Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I wish someone would shoot the TalkSport commentators that keep saying 'that just opens the door for SA' after every wicket.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* England in South Africa Thread
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
Arjun
Cricketer Of The Year
Wharf should practise his six-hitting- that will make him very useful and back up Flintoff in ODI's. He has shown a glimpse of his hitting ability in the third Natwest Challenge ODI.
They have struggled for a long time under Nasser Hussain, but improvements were seen in Vaughan's first series- the 2003 Natwest Challenge and Natwest series victories. However, not counting Bangladesh, they have not won an ODI series in a long time. They were terrible in SL, lucky not to lose the series in WI and terrible in the Natwest Series at home. Their fielding was sub-par, their bowling attack lacked penetration and they depended far too much on Flintoff, Harmison and Trescothick. Victory against the no-hopers known as the Indian ODI side was a formality, yet they had to have both Flintoff and Harmison to win that series. In the Champions Trophy final, they didn't have enough backp for the two star players as old hand Gough and support acts Wharf and Collingwood had a bad time.
In fact, Vaughan's form has been terrible throughout every series they have played.
That can backfire badly, as it has with WI, India and SL. They need regular bowling options and at least one of them must regularly bowl 10 overs in every match.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
Hoggard was doing OK in ODI's until Jayasuria really went after him in one of the 2002 games. Thereafter he had a couple of mares in Aus when his confidence was pretty much shattered anyway, and we haven't seen much of him since. I suppose how he gets on depends on conditions. If the ball does swing, especially under the lights, it would be daft not to have someone who could take advantage. If nothing else, his confidence must be higher than a couple of years ago, so I'm happy to give a go and see what happens.Arjun said:
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
Flintoff's at it again...
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
My guess would be that by not bowling a small spell tonight he would be less likely to be stiff tomorrow with his calf.twctopcat said:
SpaceMonkey
International Debutant
He could hardly chase the ball this evening, so i think bowling is out of the question.twctopcat said:
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
From cricinfo - England did enough on the fourth day at Centurion to ensure that this match - and with it all hopes of squaring the series - is now beyond South Africa.
It is fair to say England will win the series now barring some thing drastic happening. It isnt over till the last bowl is bowled but I would leave the improbable out and congratlate England on this series.
Well played England. They were the better team over the series and rightly deserve this series victory. I have had my apprehensions over the evaluation of the two teams. I felt the Enlgish team was being over estimated and the South African team under estmated.
I had every right to feel this. Before the current series, England had done a tremendous job winning the series they did, but the Windies were a weak side. New Zealand were struggling to put eleven men on the field. You can only play the opposition you are faced with but a victory against a side of strength was required to prove to me the real quality of the English side.
And South Africa has not been as weak at home before this. Ntini has had a much better average in home compared to away and Pollock, though he has lost his pace, is pretty good still. The ridicule I received for my belief at the beginning of the series from some members of the forum was quite immature.
The only thing lacking in the South African team was a quality pacer. Langeveldt proved what a difference one bowler could make by a good performance in an inning. South Africa couldn't put pressure from both ends for a lot of the time which makes it a weak attack. Also, taking nothing away from England, the captaincy shown by Smith on occasions was weak. On the last morning of the 4th test, no one can decipher why he set a defensive field. It almost seemed he was playing for a draw at the beginning of the day. Even though he has done all the talk of how South Africa would do its best to win, the captaincy doesn't suggest the same at times.
Andrew Strauss was a significant reason for England winning the series vs the Kiwis. He played a key role in this series as well. Two words for him - pure class.
Having seen South Africa since 1991, they have always posed a touh challenge at home. They did in this series too for a lot of the time. I never thought the English side was poor. But did not believe they had it in them to win a series in South Africa at the moment against a side which always ives a fight at home. Only Australia in recent memory had manaed a series win.
South Africa learned a lot from the series, specially their inexperienced batsmen. England learned a lot as well. They can evaluate their strengths and weakness better after this series.
It is by far the best English team I have seen in the 13 years of watching cricket. It pains me to say this is the weakest South African side since their return.
And yes, my prediction/estimation of who would win went wrong. So slay me. Thank you
It is fair to say England will win the series now barring some thing drastic happening. It isnt over till the last bowl is bowled but I would leave the improbable out and congratlate England on this series.
Well played England. They were the better team over the series and rightly deserve this series victory. I have had my apprehensions over the evaluation of the two teams. I felt the Enlgish team was being over estimated and the South African team under estmated.
I had every right to feel this. Before the current series, England had done a tremendous job winning the series they did, but the Windies were a weak side. New Zealand were struggling to put eleven men on the field. You can only play the opposition you are faced with but a victory against a side of strength was required to prove to me the real quality of the English side.
And South Africa has not been as weak at home before this. Ntini has had a much better average in home compared to away and Pollock, though he has lost his pace, is pretty good still. The ridicule I received for my belief at the beginning of the series from some members of the forum was quite immature.
The only thing lacking in the South African team was a quality pacer. Langeveldt proved what a difference one bowler could make by a good performance in an inning. South Africa couldn't put pressure from both ends for a lot of the time which makes it a weak attack. Also, taking nothing away from England, the captaincy shown by Smith on occasions was weak. On the last morning of the 4th test, no one can decipher why he set a defensive field. It almost seemed he was playing for a draw at the beginning of the day. Even though he has done all the talk of how South Africa would do its best to win, the captaincy doesn't suggest the same at times.
Andrew Strauss was a significant reason for England winning the series vs the Kiwis. He played a key role in this series as well. Two words for him - pure class.
Having seen South Africa since 1991, they have always posed a touh challenge at home. They did in this series too for a lot of the time. I never thought the English side was poor. But did not believe they had it in them to win a series in South Africa at the moment against a side which always ives a fight at home. Only Australia in recent memory had manaed a series win.
South Africa learned a lot from the series, specially their inexperienced batsmen. England learned a lot as well. They can evaluate their strengths and weakness better after this series.
It is by far the best English team I have seen in the 13 years of watching cricket. It pains me to say this is the weakest South African side since their return.
And yes, my prediction/estimation of who would win went wrong. So slay me. Thank you
Last edited:
tooextracool
International Coach
IIRC all strauss did against NZ was score runs at lords. england winning against NZ and the WI had all to do with teamwork, everyone in the side contributed in one way or another, something that has continued here, bar the occasional player- harmisonPratyush said:
BoyBrumby
Englishman
He made a 50 @ Headingly too, IIRC.tooextracool said:
But your point is a fair one. Harmison & Anderson are the only two I would single out as not having contributed (even Butch made promising 50 in the 1st innings of the 1st test before he chased a wide one & was generally ar$e thereafter), but even then Harmy has made runs down the order!
tooextracool
International Coach
personally i would put g.jones on that list too, both his decent innings have come when everything was rosy and he could play without a care in the world. not to mention of course those dropped catches.
anderson's failure was something that i was expecting.
anderson's failure was something that i was expecting.
