*Official* England in South Africa

[chalky]

Is SA's attack as poor as Pakistan's? We've witnessed two fairly ordinary attacks in operation over the past two days.

Don't think Pakistan's attack is particularly poor when you consider how many catches are shelled and in the current game 2 1st choice bowlers are out injured in Gul & Kaneria.

 

[Langeveldt]

Removing two of the England captain's stump collection is a fair enough way of silencing the Barmy Army..

 

[Jono]

Removing two of the England captain's stump collection is a fair enough way of silencing the Barmy Army..

Hahahah how good was that.

Loud Barmy Army singing, and then you hear the death rattle!

 

[chalky]

Make em wait Trotty

 

[BoyBrumby]

That's ****ing ridiculous.

Test cricket should only be variable based on conditions, not on how much technology the broadcaster has.

Aye, faintly farcical.

For my money, if the ICC wants reviews used it should be them who foots the bill for the necessary technology tho.

 

[zaremba]

SA would have settled for 343 at close of play last night. Or even at 285 for 9. Admittedly I haven't followed any of the game before tea, but it looks like we let them off the hook here.

And now Strauss has gone, which doesn't help either. The number of times he doesn't get going at all after a break in an innings when he's been creaming it all over the place,

Yes but the question is whether, at 0-0 yesterday having won the toss, SA would have settled for 343 all out. Which is a difficult question and that's why I think 343 was about par.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Morkel bowling v well here. Pace and bounce.

 

[wpdavid]

On other matters, I've just noticed that Cook is playing his 50th test within days of his 25th birthday. If he ever does sort himself out, goodness knows how many tests he will end up playing.

 

[Briony]

Yes but the question is whether, at 0-0 yesterday having won the toss, SA would have settled for 343 all out. Which is a difficult question and that's why I think 343 was about par.

Should Smith have sent them in? Usually Durban is hardest to bat on the first day.

 

[wpdavid]

Yes but the question is whether, at 0-0 yesterday having won the toss, SA would have settled for 343 all out. Which is a difficult question and that's why I think 343 was about par.

Ah, but I preferred the question I was answering.

 

[Jono]

Yes but the question is whether, at 0-0 yesterday having won the toss, SA would have settled for 343 all out. Which is a difficult question and that's why I think 343 was about par.

Nah you always re-assess what you'd settle for based on how the pitch/conditions are playing.

I'm sure SA wouldn't have settled for anything under 450 prior to their innings. But once their batsmen had to grit and grind, they'd probably have taken 350.

So ironically I agree with you that 343 is probably only par, but disagree with the idea that what is par is decided before the match begins.

 

[zaremba]

Nah you always re-assess what you'd settle for based on how the pitch/conditions are playing.

I'm sure SA wouldn't have settled for anything under 450 prior to their innings. But once their batsmen had to grit and grind, they'd probably have taken 350.

So ironically I agree with you that 343 is probably only par, but disagree with the idea that what is par is decided before the match begins.

Fair enough point. Let me rephrase the question: if he had known how the pitch was going to play, would Smith have settled for 343? Which produces the same answer but more accurately sums up what I meant.

Anyhow wpdavid is spot on, we let them off the hook. Had we bowled them out for 220, as we very well might have done, that would have been a great performance.

 

[Langeveldt]

Make em wait Trotty

Wonder if all of SA's exports are such ****'s.. Another class act though, I expect him to ton up this time..

 

[BoyBrumby]

Don't want to invoke the mockers gods, but Trott coming in at three does have an air of solidity that was absent with Bell, Bopara, Shah, etc.

 

[wpdavid]

Anyhow wpdavid is spot on, we let them off the hook. Had we bowled them out for 220, as we very well might have done, that would have been a great performance.

Plus we'd have been almost level at close of play Day 2. As it is, it'll take most of tomorrow to achieve that given the early finishes in these parts.

 

[Langeveldt]

Don't want to invoke the mockers gods, but Trott coming in at three does have an air of solidity that was absent with Bell, Bopara, Shah, etc.

Forgot about Bopara.. How long has Trott been qualified for England? How on earth would Bopara have ever got a game ahead of him?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Forgot about Bopara.. How long has Trott been qualified for England? How on earth would Bopara have ever got a game ahead of him?

Played a couple of T20Is back in 2007, so at least since then.

 

[Prince EWS]

That's ****ing ridiculous.

Test cricket should only be variable based on conditions, not on how much technology the broadcaster has.

I'd also argue it shouldn't be variable based on how many incorrect challenges each team has used. But I've done that before so I'll shut up.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'd also argue it shouldn't be variable based on how many incorrect challenges each team has used. But I've done that before so I'll shut up.

I agree. Swann was robbed of his five-for because we'd used our allocation. Possibly his own fault as he was the bowler when we used our last review up tho.

It does look as if the use of the review is going to become a skill in itself, especially if two incorrect referrals remains the accepted standard.

 

[Langeveldt]

Played a couple of T20Is back in 2007, so at least since then.

jboss to complain about England's race based selection fiascos in 5...