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

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?

Don't know, but I read the other day that he, Tuffers and Dean Headley were Christened The Fun Boy Three on the tour as they allegedly spent the whole time together, propping up bars all over South Africa.

It's not inconceivable that Swanny took a facial from some random bar-dweller, sick of the sight of those two jaunty Englishmen and a coloured.

Or just fell over.

Can't imagine Tufnell taking a swing at him - can't imagine he'd even be physically capable of throwing a punch.

Who knows? Wait for the autobiography...

No, it was meant to be an England player, and a bowler.

Tufnell, Headley, Gough, Caddick.....who else?

Alex Tudor was on tour, I think.

Not that he would have punched anyone as, aside from being a soft as a lamb, he'd have broken every bone in his hand and torn an abductor muscle.

Gavin Hamilton, perhaps? You know the Scoch - get a bit of booze in 'em, take the piss out of their pair on debut, before you can say "hoots mon", you're wearing a bunch of fives.

Bit of a stretch calling him a bowler, mind...

If it was meant to be a bowler, then Goughie is the man most likely.

Swann's chin would be difficult to miss...any bigger that deformity and he could make a quid hiring it out as a billboard

Going to a club bash in Feb where Deano is the guest "speaker" .... (yeah yeah ... I too went all when I was told !!)
Deano an after dinner speaker ..... FFS
Might try and extract the 'facts' with the help of a few tequilla shots.
Tuffers is and always has been tight lipped about the melee.

horace wrote:Swann's chin would be difficult to miss...any bigger that deformity and he could make a quid hiring it out as a billboard

Inversely proportional to the Drunks brain - which wouldn't make the cut in a Bird's Eye pea sorting shed on size alone, eh!

Dello wrote:Alex Tudor was on tour, I think.

Not that he would have punched anyone as, aside from being a soft as a lamb, he'd have broken every bone in his hand and torn an abductor muscle.

Gavin Hamilton, perhaps? You know the Scoch - get a bit of booze in 'em, take the piss out of their pair on debut, before you can say "hoots mon", you're wearing a bunch of fives.

Bit of a stretch calling him a bowler, mind...

Post of the year so far.

Merlin wrote:Going to a club bash in Feb where Deano is the guest "speaker" .... (yeah yeah ... I too went all when I was told !!)
Deano an after dinner speaker ..... FFS
Might try and extract the 'facts' with the help of a few tequilla shots.
Tuffers is and always has been tight lipped about the melee.

I've always thought Headders is actually reasonably articulate.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Merlin wrote:Going to a club bash in Feb where Deano is the guest "speaker" .... (yeah yeah ... I too went all when I was told !!)
Deano an after dinner speaker ..... FFS
Might try and extract the 'facts' with the help of a few tequilla shots.
Tuffers is and always has been tight lipped about the melee.

I've always thought Headders is actually reasonably articulate.

He's from the Midlands though. They all sounds stupid even if they're not.

Could have been worse. It could have been the Victorian 'Deano'. There are groups that hire him to save on dessert. Because some people kill themselves when he's speaking.

Shoeshine wrote:
He's from the Midlands though. They all sounds stupid even if they're not.

True. There's that drawl going on. Still, he's got it in his eyes. You can tell.

Zat wrote:Could have been worse. It could have been the Victorian 'Deano'. There are groups that hire him to save on dessert. Because some people kill themselves when he's speaking.

Aye, he was a bag o' wank before that whole 'terrorist' thing. That explanation for his remarks were amongst the most cringeworthy things I've heard.

Brass Monkey wrote:That explanation for his remarks were amongst the most cringeworthy things I've heard.

So you have Bucky on ignore.

His excuse sounded exactly like something f*cky would say, only more apologetic as he thought he could save his job!

Brass Monkey wrote:

Zat wrote:Could have been worse. It could have been the Victorian 'Deano'. There are groups that hire him to save on dessert. Because some people kill themselves when he's speaking.

Aye, he was a bag o' wank before that whole 'terrorist' thing. That explanation for his remarks were amongst the most cringeworthy things I've heard.

You've never heard him talk about his double ton in Madras then...

I have, but I don't know where - I distinctly remember some sort of gushing music in the background. Did he say he couldn't bat on and AB said "That's ok mite, we'll get someone tough... we'll get a Queenslander"?

So this looks like being a result wicket.

As an aside, isn't it curious how this was apparently controversial at the Oval, yet when South Africa do it no-one bats an eyelid - because of course they're going to do that, and no-one expects any different.

Could be a full on shoot-out. Excellent, this looks like being fun. May the best team win. Oh hang on a minute, may England win instead.

I like the way the Saffers are open about it too - the groundsman talking about what the SA board want etc.

Whereas in England we generally get told what we're given regardless - remember the road at the Oval when 1-0 down to India? Or the subcontinent like wicket in the last test again SL at home!!

FWIW, I'd much rather have result pitches than those the WI served up on our tour there provided they don't go too far like the 'oh no we mustn't lose it SA at home' the Injuns rolled out....

300 plays 230 is so much more interesting than 500 v 500

Absolutely. All they're doing is the bleeding obvious, because only a completely inept board would do anything different - such as the ECB for those two matches you mention.

And let's face it, doesn't knowing that a result is pretty certain barring poor weather make the whole thing far more exciting? If England win, then they go home having deserved the series, if South Africa win, then we can hardly complain. Whichever way it goes, this has been an enthralling series and I've loved every minute of it.

JKLever wrote:I like the way the Saffers are open about it too - the groundsman talking about what the SA board want etc.

Whereas in England we generally get told what we're given regardless - remember the road at the Oval when 1-0 down to India? Or the subcontinent like wicket in the last test again SL at home!!

FWIW, I'd much rather have result pitches than those the WI served up on our tour there provided they don't go too far like the 'oh no we mustn't lose it SA at home' the Injuns rolled out....

300 plays 230 is so much more interesting than 500 v 500

Dang straight. Every pitch should be designed to be a result pitch, but as we know, the cricket boards want their guaranteed five days of cricket to maximise revenue, so it's easy-paced roads that "might break up a bit by the fifth day" a-go-go.

Why have I got the England 150 all out on the first day and losing by an innings vibe?

Probably because I've got a depressive personality.

It's called realism.

Touch cloudy over Wanderers way

Spicy pitch and swing?


Plenty of wickets in the offing for the morning session then.