*Official* South Africa in West Indies

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Here's the point I was making, which I'm sure you'll appreciate....

Harris is bowling way outside the legstump of the right hander (Bravo), who's batting has been inconsistent, and being in a losing team, is wary of taking an unnecessary risk, losing his wicket, and getting his team in trouble again. The pacer is bowling quite a bit outside offstump as well....

If this was a WI team that was at least winning some of their recent matches, then they'd feel confident having a go. But they just want to get thru a match without losing, and that sentiment is understandable, in a way.

That, and Smith's negative bowling plan, made risk-free runs hard to get.

I understand why there was a conservative approach, with the fear of losing. And West Indies will have to get over a fear of losing (sadly) before they can instill a belief in winning. However there comes a time when impetus is needed. Against Harris that was particularly difficult, but the batsmen seemed largely content to let the fast bowlers bowl 2 feet outside offstump. Surely, on this tame pitch, some sort of advance could have been made once the batsmen were in.

On the whole I agree with what you're saying, but only to an extent. And that extent came after an hour and some into the morning session.

 

[Scaly piscine]

That's a bit naive....

When Bravo and Shiv were batting, they were still a good 100 or so runs behind. Given Ramdin's poor form with the bat, and the long tail, if Shiv and Bravo had swung their bats, and got out irresponsibly, the Saffers could press the advantage. Remember, this was before the rain washed out a good hour and a half's play....

As we saw in England's tour of the Caribbean last year, even on dead batting tracks, the WI could collapse, and leave it to the tailenders to hang on for the draw.

For South Africa to get a big enough lead and be safe enough to declare they'd be leaving a maximum of 2 and a half sessions for West Indies to bat out. That was worst case scenario with a horrible collapse this morning and the two spinners bowling like drains. On the other hand just pulling level with South Africa and not taking most of the day to do so would leave SA needing to bat out around 3 sessions to be safe.

 

[akilana]

I would blame the pitches than the teams. With that pitch, it's hard to force a win.

 

[Top_Cat]

I understand we had Australia in trouble in that Test, but it seems that these days our big performances seem to be in vain, the senior players seem to always turn up when we are already behind (one nil down in the series), why didn't they play like this in the first test? that's my argument.

And it's a bit redundant when you consider OZ haven't come close to losing on the 'Gabba since the WI were here in 1988. Every team struggles there most get killed, the only draws since '88 have been rain affected. NZ only got close almost 10 years ago because of a very friendly declaration in what was, again, a rain-affected match. Why do you think it's always the first Test of the tour?

EDIT: OZ's 'Gabba record since 1987. Simply awesome. Only 8 losses there ever, half of them in the 80's when the Aussies were pretty damn average.

 

[WindieWeathers]

No, check my posts....

I've stated that I'm not a Dowlin fan, but felt he deserved this series, based on his stats in Test cricket. He's had his run, and failed. But with Barath injured, there really wasn't much alternative to him as opener. Smith and Richards have not succeeded in the longer format of the game.

As for Samuels, his stats in test cricket aren't particularly great. He's been inconsistent with the bat, much like Bravo....

That's my point though, he never "deserved" anything like you claim, he hasn't set the place on fire for Guyana that much lately and he wasn't exactly a superstar for the A-team either so why did he "deserve" anything? oh he hit a 50 against Australia so "he must be good" right? .

I was telling you the man shouldn't be anywhere near the side Mike and you kept on backing the guy, there's no point trying to deny it!!.

 

[marc71178]

You were calling for Nash and Chanderpaul to be dropped from the Test team when everyone else insisted that dropping them was ridiculous, there's no point trying to deny it!!!

Think we all know which call was the most stupid.

 

[WindieWeathers]

You were calling for Nash and Chanderpaul to be dropped from the Test team when everyone else insisted that dropping them was ridiculous, there's no point trying to deny it!!!

Think we all know which call was the most stupid.

