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

Maybe because they didn't want Vaughan storming the podium and making an even bigger twonk of himself on international TV.

Has Vaughan taken any positives yet?

On track. Plain and simple. We're on track.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

Man of the match goes to Prince. Wonder why it didn't go to the player who scored more runs and took a blinder of a catch?

I repeat:

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

Prince was the first batsman to get to grips with the conditions and the pitch. Da Villain for the most part played a supporting role. I thought it was obvious?

Well played South Africa - head and shoulders above England over the last four days.

Personally i think the English selectors got it terribly wrong. It's going to take a lot to get it sorted for the next test.

However in my opinion we still need to win the next one. I don't want us to go to the Oval one up.

GordoninPortsmouth wrote:

JKLever wrote:Nice knock from Broad. The thing I likes about him is he plays like a batsman rather than a lower order slogmeister....

He reminds me so much of his father when he bats.

I just wonder if he might get found out (a little bit) with the short ball aimed at his hip in the future though.

The thing I love about him is that he is picked as a front line bowler.

beamer wrote:
The bowling line-up needs freshening up, with 4 Tests in 5 weeks we perhaps need to rotate it a bit and give one or two others a go.

hey i believe there is some Pattinson guy getting a lot of sticks in county cricket.

Sorry all, just couldn't resist.

On a statistical note Broad scored the first half-century by an England No.9. since Dominic Cork's 56* against the Windies at Old Trafford in July 1995. It was the first time an England No.9. has been topscorer in an innings since Derek Pringle's 41 out of 203 against NZ at Auckland in January 1992. Broad's 67* was the highest score made by a No.9. for England since Peter Lever's 88* against India at Old Trafford in August 1971.

To correct a previous "stat" Broad's 76 at Lord's was the highest by an England No.8 since Craig White's 85* at the MCG in December 2002 not the same player's 94* against India at Trent Bridge which he had scored 4 months earlier. Apologies to those who spotted the error.

Allan D wrote:On a statistical note Broad scored the first half-century by an England No.9. since Dominic Cork's 56* against the Windies at Old Trafford in July 1995. It was the first time an England No.9. had been topscorer in an innings since Derek Pringle's 41 out of 203 against NZ at Auckland in January 1992. Broad's 67* was the highest score made by a No.9. for England since Peter Lever's 88* against India at Old Trafford in August 1971.

To correct a previous "stat" Broad's 76 at Lord's was the highest by an England No.8 since Craig White's 85* at the MCG in December 2002 not the same player's 94* against India at Trent Bridge which he had scored 4 months earlier. Apologies to those who spotted the error.

So he's in good company?

Played SA, you deserved it especially Prince and AB.

taipan wrote:

Allan D wrote:On a statistical note Broad scored the first half-century by an England No.9. since Dominic Cork's 56* against the Windies at Old Trafford in July 1995. It was the first time an England No.9. had been topscorer in an innings since Derek Pringle's 41 out of 203 against NZ at Auckland in January 1992. Broad's 67* was the highest score made by a No.9. for England since Peter Lever's 88* against India at Old Trafford in August 1971.

To correct a previous "stat" Broad's 76 at Lord's was the highest by an England No.8 since Craig White's 85* at the MCG in December 2002 not the same player's 94* against India at Trent Bridge which he had scored 4 months earlier. Apologies to those who spotted the error.

So he's in good company?

The point was to show how seldom runs have been made by the England lower order. Broad was batting out of position because of Anderson batting as a night-watchman but his efforts both in this match and at Lord's have nevertheless been remarkable. He has more shots than Pringle, more consistency than Cork and is as capable as White of scoring a century. Maybe Broad, not Flintoff, should be batting at 6 at Edgbaston?

Allan D wrote:

taipan wrote:

Allan D wrote:On a statistical note Broad scored the first half-century by an England No.9. since Dominic Cork's 56* against the Windies at Old Trafford in July 1995. It was the first time an England No.9. had been topscorer in an innings since Derek Pringle's 41 out of 203 against NZ at Auckland in January 1992. Broad's 67* was the highest score made by a No.9. for England since Peter Lever's 88* against India at Old Trafford in August 1971.

