***Official*** South Africa in England

[Richard]

Its happened before, all it takes is playing down the wrong line, which Vaughan categorically is a master of.

If so, one questions how he's ever scored any runs in any cricket of note.

If you can't play the line of a ball that doesn't move sideways, you're not going to last very long in any innings.

 

[Langeveldt]

I'm not holding any hope until Pietersen is out for below 100 tomorrow.. He is a deviant, capable of ruining an entire week of mine. He's probably been with my girlfriend as well, just to top it all off.

 

[zaremba]

He's probably been with my girlfriend as well, just to top it all off.

No. I can provide her alibi.

 

[opener]

I'm not holding any hope until Pietersen is out for below 100 tomorrow.. He is a deviant, capable of ruining an entire week..

He doesn't matter.

The last Ashes repeadly showed how you can just rely on getting everyone else out fairly early and leave him stranded.

 

[nexxus]

You're right. Perhaps Nexxus will enlighten us what he's banging on about

As Mickey Arthur put it, and I don't find myself often thinking he's anything but a muppet so am a bit surprised, Mother Cricket has had her say.

I find it it difficult to swallow England's (more the Headingly supporters than the England team actually) apparent righteous indignation after their captain claims a catch that definitely hit the ground. I've seen the replays a couple times, it's as clearly on the ground as that dude was in touch during the Rugby WC Final.

de Villiers has a near impeccable reputation in SA, I don't believe he intended to cheat when he claimed the catch.

But then again, I thought those corrupt Indian cops were right tossers for even attempting to besmirch our Hansie, until he broke my little illusion.

 

[a massive zebra]

To be fair to Anderson, he bowled decently today. Not brilliantly, but he was the pick of the England bowlers all day. He served up some bad balls but in general he was accurate and was unlucky to not have taken a few more wickets. Flintoff was ok and the rest of the attack was downright poor. I think they were unfortunate though given the conditions they were bowling in. However, it is true that England need someone like Jones or even Harmison to be a world class attack.

I can't disagree with anything you said there. Anderson did bowl reasonably well and probably deserved more wickets. He was certainly the pick of the England bowlers. However, I am not sure he bowled any more impressively than Hoggard on a typical day and IMO his countless maulings should not be forgotten after one decent performance.

 

[Richard]

I'm not holding any hope until Pietersen is out for below 100 tomorrow.. He is a deviant, capable of ruining an entire week of mine. He's probably been with my girlfriend as well, just to top it all off.

No. I can provide her alibi.

Haha... if it's not me, at least it's Kevin Pietersen or zaremba...

 

[Richard]

As Mickey Arthur put it, and I don't find myself often thinking he's anything but a muppet so am a bit surprised, Mother Cricket has had her say.

I find it it difficult to swallow England's (more the Headingly supporters than the England team actually) apparent righteous indignation after their captain claims a catch that definitely hit the ground. I've seen the replays a couple times, it's as clearly on the ground as that dude was in touch during the Rugby WC Final.

de Villiers has a near impeccable reputation in SA, I don't believe he intended to cheat when he claimed the catch.

But then again, I thought those corrupt Indian cops were right tossers for even attempting to besmirch our Hansie, until he broke my little illusion.

There was absolutely nothing conclusive about that Vaughan catch\non-catch. It may have been grounded, it may not have been. Anyone claiming they know for sure is kidding themselves.

 

[tooextracool]

If so, one questions how he's ever scored any runs in any cricket of note.

If you can't play the line of a ball that doesn't move sideways, you're not going to last very long in any innings.

because not everything is black or white in cricket. Its like wondering how Gillespie has a double century in test cricket. You can play down the wrong line frequently in test cricket and play and miss frequently as well. Vaughan, obviously plays down the wrong line when he first comes in. However as he spends more time in the middle and gets set, like most people, he starts to see the ball better and its no longer an issue. Thats why when he actually scores, he usually scores big. However, to manufacture what Ntini bowled as being an unplayable or excellent piece of bowling is simply untrue.