Erm no "columbo" i was calling for Chanders to be dropped after the poor form he's been showing FOR OVER A YEAR!! , furthermore i only called for the seniors (which includes Nash) to be dropped after their shocking performance at Queens park the other day of which they showed a complete lack of skill and spirit, you might call that opinion "stupid" but people who know much more about cricket than you such as Collin Croft agrees with it so i guess he's "stupid" too right?!! .

 

[marc71178]

Funny, don't think January counts as last week somehow.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Funny, don't think January counts as last week somehow.

Ooops i forgot you know everything about my posts now don't you Columbo?!!


P.S. Nash's position was under threat due to the form Deo had been showing since his 80 against Australia, if Sarwan and Barath hadn't have been injured one of Nash or Deo would have missed out so it was only logical to debate which one it would be.

 

[Top_Cat]

No, what's stupid is the argument that because he's Colin Croft, he's incapable of saying anything stupid about cricket. He's just a man and, for that matter, a man who's said some pretty daft things over the years.

 

[Howsie]

P.S. Nash's position was under threat due to the form Deo had been showing since his 80 against Australia.

That's my point though, he never "deserved" anything like you claim, he hasn't set the place on fire for Guyana that much lately and he wasn't exactly a superstar for the A-team either so why did he "deserve" anything? oh he hit a 50 against Australia so "he must be good" right? .

I was telling you the man shouldn't be anywhere near the side Mike and you kept on backing the guy, there's no point trying to deny it!!.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Form SINCE the 80 in Australia i.e winning us the series against Zimbabwe and also doing well in the ODI's against Australia too!!, he was a man playing with a lot of confidence!!, but who am i kidding? you probably won't be able to comprehend that anyway as you only seem to want to "post for effect" these days!! . .

 

[WindieWeathers]

No, what's stupid is the argument that because he's Colin Croft, he's incapable of saying anything stupid about cricket. He's just a man and, for that matter, a man who's said some pretty daft things over the years.

Care to name the "stupid things" he's said? also the man HAS PLAYED THE GAME at the heighest level and knows the ins and outs of the game too, especially when it comes to West Indian cricket, pardon me for thinking he'd know a tad bit more about WI's current situation than most of the posters on this forum!! .

 

[DingDong]

classic howsie

 

[andyc]

Care to name the "stupid things" he's said? also the man HAS PLAYED THE GAME at the heighest level and knows the ins and outs of the game too, especially when it comes to West Indian cricket, pardon me for thinking he'd know a tad bit more about WI's current situation than most of the posters on this forum!! .

I hear that the selectors also played the game at the highest level, tbh.

 

[Top_Cat]

Care to name the "stupid things" he's said? also the man HAS PLAYED THE GAME at the heighest level and knows the ins and outs of the game too, especially when it comes to West Indian cricket, pardon me for thinking he'd know a tad bit more about WI's current situation than most of the posters on this forum!! .

Croft's columns during the player's strike were awful.

Honestly, if the basis of your arguments are always going to be 'famous player x agrees with me so I must be right and you're wrong because you never played Test cricket', why are you here? No-one regularly posting on this forum has played Tests so why bother? Why, for example, should we even bother with you when your opinions are in complete opposition to those of the selectors? Pulling the credibility argument when we're all in the same boat is a dick move.

 

[Sir Alex]

What a pathetic cricket match.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Croft's columns during the player's strike were awful.

Honestly, if the basis of your arguments are always going to be 'famous player x agrees with me so I must be right and you're wrong because you never played Test cricket', why are you here? No-one regularly posting on this forum has played Tests so why bother? Why, for example, should we even bother with you when your opinions are in complete opposition to those of the selectors? Pulling the credibility argument when we're all in the same boat is a dick move.

When people started being ignorant by claiming my opinion was "mad" that's when i played the Croft card, in an effort to make them fathom that if people who've actually played the game and have more knowledge about it than them agree with me then maybe my notion isn't as "mad" as they imply .

 

[Stapel]

WW, you have convinced me that Colin Croft is a crap commentator. And that's about it!


Now then, the game as it is: Any chance of quick wickets to fall on day 5? I don't think so...

 

[Flem274*]

lol great dig.