*Official* England in South Africa Thread

[Scaly piscine]

I don't mind Bell coming in at 7, he can be there as an insurance if the new ball slices through the top order (how many times have Aus recovered from 4/5 down early).

 

[SpaceMonkey]

rub it in Kevin!!!!

 

[wpdavid]

I don't mind Bell coming in at 7, he can be there as an insurance if the new ball slices through the top order (how many times have Aus recovered from 4/5 down early).

To be fair, he's knocking it about quite nicely. Shows how much I know.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Amazing how similar the SA bowling figures are:

Pollock 10-1-52-1
Ntini 10-0-51-1
Nel 10-0-54-1
Hall 10-0-50-1

I hope Langeveldt isn't tearing too many hairs out after Pietersen's performance...

 

[Neil Pickup]

Really, really good knock from Kevin. Good start from Trescothick and Jones before Boucher's standing up to Pollock trapped Trescothick's footwork and led to the drag-on, and Geraint played a silly shot before Strauss got strangled.

Vaughan and Pietersen batted very well to lay the foundation before KP and Collingwood (who timed a couple of boundaries very, very well indeed) added a superb 90 stand and Bell did his piece at the end. Couldn't understand Smith's decision to chase four hours ago, still can't now.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Shame the supporters couldnt have given Pietersen the response his innings deserved. He entertained them brilliently whether or not they think he's a judas.

 

[Jono]

What the?

I decide to put in a DVD and watch a movie when the score is about 3/100. About 40 minutes in I check the scores and Vaughan is just out, Collingwood is in but Pieterson has reached a run-a-ball 50. Debate whether to continue watching the movie or watch the match, and end up continuing the movie (wrong decision ). The next time I check the scores he's on 103 at quicker than a run-a-ball.

By golly what a knock! And in the end he finished up with six 4s and two 6s I believe, so it wasn't a smash-bang thank you mam knock. He played sensibly along with Vaughan knocking the singles and twos, and lifted when required. A shame I didn't see more of it, but there's always the highlights.

Well played Pieterson, and in the end well played England.

 

[tooextracool]

That is a very good seam attack, but how often would they all have played together? I thought that Pollock replaced de Villiers and Klusener replaced McMillan,

nope, mcmillan retired after the tour of england in 98, klusener made his debut in 96 in india, so they played as many as 6 series, including 2 against australia with each other in the side. de villiers only playing 18 tests in his entire career is quite frankly as big a crime as you'll ever see.

but I may have remembered that incorrectly. As for the batting lineups, I can see that SA's was deeper, but I reckon the Aus top 6 was better.
Purely from an English viewpoint, Australia looked a much better side than SA during the 1990's. Aus always won series against us very comfortably - in fact we only won one test in the 1990's when the Ashes were still up for grabs.

so you reckon that an aussie test batting lineup consisting of:
hayden(who was distinctly rubbish at the time)
mark taylor
elliott(rubbish)
waugh
waugh
blewett/ponting(who again wasnt anything special at the time)
bevan(wasnt good enough)

was better than

hudson
kirsten
kallis
cullinan
cronje
rhodes
mcmillan
?

incidentally that lineup was almost identical to the one that played against australia, and yet lost both series.

Against SA, OTOH, series were generally very tight. SA have yet to win a series in England since their readmision, whereas Aus have managed that four times on the trot. If you're saying that SA underperformed against Aus, then they must also have underperformed against England, and there comes a point when you just have to conclude that SA just weren't as good as the Australians.

of course ive never actually said that SA performed better than australia. i said that SA had a far more talented side than australia. SA's losing to england was a classic case of their underperforming, as they did so very often in test cricket at the time. in ODIs they were performing as well as they could except in the big match situations.

 

[tooextracool]

Pretty dumb batting from the English openers, they've seen the pitch is a little slow & low so they play the exact sort of shots that are going to get them out sooner rather than later.

if anyone could call geraint jones anything other than dumb id be surprised. id be even more surprised if jones could bat in more than one style.

 

[Swervy]

so you reckon that an aussie test batting lineup consisting of:
hayden(who was distinctly rubbish at the time)
mark taylor
elliott(rubbish)
waugh
waugh
blewett/ponting(who again wasnt anything special at the time)
bevan(wasnt good enough)

was better than

hudson
kirsten
kallis
cullinan
cronje
rhodes
mcmillan
?

incidentally that lineup was almost identical to the one that played against australia, and yet lost both series.

erm..IMO that aussie batting line up knocks spots off that SA line up. Cronje wasnt THAT good a batsman,Hudson!!!! nah....Rhodes..not a chance.

