-
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 starter TT Boy
- Start date
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
And you don't think that SA were in a "on the back foot" mindset just after their middle- and lower-order had just fallen over, when they were following on 346 runs behind and with over 2 days to bat? If they weren't on the back foot at that stage then why did they resort to all-out-defence when put in to bat?
The fact is, the odds were against them and they have battled through magnificently. England's odds of success would have been less had they batted again. And to do so in order to rest their bowlers for the next match would have been laughable.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
They were. But for mine, it'd have been even more so had they been back in the field then back out. At least the top-order had been in the hut for a day or half a day. There's really no way of saying such a thing for certain, however. I don't feel the follow-on enhanced England's chances of victory by a great deal, and I'll leave it at that.
100 for Amla. Top three all make centuries.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yeah, exactly, that's the problem. Too often it's treated as "enforce the follow-on if you can". Myself, I'd do it as "only enforce if it's a last-resort" (ie, if time is running-out and\or bad weather is forecast).
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Haha, looks like we can. 1 hour 20 minutes before schedule.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
When does scoring a hundred at Lord's stop being special? This pitch makes a mockery of it.
Hashim Amla.
Hashim Amla.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Didn't Agarkar do it once? It stopped being special right then and there.When does scoring a hundred at Lord's stop being special? This pitch makes a mockery of it.
Hashim Amla.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
And a little good fortune. Won't dwell too much on it because you really can't tell, but that's half the point. If 200 for 1 was instead 50 for 1, one hell of a lot can go differently from then on.
Oh well, looks like we've got to come back out again now.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
So 4 friggin' hundred was not far enough on the back foot for you?Had England batted again, they could have smashed a few and put SA in the sort of "on the back-foot" mindset that, to some extent, saw their middle- and lower-order fall over on Saturday. Whether it'd have done so again we can't know, but it was no less likely to be effective than the follow-on was.
Collingwood gets the third new-ball.
Face it Richard, you're wrong
SirBloody Idiot
Cricketer Of The Year
This is mildly entertaining.
SirBloody Idiot
Cricketer Of The Year
Oh poop. I wanted Strauss to bowl.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Even Cook made Amla look substandard. Furious about him scoring runs. I really hope Australia work him over.
Marius
International Debutant
Well done South Africa. Very well done to bat out 3 days I think. England can also take alot out of this Test match though, for 3 days there was no doubt that they were by far the best side.
Its actually set the series up nicely. If I was an English bowler I would be praying that Vaughan wins the toss in the next match and bats.
As an aside, I think Smith believed too much of the pre-series hype about the SA bowling attack. WTF was he thinking to put England in on Thursday? That decision made no sense, and it proven, 600 runs lately.
Its actually set the series up nicely. If I was an English bowler I would be praying that Vaughan wins the toss in the next match and bats.
As an aside, I think Smith believed too much of the pre-series hype about the SA bowling attack. WTF was he thinking to put England in on Thursday? That decision made no sense, and it proven, 600 runs lately.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
No, I won't face anything, because if I considered it was wrong I'd not have said it.
Yes, indeed South Africa would have been more on-the-back-foot if they'd been smashed for 200 off 40 overs or so then put back in than they were having been put straight back in.