*Official* England in South Africa Thread

[twctopcat]

This is gonna be v.interesting.

 

[BoyBrumby]

And a nice not out for Kallis, everybody's happy!

 

[Mr Casson]

185 off 42 overs, very gettable - if they keep wickets in tact.

I'd chase it... I really would. The pitch just isn't that bad for them to be worried about shutting up and batting out the rest of the overs with such little time remaining anyway.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

185 off 42 overs, very gettable - if they keep wickets in tact.

44, says cricinfo...

 

[Scaly piscine]

I'd chase it... I really would. The pitch just isn't that bad for them to be worried about shutting up and batting out the rest of the overs with such little time remaining anyway.

Yea that's why they need the wickets intact, they should have no bother batting out but obviously if they lose a couple early they might go into a Kallis-like block mode. From SA's point of view I don't really see the point in the declaration, they can only lose whereas if they'd had 185 off 50 overs like they should have there was a very slight chance of winning.

 

[Scaly piscine]

44, says cricinfo...

Yea they took tea so it will be 44, 42 was if they'd had the delay for change of innings. Maybe SA's ploy is to bowl 30 overs an hour...

 

[Loony BoB]

And it all comes down to an ODI innings - 184 runs off 44 overs, although they can pick and choose bowlers all the way and there are no fielding restrictions. Should be a bit of fun! Tell them to bring out the red ball and put on the colours.

 

[Mr Casson]

And it all comes down to an ODI innings - 184 runs off 44 overs, although they can pick and choose bowlers all the way and there are no fielding restrictions. Should be a bit of fun! Tell them to bring out the red ball and put on the colours.

Fair dos, it's not as weighted to the batsman in these 44 overs, but on a batting strip like that England have a real chance to take it out.

 

[Loony BoB]

RRR: 4.18 - assuming 44 overs are bowled. But I don't see Smithy slowing down the over rate given that he's declared. I really do admire his "never say die" attitude, even if it doesn't always work out for him.

 

[Scaly piscine]

If I were SA I'd bowl the overs as fast as possible til victory looked impossible then just slow back down to 12 overs an hour or something.

 

[Mr Casson]

RRR: 4.18 - assuming 44 overs are bowled. But I don't see Smithy slowing down the over rate given that he's declared. I really do admire his "never say die" attitude, even if it doesn't always work out for him.

When there are 5 overs left and 30 runs to get with 7 wickets in hand, there's plenty of reasons to slow the over rate down.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Strauss gone early.

 

[Mr Casson]

You need ten wickets, not one. Don't get too excited Safricans.

 

[twctopcat]

Not the best start.Knew something had happened when it took ages to refresh cricinfo.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Catch shouldn't have been referred to the 3rd umpire anyway.

 

[Mr Casson]

Catch shouldn't have been referred to the 3rd umpire anyway.

When Clarke was on 85 the other day, Shoaib Malik took what appeared to be a straightforward catch, but then told the umpires he wasn't sure. Obviously unaware that the umpires can not refer a catch to the third umpire unless his vision is obscured, he had given them just enough doubt to have to rule not out.

Different rules for tests and ODIs? Or did Bucknor stuff up again?

 

[Scaly piscine]

When Clarke was on 85 the other day, Shoaib Malik took what appeared to be a straightforward catch, but then told the umpires he wasn't sure. Obviously unaware that the umpires can not refer a catch to the third umpire unless his vision is obscured, he had given them just enough doubt to have to rule not out.

Different rules for tests and ODIs? Or did Bucknor stuff up again?

No and yes

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Different rules for tests and ODIs? Or did Bucknor stuff up again?

Eh? Bucknor's vision was obscured (by Marcus Trescothick walking out of his crease), so he referred it to the third umpire. Where's the problem here?

 

[Mr Casson]

Eh? Bucknor's vision was obscured (by Marcus Trescothick walking out of his crease), so he referred it to the third umpire. Where's the problem here?

I didn't see that, and quite frankly I don't believe you.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Both umpires have to have their vision obscured anyway.