 

[zaremba]

As Mickey Arthur put it, and I don't find myself often thinking he's anything but a muppet so am a bit surprised, Mother Cricket has had her say.

I find it it difficult to swallow England's (more the Headingly supporters than the England team actually) apparent righteous indignation after their captain claims a catch that definitely hit the ground. I've seen the replays a couple times, it's as clearly on the ground as that dude was in touch during the Rugby WC Final.

de Villiers has a near impeccable reputation in SA, I don't believe he intended to cheat when he claimed the catch.

But then again, I thought those corrupt Indian cops were right tossers for even attempting to besmirch our Hansie, until he broke my little illusion.

You are in a minority of precisely one if you think that Vaughan cheated and de Villiers didn't. Vaughan's catch was probably clean. De Villiers' was certainly not, and what's worse is that he must have known it wasn't.

 

[tooextracool]

I can't disagree with anything you said there. Anderson did bowl reasonably well and probably deserved more wickets. He was certainly the pick of the England bowlers. However, I am not sure he bowled any more impressively than Hoggard on a typical day and IMO his countless maulings should not be forgotten after one decent performance.

Personally I dont think Hoggard or Sid would have done much on this pitch, and certainly not better than Anderson. Hoggard was unfortunate to have been dropped when he was, but honestly there is no case for dropping Anderson at the moment. What England need is a different dimension to their attack and they will only get that from Harmison or Jones. IMO Hoggard is a much better bowler than sid, but thats offset by the fact that Sid is left handed and offers a new angle. However, neither of them are or were particularly great bowlers. Just ordinary bowlers, who in the right conditions can be a handful.

 

[nexxus]

You are in a minority of precisely one if you think that Vaughan cheated and de Villiers didn't. Vaughan's catch was probably clean. De Villiers' was certainly not, and what's worse is that he must have known it wasn't.

I don't really think Vaughn cheated, just being a bit malicious , though I do think the ball hit the ground first. Nor do I think deV cheated, he just hasn't cast that sort of impression through his career, if anything he's been a bit too nice. Of course, now he's going to be booed for the rest of the tour.

 

[zaremba]

now he's going to be booed for the rest of the tour.

I dunno about that. He has a pretty spotless previous reputation, he comes across as a decent guy and, after the boos at his 100, he got applauded for his 150 and again when he was eventually out. And that by a pissed-up Headingly crowd. He'll be alright.

BTW I don't think that cheating is such a serious allegation as some people make out. Atherton cheated with the dirt in the pocket; Afridi by doing pirhouettes on the pitch; Imran and many others by ball-tampering. It happens. I also think that de Villiers was encouraged to claim the catch by Boucher and Smith (he apparently asked them if he'd caught it cleanly, and they said he had - when they must've seen that he hadn't).

 

[Leslie1]

A side is put into bat, and asked to post a total, but posted a meagre total of 203. Surely that means that batsmen should be held more accountable than an average bowling performance on a flat deck, when they have taken the wickets the test match previous.

To suggest the bowling attack is fruitless is not really what the selectors are thinking. They are thinking, why oh why when Kevin Pieterson doesn't come off, the rest of the batting, barring the Napier (nz) test match, bat like kittens in the lions' den.

 

[Langeveldt]

I dunno about that. He has a pretty spotless previous reputation, he comes across as a decent guy and, after the boos at his 100, he got applauded for his 150 and again when he was eventually out. And that by a pissed-up Headingly crowd. He'll be alright.

BTW I don't think that cheating is such a serious allegation as some people make out. Atherton cheated with the dirt in the pocket; Afridi by doing pirhouettes on the pitch; Imran and many others by ball-tampering. It happens. I also think that de Villiers was encouraged to claim the catch by Boucher and Smith (he apparently asked them if he'd caught it cleanly, and they said he had - when they must've seen that he hadn't).

