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

Zat wrote:And from the Croatian Judge?

A vote for Serbia. Just prior to initiating genocide.

That would be a 'five and one half... million dead' then.

My ratings stand up. Both the dross-o-meter and the moral scale.

If your brains are too small to understand then I'm sorry about that.

On a moral scale, how could we ever come off worse than the Australians or South Africans though? They get marked down for being sooks and cheats.

Shoeshine wrote:On a moral scale, how could we ever come off worse than the Australians or South Africans though? They get marked down for being sooks and cheats.

It's all about the hanging on. It's not to do with actual morals or we'd win every match of every series, seeing as most of the opposition we face around the world are abhorrent qunts.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:On a moral scale, how could we ever come off worse than the Australians or South Africans though? They get marked down for being sooks and cheats.

It's all about the hanging on. It's not to do with actual morals or we'd win every match of every series, seeing as most of the opposition we face around the world are abhorrent qunts.

But you're not taking into account the good it does in the world to deny these evil people a win. All England's thoroughly undeserved escapes are in fact thoroughly deserved, simply because of the moral superiority and all round good eggs that the English are. They have to learn this, and if it takes a flukey 10th wicket partnership to do it, so be it.

Shoeshine wrote:

But you're not taking into account the good it does in the world to deny these evil people a win. All England's thoroughly undeserved escapes are in fact thoroughly deserved, simply because of the moral superiority and all round good eggs that the English are. They have to learn this, and if it takes a flukey 10th wicket partnership to do it, so be it.

Some of them down under don't even appreciate how charitable we were for 18 years letting them have the Ashes so they could have a little taster at how morally superior all englanders are born.

Shoeshine wrote:But you're not taking into account the good it does in the world to deny these evil people a win. All England's thoroughly undeserved escapes are in fact thoroughly deserved, simply because of the moral superiority and all round good eggs that the English are. They have to learn this, and if it takes a flukey 10th wicket partnership to do it, so be it.

Oh, I get you.

It's just if I wanted to watch sado-masochistic gang-f*cking of multiple anuses, I'd just log-in to my favourite website. As it is, I can watch it every time England play a Test.

TBH, it gets boring after a while.

Must have imagined the absolute caning they handed out in the second Test though.

Besides, they were saving the other two comfortably until they suffered brain-fade. I don't think South Africa have been remotely unlucky - the only time they've got close is England stuffing it up.

Fact: Saffers yet to take 20 Englsh wickets in a test match this series.

Does that count for anything?

Does for me. England absolutely thrashed the pants of the West Indies for much of the series over there last year, but at the end of it (dull as it was), the Windies had won it 1-0. No complaints from me about that - don't see a difference.

Yep, I must be overly harsh on them. I see them as inept. Quoting the fact we twatted the Windies for no reward or that they've only taken 19 wickets twice in the light/rain affected matches may give you solace. Doesn't to me really, but it doesn't have to.

You can only be consistent in that view if you also point up all those instances where England are dreadfully unlucky - in other words where the opposition are lucky. That's the nature of the beast. South Africa are a decent side, and England are 1-0 up. End of story really - no-one ever spoke about England being unlucky in the Caribbean, they just lost, full stop. I presume on the same basis the West Indies were moral victors over Australia too?

I don't really see how they're 'inept' - this isn't a joke side we're playing. We thoroughly outplayed them in one test and batted through 141 overs in the last innings not to lose!

The other side is allowed to play well at times during a test match.

I'd personally rather be supporting a side like this present England mob who are finally learning to fight their way out of adversity - whilst pinching one test with consumate ease - rather than those of past years where folding tamely was the norm.

Listen, if this pattern repeats itself Down Under in 12 months time, you won't be seeing me bleating about "performances".

When England have flambuoyant Gowers and run machines like Gooch with bowlers akin to the McGraths and Warne's of this world, maybe I would then get a mite pissed off at the poor performances.

Meanwhile - ship it on large.

JKLever wrote:The other side is allowed to play well at times during a test match.

Ah, you've put your finger on it there. Nope, never ever. It's always down to English ineptitude except when it's down to the other team being infinitely better than England in the first place. And England NEVER play well, it's always because the oppo played appallingly or couldn't be bothered. Just like the Windies last May, where they were struggling with the weather, bless them, unlike England, who clearly thrive in 40 degree heat and no such excuses are ever allowed when away from home.

