South Africa v England, 4th Test, Jo’burg, Jan 14-18

But don't get me wrong, we don't need to go back-slapping ourselves for getting out of jail in those games - there was some ridic crap about how the Aussies wont cope with us from Spanky McSpank

JKLever wrote:But don't get me wrong, we don't need to go back-slapping ourselves for getting out of jail in those games - there was some ridic crap about how the Aussies wont cope with us from Spanky McSpank

And indeed from Scyld Berry, which is most surprising.

Shoeshine wrote:And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a waggon. Life's all about ifs. Were we football World Champions in 1990 because we deserved to beat Germany in the semi? No. Did we draw the series in India when it chucked down the final day denying us a win? No. Are we rugby World Champions because that try could have been given? No. How about the South Africa series victory in England last year? They hardly deserved that either. What on earth do you want? For England to win or lose every game by an innings? Why even bother with the draw if that's the way you feel, just award South Africa the Tests because they nearly bowled us out.

**hand in mouth shape mocking the chatter**

No need to be so banal matey. There're draws where you can say "shit Test match pitch" and there're draws where you can say "Shitty performance, lucky qunts".

We've veered towards the latter three times in the last six months, if you're comfortable with that, fine, but I'm not. All your reasoning is fair dues, but three more wickets and things would be looking a lot less rosy than they are now - not one of you would've been so staunch in your castigation of my viewpoint.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a waggon. Life's all about ifs. Were we football World Champions in 1990 because we deserved to beat Germany in the semi? No. Did we draw the series in India when it chucked down the final day denying us a win? No. Are we rugby World Champions because that try could have been given? No. How about the South Africa series victory in England last year? They hardly deserved that either. What on earth do you want? For England to win or lose every game by an innings? Why even bother with the draw if that's the way you feel, just award South Africa the Tests because they nearly bowled us out.

**hand in mouth shape mocking the chatter**

No need to be so banal matey. There're draws where you can say "shit Test match pitch" and there're draws where you can say "Shitty performance, lucky qunts".

We've veered towards the latter three times in the last six months, if you're comfortable with that, fine, but I'm not. All your reasoning is fair dues, but three more wickets and things would be looking a lot less rosy than they are now - not one of you would've been so staunch in your castigation of my viewpoint.

What I'm comfortable with is that those are three matches England would have lost not so long ago. That England aren't the best team in the world able to carry all before them is no shock to anyone. That this England team show real fight and manage to escape in difficult circumstances absolutely is something to be pleased about, because it's progress. I don't know what you expect from them, I really don't. They're clearly not the new Australia, circa 2000, they're a hardworking team who is continuing to improve. I get the feeling that you'd almost prefer it if they rolled over and surrendered when they were struggling in a match.

Shoeshine wrote:

JKLever wrote:But don't get me wrong, we don't need to go back-slapping ourselves for getting out of jail in those games - there was some ridic crap about how the Aussies wont cope with us from Spanky McSpank

And indeed from Scyld Berry, which is most surprising.

Scyld Berry does sometimes visit cuckoos nests and comes away with some wierd reflections.
Spanky is just a permanent idiot.

That this England team show real fight and manage to escape in difficult circumstances absolutely is something to be pleased about, ....

That's about the crux of it.
Not to mention the demoralising effect on opposition who must wonder HTF they're going to poach 20 wickets to win a game! They've now had it done to them - not once - but twice - and in their own back yard!

Another thing - England aren't showing any complacency - even post Cape Town, Strauss was emphasising that, legend as he was, he did not expect Onions to have to once more save a test match as that responsibility lay squarely with the top 7 batsman. That said, one therefore has to acknowledge the Saffers perseverence throughout the 141 overs .... which, in most books, makes England's efforts all the more praiseworthy.

But as Johnners would have said - check the record books.
Right now, it's 1 - 0 England going into the last test!

Shoeshine wrote:What I'm comfortable with is that those are three matches England would have lost not so long ago. That England aren't the best team in the world able to carry all before them is no shock to anyone. That this England team show real fight and manage to escape in difficult circumstances absolutely is something to be pleased about, because it's progress. I don't know what you expect from them, I really don't. They're clearly not the new Australia, circa 2000, they're a hardworking team who is continuing to improve. I get the feeling that you'd almost prefer it if they rolled over and surrendered when they were struggling in a match.

I don't know what I'd prefer.

Maybe I'd prefer that someone can be guaranteed for runs. I thought we had a couple but Strauss has just started throwing the bat and KP continues to do so (don't say even Bradman couldn't be counted for runs every visit, you know exactly what I'm on about)

Maybe I'd prefer we had a bowler that can be trusted even for a spell.

