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

Shoeshine wrote:

filosofee wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:Collingwood can't do it every time.

Vaughan on TMS earlier today did say he felt a drawn series was actually fairer, since SA had a better rub in two previous Tests. But no doubt this series has been a fantastic battle and great commercial for Test cricket.

Well, given England are getting a hiding in this Test, I doubt anyone could disagree that South Africa deserve (at least) a draw.

If England somehow smack them round the park tomorrow for a KP/Collingwood 250 run partnership, that might change, but it's spectacularly unlikely as things stand.

Yup, fair call that. And given we're a middling side at the moment facing a side supposedly vying for the 'best test side in the world' title - we'd have taken it before hand.

They'll just have to hold their hands up and admit this test has been a horror show and will more than likely be proven to have been lost in the first 4 hours of the game.

Forget poor decisions IMO, we haven't played well enough to deserve any luck.

furriner wrote:Just saw the scores.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Thank you.

Fark orf Horrie, don't mock the afflicted...

beamer wrote:

The number 3 question is still very much open, even though that final Ashes Test made people think it was solved. Remember even Bopara got centuries there at first... I suspect they will go back to Bell at some stage but I'm starting to think the way forward is to get another opener established and let Strauss take on that responsibility.

Just as a ton doesn't mean Trott has made it, a couple of failures shouldn't mean the opposite imo.

What's telling is that both KP & Strauss have had poor series and since they're our leading batsmen we've done well not to be losing the series you would think.

On the "positive" side, at least it's a healthy dose of realism for England to end the tour on and everyone will stop bumming themselves over what a f*cking brilliant side they are because they've hung on grimly for a draw twice.

Andy Flower seemed to have a proper sense of perspective during his interview with Sky yesterday when he lamented the fact that England's batsmen don't score heavily enough, often enough. Seems a sensible chap.

JKLever wrote:

beamer wrote:

The number 3 question is still very much open, even though that final Ashes Test made people think it was solved. Remember even Bopara got centuries there at first... I suspect they will go back to Bell at some stage but I'm starting to think the way forward is to get another opener established and let Strauss take on that responsibility.

Just as a ton doesn't mean Trott has made it, a couple of failures shouldn't mean the opposite imo.

What's telling is that both KP & Strauss have had poor series and since they're our leading batsmen we've done well not to be losing the series you would think.

Tough on Trott, being handed the hospital pass of a problem batting position that he doesn't play in for his county, with just one Test under his belt.

He looks a solid number five to me.

I'm still advocating a dressing room sit in a la Pakistan at the Oval.

We might well win the series for 2 years before it gets declared a draw. Result.

Innings defeat, I reckon.

Moral victory, of course, as the umpires have screwed us...

JKLever wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

filosofee wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:Collingwood can't do it every time.

Vaughan on TMS earlier today did say he felt a drawn series was actually fairer, since SA had a better rub in two previous Tests. But no doubt this series has been a fantastic battle and great commercial for Test cricket.

Well, given England are getting a hiding in this Test, I doubt anyone could disagree that South Africa deserve (at least) a draw.

If England somehow smack them round the park tomorrow for a KP/Collingwood 250 run partnership, that might change, but it's spectacularly unlikely as things stand.

Yup, fair call that. And given we're a middling side at the moment facing a side supposedly vying for the 'best test side in the world' title - we'd have taken it before hand.

I would have wrenched someone's arm off their body if offered 1-1 at the start. Bit disappointing we crumbled here though.

Dello wrote:On the "positive" side, at least it's a healthy dose of realism for England to end the tour on and everyone will stop bumming themselves over what a f*cking brilliant side they are because they've hung on grimly for a draw twice.

Andy Flower seemed to have a proper sense of perspective during his interview with Sky yesterday when he lamented the fact that England's batsmen don't score heavily enough, often enough. Seems a sensible chap.

Does anyone really think England are a brilliant side? If they do, they deserve to have their fantasy shattered.

What I'm disappointed about in this Test is that it's the same old fragility that's been exposed. I can take them being outclassed, that's not an issue, but the way they fought in this series was very pleasing. A side that were becoming hard to beat, and showing some progress given their resources. We know all about the shortcomings, but I was (naiively perhaps) hoping the self-inflicted streak might be less prevalent. I mean, we know South Africa are a strong side, quite why England insist on helping them out with idiotic shots from the top order is hard to take.

Henry wrote:So hang on a minute. Tony Hill gave a batsman out caught behind off the glove, the batsman asked for a review and Harper overturned the decision, and yet replays suggest the ball DID hit the glove?

Ooooooohhhhh deeeear.

Were you watching at the time? Took quite a while for TV to come up with what they did. Should a game be held up for 10 minutes? 20 minutes? Half an hour? So every frame can be forensically analysed? Harper had to make a decision, and did, this one on what was available to him. The ICC needs to be held accountable for not ensuring he had access to a quality picture, and broadcasters, once the decision has been reached by the third ump, shouldn't keep going over it in ever-increasing detail until they find the possibility that it was wrong.