Shoeshine wrote:You can only be consistent in that view if you also point up all those instances where England are dreadfully unlucky - in other words where the opposition are lucky. That's the nature of the beast. South Africa are a decent side, and England are 1-0 up. End of story really - no-one ever spoke about England being unlucky in the Caribbean, they just lost, full stop. I presume on the same basis the West Indies were moral victors over Australia too?

No-one was in denial who was the better side, regardless of that result - the same can be applied here. There surely was no talk of 'everything being alright' by any Windian fan, was there?

Aus v WI, what? Which game? I'm sure I remember the Test whereby the WI needed one of the two final batsman to pick up a victory only for Aus to claw and claw to a limping draw.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:You can only be consistent in that view if you also point up all those instances where England are dreadfully unlucky - in other words where the opposition are lucky. That's the nature of the beast. South Africa are a decent side, and England are 1-0 up. End of story really - no-one ever spoke about England being unlucky in the Caribbean, they just lost, full stop. I presume on the same basis the West Indies were moral victors over Australia too?

No-one was in denial who was the better side, regardless of that result - the same can be applied here. There surely was no talk of 'everything being alright' by any Windian fan, was there?

Aus v WI, what? Which game? I'm sure I remember the Test whereby the WI needed one of the two final batsman to pick up a victory only for Aus to claw and claw to a limping draw.

Who the better side was is irrelevant. The Windies won 1-0, end of story. Nothing else counts.

The Windies had the better of much of two of the three Tests against Australia, but lost 2-0. Moral victory though, I'm sure that'll please them.

JKLever wrote:I don't really see how they're 'inept' - this isn't a joke side we're playing. We thoroughly outplayed them in one test and batted through 141 overs in the last innings not to lose!

The other side is allowed to play well at times during a test match.

141 overs... that impresses you? Fair enough, I'm not certain there's much kudos to batting 141 overs when the opposition are a hair's breadth away from winning.

Shoeshine wrote:Who the better side was is irrelevant. The Windies won 1-0, end of story. Nothing else counts.

The Windies had the better of much of two of the three Tests against Australia, but lost 2-0. Moral victory though, I'm sure that'll please them.

Yeah, it is irrelevant You're totally right, cold hard facts are we are winning. Great. Just two wickets would've have you singing a totally different tune, to me, when it gets down to the last wicket with runs still needed to avoid defeat that's a totally different story. But we'll have to differ. I'm just so glad there isn't a genuinely good side out there or we'd have been thrashed. I suppose it doesn't matter when the other teams are almost as shit as us.

Surviving 141 overs in the last innings isn't the norm. I think on balance SA maybe deserve to be level but no more really - for much of both last days play we were hanging on comfortably before a late collapse let them in - and that sh!t can happen when you're in no danger of losing and can put the whole team around the bat.

It's not like we were being muntered for the entire test on either occasion until SA took charge in decent conditions in their 2nd inns.

Nothing like the WI series really, where you got the feeling after winning well in the 1st test their was only one side trying to win.

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

Brass Monkey wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:Who the better side was is irrelevant. The Windies won 1-0, end of story. Nothing else counts.

The Windies had the better of much of two of the three Tests against Australia, but lost 2-0. Moral victory though, I'm sure that'll please them.

Yeah, it is irrelevant You're totally right, cold hard facts are we are winning. Great. Just two wickets would've have you singing a totally different tune, to me, when it gets down to the last wicket with runs still needed to avoid defeat that's a totally different story. But we'll have to differ. I'm just so glad there isn't a genuinely good side out there or we'd have been thrashed. I suppose it doesn't matter when the other teams are almost as shit as us.

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.

Zat wrote:FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

Englishmen don't fight. Just mass debate.

JKLever wrote:Surviving 141 overs in the last innings isn't the norm. I think on balance SA maybe deserve to be level but no more really - for much of both last days play we were hanging on comfortably before a late collapse let them in - and that sh!t can happen when you're in no danger of losing and can put the whole team around the bat.

It's not like we were being muntered for the entire test on either occasion until SA took charge in decent conditions in their 2nd inns.

Nothing like the WI series really, where you got the feeling are winning well in the 1st test their was only one side trying to win.

You're right about the collapses, it's short-sighted for me to say they were out and out thrashings.