Originally posted by CrowleyThank you Crowley for starting the forum, and keeping it lively through out the test. See you on Friday
Was a yo-yo affair with some very good individuaul performances. Actually it was a game of ONLY individual performances. There was only really 4 players in that game: Marcus, Andrew, Herchelle, and Matthew. With Vaughan and Boucher returning to form.
Congrats :'(
Originally posted by CrowleyWhat a fantastic game!!
Where we will crush you!!!
HAHAHA!
Obviously England winning it was the sweetest thing, but it would have been perfect if SA had a more realistic chance of chasing the runs. Still, there was the light and Bucknor's itchy light meter to fret about and make us nervous.
Just think how easily we would have crushed SA if Harmison was even a shadow of what he was in 2004.
Still nice to see England show some backbone and will to win which they rarely did in the 90's.
Originally posted by CrowleyI think that South Africa will always end up as winners though, either way. We have nice weather and prettier women.
Was a pretty good game for the neutral supporter. Strange, it was pretty much a game of batting collapses. Only, the SA colapse was the worst of the lot and lost us the game.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by Crowley240+ is not a collapse from 18-3!!! If Kallis had not gone first ball you could well have won it the rate you were scoring.
Was a pretty good game for the neutral supporter. Strange, it was pretty much a game of batting collapses. Only, the SA colapse was the worst of the lot and lost us the game.
Andrew
Originally posted by latex bishopThat's a bit misleading.
240+ is not a collapse from 18-3!!! If Kallis had not gone first ball you could well have won it the rate you were scoring.
Andrew
The only reason they were scoring at that rate is that England set very attacking fields. They didn't care about boundaries being scored because they knew the total was so far away.
Also, they were happy to let Smith get a 4 towards the end of an over so they could bowl at the tailenders at the other end.
When Smith accidentally got 4 from the last ball of an over, one of the commentators noted his expression: "He looks like the unhappiest man ever to have scored a 4!".
If there had been any danger of the total being reached, Vaughan would have pulled the field back to a defensive position.
Originally posted by VargYup, spot on.
That's a bit misleading.
The only reason they were scoring at that rate is that England set very attacking fields. They didn't care about boundaries being scored because they knew the total was so far away.
Also, they were happy to let Smi ...[text shortened]... Vaughan would have pulled the field back to a defensive position.
If our friggin coach also didn't do us any favours by hitting our opener and captain on the temple with a rock hard cricket ball. It might have been a different story if Gibbs and Smith opened together with a gettable total. Vaughan was always going to attack first up, if our openers hit a quick 100 - who knows?
Ah well.... Damn these grapes are sour!
Originally posted by CrowleyAgreed. I think if Smith had opened in his usual position it would probably have been a draw. But then I said it was going to be a draw anyway.
Yup, spot on.
If our friggin coach also didn't do us any favours by hitting our opener and captain on the temple with a rock hard cricket ball. It might have been a different story if Gibbs and Smith opened together with a gettable total. Vaughan was always going to attack first up, if our openers hit a quick 100 - who knows?
Ah well.... Damn these grapes are sour!
I always though Hoggard was good, but as a reliable wicket taker, not a storming match-winner.
Might be some consolation for you that about a third of the England team have injury worries for the last Test.
I still don't think of Hoggard as this match winning star that he was made out to be. He doesn't get big swing or movement off the pitch. He doesn't get big bounce and he certainly wasn't bowling very fast.
SA's batsmen had resigned themselves to a draw and just weren't concentrating.
Hoggard merely put the ball in the rigth areas and all the batsmen just gave their wickets away (inluding some very dodgy LBW decisions).
We'll see. I think we need Andrew Hall or Zander De Bruyn in the side. Another all-rounder can't hurt and De Bruyn can also swing the ball. Either Dippenaar or De Villiers needs to go.
Originally posted by CrowleyThat's not the opinion of most people, though.
Hoggard merely put the ball in the rigth areas and all the batsmen just gave their wickets away (inluding some very dodgy LBW decisions).
It has been said that, aart from perhaps Boje, all the batsmen out were playing defensive shots i.e. got out to good bowling rather than threw their wickets away.
True, most of the shots were defensive.
What I mean with throwing their wickets away is: everyone could see Hoggard was getting some swing and movement. You can't play the same shot then! Smith, Boje and Gibbs showed the other guys how to play Hoggard: Get in line and don't push at the ball, play a shot.
Apparently only 3 guys out of 11 professional cricket players understood this...
I guess they thought that either the light would fade and just kept hoping Stevie B would get trigger happy with the light meter, or that the weather would come back and force a draw. The idea of actually playing the whole innings may have been a secondary consideration and I guess this put them in the wrong state of concentration.
Top marks to Graheme Smith for batting with a concussion and showing how it was done too 🙂