***Official*** South Africa v West Indies

[sledger]

lol when they won that test against australia was great one of my best cricket memories.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

2-0 is a thrashing when it was a two-Test series, and when both wins were highly convincing. Regarding the 1st Test against South Africa, it is an extremely tenuous argument to say that because the West Indies performed well in one Test in which Lara was not present, they will do so in all or most Tests. As I said before, there is simply no other evidence to suggest that Lara's presence has a negative impact on the West Indies' performance; if you beg to differ, please provide some evidence.

I think the problem is that Lara is one of the few players who truly values his place in the side. I thought that Sarwan had finally returned to that point in the second inning in Trinidad, but then he played that horrendous shot to gift Nel a smile in this Test. Granted the skipper played a worse shot.

On a side note, I'd like to co-author an article on Lara and West Indies cricket with you Adam. You up for it?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

i dont really believe it myself, its just what some have been saying, il have a look for some evidence for this theory if you like...but later though....im at school now, and yes as mxy says fair play to te guy he scored a magnificent innings yesterday, too bad that the rest of the top order batsman (not including chanderpaul) disgraced themselves.

Of the top of my head, 8 against England, 5 against South Africa. That's 13... I must be missing something somewhere...

 

[Adamc]

On a side note, I'd like to co-author an article on Lara and West Indies cricket with you Adam. You up for it?

Yes, definitely; Lara's my favourite player. Obviously when your exams and suchlike are out of the way of course.

 

[Adamc]

Two more for Zondeki, even 300 is looking generous now. Pitch report, anyone?

 

[Steulen]

296ao...last 5 wickets down for 10 runs.

Are they England in disguise?

 

[Adamc]

296ao...last 5 wickets down for 10 runs.

Are they England in disguise?

No, South Africa aren't that good yet.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Tino Best being interviewed on the radio and it's ridiculous. Tino Best seems very level-headed and is referring to himself correctly (in the first person), but the interviewer keeps referring to him in the third person. "What is Tino Best doing to get back into the team?" "Why do the fans gravitate to Tino Best?" "What does Tino Best do in his spare time?" "When does Tino Best see himself back in the Test side?" "What does Tino Best think of this pitch?"

So annoying.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Pretty ordinary stuff being served up before lunch. I know the commentators always make a big thing of it, but The Windies body language is pretty awful. Look very resigned already. Chanderpaul & the senior players need to do something, even if it's just a bit of chatter.

 

[Adamc]

I think Lara hit the nail on the head here:

Speaking about his team’s game plan, Lara said that the bowlers should try and limit the South Africans to under three runs an over. “If we get in 100 overs and we can get them out within that period of time, they must not be in excess of 300 runs. That should be our aim."

South Africa aren't really likely to go much faster than three runs per over, and ten wickets in 100 overs is a realistic target. The way they're going about it, though, it's simply not going to happen. It is pleasing however to see a massive reduction in no-balls - just one so far from 26 overs.

 

[SJS]

I think Lara hit the nail on the head here:

South Africa aren't really likely to go much faster than three runs per over, and ten wickets in 100 overs is a realistic target. The way they're going about it, though, it's simply not going to happen. It is pleasing however to see a massive reduction in no-balls - just one so far from 26 overs.

Number of overs never got a team out, wicket taking bowling does (most of the time).

Dont know if West Indies have much of that.

 

[Adamc]

Number of overs never got a team out, wicket taking bowling does (most of the time).

Dont know if West Indies have much of that.

Yes, I know - I'm just saying that 100 overs is a realistic target within which to produce ten deliveries which take wickets.

 

[SJS]

Yes, I know - I'm just saying that 100 overs is a realistic target within which to produce ten deliveries which take wickets.

I was not beig sarcastic. Just that West Indies bowling doesnt seem good enough to bowl out S Africa in 100 overs .

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Fidel Edwards did bowl very well today. He bowled with big heart, lots of pace and aggression. He was quite unlucky not to have Smith at the very least.

The overall bowling has not been that bad, if not penetrative. There were a couple of very close LBWs, the first of which looked and still looks very much out. Bravo almost took a spectacular catch off Edwards' bowling and barely missed a run out chance of AB earlier in the innings.

It's not as though the chances haven't been there. With a little luck, the West Indies could have had at least a couple of wickets by now. Daren Powell looks very much deflated though. He and Edwards should get a run in tandem at some point. That said, Chanderpaul seems too clever a captain for that sort of stuff.

 

[honestbharani]

The man scored 176 runs! What more do you want from him? Bevan never scored so many, so I dare say he was never unbeaten on 176.

I was actually being a little sarcastic there. Lara is already doing almost ALL the runscoring for the Windies and now, it seems, even that is not good enough. So maybe he should also master the art of remaining not out AND making these huge scores. But, who knows, even then this Windies side might discover a way to get defeated.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

As far as I can see, both teams have bowled fairly well on this flat track. The West Indies has bowled no worse than South Africa. You may ask why South Africa is dominating then? Simple...

1. Smith's leadership and man-management is massively superior to Chanderpaul's.
2. The South Africans batted with discipline.

The West Indies batting and tactical deficiency has been the let down. The bowlers shouldn't be harshly blamed, because this pitch isn't one that you're going to blast batsmen out on. They've not done that badly at all. Edwards was exceptional from my perspective.

 

[SJS]

Yes, I know - I'm just saying that 100 overs is a realistic target within which to produce ten deliveries which take wickets.

Sorry Adam but Windies are bent on proving me right

 

[Adamc]

Sorry Adam but Windies are bent on proving me right

Yes, I agree with you - I never said the West Indies were likely to get 10 wickets in 100 overs, I just said that it should be a realistic expectation of a Test-quality bowling lineup. The fact that the West Indies are not regularly meeting this expectation demonstrates that they do not have at present a Test-quality bowling lineup.

 

[SJS]

Yes, I agree with you - I never said the West Indies were likely to get 10 wickets in 100 overs, I just said that it should be a realistic expectation of a Test-quality bowling lineup. The fact that the West Indies are not regularly meeting this expectation demonstrates that they do not have at present a Test-quality bowling lineup.

No team in history has been able to do well when it has relied predominantly on one player, howsoever great he may have been, Lara or Sobers or Sachin.

Bradman too was part of a very strong Aussie side. West Indies is too much about Lara.
My real worry is the depths this side will plummet to when he finaly calls it a day.

 

[shaka]

umm didn't they play better as a unit when he was not in the team for the 1st test?