It looked pretty horrible, but how many batsmen don't walk after they know they've nicked it? Pretty much everyone, and I bet they don't get all booed.. I still think it ranks up there with that hideous bit of cricket involving Grant Elliott and the collision, and I think Collingwood was extremely lucky to get away without an extreme amount of mudslinging from the general public.. I guess thats just a case of sticking behind your own..

 

[zaremba]

It looked pretty horrible, but how many batsmen don't walk after they know they've nicked it? Pretty much everyone, and I bet they don't get all booed.. I still think it ranks up there with that hideous bit of cricket involving Grant Elliott and the collision, and I think Collingwood was extremely lucky to get away without an extreme amount of mudslinging from the general public.. I guess thats just a case of sticking behind your own..

Well you're right about batsmen not walking - it's an interesting comparison, and I've not entirely decided quite what the neatest distinction is between the two cases. But there certainly is a distinction, not least because of commonly-accepted practice: not walking is seen as acceptable by many, but no-one (including, you'd hope, ABdV) would say that claiming a catch you know you dropped is in any way acceptable.

As for Collingwood, you're stretching things. Collingwood did what he was entitled to do within the laws of the game. Besides, if Elliott hadn't chosen to run into Sidebottom's path, he'd have been run out anyway, so why should he escape being run-out merely because he chose a smart direction in which to run?

In any event, Collingwood didn't escape the mudslinging. He got absolutely slated, and very many England fans were pleased that we lost that game.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I think Collingwood would have taken a lot of stick had he not apologized straight after.

As it was, all that happened was that a lot of people (me included) hoped we'd lose the game, personally my respect went back up for him when he came out and apologized.

 

[zaremba]

I think Collingwood would have taken a lot of stick had he not apologized straight after.

As it was, all that happened was that a lot of people (me included) hoped we'd lose the game, personally my respect went back up for him when he came out and apologized.

It seems, from all the ostentatious applause and back-slapping which the England team gave to ABdV after he reached his century, that he's apologised to them too.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Lets go through the Tests in reverse order.

This Test, 3-65 3 tailenders when it's too little too late. Rubbish
1st Test v SA, 4-190 in 86 overs - 2 tailenders. One batsman bowled around his legs another clipped to midwicket. Failed miserably with 0 wickets in 60 overs in SA's 2nd innings when trying to force a win

3rd Test v NZ 0-21
2nd Test v NZ 7-138. Horrible first innings performance puts England in trouble. Then 6 wickets in the 2nd innings when NZ decided to keep trying and sweep him and pad up to straight balls, included 1 tailender and Vettori.
1st Test v NZ 2-86. McCullum missing a straight ball on 97 and failed taking 1 wicket in 24 overs in NZ's second innings when trying to force a result.


3rd Test v NZ 6-126. Took 46 overs to take these wickets with NZ trying to get a draw. Standard lbw to a typical non-turner, top-edged long hop, lazy cut shot edged behind, a rare genuine edge from a good delivery, McCullum missing another non-turner and a tailender.
2nd Test v NZ 1-55. Last man out hits it to long-on
1st Test v NZ 4-151. A rare genuine edge in the first innings costing over 100 runs. 3 cheap meaningless wickets in the 2nd innings during a declaration charge including 1 tailender.


3rd Test v SL 0-76. Useless.
2nd Test v SL 2-150. Last two wickets in a declaration charge, one of them a tailender.
1st Test v SL 6-178. 1st innings 2 tailenders and a properly earned good wicket. 2nd innings 3-132, all 3 late wickets in a declaration charge, One tailender and another caught at long-on.


Do I need to go on or are you lot *finally* getting it?

What I don't get is why you consider a non-turner a non-dangerous delivery.

 

[fredfertang]

Is my memory at fault or was there a very similar incident to the DeVilliers one involving Geraint Jones and a Bangladeshi batsman in 2005 where he claimed a scarcely credible "I genuinely thought I caught it" afterwards ?