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

Red's been fishing...

Spoiler:

[quote="Merlin"][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?[/quote]

I'm implying that it usually takes him a test or so to warm up after injury. He took a slight hammy concern into the Perth test last year and never hit top pace. After a game under his belt and more confidence in his leg he took ten wickets, made 76 and bagged the MOTM award for Melbourne.

I repeat, I think the poms were a tad lucky that he wasn't fit for Centurion and was undercooked in Durban. In Centurion it is doubtful if Swann and Anderson could have put on a ton with him bowling at his best. Ntini's pies certainly helped matters.

Unless the speedo at Durban was crocked (rather than Steyn) - he was clocking 90 mph+ with alarming regularity for a bowler who "takes a test or so to warm upafter injury".
BTW - temperatures in Durban registered 30C plus ...so no worries there either!
Warm enough?!

In Centurion it is doubtful if Swann and Anderson could have put on a ton with him bowling at his best.

Hypothetical at best ... like saying if Swann hadn't dropped Sniff second ball, first dig at Cape Town, Jacquie would have been exposed early before he'd digested his egg, bacon, black pudding, baked bean and 6 rashers of toast brekky ... (and thus most prolly would've nicked out) thus not getting his Saffer innings redeeming ton... which could have resulted in the Saffers whipped out for under 150 ... and therefore ultimately losing the CT test ...

Get the drift ?

I do get the drift but IIRC, Steyn only started clocking high speeds in his bowling in towards the end of the innings. I was watching his speeds closely in his early spells and he seemed to be hovering mainly around the 130ks. Both he and Kallis seemed to crank it up early on day four after the very tiring day in the field on day three when it was hot and they were contending with a fierce wind. Undoubtedly his spell towards the end of the innings carried over into his third test form.

Wouldn't you think he would have more challenging prospect in Centurion than either pie-chucking Ntini or debutant de Wet?

Maybe - but like I said - hypothetical.
The game is stacked with ifs and buts and maybes ... what matters happens on the field.
Steyn didn't play - full stop.

Who's to say that, had he played at Centurion, he wouldn't have broken down for the rest of the series, thus exposing the Saffers to more chaos and a severely restricted strike force (now that de Wet is also crocked) ?

True. My basic point though was that England has probably been a tad lucky in that it faced a Steynless SA first up, a unit working its way back to form in Durban and an attack hampered by de Wet's injury in Cape Town. But that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Yep ... and whilst luck might play its part, let's not forget the resillience the England batsmen showed in denying the Saffers their anticipated victories.

Credit where it's due.

Red wrote:True. My basic point though was that England has probably been a tad lucky in that it faced a Steynless SA first up, a unit working its way back to form in Durban and an attack hampered by de Wet's injury in Cape Town. But that's the way the cookie crumbles.

On the same basis, South Africa are extremely lucky to be facing a Pietersen working his way back from injury and trying to find some form. Or does this only work one way?

Shoeshine wrote:

Red wrote:True. My basic point though was that England has probably been a tad lucky in that it faced a Steynless SA first up, a unit working its way back to form in Durban and an attack hampered by de Wet's injury in Cape Town. But that's the way the cookie crumbles.

On the same basis, South Africa are extremely lucky to be facing a Pietersen working his way back from injury and trying to find some form. Or does this only work one way?

No, it's a reasonable assertion but KP's form slump has gone on for most of the past year and he did (according to most of the critics) look like he was nearing his best with the 81 in Centurion. The jury's out as to whether his relative lack of runs is part of a recent malaise that includes a technical flaw, i.e. a tendency to play across the line to full balls which bowlers are now better exploiting or just a temporary blip on his radar due to his recent injury.

You might also argue that Steyn got him out with two pretty good deliveries in Cape Town he would always be vulnerable to early in an innings.

To my mind, KP's played way too expansively. That's his normal modus operandi, fine, but he's only been good attacking when he's had a solid groundbase of recent innings. The fluidity isn't there however much he wants it to be and he's been found playing at balls he shouldn't.

He was injured at the start of the year. His difficulties just became more and more obvious.

