luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
or careless?marc71178 said:
-
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* South Africa in England Thread
- Thread starter Rik
- Start date
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Whilst I agree that it was unfortunate to hit the leg stump, I think that he played it BADLY with soft hands. The angle of the bat when it made contact with the ball was nearer horizontal than vertical, consequently it was always likely to go backwards (simple physics).
In other words, he was late on the shot.
In other words, he was late on the shot.
Neil Pickup
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm with Eddie here - if you look at the angle the bat made with the ground at the point of contact it was nothing like vertical enough - I've done the same myself.
Had the bat been less angled towards the stumps the ball would have had much, much less chance of rolling onwards.
Having said that, Butcher and Trescothick are seeing it like a beach ball and playing some of the most wonderful off-side cuts and drives you could hope to see off what is, to be fair, a limited and off-colour South African attack who are missing Pollock, Zondeki (intercostals - probably for the rest of the Test) and Adams.
Both sides are suffering from having so little variety in the attacks and yesterday's evening showed me just how much we need a Jones/Harmison - or for Vaughan to bowl himself!
Had the bat been less angled towards the stumps the ball would have had much, much less chance of rolling onwards.
Having said that, Butcher and Trescothick are seeing it like a beach ball and playing some of the most wonderful off-side cuts and drives you could hope to see off what is, to be fair, a limited and off-colour South African attack who are missing Pollock, Zondeki (intercostals - probably for the rest of the Test) and Adams.
Both sides are suffering from having so little variety in the attacks and yesterday's evening showed me just how much we need a Jones/Harmison - or for Vaughan to bowl himself!
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
England have just made an appalling mistake, sending all the wrong messages to South Africa.
With Trescothick and Butcher simply smashing everything all around the park, one light blinks on, the umpires confer and you just cannot see the English batsmen for dust as they head for the sanctuary of the dressing-room.
I call spineless and utterly stupid.
With Trescothick and Butcher simply smashing everything all around the park, one light blinks on, the umpires confer and you just cannot see the English batsmen for dust as they head for the sanctuary of the dressing-room.
I call spineless and utterly stupid.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
My missus hates it when I'm right so often - and it happened again as Trescothick tried to force the pace from the first ball he received from the restart, consequently throwing his wicket away in the process.marc71178 said:
Fabulous catch, but so predictable the way it happened. Talk about throwing away the initiative.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Butcher gone too - and Atherton agrees with me that the batsmen's decision regarding the bad light walk-off was a contributing factor in the demise of both.
How to make decisions in cricket.
1. Put yourself in the mind of the opposition captain.
2. Ask yourself 'What does he want me to do?'
3. Do the opposite
4. That's it.
Consequently, with Hussain and Ed Smith at the wicket, the decision to go off the second time is the correct one.
How to make decisions in cricket.
1. Put yourself in the mind of the opposition captain.
2. Ask yourself 'What does he want me to do?'
3. Do the opposite
4. That's it.
Consequently, with Hussain and Ed Smith at the wicket, the decision to go off the second time is the correct one.
Last edited:
Warriorzcc0
Banned
The series is closer than I expected. I thought SA would take it easily. I was wrong...
Craig
World Traveller
Look Marc we are going to have to agree to disagree on Flintoff.
Well you cant deny he has failed with the bat over the years.
As I said, if you want veritation, Vaughan can bowl himself. I just dont believe you should play a spinner for the stake of it.
I couldnt believe Trescothick and Butcher went off for bad light when they were batting so well. One light on, and they choose t go off, how negative. Trescothick fell to a great catch, but really it was a poor shot.
He is a bit like Flintoff, bats like a million dollars then throwsit away with a 5 cent shot. But to be fair to the two, they rent the only ones.
Well you cant deny he has failed with the bat over the years.
As I said, if you want veritation, Vaughan can bowl himself. I just dont believe you should play a spinner for the stake of it.
I couldnt believe Trescothick and Butcher went off for bad light when they were batting so well. One light on, and they choose t go off, how negative. Trescothick fell to a great catch, but really it was a poor shot.
He is a bit like Flintoff, bats like a million dollars then throwsit away with a 5 cent shot. But to be fair to the two, they rent the only ones.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
But why not pick a specialist spinner who doesn't aso have the burden of captaining AND opening the batting?l
What benefit has picking the 5th Seamer really given England as supposed to a spinner for variety against some like "All hands" who had no problems wth the pace bowlers?
What benefit has picking the 5th Seamer really given England as supposed to a spinner for variety against some like "All hands" who had no problems wth the pace bowlers?
