Simon Jones or James Anderson?

[marc71178]

Nope, indeed - reliant on the most recent spell, a pile of rubbish that somehow ended-up with 9.3-15-2.

Such rubbish when SA were trying to accelerate.

Disgraceful bowling that.

 

[Richard]

hardly surprising for you to say that either. of course the fact is that for the first half at least he was accurate and put the players under pressure, something that caused rudolph to get out. no surprise that he bowled 4 maidens either, something that you quite conveniently ignored.

Because I find maidens totally irrelevant, you might notice I NEVER quote them in figures, ER is the only thing that matters.
It's far better to get 19-2-43-0 than 15-7-54-0 - anyone will tell you that.
Yes, he was reasonably accurate - I hardly see, though, that Rudolph was forced into hitting the innocuous delivery in the air.

 

[Richard]

Such rubbish when SA were trying to accelerate.

Disgraceful bowling that.

Yes, they were trying so hard to accelerate, weren't they?
So hard that every bowler bowled economically on the third evening.

 

[marc71178]

And when Jones came on the next morning?

 

[Richard]

And bowled the sum-total of 9 deliveries...

 

[sledger]

9 is better than 8 i suppose..........

 

[Richard]

It is, but it still hardly registers - even if he'd gone for a-run-a-ball he'd still have been going for less than 2.5-an-over, and with the chaos going on at the time it was hardly likely to be anywhere near that.

 

[tooextracool]

Because I find maidens totally irrelevant, you might notice I NEVER quote them in figures, ER is the only thing that matters.
It's far better to get 19-2-43-0 than 15-7-54-0 - anyone will tell you that.

yes and what a disgraceful ER he had didnt he. 1.5 OMG he should shoot himself.

Yes, he was reasonably accurate - I hardly see, though, that Rudolph was forced into hitting the innocuous delivery in the air.

oh no, in the period when SA where trying to push the score along he was obviously quite satisfied with just blocking the deliveries that he got. of course. as i am sure accurate bowling on flat pitches by a bowler who is often wayward is rubbish.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, they were trying so hard to accelerate, weren't they?
So hard that every bowler bowled economically on the third evening.

yes every bowler, and of course hoggard was so economical when he went at more than 4.5 an over? as im sure was giles who went for for more than 3 runs an over. only flintoff and to an extent harmison who went for nearly 3 an over were economical and certainly neither of them were as economical as jones. of course that means that jones bowled the rubbish.

 

[Richard]

yes and what a disgraceful ER he had didnt he. 1.5 OMG he should shoot himself.

Which is precisely the point - there is no need to mention maidens because the economy-rate is outstanding.

oh no, in the period when SA where trying to push the score along he was obviously quite satisfied with just blocking the deliveries that he got. of course. as i am sure accurate bowling on flat pitches by a bowler who is often wayward is rubbish.

They were trying to push the score on - so why were Kallis and Dippenaar scoring so incredibly slowly?

 

[12th Man]

Jones

Simon Jones just

 

[Richard]

yes every bowler, and of course hoggard was so economical when he went at more than 4.5 an over? as im sure was giles who went for for more than 3 runs an over. only flintoff and to an extent harmison who went for nearly 3 an over were economical and certainly neither of them were as economical as jones. of course that means that jones bowled the rubbish.

During the period in which Kallis and Dippenaar were together (which contained nearly all Jones' overs) there was no attempt being made at accelleration.
Hoggard and Giles hardly bowled in that period so it's not surprising that they were expensive earlier on.

 

[tooextracool]

During the period in which Kallis and Dippenaar were together (which contained nearly all Jones' overs) there was no attempt being made at accelleration.
Hoggard and Giles hardly bowled in that period so it's not surprising that they were expensive earlier on.

well done with the watching. if you had watched the game, you would have seen that in the over just before jones came on giles was hammered for a 4 and a 6 by kallis. then jones came in and bowled a maiden to rudolph and of course frustrated rudolph for another 3 overs before dismissing him.
after tea hoggard came on and bowled 4 overs and got hammered for his first 2. then of course giles, harmison and flintoff bowled. harmison went for 21 off his 7 overs bowling to dippenaar and kallis. flintoff of course was economical throughout the match. so well done with the 'hoggard and giles' hardly bowled in that period.