To correct a previous "stat" Broad's 76 at Lord's was the highest by an England No.8 since Craig White's 85* at the MCG in December 2002 not the same player's 94* against India at Trent Bridge which he had scored 4 months earlier. Apologies to those who spotted the error.

So he's in good company?

The point was to show how seldom runs have been made by the England lower order. Broad was batting out of position because of Anderson batting as a night-watchman but his efforts both in this match and at Lord's have nevertheless been remarkable. He has more shots than Pringle, more consistency than Cork and is as capable as White of scoring a century. Maybe Broad, not Flintoff, should be batting at 6 at Edgbaston?

Actually my point is that none of them were particularly good bowlers.

Aye, well done South Africa.

Made the most of the conditions following a good toss to win on Day 1.
Took balls from Sniff to insert again following the Lord's hic cup.

That said, the next 4 days saw England totally outplayed in just about
every session and in every department.

Suicidal and bizarre selection from the England selectors - tail starting at Ambrose
(WTF claimed he was a recognized batsman ... Miller, Piles, Moores?? FFS) ... and a
bowler called Pattinson whom the skipper had never even heard of!

With the Jaarpies in that frame of mind, I'm not so sure we'd have had competed anyway -
given the repeated poor batting from our lot.

10 wicket win?
I've only just found that out

Good match. Hope the next 2 are as good.

I reckon England should recall Prior. He's the only WK they have tried who looks up to international cricket.

Ban England.

furriner wrote:Ban England.

Yup. They didn't threaten to abandon the match if the umpire wasn't changed. We can't be having that sort of integrity now can we? Not in India's 'new cricket'.

Wonder if Vaughan's report will include any reference to the Bowden nod of confirmation (dismissing Amla) but then negating it by calling for a referral!

Grounds for demanding an umpire change or else forfeit the match perhaps ?

After all, with the precedent in place, a forfeited match can now be deemed a draw
upon appeal!

Rob I wrote:Played SA, you deserved it especially Prince and AB.

plus Morkel and Steyn!

PlanetPakistan wrote:

Rob I wrote:Played SA, you deserved it especially Prince and AB.

plus Morkel and Steyn!

Well personally I think AB deserved a delivery to balloon off the pitch on a length onto his jaw and down onto the stumps, but never mind.

Prince has been the key player so far, one of the more unheralded batsmen in the SA line-up, but he's been reminiscent of Greham Thorpe, well organised and determined scoring the tough runs and blunting the opposition bowlers. His 2 centuries have been crucial and set up the 4 that have followed for South Africa. One to save the match, the other put them well on course to win it.

Graham Thorpe.... scoring tough runs and blunting the opposition bowlers.

How we've missed him (or his likes), eh!
Colly promised but in the end, failed to consistently deliver.
Sadly, no one else in this England squad stands out nor has the tough GT calibre.
Perhaps a sign of the times.

Our batsmen are generally one-paced and can't adapt their game to the situation in hand. You wouldn't back them to bat out a day for a draw, you can't see any of them scrapping out a century batting with the tail like Thorpe would, and on the other side of things some of them aren't very good at getting on with it and scoring quickly when the situation demands it.

That's one of the reasons we're poor at limited overs cricket as well. Look at the likes of Smith and De Villiers in the SA side, they can smash it all round the park in ODIs and T20 and then grind out a 300-ball century in a Test. I can't think of a single England player with that kind of versatility.

PearlJ wrote:

furriner wrote:Ban England.

Yup. They didn't threaten to abandon the match if the umpire wasn't changed. We can't be having that sort of integrity now can we? Not in India's 'new cricket'.

Cheating Aussie qunts.

PearlJ wrote:

furriner wrote:Ban England.

Yup. They didn't threaten to abandon the match if the umpire wasn't changed. We can't be having that sort of integrity now can we? Not in India's 'new cricket'.

Ban PearlJ.