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

Just about to watch the whole craptaculation on the Sky highlights, but from what I've heard so far there's plenty of questions:

1) Why exactly did we choose to bat on a pitch that was always going to favour the seamers? Scared of batting last and/or didn't trust the bowlers, that's all it could be. Put them in first and either you roll them over and get yourselves the advantage, or they get a big score and take time out of the game when you only need a draw.

2) Sidebottom for Onions? Bringing in a bowler who has hardly any overs on tour and to be quite honest has shown little in terms of form and fitness since his spectacular year of re-introduction to international cricket. Onions hadn't done that badly and might have cashed in here and been rewarded for his efforts throughout the series.

3) The no-ball. If it's as blatant as it sounded then the umpire is corrupt rather than just incompetent, and Strauss should have asked his players to leave the field at least until the TV umpire was replaced.

The whole performance was rather predictable, though rain could still save us it's quite possible SA could win within 3 days' playing time.

beamer wrote:

1) Why exactly did we choose to bat on a pitch that was always going to favour the seamers? Scared of batting last and/or didn't trust the bowlers, that's all it could be. Put them in first and either you roll them over and get yourselves the advantage, or they get a big score and take time out of the game when you only need a draw.

Probably expect conditions to be the same throughout and wanted the advantage of bowling last (if they do) given we've clung on in 2 of the 3 games whereas the Saffers folded when we were able to get ourselves in the position to put some pressure on them.

beamer wrote:Just about to watch the whole craptaculation on the Sky highlights, but from what I've heard so far there's plenty of questions:

1) Why exactly did we choose to bat on a pitch that was always going to favour the seamers? Scared of batting last and/or didn't trust the bowlers, that's all it could be. Put them in first and either you roll them over and get yourselves the advantage, or they get a big score and take time out of the game when you only need a draw.

2) Sidebottom for Onions? Bringing in a bowler who has hardly any overs on tour and to be quite honest has shown little in terms of form and fitness since his spectacular year of re-introduction to international cricket. Onions hadn't done that badly and might have cashed in here and been rewarded for his efforts throughout the series.

3) The no-ball. If it's as blatant as it sounded then the umpire is corrupt rather than just incompetent, and Strauss should have asked his players to leave the field at least until the TV umpire was replaced.

1) Captain Cautious probably thought it would look too aggressive for him to put SA in again. Having said that, if England hadn't batted so piss-weakedly, they'd be about 200-4 at the close and maybe then it looks like Strauss made the right call.

2) According to today's Telegprah, Sidebottom was swinging it around corners in the nets, while Onions looked shot. As a sidenote, Pringle mentioned that Sid gave Trott the mother of all working overs in practice, resulting in a "tizzy" from our once-South African hot-head. Given that Trott batted like an absolute prick today, I wonder if his reputation for being all grown up "now" and a not a big baby "anymore" is a bit premature...

3) Not corrupt. Not even incompetent. Just Daryl Harper. He couldn't work the TV umpire's job in the West Indies, and he still can't now. On the flip-side, if he's being a total spastic in front of a TV with every decision spelled out for him in slow-motion, at least he's not out in the middle, doing his total spastic thing.

JKLever wrote:

beamer wrote:

1) Why exactly did we choose to bat on a pitch that was always going to favour the seamers? Scared of batting last and/or didn't trust the bowlers, that's all it could be. Put them in first and either you roll them over and get yourselves the advantage, or they get a big score and take time out of the game when you only need a draw.

Probably expect conditions to be the same throughout and wanted the advantage of bowling last (if they do) given we've clung on in 2 of the 3 games whereas the Saffers folded when we were able to get ourselves in the position to put some pressure on them.

If you bat first and get a low score though, the confidence goes and the chances are the opposition will build a big first innings lead. Just like you want the runs on the board on a batsman's pitch because there's always the chance the opposition will fold in the face of a big total, if it's a low-scoring pitch you want to get the wickets on the board, bowl the other side out cheaply and then the opposition bowlers might fall apart due to having nothing much to defend.

I'm with you but I reckon that's their reasoning.

beamer wrote:

JKLever wrote:

beamer wrote:

1) Why exactly did we choose to bat on a pitch that was always going to favour the seamers? Scared of batting last and/or didn't trust the bowlers, that's all it could be. Put them in first and either you roll them over and get yourselves the advantage, or they get a big score and take time out of the game when you only need a draw.

Probably expect conditions to be the same throughout and wanted the advantage of bowling last (if they do) given we've clung on in 2 of the 3 games whereas the Saffers folded when we were able to get ourselves in the position to put some pressure on them.