 

[tooextracool]

Which is precisely the point - there is no need to mention maidens because the economy-rate is outstanding.

go ahead then and explain how someone who bowled 9.3-15-2 could have bowled 'a pile of rubbish'.

They were trying to push the score on - so why were Kallis and Dippenaar scoring so incredibly slowly?

maybe it is because they(flintoff and jones) bowled well?

 

[Richard]

well done with the watching. if you had watched the game, you would have seen that in the over just before jones came on giles was hammered for a 4 and a 6 by kallis. then jones came in and bowled a maiden to rudolph and of course frustrated rudolph for another 3 overs before dismissing him.
after tea hoggard came on and bowled 4 overs and got hammered for his first 2. then of course giles, harmison and flintoff bowled. harmison went for 21 off his 7 overs bowling to dippenaar and kallis. flintoff of course was economical throughout the match. so well done with the 'hoggard and giles' hardly bowled in that period.

And now let's see the significant part - who bowled while Kallis and Dippenaar were batting together?
For posterity's sake, I'll do it myself:
In the first 11 overs South Africa scored 60, scoring freely off Hoggard and Harmison. Flintoff was brought on and Gibbs got out to him. The next 4 overs cost just 6, then Kallis hit 7 off Harmison and 14 off Giles. The next 8 overs before Tea (bowled by Jones and Giles) cost just 13, inclduing Rudolph's dismissal, as the batsmen made little effort to force the pace (except, of course, for Rudolph's shot that got him out). After Tea Hoggard went for 15 off 4, Flintoff 5 off 5, Giles bowled 8 for 19, Harmison's first went for 11 then his next 7 for 12, Flintoff 4 for 10 and Jones 3 for 3.
So you can see quite clearly that I was right to assert that Hoggard hardly bowled and that Giles was not expensive when he did bowl (after his 1st over he had 12 overs for 27). All the bowlers who bowled at Kallis and Dippenaar were economical, except for the 1 Harmison over.
So there goes another of your "you didn't watch it" games.

 

[Richard]

go ahead then and explain how someone who bowled 9.3-15-2 could have bowled 'a pile of rubbish'.

If you looked carefully you might notice I didn't label that spell as such - I labelled some of the prior spells.

maybe it is because they(flintoff and jones) bowled well?

Oh, it was - partly, and it was partly because no effort was made to break out.

 

[tooextracool]

If you looked carefully you might notice I didn't label that spell as such - I labelled some of the prior spells.

"a pile of rubbish that somehow ended-up with 9.3-15-2"

Oh, it was - partly, and it was partly because no effort was made to break out..

as explained by hoggard getting hammered and giles being hammered for a 6 and 4 in the same over before jones came on.

 

[tooextracool]

And now let's see the significant part - who bowled while Kallis and Dippenaar were batting together?
For posterity's sake, I'll do it myself:
In the first 11 overs South Africa scored 60, scoring freely off Hoggard and Harmison. Flintoff was brought on and Gibbs got out to him. The next 4 overs cost just 6, then Kallis hit 7 off Harmison and 14 off Giles. The next 8 overs before Tea (bowled by Jones and Giles) cost just 13, inclduing Rudolph's dismissal, as the batsmen made little effort to force the pace (except, of course, for Rudolph's shot that got him out). After Tea Hoggard went for 15 off 4, Flintoff 5 off 5, Giles bowled 8 for 19, Harmison's first went for 11 then his next 7 for 12, Flintoff 4 for 10 and Jones 3 for 3.
So you can see quite clearly that I was right to assert that Hoggard hardly bowled and that Giles was not expensive when he did bowl (after his 1st over he had 12 overs for 27). All the bowlers who bowled at Kallis and Dippenaar were economical, except for the 1 Harmison over.
So there goes another of your "you didn't watch it" games.

yes hoggard bowled nearly half his overs during that period, im sure that counts as barely any overs. as does giles bowling 12 overs.
and of course you can ignore whatever overs you want cant you?

 

[SpeedKing]

Anderson ''lost it'' in this test but i feel he has been messed around by England. the poor guy has not yet even bowled 1000 first class overs so i reealllyyy feel sorry for him the way everyone is laying into him after that awfull perfomance. but i think it's best to let himm have a break and atleast get in a full season with lacanshire.

 

[marc71178]

Hence you'd prefer Jones at this point in time?