• 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

twctopcat

International Regular
Mr Casson said:
Why not? South Africa have nothing left to lose now.. At some point they'll bite the bullet and declare. It might even give England a chance to win. The faster South Africa score, the longer England have to take it down. After all, South Africa want a decent amount of time to try and bowl England out.
Because you never know with the england batting line up. But i see what you mean, i'm just glad the saffies don't have a shane warne.
 

Tim

Cricketer Of The Year
In these situations though...sometimes it can be the most unlikeliest bowler..perhaps a Boje?

It's going to be a draw anyway...can't see South African pulling off the miracle of all miracles.
 

Mr Casson

Cricketer Of The Year
twctopcat said:
Because you never know with the england batting line up. But i see what you mean, i'm just glad the saffies don't have a shane warne.
No, England don't have anything to worry about at all. South Africa can have their hand forced and try to defend 150 - simply because it's better than nothing, which is exactly what they get if they bat the day out. England can have a go at any run rate and set a point where they shut up shop; even an occasionally brittle batting lineup can bat out the amount of time remaining in this match. England won't even have as long as South Africa did in the last match, which ended up being a bit of a freak match anyway.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Mr Casson said:
No, England don't have anything to worry about at all. South Africa can have their hand forced and try to defend 150 - simply because it's better than nothing, which is exactly what they get if they bat the day out. England can have a go at any run rate and set a point where they shut up shop; even an occasionally brittle batting lineup can bat out the amount of time remaining in this match. England won't even have as long as South Africa did in the last match, which ended up being a bit of a freak match anyway.
In theory, you're dead right. The only worrying thing is the effect of pressure, given that the series will be up for grabs this afternoon, especially if we lose a 2 or 3 to the new ball. Mind you, the way Kallis & ABdeV have slowed down isn't helping SA at all. Even in the series situation, you can't see Smith wanting to set less than 150, so someone's going to need to get a move on. On the radio, they reckon Kallis is playing for lunch and/or his 100, which is extraordianry if they're right.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Kallis and de Villiers have hardly slowed down really. I expect the long handle will be used after lunch and England to be set something like 180 in 50 overs.
 

twctopcat

International Regular
Before this test Smith said how it doesn't matter if SA lose 2-1 or 3-1, they have to go for the win. Will be interesting to see if the guy has the balls to give his team enough time to bowl England out which would probably mean England having a run chase ODI style.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
wpdavid said:
All true, but I still wouldn't want to risk Harmy & Flintoff's injuries. Like you, I don't see Gough & Wharf being very effective in this series, so hopefully we'll learn something about Jones & Hoggard in this form of the game.
Both added to OD squad today, I see! Good call! Or was that a bit of insider's info?! ;)
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
yeah theyll probably come out swinging after lunch for 15 overs or so and then declare. i agree with scaly piscine, a total of 180, maybe 200 in 50 overs.
 

Gangster

U19 12th Man
I'd say a good target of 200 in 40 overs would make a thrilling finish. Would England try to win the series 3-1 or would they try to play out a draw and be satisfied to escape with the 2-1 victory? I think another 100 runs in 23 overs is reasonable so South Africa really should be setting England 200 to win in 40 or so overs. I think on this pitch anything less than 5 an over for anything less than 50 overs is easily attainable, physically and psychologically.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I'm amazed how long the odds are for England to win... Everyone knows how England bat, SA will have very attacking fields, the chase will be on even if it's something like 220 off 45 overs.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Scaly piscine said:
I'm amazed how long the odds are for England to win... Everyone knows how England bat, SA will have very attacking fields, the chase will be on even if it's something like 220 off 45 overs.
I dont see England going for 5 runs an over in 40 overs or more.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Scaly piscine said:
I'm amazed how long the odds are for England to win... Everyone knows how England bat, SA will have very attacking fields, the chase will be on even if it's something like 220 off 45 overs.
Ah, but will they? I agree they should, but Smith's nothing if not a conservative captain.

Oz would def chase in these circs, but 220 in 45 with no OD fielding restrictions or wide rule is a pretty big ask.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
SJS said:
I dont see England going for 5 runs an over in 40 overs or more.
They don't have to go for it particularly, they'll get 4 runs an over from the fielding positions if they bat normally - look at how quickly SA scored in their last innings in the 4th Test.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
BoyBrumby said:
Both (Hoggard & Jones) added to OD squad today, I see! Good call! Or was that a bit of insider's info?! ;)
Yeah, me and Big Dunc are pretty close, you know. :D

I did read or hear about Hoggard yesterday morning, but I can't remember where. As for Jones, I just thought it made sense given how he's bowled during this series. What have we to lose by playing him?
 

Top