We've neither, we're shit, it's all well and good saying we wouldn't have drawn those matches - that we're showing more fight - wouldn't we have drawn? OK, Onions is a newbie, otherwise it's the old hands or the shitter batsman (Colly, Monty). OK, Bell showed some najjers for a while and there's the main difference.

It's immaterial I suppose, my problem is that were we to play in that manner against a genuinely good side then we'd be f*cked. As there's not one of those around we're smash-and-grabbing like a scouser in a flood evacuation.

A genuinely good side? So neither South Africa nor Australia are?

I can tell you one thing, you're in for a very, very frustrating life if this is how you think.

Brass Monkey wrote: As there's not one of those around we're smash-and-grabbing like a scouser in a flood evacuation.

Shoeshine wrote:A genuinely good side? So neither South Africa nor Australia are?

I can tell you one thing, you're in for a very, very frustrating life if this is how you think.

Good probably wasn't the best noun - I CGAF anyway, keep your zesty joyfulness at England's 'performances'. For me, they only serve to paper over the cracks. They only serve to vindicate some mediocre selections. 'Alls well in our camp'. Until some team who play consistantly 'better than good' cricket arrive. Then we're f*cked.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:A genuinely good side? So neither South Africa nor Australia are?

I can tell you one thing, you're in for a very, very frustrating life if this is how you think.

Good probably wasn't the best noun - I CGAF anyway, keep your zesty joyfulness at England's 'performances'. For me, they only serve to paper over the cracks. They only serve to vindicate some mediocre selections. 'Alls well in our camp'. Until some team who play consistantly 'better than good' cricket arrive. Then we're f*cked.

That's because England aren't a brilliant side. You see, if I thought they were - if everyone else thought they were, I'd absolutely be able to see your point. But all I see is a limited but slowly improving England side performing as well as we've a right to expect them to right now - in fact possibly more so. When some team who play "better than good" cricket arrive, they'll be the best team in the world. It's an odd way to look at it when the sides around the world are much of a muchness.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:A genuinely good side? So neither South Africa nor Australia are?

I can tell you one thing, you're in for a very, very frustrating life if this is how you think.

Good probably wasn't the best noun - I CGAF anyway, keep your zesty joyfulness at England's 'performances'. For me, they only serve to paper over the cracks. They only serve to vindicate some mediocre selections. 'Alls well in our camp'. Until some team who play consistantly 'better than good' cricket arrive. Then we're f*cked.

Munk-eh, I'll tell you summat, I'd feel more comfortable cheering a side that's 'papering over the cracks' like England is, as you put it, than one that's 'papering over the cracks' like Australia is at present. I have feeling that for Australia, there's a bloody great fall coming because there's two-fifths of five-eights of sod-all holding up the top of the tree. I suspect that there are plenty of people involved in Eng Cricket still stinging from the last Ashes Down Under debacle, with some pretty good motivation to do better...

Shoeshine wrote:That's because England aren't a brilliant side. You see, if I thought they were - if everyone else thought they were, I'd absolutely be able to see your point. But all I see is a limited but slowly improving England side performing as well as we've a right to expect them to right now - in fact possibly more so. When some team who play "better than good" cricket arrive, they'll be the best team in the world. It's an odd way to look at it when the sides around the world are much of a muchness.

No, you're totally right. We're an amazing team by proxy that the other teams are just as shit. Personally, I see a better capacity for one of India, Australia or South Africa to grow into one of the sides I've mentioned and the fact we're happy with our lot suggests there's nobody who can replace any of these players in the team to make it better. We're just the plucky little spastics who're trying hard and are mostly abject. They should get medals.

Zat wrote:
Munk-eh, I'll tell you summat, I'd feel more comfortable cheering a side that's 'papering over the cracks' like England is, as you put it, than one that's 'papering over the cracks' like Australia is at present. I have feeling that for Australia, there's a bloody great fall coming because there's two-fifths of five-eights of sod-all holding up the top of the tree. I suspect that there are plenty of people involved in Eng Cricket still stinging from the last Ashes Down Under debacle, with some pretty good motivation to do better...

Yet most of your batsmen average over 50 and most of your bowlers under 30 - you reach milestones etc. etc.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:That's because England aren't a brilliant side. You see, if I thought they were - if everyone else thought they were, I'd absolutely be able to see your point. But all I see is a limited but slowly improving England side performing as well as we've a right to expect them to right now - in fact possibly more so. When some team who play "better than good" cricket arrive, they'll be the best team in the world. It's an odd way to look at it when the sides around the world are much of a muchness.

No, you're totally right. We're an amazing team by proxy that the other teams are just as shit. Personally, I see a better capacity for one of India, Australia or South Africa to grow into one of the sides I've mentioned and the fact we're happy with our lot suggests there's nobody who can replace any of these players in the team to make it better. We're just the plucky little spastics who're trying hard and are mostly abject. They should get medals.

What on earth are you on about? Where has anyone remotely said anything along those lines?

