and I can understand why Anderson didn't appeal.

England could really do with two or three wickets in this session, just to keep on top. As I say, South Africa's slow r/r is basically going to give us until the middle of the Afternoon Session, perhaps even to Tea tomorrow, to knock them over. England's pressure is very good at the minute but we can't afford to let it slip because, apart from Monty ripping a few, it really has become a bit of a flat-'un now that the sun's shining brightly.

ffs Yorkshire. 305 for 7 becomes 460/9 for Kent

for Kent tragic?

Gary 111 wrote:ffs Yorkshire. 305 for 7 becomes 460/9 for Kent

Oops meant to put this on the County thread.

God, McKenzie is a boring f*cker isn't he?

Sri Lanka all over again.


Draw.

A bit early to write it off yet. South Africa are posing absolutely no threat as regards getting a safe score. They could quite conceivably bat all day tomorrow at their current rate and still only be 30 to 40 runs ahead (which of course would be enough if they batted to the end of the day). That cannot disguise the fact that England probably have 130 overs still to bowl them out.

It's looking unlikely, the pitch is a bastard and Harper's a useless tw@t, but England should not be giving up hope. They can't possibly lose this match, so just keep going and hope for some cloud cover tomorrow (and three or four wickets today!). C'mon England!

Cricinfo:

And that's tea: South Africa are still wicketless.

And Monty's bowled 20 overs already?

Vaughany's tried pretty much everything in terms of tinkering. We're lacking a Simon Jones or a Flintoff to make a breakthrough.

Bit turgid, innit?

And Kallis to come.

Zzzzzzzz.

If we don't get at least 2 wickets today, we're finished.

May as well call off the game now.