*Official* South Africa in England Thread

[Mr. P]

kallis scoring very slow-building up for a big innings

 

[luckyeddie]

kallis scoring very slow-building up for a big innings

*bang!*

The sound of Mr Ponting and Jacques Kallis both shooting themselves in the foot

 

[Tim]

South Africa are screwed..if they don't avoid the follow on then there will only be one likely outcome..England victory.

 

[Mr. P]

*bang!*

The sound of Mr Ponting and Jacques Kallis both shooting themselves in the foot

yeah yeah, very funny.

 

[Tim]

The question is...was winning toss practically giving the team the win?

Im not afraid to admit that the series between NZ & India last year was won on the toss so don't challenge me on that issue.

 

[luckyeddie]

South Africa are screwed..if they don't avoid the follow on then there will only be one likely outcome..England victory.

I think they're screwed anyway - I doubt whether anyone would fancy chasing 150 in the fourth innings on that wicket.

Famous last words.....

 

[marc71178]

One spell doesnt prove anything. His wicket was due to some luck. He was unlucky at Lords, but you cant deny he has been a failure over the years.

Over the past 2 or 3 years, since he's become a first choice, he has bowled countless really good spells that haven't got what they deserve.

It's not just one spell, think back to a fortnight ago he bowled superbly yet finished with just one wicket again.

His results are disappointing, but he's not been a failure.

You have to know a thing or two about cricket to be a Cricket Web writer, but some of the stuff you say is mindbogling.

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[marc71178]

South Africa are screwed..if they don't avoid the follow on then there will only be one likely outcome..England victory.

The TMS box are wondering whether they should enforce the follow on anyway...

With this wicket beginning to worsen, the scores will get less.

 

[marc71178]

The question is...was winning toss practically giving the team the win?

At Lord's it was poor batting by England that gave SA the win - Vaughan had said he'd have batted if he'd won the toss.

Here SA bowled poorly on day 1 and the pitch has begun to deteriorate - not necessarily the toss here either.

 

[Tim]

Despite South Africa failing to restrict England to a low score in this test, it appears that whoever won the toss was always going to have a distinct advantage.

 

[luckyeddie]

You have to know a thing or two about cricket to be a Cricket Web writer

<quack> never stopped me.

 

[Rik]

Uncharacteristic in that he didn't score at a very quick rate I guess.

In quite a lot of his Test innings he hasn't scored quickly either. He just hasn't batted very long.

 

[Rik]

I have to say Flintoff and Harmison have bowled quite well, in fact they started quite superbly but yet again it's the lack of consistancy which has allowed McKenzie and Boucher to get SA back in the game when the pressure was on them. Flintoff is capable of bowling good spells but he never looks likely to take a wicket and getting Smith hit wicket seems about the only way he can take one. Flintoff is a failure, his County performances suggested he could be a player of rare talent and only lately he's started to show some of it in ODIs, but if he still can't be consistant with either bat or ball after the number of chances he's been given then I can't see much point in keeping him.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I have to say Flintoff and (A) Harmison have bowled quite well, in fact they started quite superbly but yet again it's the lack of consistancy which has allowed McKenzie and Boucher to get SA back in the game when the pressure was on them. Flintoff is capable of bowling good spells but he never looks likely to take a wicket and getting Smith hit wicket seems about the only way he can take one. (B) Flintoff is a failure, his County performances suggested he could be a player of rare talent and only lately he's started to show some of it in ODIs, but if he still can't be consistant with either bat or ball after the number of chances he's been given then I can't see much point in keeping him.

(A) :O :wow:
(B) He's shifted his rage to Flintoff...

 

[Rik]

(A) :O :wow:
(B) He's shifted his rage to Flintoff...

Rage? No I'm just pointing out that Flintoff has been given enough chances and still can't be consistant. Therefor I think we can quite easily get rid of the all-rounder idea and pick someone who can consistantly do one of the 2 jobs, rather than someone who very occasionally sparks with the bat (but most of the time just embaresses himself) and rarely takes wickets with the ball (he bowls good spells but allways lets all the pressure off after them).

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

So basically you're suggesting that McGrath be recalled and given the ball more often.

 

[marc71178]

In quite a lot of his Test innings he hasn't scored quickly either. He just hasn't batted very long.

I believe his average innings lasts about 30 balls...

The annoying thing is he does have the talent, just doesn't seem to use it!

 

[marc71178]

Out of interest, is Harmison carrying an injury?

He's barely bowled, and it can't be because he's been poor.

 

[Rik]

So basically you're suggesting that McGrath be recalled and given the ball more often.

Is this Chinease Wispers?

 

[Rik]

Out of interest, is Harmison carrying an injury?

He's barely bowled, and it can't be because he's been poor.

Yep calf injury