*Official* England in South Africa Thread

[shaka]

Haddin actually played quite well during Gilchrist's brief break / injury

 

[Mr Casson]

Haddin actually played quite well during Gilchrist's brief break / injury

I do not think Haddin is international class. Too often when he has a good innings it's in a losing cause. He has to find that little bit extra to be a matchwinner.

 

[shaka]

That game was the only time I have seen him play, I judged on that game alone.

 

[Gangster]

That game was the only time I have seen him play, I judged on that game alone.

so haddin played quite well in one game and so you use this to argue that gilchrist isnt the fulcrum of the autralian team?

 

[Jono]

Well we've seen them without Warne for a year, and McGrath for a year and it barely slowed them down.

I think it did slow them down. Not enough to cause a freefall, but they were clearly less destructive with the ball. I see your point though.

 

[shaka]

Haddin would be one contender if Gilchrist were not in the team, ie Australia have a bit of depth in all departments. He wouldnt be as devastating as Gilchrist is currently.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Only if Flintoff is out.

As for the Napier suggestion - no thanks!

What's wrong with him?

 

[BoyBrumby]

1. Tresco
2. Strauss
3. Vaughn
4. Bell
5. Pieterson
6. Collingwood
7. Jones
8. Giles
9. Wharf
10. Gough
11. Anderson/Ali

Not a million miles from the team I'd pick.

I'd still go for Read over Geraint in ODIs tho & you have to wonder why our leading wicket taker & form bowler from the test series is going home after the 5th. True Hoggy would probably lengthen our tail, but Wharf's batting is rather like the Loch Ness Monster; it's supposed to exist, but I've yet to see any evidence to make me think it's anything other than a figment of Celtic imaginations!!

 

[marc71178]

Well we've seen them without Warne for a year, and McGrath for a year and it barely slowed them down.

It stopped them winning every series though.

 

[marc71178]

What's wrong with him?

Erm, he's the equivalent of Kadeer.

 

[Mr Casson]

It stopped them winning every series though.

I think our backup bowlers these days are a little bit better than Williams and Bracken. In fact, neither of them are anywhere near the side at the moment, and they will both be lucky to ever play a test again.

 

[shaka]

Langeveldt unfit, Amla and Steyn dropped.

 

[Mr Casson]

Langeveldt unfit, Amla and Steyn dropped.

Yay, it will be interesting seeing Nel trying to get a rise out of Strauss; he seems to measure himself based on how much he can intimidate the batsman.

 

[shaka]

Amla didnt do a great deal so far.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Donald was saying how Nel hadnt really set the world alight since his comeback. Yet he's probably going to play on Friday. Interesting.

 

[marc71178]

Can't really do much worse than Steyn.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Can't really do much worse than Steyn.

True and id pay just to see Nel's expressions while he's bowling...no matter how good or bad his bowling is

 

[tooextracool]

Don't you mean 7-63?

He's never got 7-43 in any form of the game for which records are readily available.

yes the 7/63 that he took against NZ in the first test.

 

[tooextracool]

I think that you meant to say "with absolute certainty", because what you've actually written makes no sense at all.

yes i did mean 'with'.

So, how many other professions do you know where the job consists of making hundreds of decisions a day where the professional is not generally capable of making those decisions correctly and reliably and the professional continues to be employed?

no, my point is that as an umpire, its quite impossible to make every decision correctly and reliably, but of course ive never said that they were totally incapable of it. fact is that the best umpires are the ones that make the least mistakes, not the ones who always make the right decisions because that is realistically impossible. and if you are looking for similar profession where the professional tends to be less than 100% accurate with his decisions, how about a businessman? do you really think that someone like say bill gates has rarely made any mistakes? and of course the fact that he gets far more than 2 seconds to make his decisions and the fact that he has people to help him with it would suggest that he is less likely to make mistakes with his decisions

I've no problem in believing that you or I would have a horrible time if we tried standing out in the middle for a Test match, because we do different things for a living, but this is what these guys are trained to do and are experienced at doing, and it's grossly insulting to say that because you're no good at their job, they can't be any good either.

Cheers,

Mike

and where have i said that they cant be any good either? ive simply said that every umpire cannot be 100% certain of most decisions, because they require a decision to be made on the spot on something that happens on the spot and involves plenty of complications.

 

[tooextracool]

You believe with certainty its out, else you dont give it. Thats the way it goes. If we could give the decisions with certainty, we would be umpires. As we would be players if we could hit the balls in under a second as players manage.

yes but the problem is that if umpires gave people out only when they were certain, we would have 1 lbw every 2 tests.