Attention All South Africans!!

[Langeveldt]

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).

And thats down to me?

Its a forfeit.. I put my neck on the line by saying SA would lose the series (after being 2-0 up).. After all I've lived through WC99 and WC2003, why cant something even more monumental happen?

Well I was one ball away from not having to put Watson as my avatar

 

[Richard]

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.

Oh, did I, someone must've done that behind my back.
I've noticed the "forfeit" trend but had pains to ignore it, and as such didn't realise Rich's enforced labour...

 

[Richard]

And thats down to me?

Err... when did I say it was...?

 

[tooextracool]

Smith knew he had a problem.
"Being worked-out" is different to knowing you have a problem.

no its not. being worked out just means that your a bunny for bowlers. whether or not you no that hardly makes a difference.

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.

and 4 out of 6 innings is more than enough evidence IMO. only a fool would expect someone to be dismissed everytime in the same manner.
and if you make the effort to read my earlier comment, you might just understand that the wicket itself barely matters, its the build up to the wicket. as such Graeme smith could not have been worked out more than he ended up being on that tour.

 

[Richard]

no its not. being worked out just means that your a bunny for bowlers. whether or not you no that hardly makes a difference.

Of course it doesn't, but "being worked-out" means that you're constantly being dismissed by good bowling exploiting a weakness.
Simply bowling straight isn't especially good bowling, and it's not something that's given Smith the slightest problem before.

and 4 out of 6 innings is more than enough evidence IMO. only a fool would expect someone to be dismissed everytime in the same manner.
and if you make the effort to read my earlier comment, you might just understand that the wicket itself barely matters, its the build up to the wicket. as such Graeme smith could not have been worked out more than he ended up being on that tour.

Ah, in the ODIs it's different - in the ODIs he did get dismissed by inswingers on several occasions, can't remember the exact number.
In the Tests, though, I didn't watch him batting live once until the final innings and that disgraceful lbw that was going about half a stump over the top so I'm not completely aware of any build-up, but I fail, really, to see how any build-up could make Smith likely to miss balls that went straight on and were on the line of his pads.

 

[Langeveldt]

um

Err... when did I say it was...?

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

 

[Richard]

Sorry, did you think the *cough*some people*cough* referred to you?
Nah - far as I'm aware you've never accused me of stepping on your toes as our resident English-SAfrican (closest you got was here).
I was (perhaps not surprisingly) referring mainly to Mr. marc71178, though I'm sure there have been others at other times on occasions.
EDIT: actually that was the 2nd occasion, this being the 1st