If you bat first and get a low score though, the confidence goes and the chances are the opposition will build a big first innings lead. Just like you want the runs on the board on a batsman's pitch because there's always the chance the opposition will fold in the face of a big total, if it's a low-scoring pitch you want to get the wickets on the board, bowl the other side out cheaply and then the opposition bowlers might fall apart due to having nothing much to defend.

Yes, but if you are putting the opposition in because you think you're likely to stuff it up so badly you'll get rolled, then it's time to call it a day. All teams will back themselves to bat properly.

I think the decision to bat first was marginal - but you have to back it up with good execution of plans. It could have been all right but a bit of bad luck (Strauss & Cook) and we have a number 3 & number 4 trying to bat like millionaires when it called for hard graft. Even if Trott had taken an hour to make his 7 and blunted the new ball he'd have done a job for the team - instead him and Pietersen were reckless in the extreme. I still doubt Trott is a Test Class number 3.

Got to shoot South Africa for under 270 to stay in the game from here.

Having seen the no-ball I guess the call was a marginal one given that the foot doesn't have to be grounded behind the line, as the review will only overturn in the case of a blatant error by the on-field umpire then obviously this one went in the case of the bowler. If the bowler had challenged having been denied a certain wicket by such a no-ball call then I suppose the batsman would get the benefit of the on-field decision standing.

The BBC text commentary made it look as if it was 100% clear-cut and Harper had just chosen to ignore it for some reason.

First England total without a fifty since England's opening bid at Headingley last year - 102 (Prior 37*, Cook 30) and we all know how that turned out!

Steyn was freaky good after lunch.

That bit of bowling to dismiss the DependaBelf was magnificent

Just saw the highlights & I thought the Saffies bowled very well, especially Steyn. The pitch is pacy with lots of movement, fast bowlers dream.

God knows what's wrong with Trott, looks totaly out of his depth??

& i thought it was hard on Onions, to missout on a greentop. Thought he bowled quite well in this series.


England to do it the hard way as normal.

Bell again offers the grit that Colly aside the english top order lacks...Steyn is a fine bowler

beamer wrote:3) The no-ball. If it's as blatant as it sounded then the umpire is corrupt rather than just incompetent, and Strauss should have asked his players to leave the field at least until the TV umpire was replaced.

Don't know if the Inzi technique would wash, beamer. here's a screenshot of the delivery stride in the referral.

And there is a part - albeit a really tiny part - of the foot behind the line. It's a legal delivery.

Not like the poms to have a farkin whinge though, is it?

tac wrote:Not like the poms to have a farkin whinge though, is it?

Who would've thought it.

I was tempted to blow the photo up and zoom right in.

Zat wrote:

beamer wrote:3) The no-ball. If it's as blatant as it sounded then the umpire is corrupt rather than just incompetent, and Strauss should have asked his players to leave the field at least until the TV umpire was replaced.

Don't know if the Inzi technique would wash, beamer. here's a screenshot of the delivery stride in the referral.

And there is a part - albeit a really tiny part - of the foot behind the line. It's a legal delivery.

Trouble is Zat, the shot first shown, and which twatface Harper looked at, was the one on the other side, which doesn't show anything behind the line. He never looked at the image you've got above at all and never based his decision on it.

Blame the Normans . . . .

This is the one Harper based his decision on:

That is still very tight to overturn a decision on . . .

Well, there are some people who say the technology should preserve doubt...

tac wrote:Not like the poms to have a farkin whinge though, is it?

*cough* Oval. Minefield. Big sooking *cough*

But the point about the no ball issue is that doubt is not in either direction. The 3rd dickhead (sorry, umpire - except when it's Harper or Ashoka) is told to simply rule on whether it's a legal delivery or not. The whole "overturning the decision" thing doesn't apply, the question is, is it a no ball or not. I think that's a no ball myself - but you may disagree.

As several of us have said, it's one wicket, it's not why England stuffed up, but I was watching and straight away you thought, that's a no ball. Harper looked at that shot I uploaded twice, with the above images the most legal of what was on offer (when did his foot actually land, because the others are even more blatantly over the line), then ignored it and carried on.

Tell you what Shoey, I won't really worry about it.

Until Australia gets dudded by one, then I will start the whole range of histrionics. Deal?

Shoeshine wrote:This is the one Harper based his decision on:

As the reverse side shows, it was a legitimate delievery (just) so regardless Harper got the call right... :arrow: