***Official*** South Africa in England

[Lillian Thomson]

I don't agree with the commentators when they say that SA have to be 'aggressive' or 'look to score runs' even when scoring runs isn't going to save them the test match. Nearly every time a team is in this situation all the commentators say exactly the same thing, that the batting side have to be 'positive' so that they don't become sitting ducks.

I think this is just wrong. I mean, the value of runs is almost nil at this point, it doesn't effect England at all whether McKenzie hits a 4 every over or every hour, Vaughan would still set the same field and the bowlers would still bowl the same, the only thing that would change would be that the batsmen have more of a chance of getting out.

Apparently, if you score 10 runs of 10 overs, England can 'get on top of you', but that clearly isn't true, it's just one of these random cliched illogical phrases that commentators trot out every time a certain situation occurs.

Thoughts?

The only runs consideration is if they bat to the latter stages of tomorrow they might still not have enough runs to avoid defeat if they score too slowly but it's scant consideration at this stage.

 

[NassersKnock]

McKenzie stone dead there too. What was that missing?!?

The bat, by about half an inch...which is why it wasn't given.

 

[wpdavid]

The only runs consideration is if they bat to the latter stages of tomorrow they might still not have enough runs to avoid defeat if they score too slowly but it's scant consideration at this stage.

Sounds fair to me, especially as their first session should have been predominantly about seeing off the new ball. beyond that, they'll want to take runs where possible though, unless they manage to bat for about 5 and a half sessions. A rough calculation suggests that the next 4 sessions at 3 runs an over would leave them about 120 runs ahead.

 

[wpdavid]

The bat, by about half an inch...which is why it wasn't given.

The shout was for leg before.

 

[Richard]

Don't bother with this one David. Even if it's not SW\BLE, clearly a waste of time trying to make him\her see anything but negatives in England-related stuff.

 

[Richard]

I'm struck by how sparingly Vaughan has used Anderson & Broad this morning, given that the ball was still relatively new for most of it.

It wasn't, though, not in the slightest. It was badly scuffed by about 12 or 13 overs.

 

[wpdavid]

It wasn't, though, not in the slightest. It was badly scuffed by about 12 or 13 overs.

OK, but surely it was harder than it will be this afternoon.

 

[Richard]

Anderson is AWS swinging it far more than he even looked like doing in the few overs he bowled earlier.

And for some bizarre reason, England aren't happy with the ball. Which seems exceptionally strange.

 

[Richard]

Sidebottom looking far from 100% fit here.

 

[pasag]

Liking the look of McKenzie here, though reckon Anderson might get him soon. Good cricket this.

 

[NassersKnock]

The shout was for leg before.

And when it misses the bat by a millimetre, 0.0000001 seconds before hitting the pad...a thing commonly referred to as doubt is created.

This thing I speak of called doubt plays a bit of a role in LBW decisions, look into it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

And when it misses the bat by a millimetre, 0.0000001 seconds before hitting the pad...a thing commonly referred to as doubt is created.

This thing I speak of called doubt plays a bit of a role in LBW decisions, look into it.

Pitching outside leg stump usually qualifies as doubt as well.......tell trying Andrew Strauss that.

 

[NassersKnock]

Pitching outside leg stump usually qualifies as doubt as well.......tell trying Andrew Strauss that.

Two wrong's don't make a right, my friend.

One was a poor decision, one was fair enough.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Two wrong's don't make a right, my friend.

One was a poor decision, one was fair enough.

Nothing to do with it, the point is that the perceived doubt you seem to be accusing people of not understanding doesn't always make for the right decision.

 

[pasag]

Don't bother with this one David. Even if it's not SW\BLE, clearly a waste of time trying to make him\her see anything but negatives in England-related stuff.

Is, ftr.

 

[Richard]

Haha, better late than never.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't agree with the commentators when they say that SA have to be 'aggressive' or 'look to score runs' even when scoring runs isn't going to save them the test match. Nearly every time a team is in this situation all the commentators say exactly the same thing, that the batting side have to be 'positive' so that they don't become sitting ducks.

I think this is just wrong. I mean, the value of runs is almost nil at this point, it doesn't effect England at all whether McKenzie hits a 4 every over or every hour, Vaughan would still set the same field and the bowlers would still bowl the same, the only thing that would change would be that the batsmen have more of a chance of getting out.

Apparently, if you score 10 runs of 10 overs, England can 'get on top of you', but that clearly isn't true, it's just one of these random cliched illogical phrases that commentators trot out every time a certain situation occurs.

Thoughts?

In this situation, i agree. South Africa have every incentive to bat negatively, going along at under 2 an over will not bother anyone in the dressing room in the slightest if they lose no wickets.
However, when people refer to letting the bowlers 'get on top of you', they mean that they can set fields so attacking that any slight mistake will usually get you out. Look at Rahul Dravid's slowest-ever-12 against England last year for a good case of batting too negatively leading to a low score.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Is, ftr.

We should be allowed to toy with him for a while first. What's the least number of posts he's managed under a specific user name?

 

[Richard]

6 is the least I can find.

 

[wpdavid]

How do we rate Anderson's bowling in this game?