***Official*** South Africa in England

[BoyBrumby]

What browser are you guys using? And do you get a popup on cricinfo?

Microsoft Internet Explorer. God knows what version.

& no. Have them blocked.

 

[Richard]

Rain now seems to have set-in, and until it stops completely there won't be any more play.

 

[wpdavid]

Last time was 2001, yep.

Last time before that was 1997. Aaaaaand yep, sure enough... last time before that was 1993. You can guess when the last time before that was can't you? Yes, it was 1989.

If we were to lose this it'll be the first time someone other than Australia will have had us beaten before the end of a series since West Indies in 1988. But the last time before that was India in 1986.

I daresay we can fairly safely say we're not quite as bad as we were in that 4-year period. But it's not a good sign.

Interesting question, actually: probably quite close itbt. Despite the mounting evidence of the last couple of years, some folks still don't get it in terms of just how poor we are.

 

[Richard]

At least we currently have a consistent team to be either poor or good.

In those 4 years we used so many players (would be surprised if anyone other than Gooch and Gower, maybe Gatting, were particularly constant presences) most people had no case to be anything other than poor.

 

[GIMH]

Cricinfo just pointing out to me that Flintoff still 7 wickets away from 200 for England

 

[Richard]

Indeed.

Think about 10 of those 193 came against Bangladesh too TBH.

 

[GIMH]

9 tbh

 

[Richard]

If there's any more play today, it's not going to be much.

 

[wpdavid]

(comparing the current side to 1986-89)At least we currently have a consistent team to be either poor or good.

In those 4 years we used so many players (would be surprised if anyone other than Gooch and Gower, maybe Gatting, were particularly constant presences) most people had no case to be anything other than poor.

Yes. When comparing now to then, the starting problem is deciding exactly which side from that period we are talking about. However, you could look at the sides who started in 1987, 1988 & 1989 and draw the conclusion that they were rather better than the current lot. Arguable, obviously, but a valid conclusion imo.

 

[Furball]

Apart from the fact that's not strictly true (Collingwood was fairly poor in the winter but still managed a decent knock or two), Collingwood was recalled because the perception was that he'd not have been dropped at Headingley but for Sidebottom's injury. Honestly, I don't really see that Collingwood playing this game was a shocking decision at all. His scenario is totally, completely incomparable to Broad or Harmison.

Why not Bopara? Well he was shown-up to be convincingly short of Test-class in his previous stint, which wasn't so long ago, and he shouldn't even have been picked then, as Shah and Joyce both had better cases.

Why not Shah? Well I don't know. I still hope that if Collingwood gets the axe again any time soon, he'll be the man to come in.

14 matches since the end of the West Indies series. Collingwood in this period averages 29, with a high score of 66.

If that's not an extended period of questionable form, then I'm not sure what is.

 

[Scaly piscine]

14 matches since the end of the West Indies series. Collingwood in this period averages 29, with a high score of 66.

If that's not an extended period of questionable form, then I'm not sure what is.

That's not really an extended period because it's skewed by the last 3-6 Tests and you're being selective with which Tests you pick, conveniently starting just after he scored lots of runs.

You could be selective and find a 10-15 match period for almost anyone where they happen to average under 30. Likewise you could do the opposite and find a patch where they average over 50.

For me the basis for dropping Collingwood lies purely on his bad form this season, before that he's been just as good if not better than virtually anyone else in the top 6.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Looking more and more like a repeat of the last Test doesn't it...

So glad we've got Panesar when we desperately needed a proper 4th seamer. Another thing is England have always seemed to underbowl part-timers for as long as I remember.

 

[duffer]

Now that was a howler. But happy for Jacques, make it count lad!

 

[SpaceMonkey]

How was that given not out? JESUS.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I could understand England getting stuffed over by umpires if they were the away team (doesn't make it right obviously), but ffs.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Absolute shocker. Can't see what Dar thought was wrong with that. Full on the front foot in front of middle & off. Maybe he thought there was an edge?!

Fred needs to watch it tho, definite dissent from the big fella.

 

[Richard]

You could be selective and find a 10-15 match period for almost anyone where they happen to average under 30. Likewise you could do the opposite and find a patch where they average over 50.

Yeah, and of course no-one ever tried to make-out that Flintoff was a better batsman than Kallis by doing that, no no...

 

[stumpski]

To be charitable to Dar, maybe he thought it hit him outside off stump?

Freddie will be fired up now for sure.

 

[Richard]

How was that given not out? JESUS.

Only thing I can think was that Aleem thought it didn't hit anything at all. It was as straight as you can get.

Really weird how often Kallis seems to struggle to pick-up Yorkers. Even more weird that he's scored as many runs as he has apparently in spite of this.

I wonder, will we have something here which vaguely resembles Donald-vs-Atherton?

 

[Richard]

And he misses another one!!!!!! Apparently not seen it again.