Coming back from injury is going to take some time. This particular injury has been said to be the hardest one to come back from for a batsman - those who've had the same problem. He still feels it most mornings apparently.

There are plenty of potential reasons, and it's probably more than one but to deny that it is likely to be a significant part of it is perverse. Otherwise you're simply applying different standards to him than you are to Steyn.

Shoeshine wrote:He was injured at the start of the year. His difficulties just became more and more obvious.

Coming back from injury is going to take some time. This particular injury has been said to be the hardest one to come back from for a batsman - those who've had the same problem. He still feels it most mornings apparently.

There are plenty of potential reasons, and it's probably more than one but to deny that it is likely to be a significant part of it is perverse. Otherwise you're simply applying different standards to him than you are to Steyn.

Agreed that it would take time to come back to form from that type of injury, but it doesn't mean he has to slash at everything. He's excepted from the last Test, they were quality balls IIRC.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:He was injured at the start of the year. His difficulties just became more and more obvious.

Coming back from injury is going to take some time. This particular injury has been said to be the hardest one to come back from for a batsman - those who've had the same problem. He still feels it most mornings apparently.

There are plenty of potential reasons, and it's probably more than one but to deny that it is likely to be a significant part of it is perverse. Otherwise you're simply applying different standards to him than you are to Steyn.

Agreed that it would take time to come back to form from that type of injury, but it doesn't mean he has to slash at everything. He's excepted from the last Test, they were quality balls IIRC.

And you can't blame the injury for the run out

taipan wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:He was injured at the start of the year. His difficulties just became more and more obvious.

Coming back from injury is going to take some time. This particular injury has been said to be the hardest one to come back from for a batsman - those who've had the same problem. He still feels it most mornings apparently.

There are plenty of potential reasons, and it's probably more than one but to deny that it is likely to be a significant part of it is perverse. Otherwise you're simply applying different standards to him than you are to Steyn.

Agreed that it would take time to come back to form from that type of injury, but it doesn't mean he has to slash at everything. He's excepted from the last Test, they were quality balls IIRC.

And you can't blame the injury for the run out

Of course not. But I think he's struggling a bit, and the injury is a big part of the foundation of that. He'll come good, we just need to be patient.

Yeah, thinking about it, he's only had 5 innings, been a f*cking headcase running himself out once and got two decent balls. I'm probably being a little hard on him.

KP just needs a decent run and some clear thinking. It's actually been quite good we've won the Ashes and are leading here without any major contributions from him. For a while it was like a one man team, if he failed we failed...

taipan wrote:

And you can't blame the injury for the run out

Unlike cramp, brain-freeze is considered an injury.
It's a form of insanity ... self-harm ... suicidal ... twattish ... so yeah, KP had an excuse.

What I loved about it was he blatantly expected Trott to step out and let him continue!

It was rather pleasing that Trott had the cojones and self-belief to do no such thing.

Oh yeah, KP's mistake all the way. I thought 'poor bloke' about Trott as I thought he was going to step out. He just didn't! :D

KP did say later that Trott was quite right to stand his ground. Though I'm not sure he had much option but to say that.

He did exactly the same thing with Owais Shah (Shah involved in a run-out? Get out of here...) in a one-dayer against India. Head down, powered to the other end and just kept going. Shah didn't even move.

And Pietersen seemed a bit miffed that Shah didn't sacrifice himself there too. The commentators were fairly scathing about his apparent arrogance in the entire scene, starting with setting off for a run that was never, ever there and that the non-striker had not even the slightest prayer of making.

As it happened, Shah went on to score a hundred IIRC. And when asked afterwards whether he considered throwing himself under the bus to save Pietersen (who was on about 50 at the time), he was pretty unequivocal: "No chance."

You'd actually be a bit worried about a batsman (as opposed to a tailender) who was prepared to sacrifice himself. It'd be a pretty clear way of demonstrating a lack of confidence in his own ability.

Don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere- but does anyone know who punched Swann on the 1999/2000 tour to South Africa?

Rachel wrote:Don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere- but does anyone know who punched Swann on the 1999/2000 tour to South Africa?

The most likely answer I've seen is Darren Gough.