Monty has arrived to give the boys a bit of training in how to run and catch like a big girl...



Hmmm, seems like the lads are getting the hang of this...

Monty for 12th man and the winning run-out Fredalo-style?

An arrow throw from six inches?

beamer wrote:Monty for 12th man and the winning run-out Fredalo-style?

Only if he's Ponting in that scenario.

With his pudding arm? LOL.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Zat wrote:
Munk-eh, I'll tell you summat, I'd feel more comfortable cheering a side that's 'papering over the cracks' like England is, as you put it, than one that's 'papering over the cracks' like Australia is at present. I have feeling that for Australia, there's a bloody great fall coming because there's two-fifths of five-eights of sod-all holding up the top of the tree. I suspect that there are plenty of people involved in Eng Cricket still stinging from the last Ashes Down Under debacle, with some pretty good motivation to do better...

Yet most of your batsmen average over 50 and most of your bowlers under 30 - you reach milestones etc. etc.

I totally agree with your argument BM; but we have only two batsmen who average over 50 - that would be Hussey and Ponting - and England has none, although altogether both teams' averages are similar. We have two (North and Haddin) who average in the 30s, while all yours average in the 40s. (I looked this up t'other day in the interests of sounding as though I know even one thing about Test cricket, hehe.)
Unless I looked in the wrong place...

Your point though remains the same - and zat, what happened to us, when we wuz in England, all stinging from our last Eng Ashes defeat? We lost, that's what.
It augurs well.

Shoeshine wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a waggon. Life's all about ifs. Were we football World Champions in 1990 because we deserved to beat Germany in the semi? No. Did we draw the series in India when it chucked down the final day denying us a win? No. Are we rugby World Champions because that try could have been given? No. How about the South Africa series victory in England last year? They hardly deserved that either. What on earth do you want? For England to win or lose every game by an innings? Why even bother with the draw if that's the way you feel, just award South Africa the Tests because they nearly bowled us out.

We've veered towards the latter three times in the last six months, if you're comfortable with that, fine, but I'm not. All your reasoning is fair dues, but three more wickets and things would be looking a lot less rosy than they are now - not one of you would've been so staunch in your castigation of my viewpoint.

What I'm comfortable with is that those are three matches England would have lost not so long ago. That England aren't the best team in the world able to carry all before them is no shock to anyone. That this England team show real fight and manage to escape in difficult circumstances absolutely is something to be pleased about, because it's progress. I don't know what you expect from them, I really don't. They're clearly not the new Australia, circa 2000, they're a hardworking team who is continuing to improve. I get the feeling that you'd almost prefer it if they rolled over and surrendered when they were struggling in a match.

The person who will be most happy is Strauss. That could have been three more losses on his captaincy ledger. He should be thanking the resilience of his batsmen. SA has been a bit unlucky in that it didn't have a fit and firing Steyn for the first two tests and probably hasn't had the more bowler-friendly conditions to bowl in but basically just has to bemoan the fact that it can't deliver the knockout punch through a combination of English grit and a lack of a third seamer and a spinner.

taipan wrote:No comment Smerky?

I might make some nonsensical remarks, but I don't bull-sh!t. Just read it as I saw it.

[quote="Red"]

Shoeshine wrote:

The person who will be most happy is Strauss. That could have been three more losses on his captaincy ledger. He should be thanking the resilience of his batsmen. SA has been a bit unlucky in that it didn't have a fit and firing Steyn for the first two tests and probably hasn't had the more bowler-friendly conditions to bowl in but basically just has to bemoan the fact that it can't deliver the knockout punch through a combination of English grit and a lack of a third seamer and a spinner.

That's the whole gist of the discussion on the last 3 pages - England's new found resilience.
But do please get yer facts right ...... Steyn played in the 2nd test at Durban ..scored 47 and 3 and took 2/94.
Presumably he was 100 pct fit and firing or else he would not have been selected.
.... and btw the Saffers LOST that test.

So you are implying ...what exactly?

Merlin wrote:

Red wrote:

The person who will be most happy is Strauss. That could have been three more losses on his captaincy ledger. He should be thanking the resilience of his batsmen. SA has been a bit unlucky in that it didn't have a fit and firing Steyn for the first two tests and probably hasn't had the more bowler-friendly conditions to bowl in but basically just has to bemoan the fact that it can't deliver the knockout punch through a combination of English grit and a lack of a third seamer and a spinner.

That's the whole gist of the discussion on the last 3 pages - England's new found resilience.
But do please get yer facts right ...... Steyn played in the 2nd test at Durban ..scored 47 and 3 and took 2/94.
Presumably he was 100 pct fit and firing or else he would not have been selected.
.... and btw the Saffers LOST that test.

So you are implying ...what exactly?

Red is implying that she has nice tits