*Official* South Africa in India

[TT Boy]

That's the difference b/w teams like SA and Ind/Aus, who look to go for the win from ball one.

Yeah, that be the India side which for periods of today had a bowler with 300+ test wickets bowl with no slip, no men around the bat and had about three men on the fence. Or the side which told their leg spinner, who initially beat the bat on numerous occasions, to go around the wicket because he was leaking too many runs. How positive…

 

[silentstriker]

Haha, yea, I was about to say. Always going for the win - you kidding me? Love how scoring 300 in a day for the loss of only two wickets is now somehow not going for the win. It makes no sense.

 

[andyc]

Haha. Can't believe people are criticising SA. Absolutely any team in the world would take 2/291 at the end of the first day, with two very well set batsmen still at the crease, without a second thought. Ridiculous.

 

[silentstriker]

TBF, One person is. Everyone else is jumping on him.

 

[ret]

Theres something called playing each ball on its merits and as I said in the next post going at 3.2 RPO on a slow pitch like that and only losing 2 wickets has got us into a winning position.

Not everyone is a Virender Sehwag and you've only got one of him in your line up.

So to talk about us not pressing on when a Gambhir, Tendulkar or a Laxman wouldn't have batted any differently to how we batted today against our attack doesn't weigh up.

Sehwag is a unique freak of nature as a batsman on 'Indian pitches'.

I gave my opinion after considering most of that, duh!

As a team trying to get to #1 ranking and that too when they are playing a comparatively inexperienced side, you would expect a side to be looking to take the charge.

Is 291/2 bad? No
Could they have done a better job? Yes

Tomorrow is a different day and who knows Ind may come back hard and pick up some quick wkts in which case it could become difficult for SA to take charge in a way that they would have liked.

 

[ret]

Yeah, that be the India side which for periods of today had a bowler with 300+ test wickets bowl with no slip, no men around the bat and had about three men on the fence. Or the side which told their leg spinner, who initially beat the bat on numerous occasions, to go around the wicket because he was leaking too many runs. How positive…

That reflects how the pitch was. If it had something for the bowlers, you would find fielders all around the bat. You could see that the focus was on SA not getting away with the game. That's why I felt SA could have done better and capitalized on the situation

As I said, this game is not abt how many you score but how you score them. At Kol, we may see a turner, in which case the approach could be different

And unless the pitch has something in it for him, Bhajji is more of a restrictive option. If you rate him highly then I wouldn't mind you taking him to play for SA (which would be a relief)

 

[aussie]

Pretty ****ing good on Australian pitches too, thanks.

Very flat AUS pitches.

 

[Prince EWS]

As I said, this game is not abt how many you score but how you score them.

This is right up there with "if you flip a coin and it comes down heads, it's more likely to be tails than heads the next time you flip it". Not quite in the league of "drop Chanderpaul for Darren Bravo" but still.

Where's Uppercut when you need him?

 

[Jarquis]

It's not how, it's how many. You need to score more runs than your opponent to win.

 

[ret]

This is right up there with "if you flip a coin and it comes down heads, it's more likely to be tails than heads the next time you flip it". Not quite in the league of "drop Chanderpaul for Darren Bravo" but still.

Where's Uppercut when you need him?

Oh, you are still in the business of picking out lines!

Appears as if you are more interested in showing how I sound then actually trying to under understand my point. Is that got to do with some mental thing or you being a sore loser or something? If that's the case lets sort that out

 

[ret]

It's not how, it's how many. You need to score more runs than your opponent to win.

That's true (and a duh point). You do need more runs than your opponent. But in tests, you have the option to draw as well so at times on pitches where scoring is not an issue but time factor is, it becomes important at what rate you score (implied by how)

My opinion was based on after considering conditions and the relationship b/w 'many' and 'how' in this case wrt a win in mind. And from this perspective, I am saying that SA could have done better (and not that they have done badly)

 

[ret]

Btw, Zak went past Sri's 236 wkts to become the 2nd highest wkt taker as far as quicks are concerned. And also he has played the most tests for Ind after Kapil. It's rare to see an Indian pacer play for 50 tests or more!

Pacers - Matches - Wkts

Kapil - 131 - 434
Zak - 71 - 237 (includes the current test)
Sri - 67 - 236

Only other pace bowlers to pick up 100 or more wkts are
Ghavri - 39 - 109
IP - 29 - 100

Other current bowlers
Ishant - 23 - 63 (includes current test)
Sree - 17 - 60

 

[ret]

Our plan to counter Harbhajan clicked: Wessels

^ They needed a plan to counter Bhajji!

 

[Woodster]

Excellent first day for SA. I think in the past they can be culpable of being too conservative, but today thought both Kallis and Amla batted exceptionally, especially Kallis. They have got their side into a very strong position, but they do need to back this up on day two and grind India into the ground.

Kallis looked so good, his shot selection, his focus, he looked impossible to get out. Amla not quite as fluent, but was an admirable support show to Kallis.

 

[Uppercut]

This is right up there with "if you flip a coin and it comes down heads, it's more likely to be tails than heads the next time you flip it". Not quite in the league of "drop Chanderpaul for Darren Bravo" but still.

Where's Uppercut when you need him?

Haha my head temporarily exploded when I read it. It's the COMPLETE opposite of what's actually the case!

It'll be epic if South Africa manage to get 20 wickets out of this pitch though. Did anyone notice at the start of the evening session when Amla tried to smash two full-length balls through cover, got an edge, and both landed a few feet short of the slip cordon? That kind of thing just shouldn't happen in international cricket IMO.

 

[aussie]

Haha my head temporarily exploded when I read it. It's the COMPLETE opposite of what's actually the case!

It'll be epic if South Africa manage to get 20 wickets out of this pitch though. Did anyone notice at the start of the evening session when Amla tried to smash two full-length balls through cover, got an edge, and both landed a few feet short of the slip cordon? That kind of thing just shouldn't happen in international cricket IMO.

Ye i did actually. Very disappointed with the pitch so far its Chennai 2008 all over again..

 

[ret]

Haha my head temporarily exploded when I read it. It's the COMPLETE opposite of what's actually the case!

Was it when I said that Aus lost its chance to win a test in Ind when they couldn't force a win at B'lore and you thought they would win the series?

Or was it when I said that Aus should play Kreza and some folks thought that he is useless and that Aus should play 4 pacers?

Or was it when I said that Sehwag should be the first choice opener in the tour to OZ and ppl felt that Jaffar is good to do the job?

Or was it when I talked abt 'law of averages' by using the term probability and ppl who claim to know something abt math couldn't actually figure out what's been said

and then your head is suppose to explode too

 

[Uppercut]

It was this exact sentence:

"As I said, this game is not abt how many you score but how you score them."

 

[ret]

It was this exact sentence:

"As I said, this game is not abt how many you score but how you score them."

So what is abt this sentence? Do you know what does 'this' and 'how' imply in that sentence?

 

[Jarquis]

So what is abt this sentence?

Srs?