To call Hayden rubbish back then is a bit off the mark,and ponting was a special player even back then, ok he didnt score as much as he does now, but it was obvious he was going to bcome one of the very best

 

[chris.hinton]

Smith is a plonker

 

[Scaly piscine]

Smith is a plonker

Aye, big mouth bites the dust, Hoggard gets him again

 

[tooextracool]

erm..IMO that aussie batting line up knocks spots off that SA line up. Cronje wasnt THAT good a batsman,Hudson!!!! nah....Rhodes..not a chance.

yes because the likes of elliott, hayden and bevan were all so brilliant werent they? everyone bar hudson would have made any side in the world. and hudson was by no means a poor batsman, as his 163 on debut against walsh, ambrose, patterson etc shows, along with his average of 58 against australia in the series in 94 and the 80 against india at durban when the next highest score in the inning was 34(india managed 100 and 66 iin their 2 innings while hudson himself scored 132 for his team). and cronje in 99 was averaging nearly 40. australia didnt even have a settled batting lineup, let alone knocking spots off SA.

To call Hayden rubbish back then is a bit off the mark,

why not? he was complete rubbish when he made his debut. of course the fact that since then hes improved marginally, to the extent that hes gone on to be able to score runs on flat wickets doesnt change the fact that he was poor at the start of his career.

and ponting was a special player even back then, ok he didnt score as much as he does now, but it was obvious he was going to bcome one of the very best

hardly, he was averaging 40ish which was good but nothing exceptional especially considering how inconsistent he was. it was only after the tour against SL that he really started to show some amt of consistency, especially in playing well everywhere else except india.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Someone tell the bowlers to do get their practice deliveries sorted, Gough & Hoggard bowl a massive wide first up and Kabir bowls a half-tracker. Anyway, Kabir having a start like Wharf so far.

 

[Jono]

2 quick wickets put England on top. Kallis and Gibbs must recover, crucial partnership here.

 

[Langeveldt]

I hope Langeveldt isn't tearing too many hairs out after Pietersen's performance...

Yelled a few expletives at the TV, ive just seen his score.. Good to see that weak boy can handle the abuse and talk with his bat as well as his whingy little mouth.. Im quite impressed actually

 

[SpeedKing]

Just got home, brilliant knock by petersen

 

[Langeveldt]

Smith is a plonker

Smiths been going down in my book for quite a while now.. Not that he has been helped by SA's backroom staff at all

 

[Swervy]

yes because the likes of elliott, hayden and bevan were all so brilliant werent they? everyone bar hudson would have made any side in the world. and hudson was by no means a poor batsman, as his 163 on debut against walsh, ambrose, patterson etc shows, along with his average of 58 against australia in the series in 94 and the 80 against india at durban when the next highest score in the inning was 34(india managed 100 and 66 iin their 2 innings while hudson himself scored 132 for his team). and cronje in 99 was averaging nearly 40. australia didnt even have a settled batting lineup, let alone knocking spots off SA.



why not? he was complete rubbish when he made his debut. of course the fact that since then hes improved marginally, to the extent that hes gone on to be able to score runs on flat wickets doesnt change the fact that he was poor at the start of his career.



hardly, he was averaging 40ish which was good but nothing exceptional especially considering how inconsistent he was. it was only after the tour against SL that he really started to show some amt of consistency, especially in playing well everywhere else except india.

well I remember the SA batting back then was considered a weak link ,and i certainly cant think of a time in the last decade and a half when Australias batting could be considered weak.

hayden was not a bad batsman..ponting was an outstanding batsman even then, however it is only in the last few years that he had truely converted his talents into runs.There was no doubt in my mind the first time I saw him play he was a class batsman.

kallis was almost considered a failure for the first four or five years of his career and he only started to get it going since the turn of the century.Gary Kirsten was a good batsman,and could make big scores, but he was always blighted by inconsistancy..Cullinan was a player of a lot of talent in my opinion who again wasnt anywhere near as consistant as he should have been...I could go on.

South Africa before say 2000 in tests were not a good batting TEAM. Players individually might come out with the odd good score each innings, but it wasnt the batting that won them games

 

[Langeveldt]

Was Pietersen given a hostile reception to the crease?