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
If it's not a pitch made for spinners then why bother? Especially when Giles can't turn it on anything other than a "raging bunsen"? Possibly the best option would have been to pick an extra batsman in the place of probably Anderson because he was supposed to be given special handling and instead he's being picked when he's obviously shattered. I'm sure people would have understood if they gave him a rest. I do not, however, agree with picking a spinner for the sake of it. If the pitch does not suit spinners then why not let Vaughan bowl himself? He's the best part-time spinner in the side. The captaincy arguement doesn't wash, Pollock, Streak et al have all bowled themselves when captain because it is best for their side if they do. Even Steve Waugh is understanding the use of his medium pace again, and he used quite a few part-timers in his brother Mark, Darren Lehmann, Damien Martyn etc. I don't feel Giles would have done anything in this Test, so it's best to use a quite compitent bowler in Vaughan for variation and not risk going in with a bowler who will get nothing out of the pitch.marc71178 said:
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
Got to say I've been impressed by Billy Bowden and Simon Taufel. Although Billy seems to give a lot of LBWs not out which seem plumb when you see the Hawkeye replay, if your not sure then give the batsman the benefit of the doubt, and that's what he does. He's not afraid to say "I'm not sure" and not give it. That's an admirable quality when you see some of the shockers given in the last few years.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
But they are specialist bowlers and not specialist batsmen who also have to cope with opening. There's a big difference.Rik said:
That was to try and regain his ODI spot more than because it was the right option for the team.Rik said:
And what if all hands had proven to be all at sea against a spinner? Had he tried that we may have seen him have a swing and a miss and suddenly SA are all out 250 rather than 350Rik said:
Bazza
International 12th Man
I agree with some of the points regarding 5 samey bowlers - ie what does 5 samey bowlers give you that 4 samey bowlers doesn't.
However nobody has mentioned that if England had maintained their discipline and bowled the way they did in the first hour particularly, we would have been much better off for it.
I thought overall Bicknell, Kirtley and Flintoff have bowled well, Kabir and Anderson not so well. Certainly many people have made the point Anderson is tired and needs a rest. He is so inexperiened and I think alot of people have forgotten this at times. Expectations have risen too much too soon perhaps?
Flintoff, well I can't believe Craig is suggesting he is not delivering. He has 278 runs at 43 in this series - not bad for a number 7. Since his maiden ton in NZ 18 months ago he averages 33 from 12 tests. The point is he has started to deliver. He didn't for his first 12 tests (259 at 13), but he has in his last 12 (607 at 33). In his first 12 tests he took 13 wickets at 44. Since then he has taken 24 wickets, albeit at 56.
I think Flintoff was initially seen as a batting all rounder whereas now he is more balanced. He was never going to be a Botham - lead the attack and score some runs (like Pollock), and he isn't Kallis (world class batsman and top bowler), but more inbetween - useful batsman (hopefully averaging 30) and useful backup/change 3rd/4th seam bowler.
And to further back up my point that Flintoff is delivering, in his first 39 ODIs he scored 657 runs at 21, but since that maiden test hundred, he has scored 641 runs in 23 matches at 35. With the ball, those first 39 matches brought 27 wickets at 29 and his economy rate was about 4.75. His last 23 matches have produced 32 wickets at 23, with an economy rate of about 3.99.
Still think he's not delivering?
However nobody has mentioned that if England had maintained their discipline and bowled the way they did in the first hour particularly, we would have been much better off for it.
I thought overall Bicknell, Kirtley and Flintoff have bowled well, Kabir and Anderson not so well. Certainly many people have made the point Anderson is tired and needs a rest. He is so inexperiened and I think alot of people have forgotten this at times. Expectations have risen too much too soon perhaps?
Flintoff, well I can't believe Craig is suggesting he is not delivering. He has 278 runs at 43 in this series - not bad for a number 7. Since his maiden ton in NZ 18 months ago he averages 33 from 12 tests. The point is he has started to deliver. He didn't for his first 12 tests (259 at 13), but he has in his last 12 (607 at 33). In his first 12 tests he took 13 wickets at 44. Since then he has taken 24 wickets, albeit at 56.
I think Flintoff was initially seen as a batting all rounder whereas now he is more balanced. He was never going to be a Botham - lead the attack and score some runs (like Pollock), and he isn't Kallis (world class batsman and top bowler), but more inbetween - useful batsman (hopefully averaging 30) and useful backup/change 3rd/4th seam bowler.
And to further back up my point that Flintoff is delivering, in his first 39 ODIs he scored 657 runs at 21, but since that maiden test hundred, he has scored 641 runs in 23 matches at 35. With the ball, those first 39 matches brought 27 wickets at 29 and his economy rate was about 4.75. His last 23 matches have produced 32 wickets at 23, with an economy rate of about 3.99.
Still think he's not delivering?