Attention All South Africans!!

[tooextracool]

He obviously doesn't read Cricket Web, TEC.

We could have told him that years ago.

he doesnt need to really, most commentators, yes including the ones at sky, managed to figure out that he was worked out by matthew hoggard in SA. yet a year and a half later we see him batting with the same technical flaws and only now making an attempt to modify it.

 

[marc71178]

Going back to Dean's original point, I think we must congratulate SA for their superb efforts today, not one of the bowlers conceded even 90!

 

[andyc]

Going back to Dean's original point, I think we must congratulate SA for their superb efforts today, not one of the bowlers conceded even 90!

Definetely, top class stuff.

 

[benchmark00]

How embarrassing.

 

[Swervy]

How embarrassing.

indeed

 

[Richard]

He got clocked at 94.8mph yesterday I believe.

That puts paid to the theory that he only bowls quick when the pitch enthuses him (indeed, so did some of his bowling in Pakistan).
Nonetheless, it's remarkable that anyone could bowl that speed in that heat.

 

[Richard]

tripe is tripe, and graeme smith could only count himself fortunate to receive plenty of it in those first 2 tests before getting worked out thereafter.

Hardly getting worked-out - Bicknell got him lbw once, Hoggard three times (plus 1 from Kirtley that was palpably never out).
Smith could count himself far more fortunate to receive the blatant reprieve off Giles on 127 at Edgbaston and the Hussain drop on 8 at Lord's than any bowling. Fact is, all the South Africans faced the bowling and he dealt with it better than anyone. England bowled crap most of the time around that time (and often dropped a heap of catches), and no-one else even looked like doing that.

 

[Richard]

Going back to Dean's original point, I think we must congratulate SA for their superb efforts today, not one of the bowlers conceded even 90!

Which, in the context, was a good effort, wasn't it?

 

[tooextracool]

Hardly getting worked-out - Bicknell got him lbw once, Hoggard three times (plus 1 from Kirtley that was palpably never out).
Smith could count himself far more fortunate to receive the blatant reprieve off Giles on 127 at Edgbaston and the Hussain drop on 8 at Lord's than any bowling. Fact is, all the South Africans faced the bowling and he dealt with it better than anyone. England bowled crap most of the time around that time (and often dropped a heap of catches), and no-one else even looked like doing that.

i'd say thats more than enough to suggest that he got worked out, and the caught behinds of hoggard were all part of the process of being worked out, not to mention that he tried to save face by batting in the middle order. but if that isnt conclusive enough for you then being lbw 4 times in a 3 test series against Australia( as if you remember was predicted by yours truly), proves more than enough.

 

[Richard]

i'd say thats more than enough to suggest that he got worked out, and the caught behinds of hoggard were all part of the process of being worked out, not to mention that he tried to save face by batting in the middle order.

Which caught-behinds off Hoggard? There was only 1 other Hoggard dismissal - the 2nd ball of the series, caught slip. That was enough of a surprise to everyone to suggest it meant virtually nothing.
You're really rather clutching at straws suggesting he "tried to save face" by batting in the middle-order - it was the logical and sensible thing to do, as much to bolster the weakness there and let de Villiers take his position as to escape Hoggard.

but if that isnt conclusive enough for you then being lbw 4 times in a 3 test series against Australia( as if you remember was predicted by yours truly), proves more than enough.

No it categorically doesn't, because only one of those lbws was to an inswinger - most of it was just missing straight balls, which suggests lack of form (given that he'd usually middle virtually every one) not being worked-out.

 

[marc71178]

You're really rather clutching at straws suggesting he "tried to save face" by batting in the middle-order - it was the logical and sensible thing to do, as much to bolster the weakness there and let de Villiers take his position as to escape Hoggard.

Actually I'd say your the one clutching at straws here.

 

[tooextracool]

Which caught-behinds off Hoggard? There was only 1 other Hoggard dismissal - the 2nd ball of the series, caught slip. That was enough of a surprise to everyone to suggest it meant virtually nothing.
You're really rather clutching at straws suggesting he "tried to save face" by batting in the middle-order - it was the logical and sensible thing to do, as much to bolster the weakness there and let de Villiers take his position as to escape Hoggard.

it was logical and sensible because he got a working over by hoggard at the top of the order. fact is that his weakness has been exposed in not one, not 2 but 3 series so i'd say that now theres conclusive evidence that theres a major technical flaw in his batting and that hes been worked out.

No it categorically doesn't, because only one of those lbws was to an inswinger - most of it was just missing straight balls, which suggests lack of form (given that he'd usually middle virtually every one) not being worked-out.

you're obsession with cause instead of method is never going to give you a good enough understanding of the game. almost all of those deliveries were either inswinging(even if they swing in that much) or followed by a barrage of inswingers. not even Smith will deny the fact that he was worked out, infact he knew it well enough that he tried extremely hard in the nets to fix it.

 

[Langeveldt]

Cough*some people*cough do their best to turn me into one.

eh?

 

[Langeveldt]

Oh, look.

I've been threatened by an idiot on a computer.

lol, well the 'oke is from Jo'burg after all

 

[Jono]

it was logical and sensible because he got a working over by hoggard at the top of the order. fact is that his weakness has been exposed in not one, not 2 but 3 series so i'd say that now theres conclusive evidence that theres a major technical flaw in his batting and that hes been worked out.

But TEC, how... how can the best batsman since Bradman have a major technical flaw? Its just not possible.

I'm kidding by the way Richard so don't take it seriously.

 

[Richard]

Actually I'd say your the one clutching at straws here.

No, it's not accurate to say he was saving face by batting in the middle. It's accurate to say he was taking the sensible option, not just for himself but for de Villiers too.

 

[Richard]

it was logical and sensible because he got a working over by hoggard at the top of the order. fact is that his weakness has been exposed in not one, not 2 but 3 series so i'd say that now theres conclusive evidence that theres a major technical flaw in his batting and that hes been worked out.

you're obsession with cause instead of method is never going to give you a good enough understanding of the game. almost all of those deliveries were either inswinging(even if they swing in that much) or followed by a barrage of inswingers. not even Smith will deny the fact that he was worked out, infact he knew it well enough that he tried extremely hard in the nets to fix it.

Smith knew he had a problem.
"Being worked-out" is different to knowing you have a problem.
I fail to see how he had a problem with the inswinger in Australia, because he only once got out to it. Of course the inswinger is a weakness for him, and of course he's very sensible to work on it. But the way people talk of him and inswingers, you'd think he'd have been dismissed that way every innings.

 

[Richard]

eh?

Err... what on Earth is Shane Watson your avatar for?
I mean lots of people say I effectively support South Africa. I don't - but I do like them better than anyone bar England, and I do point-out the occasions they've done better than England (as I do with any other team and any other team).

 

[Richard]

But TEC, how... how can the best batsman since Bradman have a major technical flaw? Its just not possible.

I'm kidding by the way Richard so don't take it seriously.

Well even Bradman had technical flaws, so it's no biggie.

 

[luckyeddie]

Err... what on Earth is Shane Watson your avatar for?
I mean lots of people say I effectively support South Africa. I don't - but I do like them better than anyone bar England, and I do point-out the occasions they've done better than England (as I do with any other team and any other team).

The latest craze on CW is 'forfeits' - make a bet, put ritual humiliation by means of sporting a depressing avatar for a time up for grabs.

You know, like you did when you bet someone that you could convince Cricinfo to maintain first-chance stats, and when they said "OK" you agreed to get Phil Tufnell to drop a tab of acid and redesign yours if you were unsuccessful.