Originally posted by dan182I agree that not everyone has contributed in each innings, saying England have just about done enough is being generous to SA.
for me england's big worry would be this
when AUS toured SA they pumped a more established side and england have just about done enough to beat a young less established side with some politically motivated selections.
however with this said it has been an individuals tour with only 3 of 11 coming to the party in each test. if all 11 come to the party t ...[text shortened]... ...
either way a series win in SA is nothing to be smirked at.. well done england..
daniel
In the Durban Test, SA were saved from defeat by bad light - okay, they might have been able to play out the 16 overs left I suppose but England were certainly on top in that game.
In the 5th Test, the only team who can win it now is England, even if it does end up in a draw.
So the result might be 2-1, but could easily have been 4-1.
Originally posted by Vargyeah it is easy to say what could have been and so forth, but the fact remains SA have outplayed england in a lot of sessions where as the Aussies thumped them.. as for 4-1, yes this test is still in the balance but it is no way certain that england can get 10 wickets, either way we will know soon enough..
I agree that not everyone has contributed in each innings, saying England have just about done enough is being generous to SA.
In the Durban Test, SA were saved from defeat by bad light - okay, they might have been able to play out the 16 overs left I suppose but England were certainly on top in that game.
In the 5th Test, the only team who can win it now i ...[text shortened]... , even if it does end up in a draw.
So the result might be 2-1, but could easily have been 4-1.
england no doubt have been the better team by someway, but on what i have seen this tour they are still some distance behind Australia
daniel
Originally posted by dan182Heh, using Australia as the yardstick is always going to make any team look inferior. I'm not saying England are at that level. No way. If they even trouble Aus they will all have to play at their best.
yeah it is easy to say what could have been and so forth, but the fact remains SA have outplayed england in a lot of sessions where as the Aussies thumped them.. as for 4-1, yes this test is still in the balance but it is no way certain that england can get 10 wickets, either way we will know soon enough..
england no doubt have been the better team by someway, but on what i have seen this tour they are still some distance behind Australia
daniel
But, even a below par (in my opinion) England haven't really struggled to beat SA over the series.
Originally posted by VargI can use basically the same argument.
I agree that not everyone has contributed in each innings, saying England have just about done enough is being generous to SA.
In the Durban Test, SA were saved from defeat by bad light - okay, they might have been able to play out the 16 overs left I suppose but England were certainly on top in that game.
In the 5th Test, the only team who can win it now i ...[text shortened]... , even if it does end up in a draw.
So the result might be 2-1, but could easily have been 4-1.
Had some 50/50 decisions gone the way of SA, we could have been 2-1 in the lead.
Also, your comment about an underperforming England not having too much trouble against us is not entirely accurate.
I'd say an underperforming England side has won a series against an underperforming SA side.
If you've watched all the games live you'd know this was a closer series than it looks on paper...
Originally posted by dan182We're certainly not the team the Australia is at the moment, but I think we could give them a decent challenge if Harmison returns to form and others play to their potential. SA have been on top of us in some sessions of the series, but Australia don't win every session they play in either. They succeed by having great depth and getting each other out of trouble, we've displayed a similar quality here.
yeah it is easy to say what could have been and so forth, but the fact remains SA have outplayed england in a lot of sessions where as the Aussies thumped them.. as for 4-1, yes this test is still in the balance but it is no way certain that england can get 10 wickets, either way we will know soon enough..
england no doubt have been the better team by someway, but on what i have seen this tour they are still some distance behind Australia
daniel
Originally posted by Vargagreed, albeit a bit unfair on SA...
Heh, using Australia as the yardstick is always going to make any team look inferior. I'm not saying England are at that level. No way. If they even trouble Aus they will all have to play at their best.
But, even a below par (in my opinion) England haven't really struggled to beat SA over the series.
Originally posted by mikenaywhat england have displayed this series is some backbone which has been lacking in the past...
We're certainly not the team the Australia is at the moment, but I think we could give them a decent challenge if Harmison returns to form and others play to their potential. SA have been on top of us in some sessions of the series, but Australia don't win every session they play in either. They succeed by having great depth and getting each other out of trouble, we've displayed a similar quality here.
i do agree if they perform they shoud give the Aussies a go.. i also understand that Aus dont win all sessions, however with the talent in the thier squad they can take a test away in one session, so if england do not compete for 5 days they will lose to Aus.
WHO RECKONS ENGLAND WIN THE 5th NOW ????
59 for 2
daniel
Originally posted by Crowleycan someone lend me a kleenex plz to dry my eyes
I can use basically the same argument.
Had some 50/50 decisions gone the way of SA, we could have been 2-1 in the lead.
Also, your comment about an underperforming England not having too much trouble against us is not entirely accurate.
I'd say an underperforming England side has won a series against an underperforming SA side.
If you've watched all the games live you'd know this was a closer series than it looks on paper...
Originally posted by CrowleyI feel England have always had one individual who has covered the rest of the team's ass in practically every innings with bat and ball bar the first batting innings in Capetown. Whereas SA have relied too heavily on Ntini Pollock and Kallis. The series has been too squashed together to get continous top level cricket. The players look knackered.
I can use basically the same argument.
Had some 50/50 decisions gone the way of SA, we could have been 2-1 in the lead.
Also, your comment about an underperforming England not having too much trouble against us is not entirely accurate.
I'd say an underperforming England side has won a series against an underperforming SA side.
If you've watched all the games live you'd know this was a closer series than it looks on paper...
Originally posted by CrowleyThat's a fair comment. If that's the case then a series of performing to full-potential England vs. performing to full potential South Africa would be good to watch but might result in more draws.
Also, your comment about an underperforming England not having too much trouble against us is not entirely accurate.
I'd say an underperforming England side has won a series against an underperforming SA side.
Despite SA having slipped a bit in the last year, they are still a very good team, especially at home.