**Official** South Africa in England 2012

[Cricketismylife]

Your negativity towards Bell may be over the top, but your point has been proved over the last year or so and throughout his career. Even though England have lost world number 1, it's an important innings for Bell tomorrow; a big contribution would help reverse the idea that he's one who cashes in nicely against moderate to weak attacks, and then performs averagely to poorly against stronger ones.

As you said when attacks like Sri Lanka and India came, he had no problem in scoring big runs at a fast pace against these poor attacks which had already been flattened by Cook, Strauss and Pietersen. Then he went to the UAE where the attack was much stronger, and you confidently predicted him to be a complete failure more so than anyone else on this board, and you were correct. Some gave Bell the benefit of the doubt after this, and dismissed it down to conditions more than the strength of the attack, and expected him to be back and performing in English conditions.

Against West Indies he looked back to his best, but even then typically his top score came in a dead match, and West Indies are nothing more than an average attack. Now with a proper SA attack, Bell has found it very tough. To his credit he has fought hard and managed to scrape together a few 50s, but he has looked a shadow of the player that dominated last year. He's a good player but nowhere near as good as was made out during his golden period. Tomorrow he could start proving me wrong.

Trott

 

[Spikey]

how can his team-mates trust strauss after that dismissal?????


to make spark happy, Watson got out in similar fashion @ J'Burg.......

 

[Spark]

We were 2/****all too. But 330 is about 50 runs too much IMO.

 

[uvelocity]

england are gooooone

if ever there was a day to somehow stand up as skipper and lead from the front, it would be today. Skipper and skipper in waiting in the sheds must be super disappointing.

 

[uvelocity]

how can his team-mates trust strauss after that dismissal?????

he's more a traditionalist, so better take his book of stamps away

 

[Senile Sentry]

If it had gone the other way (which it could have; Philander moves it both ways and Strauss quite obviously wasn't picking it) and he snicked off you'd be asking why the **** he played at it. The bowler was just better than the batsman; it's not brainless or soft or pure batsman error every single time an England batsman gets out. You making a post bemoaning the shot (or lack thereof) was the only thing more predictable than Strauss failing here.

completely agree with the above post, although i think Strauss' time is up.

 

[Top_Cat]

tbh, it's a fairly common attitude on CW. Apparently the only legimitate modes of dismissal are bowled, LBW or nicking out on the defense, all others were batsman error and the bowler deserves no credit whatsoever.

 

[Valer]

tbh, it's a fairly common attitude on CW. Apparently the only legimitate modes of dismissal are bowled, LBW or nicking out on the defense, all others were batsman error and the bowler deserves no credit whatsoever.

Bowled only when they play inside it,
any nicks have to be going on to hit stumps
and LBWs need the big movement forward along with enough movement to miss the perfect defense.

 

[Top_Cat]

Pitch did the damage, no credit to the bowler there, tbh.

 

[uvelocity]

think its the duke balls tbh

 

[uvelocity]

obviously an unfair advantage

 

[Top_Cat]

The only Duke balls I know or care about.

 

[vic_orthdox]

England not doing much scoring last night means little, they have to just take the game as long as possible. They aren't going to chase it down unless they use the overs, and they are all well versed in the one day form of the game.

They have to take the game to the point where South Africa feel some pressure to do something different, get them to spread the field to defend and protect. That's the first priority, not sticking to a rigid run-rate. England will take scoring at 5 or 6 an over in the last session.

 

[Dissector]

You can't take ODI scoring rates as a reference. Scoring 5-6 runs per over in the last session will be very difficult. This pitch is definitely doing a bit. There is some uneven bounce and a fair amount of lateral movement especially with the new ball (which will be due in the last session). There is also some spin and enough rough for Tahir to work with. I think England can only win if they plant doubts in Smith's head and throw his bowlers off their rhythm. And they have to do it relatively early, preferably before lunch. Playing it safe for two sessions, and hoping to charge in the final one isn't going to work.

 

[vic_orthdox]

You can't take ODI scoring rates as a reference. Scoring 5-6 runs per over in the last session will be very difficult. This pitch is definitely doing a bit. There is some uneven bounce and a fair amount of lateral movement especially with the new ball (which will be due in the last session). There is also some spin and enough rough for Tahir to work with. I think England can only win if they plant doubts in Smith's head and throw his bowlers off their rhythm. And they have to do it relatively early, preferably before lunch. Playing it safe for two sessions, and hoping to charge in the final one isn't going to work.

Yes, it is going to be difficult. The point is that run-rate isn't a particular issue. They need to do whatever possible not to be losing wickets.

It doesn't matter what happens, as long as they have as few wickets down at tea as possible. They have to bat close to the day to win the match. Obviously they need to show some intent, but going at three an over for the first two sessions will be enough, leaving them 34 overs (considering slow over rates) to get 200.

 

[Spikey]

Now, just to be clear, if SA lose from here, it's almost certainly a choke.

 

[Uppercut]

tbh, it's a fairly common attitude on CW. Apparently the only legimitate modes of dismissal are bowled, LBW or nicking out on the defense, all others were batsman error and the bowler deserves no credit whatsoever.

Yeah or when people look only at the ball that got him out and say "decent ball but surely a test batsman should deal with that". Ignoring that the bowler had been putting it on the spot for half an hour and anyone short of Bradman would probably have played a false stroke eventually.

But generally I think that attitude is less common on CW than in the cricketing world in general, in England at least. It's "Boycott syndrome"- the bizarre belief that getting out playing a defensive shot is inherently better than getting out playing an attacking shot.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Be all over by tea, well done SA.

 

[amanuensis]

Your negativity towards Bell may be over the top, but your point has been proved over the last year or so and throughout his career. Even though England have lost world number 1, it's an important innings for Bell tomorrow; a big contribution would help reverse the idea that he's one who cashes in nicely against moderate to weak attacks, and then performs averagely to poorly against stronger ones.

As you said when attacks like Sri Lanka and India came, he had no problem in scoring big runs at a fast pace against these poor attacks which had already been flattened by Cook, Strauss and Pietersen. Then he went to the UAE where the attack was much stronger, and you confidently predicted him to be a complete failure more so than anyone else on this board, and you were correct. Some gave Bell the benefit of the doubt after this, and dismissed it down to conditions more than the strength of the attack, and expected him to be back and performing in English conditions.

Against West Indies he looked back to his best, but even then typically his top score came in a dead match, and West Indies are nothing more than an average attack. Now with a proper SA attack, Bell has found it very tough. To his credit he has fought hard and managed to scrape together a few 50s, but he has looked a shadow of the player that dominated last year. He's a good player but nowhere near as good as was made out during his golden period. Tomorrow he could start proving me wrong.

He averages 44 against South Africa - that's hardly "average to poor". And his best innings last summer against India was at Trent Bridge, when he came in after Cook had fallen cheaply - he did the "flattening". His battling in this series is largely the product of woeful batting above him in the order - England have been deep in the smelly brown stuff virtually every time he's come to the crease.

 

[KungFu_Kallis]

Be all over by tea, well done SA.

gambhirrr