**Official** South Africa in England 2012

[Spark]

Well, there's about the constant play and misses he had, Jimmeh deserved to get him in every way.

True. But Amla aside, you'd say that this is not exactly how you'd have picked 4 wickets in a session falling.

 

[Burgey]

Kallis should have got his hands even more out of the way imo. It was the shot of a choker tbh.

 

[_Ed_]

Meh, ball hitting glove that is not holding bat should be out anyway. STopid rule - adds nothing to the game apart from making it more complicated. Rod Tucker just very progressive with his decision making

Fair enough. But even ignoring that aspect, it wasn't conclusive that the ball hit the glove until snicko proved it later. So there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it.

 

[Scaly piscine]

He didn't play the first Test and he's only bowled five overs in this one, so "three Tests" is definitely an exaggeration. The hilarity of it all lies in exactly how different we know your posts would've been if Onions had taken two wickets.



Funnily enough I don't actually disagree with a lot of what you've said about Finn there. I think Uppercut said it best when he said that Finn had every commonly over-rated asset in a fast bowler - he's young, tall, quick, bowls well in ODIs and makes batsmen look uncomfortable. These are all good attributes to have as a fast bowler but fans tend to give them a lot more importance than they actually deserve when compared to experience, nous, movement, accuracy, consistency, planning etc. I've just never been very enamoured with Onions to tell you the truth so I think that attributes Finn has - slightly over-rated as they are - make him the better bowler of the two. I also think he adds better balance to this attack with the type of bowlers Anderson and Broad are.

The problem is just that you're so inconsistent - or rather actually that you're so obviously and ruthlessly consistent in your desire to plug Durham players at every opportunity. That one man can one minute claim Harmison to be an infinitely better bowler than Hoggard because the latter got to bowl when the going was at its easiest and had no psychological effect on the batsmen can then turn around the next minute and cry foul when Finn is selected ahead of Onions says it all for me. It's just impossible to take you seriously on the matter.

With regards to 3 Tests I was including the one he played against West Indies, where he bowled mostly tripe. Today has been just the same really. He's bowled one good ball, a lot of leg-side rubbish, some innocuous stuff and the odd yorker and bouncer. He's a random bowler who seemingly tries to get someone out with one ball, I suspect he's not really accurate enough to work someone over yet. He doesn't have enough seam/swing control yet either. It's his raw ability that makes him not average 35+ at 3.5rpo.

If he was a proper rounded Test match bowler he would average in the 20-25 bracket. I do think like most people, that he's almost nailed on to get 300-400 Test wickets for England. I'd just rather he learnt his trade in county cricket, whilst still playing ODIs and T20Is. He's not a Test bowler yet. We have guys who can do better than average around the 30 mark, particularly in English conditions. 5-10 years ago I'd have said let him learn his trade with England because he's better than what we have. But this is a different era.

Hoggard and Harmison has similar records. Hoggard due to his pace and the way he bowled meant he got all the best times to bowl, because it was a waste of time otherwise when you could throw the ball to Harmison, Flintoff or whoever. So the other guys got the crap times to bowl, Hoggard got the best times to bowl. So the other guys would toil with not a lot happening, cloud would come over, off they went, here comes Hoggard to take 3-4 wickets for not a lot thank you very much. If you've got two guys averaging roughly the same and one bowls mostly in flat conditions and the other mostly in helpful ones - then it's pretty reasonable to rate the former guy higher.

Onions is far more versatile than Hoggard. He's quicker and he can get seam or swing. Yes he'll get people out with swing similar to Hoggard did, but he will also surprise people with bouncers, he'll get people nicking off with a bit of seam movement. He bowls lots of overs in all conditions. Onions is perfect for a 4 man attack. Onions is also a better and more consistent bowler than he was 3-4 years ago, when he would frequently take a hatful and then go wicketless, or vice versa. He had some weird stats where he had a number of 6-fers and 7-fers and his best match figures were 7/8-fer.

 

[Daemon]

I don't think Finn has been that good tbh. Bowles a peach to get Amla but I don't think he's bowled much better than Broad for the most part tbh, and he's been merde.

Hmm possibly. He did give away like 20 runs by drifting down the legside once or twice every over. Lots of good deliveries in the mix as well though so I wouldn't say he bowled averagely.

 

[Thriel]

Fair enough. But even ignoring that aspect, it wasn't conclusive that the ball hit the glove until snicko proved it later. So there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it.

wtf you talking about ? sniko proved it wasnt touching either. what you mean till snicko proved later ? i been watching snicko, blown up images, DRS.... and every single one of them shows its not out. the commentators are having in depth discussion about it and are all as shocked as we are at the decision

specially on a batsman that has potential to make double hundred.

 

[_Ed_]

wtf you talking about ? sniko proved it wasnt touching either. what you mean till snicko proved later ? i been watching snicko, blown up images, DRS.... and every single one of them shows its not out. the commentators are having in depth discussion about it and are all as shocked as we are at the decision

I meant the glove. I know it shouldn't have been out regardless, but I was just saying it wasn't clear that the ball hit the glove until snicko.

 

[Daemon]

specially on a batsman that has potential to make double hundred.

 

[burr]

Ugh. Infuriating decision. Anyway, SA must put it behind them. Need at least a hundred partnership here to give their attack something to work with.

 

[grecian]

Hmm possibly. He did give away like 20 runs by drifting down the legside once or twice every over. Lots of good deliveries in the mix as well though so I wouldn't say he bowled averagely.

Yeah, he bowled well, he's a strike bowler, and he bowled some nasty deliveries his job tbh.

 

[Burgey]

Hmm possibly. He did give away like 20 runs by drifting down the legside once or twice every over. Lots of good deliveries in the mix as well though so I wouldn't say he bowled averagely.

Fair point. Seems they were targeting the ribs a bit too, sometimes looks worse than it is when that's happening.

 

[bombay_bomber]

wtf you talking about ? sniko proved it wasnt touching either. what you mean till snicko proved later ?.

If you understand enough cricket, you would know that snicko reproduction takes time and is not conclusive as evidence of bat hitting ball as other ambient noise can interfere....somehow I feel you are a bandwagon SA supporter

 

[NasserFan207]

I dont care if Finn occasionally bowls poor deliveries, he's easily England's third best quick and should always play.

 

[sledger]

If you understand enough cricket, you would know that snicko reproduction takes time and is not conclusive as evidence of bat hitting ball as other ambient noise can interfere....somehow I feel you are a bandwagon SA supporter

Whatever gave you that idea?...

 

[NasserFan207]

Leave Thriel alone guys.

 

[Expressway76]

specially on a batsman that has potential to make double hundred.

Every frontline batsmen has this potential when they step out to bat, it's just unlikely (statistically).

 

[sledger]

Every frontline batsmen has this potential when they step out to bat, it's just unlikely (statistically).

It's even more unlikely when you have a reputation for stacking it in pressure situations.

 

[Thriel]

if that was a descision against a england batsman there would be 35 pages of people b!tch!ng about it, so excuse me for my 3 or 4 posts of disgust at english umpires ...

 

[NasserFan207]

if that was a descision against a england batsman there would be 35 pages of people b!tch!ng about it, so excuse me for my 3 or 4 posts of disgust at english umpires ...

Third umpire was Australian, FYI

Strange decision all the same

 

[bombay_bomber]

if that was a descision against a england batsman there would be 35 pages of people b!tch!ng about it, so excuse me for my 3 or 4 posts of disgust at english umpires ...

I will just keep my trap shut!