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

Merlin wrote: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!

But you didn't forfeit, you stoopid pom.

taipan wrote:

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

Considering there's been a 13-year gap between No.9 scoring a 50 there doesn't seem to have many particularly good batters in England's lower order, either.

Well done Proteas.

Broad looks like he should be batting higher but in any case England picked an unbalanced line-up.

The keys were Prince, AB and Steyn and Morkel. The second innings bowling was probably better given that the pitch seemed relatively benign and the weather overhead was kind.

Still, regardless of the cloud cover on the first day and some spirited bowling, a test team should not be bowled out before tea.

Allan D wrote:

taipan wrote:

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

Considering there's been a 13-year gap between No.9 scoring a 50 there doesn't seem to have many particularly good batters in England's lower order, either.

Ashley Giles vs Australia at the Oval in 2005?

That was quite a memorable match!

Gary 111 wrote:

Allan D wrote:

taipan wrote:

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

Considering there's been a 13-year gap between No.9 scoring a 50 there doesn't seem to have many particularly good batters in England's lower order, either.

Ashley Giles vs Australia at the Oval in 2005?

That was quite a memorable match!

Not memorable enough for me though! You're quite right, G, Giles made 59 batting at 9 in England's 2nd innings. Only he and Pietersen made 50s in that innings. I doubt whether Taipan would think Giles "a particularly good bowler" either!

I may be wrong (I usually am!) but I have a feeling that the selectors may pull a surprise on Saturday as they did after England's last defeat at Hamilton. Even if Sidebottom is fit they may decide he needs a prolonged rest before the Ashes next summer and bring in Jones instead (for Pattinson). Although the consensus seems to be that the batters are safe I wouldn't be surpised if one of them is sacrificed a la Admiral Byng pour encourager les autres.

If this were the case my candidate would be Strauss, unfair though it would be, with Vaughan opening with Cook again and either Mark Butcher (after a 3 1/2-year absence) or Key coming in at 3. If Collingwood can be ditched so can Strauss. I notice that when Vaughan went off the field at Headingley, KP, not Strauss, took over the captaincy which may not be of any significance but may imply Strauss is expendable.

Allan D wrote:

taipan wrote:

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

Considering there's been a 13-year gap between No.9 scoring a 50 there doesn't seem to have many particularly good batters in England's lower order, either.

Don't take it too literally. Taips is being a cherub-dicked sausage muncher.

doremi wrote:

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.

Seconded.

Gary 111 wrote:

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.

yeah he(AB) should be banned for a test or 2 but such things happen.


I am impressed by the way Saffers have improved their play against spin

We'll limp past SA's score, leaving them 20 odd to win.

My prediction from yesterday morning. Damn i'm good!

Time to pick Jonah, methinks. Ambrose could also be dropped for Prior.

Henry wrote:

We'll limp past SA's score, leaving them 20 odd to win.

My prediction from yesterday morning. Damn i'm good!

A good call Trev. The forum crystal balls must be working well this series.

Congrats to the Saffies. My Fox coverage went down last night after lunch. At the time Cook and Bell looked releatively solid. Presumably Bell and Cook got out shortly after.

So that's the end of Pattinson's Test career then? Well, I guess he played one more Test than any of us.

Strauss would have to consider himself unlucky if sacraficed given Vaughan's recent form.

Allan D wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:

Allan D wrote:

taipan wrote:

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

Considering there's been a 13-year gap between No.9 scoring a 50 there doesn't seem to have many particularly good batters in England's lower order, either.

Ashley Giles vs Australia at the Oval in 2005?

That was quite a memorable match!

Not memorable enough for me though! You're quite right, G, Giles made 59 batting at 9 in England's 2nd innings. Only he and Pietersen made 50s in that innings. I doubt whether Taipan would think Giles "a particularly good bowler" either!

Does anyone?

Brass Monkey wrote:

Allan D wrote:

taipan wrote:

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

Considering there's been a 13-year gap between No.9 scoring a 50 there doesn't seem to have many particularly good batters in England's lower order, either.

Don't take it too literally. Taips is being a cherub-dicked sausage muncher.

So Dan, which of those were the good bowlers?

Allan D wrote:I may be wrong (I usually am!) but I have a feeling that the selectors may pull a surprise on Saturday as they did after England's last defeat at Hamilton. Even if Sidebottom is fit they may decide he needs a prolonged rest before the Ashes next summer and bring in Jones instead (for Pattinson). Although the consensus seems to be that the batters are safe I wouldn't be surpised if one of them is sacrificed a la Admiral Byng pour encourager les autres.

If this were the case my candidate would be Strauss, unfair though it would be, with Vaughan opening with Cook again and either Mark Butcher (after a 3 1/2-year absence) or Key coming in at 3. If Collingwood can be ditched so can Strauss. I notice that when Vaughan went off the field at Headingley, KP, not Strauss, took over the captaincy which may not be of any significance but may imply Strauss is expendable.

Butcher is yesterday's man. Strauss is safe too - and so he should be.

I could also do without further selection "surprises" - they seldom work.

taipan wrote:
So Dan, which of those were the good bowlers?

Of whom were good bowlers?

Basil wrote:

Allan D wrote:I may be wrong (I usually am!) but I have a feeling that the selectors may pull a surprise on Saturday as they did after England's last defeat at Hamilton. Even if Sidebottom is fit they may decide he needs a prolonged rest before the Ashes next summer and bring in Jones instead (for Pattinson). Although the consensus seems to be that the batters are safe I wouldn't be surpised if one of them is sacrificed a la Admiral Byng pour encourager les autres.

If this were the case my candidate would be Strauss, unfair though it would be, with Vaughan opening with Cook again and either Mark Butcher (after a 3 1/2-year absence) or Key coming in at 3. If Collingwood can be ditched so can Strauss. I notice that when Vaughan went off the field at Headingley, KP, not Strauss, took over the captaincy which may not be of any significance but may imply Strauss is expendable.

Butcher is yesterday's man. Strauss is safe too - and so he should be.

I could also do without further selection "surprises" - they seldom work.

The only slight difference being that one has averaged close to 60 in his last 8 tests, the other closer to 30........

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:
So Dan, which of those were the good bowlers?

Of whom were good bowlers?

Fudging?

Bothered to read back, though I don't know why - your one-liners are boring in their 'derision similarity'. Dominic Cork was a good bowler. He played too much with injuries though.

Brass Monkey wrote:Bothered to read back, though I don't know why - your one-liners are boring in their 'derision similarity'. Dominic Cork was a good bowler. He played too much with injuries though.

At least they are quick to read.

He was reasonable I suppose.

Yeah, they are.

I'd take the '95 Cork over many a bowler today.

Brass Monkey wrote:Yeah, they are.

I'd take the '95 Cork over many a bowler today.

Yep, but was injury prone as you said.

True. Just like every other:

Fraser, Gough, Caddick, Headley, Creg Whiite(who was good for a two-year period).

Shambles.