South Africa v England, 5th ODI, Durban, Dec 4

Tie or a wash-out and England win the series. Oh, and also if England win, but that's obviously the least likely scenario.

What's the deal with 5 day breaks between ODI's here in this series, and yet in India, New Zealand, and Australia, they're starting test matches 4 days after the last one was scheduled to finish.

The ICC strikes again.

Don't know. Perhaps the ECB finally listened to the players and negotiated a touring itinerary that allowed them a bit of recovery time.

Probably not, though...

it gives the english players plenty of time to visit family . . .

Ha bloody ha.

Two words for you mate:

Kepler Wessels.

as if I give a shit if the poms have some saffie connection, petey . . . if it pisses the saffies off more power to the lads

Dello wrote:Don't know. Perhaps the ECB finally listened to the players and negotiated a touring itinerary that allowed them a bit of recovery time.

Probably not, though...

And fair play to South Africa for agreeing to the schedule.

But 5 days between ODI's is a bit much. 3 days would be ideal, imo.

It's about the spectators

I would have thought it was because they have day/nighters on Friday, giving people who are working to see most of the game and they don't have to worry about school/work the next day. Sundays are day games to maximise crowds. Or is that too logical?

I notice that Arthur commented that losing on the Sundays, as they've done both times, means that they have to put up with a week on trenchant criticism in the press.

BTW Henry, losing the toss at Cape Town probably condemned England to a loss but it doesn't explain why they had to concede 350+. Both teams have been dogged by wildly fluctuating form.

Red wrote:I would have thought it was because they have day/nighters on Friday, giving people who are working to see most of the game and they don't have to worry about school/work the next day. Sundays are day games to maximise crowds. Or is that too logical?

I

Well since I had already said it, it is for once logical.

tac wrote:as if I give a shit if the poms have some saffie connection, petey . . . if it pisses the saffies off more power to the lads

And let's face it - if you were South African, you'd be pretty desperate to be English as well.

Shoeshine wrote:

tac wrote:as if I give a shit if the poms have some saffie connection, petey . . . if it pisses the saffies off more power to the lads

And let's face it - if you were South African, you'd be pretty desperate to be English as well.

Yeah, I would save a fortune on soap.

You would get some decent jokes though. Swings and roundabouts....

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

tac wrote:as if I give a shit if the poms have some saffie connection, petey . . . if it pisses the saffies off more power to the lads

And let's face it - if you were South African, you'd be pretty desperate to be English as well.

Yeah, I would save a fortune on soap.

Good point. Those of us over here don't tend to regard it as a luxury good though.

Shoeshine wrote:

tac wrote:as if I give a shit if the poms have some saffie connection, petey . . . if it pisses the saffies off more power to the lads

And let's face it - if you were South African, you'd be pretty desperate to be English as well.

Or at least Norman . . .

tac wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

tac wrote:as if I give a shit if the poms have some saffie connection, petey . . . if it pisses the saffies off more power to the lads

And let's face it - if you were South African, you'd be pretty desperate to be English as well.

Or at least Norman . . .

We're merely Germans with the ability to swim old chap. You're merely Germans with the lack of ability not to get caught.

We ???
We ????

Think you mean the "Royle" family specifically re. german blood, doncha?
Well, if you lump in Greeks, Germans, Russians and the occasional Saxon (in Di's case) ...

Merlin wrote:We ???
We ????

Think you mean the "Royle" family specifically re. german blood, doncha?
Well, if you lump in Greeks, Germans, Russians and the occasional Saxon (in Di's case) ...

I meant the Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans....all Germanic. What language-group did you think we were speaking?

Boers.

More specifically, boerewors.

Shoeshine wrote:

I meant the Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans....all Germanic. What language-group did you think we were speaking?

Sorry ... for a moment the "soap on a rope" reference did for me ... I thought Swahili ... and you??

PeterCS wrote:Boers.

How ironic that they'd have a name that is a homophone for a characteristic..

Shoeshine wrote:

Merlin wrote:We ???
We ????

Think you mean the "Royle" family specifically re. german blood, doncha?
Well, if you lump in Greeks, Germans, Russians and the occasional Saxon (in Di's case) ...

I meant the Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans....all Germanic. What language-group did you think we were speaking?

The Normans were originally germanic, but Norman the language isn't germanic . . .

Merlin wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

I meant the Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans....all Germanic. What language-group did you think we were speaking?

Sorry ... for a moment the "soap on a rope" reference did for me ... I thought Swahili ... and you??

In my case, it's a little known dialect called "Uttabolax".