And why are none of the Ingerlanders on here invoking the name of the Belf? Cometh the hour, cometh the man. His time in the middle in this innings, whenever it comes, will be vital.

Zat wrote:

Henry wrote:So hang on a minute. Tony Hill gave a batsman out caught behind off the glove, the batsman asked for a review and Harper overturned the decision, and yet replays suggest the ball DID hit the glove?

Ooooooohhhhh deeeear.

Were you watching at the time? Took quite a while for TV to come up with what they did. Should a game be held up for 10 minutes? 20 minutes? Half an hour? So every frame can be forensically analysed? Harper had to make a decision, and did, this one on what was available to him. The ICC needs to be held accountable for not ensuring he had access to a quality picture, and broadcasters, once the decision has been reached by the third ump, shouldn't keep going over it in ever-increasing detail until they find the possibility that it was wrong.

Well, there's an issue that there was no reason to overturn the decision of course, and in that sense it wasn't a great piece of work from Harper. Though in my case I'd refer the honourable gentleman to the rather mild comments I made earlier on the subject.

And I still find it utterly stunning he has no HD feed, I really do.

Shoeshine wrote:

Zat wrote:

Henry wrote:So hang on a minute. Tony Hill gave a batsman out caught behind off the glove, the batsman asked for a review and Harper overturned the decision, and yet replays suggest the ball DID hit the glove?

Ooooooohhhhh deeeear.

Were you watching at the time? Took quite a while for TV to come up with what they did. Should a game be held up for 10 minutes? 20 minutes? Half an hour? So every frame can be forensically analysed? Harper had to make a decision, and did, this one on what was available to him. The ICC needs to be held accountable for not ensuring he had access to a quality picture, and broadcasters, once the decision has been reached by the third ump, shouldn't keep going over it in ever-increasing detail until they find the possibility that it was wrong.

Well, there's an issue that there was no reason to overturn the decision of course, and in that sense it wasn't a great piece of work from Harper. Though in my case I'd refer the honourable gentleman to the rather mild comments I made earlier on the subject.

And I still find it utterly stunning he has no HD feed, I really do.

Just shows how expensive Sky HD is, when even the ICC can't afford it.

Zat wrote:And why are none of the Ingerlanders on here invoking the name of the Belf? Cometh the hour, cometh the man. His time in the middle in this innings, whenever it comes, will be vital.

... It tolls for thee.

Well at least we have killed off the notion that Trott would get in the SA team

Can England nick this one to go two up?

Ton from SId ...

Dello wrote:Tough on Trott, being handed the hospital pass of a problem batting position that he doesn't play in for his county, with just one Test under his belt.

He looks a solid number five to me.

Obviously too soon to write him off as a Test player, as he looked born to play at this level at the Oval, although players making their debuts close to 30 don't exactly have the best track record of establishing themselves.

I've said it many times though, if you don't have a world-class specialist number 3 then you play 3 openers.

Do we have 3 openers?

taipan wrote:Well at least we have killed off the notion that Trott would get in the SA team

That was mudge.

beamer wrote:

Dello wrote:Tough on Trott, being handed the hospital pass of a problem batting position that he doesn't play in for his county, with just one Test under his belt.

He looks a solid number five to me.

Obviously too soon to write him off as a Test player, as he looked born to play at this level at the Oval, although players making their debuts close to 30 don't exactly have the best track record of establishing themselves.

I've said it many times though, if you don't have a world-class specialist number 3 then you play 3 openers.

Before the tour I was saying Carbs at three was the way to go - Trott at five.

But that would have meant giving Colly the old heave ho (as I was up for five bowlers too), and he's rather shat on that idea with the way he's played this series.

taipan wrote:Well at least we have killed off the notion that Trott would get in the SA team

Would have been more use to you than Prince or Duminy.

JKLever wrote:

taipan wrote:Well at least we have killed off the notion that Trott would get in the SA team

That was mudge.

Oh, that mudge. The Aussie fan

Dello wrote:

taipan wrote:Well at least we have killed off the notion that Trott would get in the SA team

Would have been more use to you than Prince or Duminy.

At but at least they are decent fielders

Dello wrote:

taipan wrote:Well at least we have killed off the notion that Trott would get in the SA team

Would have been more use to you than Prince or Duminy.

Yeah, when you think about it the Yarpies have one opener, a number 6 who's contributing little, and only two bowlers. And they're still contenders for the number 1 ranking!

Everyone's pretty crap at the moment in Test cricket, it's just a question of who's the least crap...

beamer wrote:

Dello wrote:

taipan wrote:Well at least we have killed off the notion that Trott would get in the SA team

Would have been more use to you than Prince or Duminy.

Yeah, when you think about it the Yarpies have one opener, a number 6 who's contributing little, and only two bowlers. And they're still contenders for the number 1 ranking!

Everyone's pretty crap at the moment in Test cricket, it's just a question of who's the least crap...

Well, it isn't us...