Originally posted by mtthw All 13 Saffers played better than all 9 Brits? Bizarre making Swann Man of the Match then.
Tsk tsk, don't be so touchy. It was just a little fun jab at Trott and Pietersen.
Losing Steyn before the match started and Kallis not pitching in with some swing bowling cost us the test.
De Wet is green, Morkel still isn't reaching his potential and Ntini is rusty.
That pitch should have been a shoo-in victory for SA, but the bowlers let us down with line and length. Again.
Originally posted by Crowley Losing Steyn before the match started and Kallis not pitching in with some swing bowling cost us the test.
De Wet is green, Morkel still isn't reaching his potential and Ntini is rusty.
That pitch should have been a shoo-in victory for SA, but the bowlers let us down with line and length. Again.
Maybe. De Wet was your best bowler in the second innings, though - he nearly won it for you. There's no guarantee that Steyn would have been better. Could be interesting to see who he replaces when he comes back.
For England, the debate as to whether to play 6 batsmen or 5 bowlers is going to continue (especially since Bell is the 6th batsman). They may compromise by playing Luke Wright, who to be honest isn't much of either.
Originally posted by Crowley Eh? You surely didn't post that with a straight face, did you?
If Steyn and Kallis were both fit, England would have lost this test.
What does Bell actually do? He seems to be a team filler. Wasn't he batting at 3 at one stage?
bell is useless but yes he started at 3 (think he played at one of the opening batmen in a few games as well?) then went out of the team and is only not back i because of injuries.
Originally posted by Crowley Eh? You surely didn't post that with a straight face, did you?
If Steyn and Kallis were both fit, England would have lost this test.
If Steyn had been fit then de Wet wouldn't have played. As I said, it's far from certain he'd have bowled better.
If you're talking "should have" - England "should have" drawn easily. And then KP forgot what the hell he was doing...
Originally posted by trev33 bell is useless but yes he started at 3 (think he played at one of the opening batmen in a few games as well?) then went out of the team and is only not back i because of injuries.
He used to play well at 5/6. He was moved to 3 and was a bit rubbish there, and was eventually dropped. Came back because of Pietersen's injury in the Ashes, but is in the team now because they want to play 6 batsmen now Flintoff has retired.
They've tended to stick with him because he's a technically excellent batsman...unfortunately he does appear to be lacking something mentally to succeed at the highest level (at least at 3). He's sort of the anti-Collingwood. Also because England have struggled to find a good no.3 since Vaughan was at his best. I'm hoping Trott could be the one.
Originally posted by Crowley Yeah, I suppose you're right. The ICC test player of the bloody year 2008 probably wouldn't have had a significant impact on this game.
He didn't have much impact last time he played England!
But that's not the point. You'd be swapping someone who might have played well for someone who did.
England made a mockery of the review system by calling for a referral when the last wicket fell, just because they had one up their sleeve, in the hope that it may have been a no-ball. That’s just corrupting something that was created for an entirely honourable purpose: to eliminate the absolute shockers from the game. Perhaps England was still seething over the delayed Stuart Broad referral when the South Africans waited forever to get a signal from the dressing room before they asked for a review.
I caught the Swann referral thing. Dodgy, clearly. But I missed this Broad referral thing. Just read about it now. Strikes me as a really serious matter if true. I mean: players involved ought to be suspended for a test or tests, surely?
Originally posted by FMF From one of the cricinfo blogs:
[quote]England made a mockery of the review system by calling for a referral when the last wicket fell, just because they had one up their sleeve, in the hope that it may have been a no-ball. That’s just corrupting something that was created for an entirely honourable purpose: to eliminate the absolute shockers from the game. P ...[text shortened]... ious matter if true. I mean: players involved ought to be suspended for a test or tests, surely?
There is no proof the players were waiting for a signal, but I sincerely hope they didn't do something like that.
The English referral was ridiculous, but inside the rules, so what is the problem? Players in the olden days used to waste ages when they were trying to get the draw with phantom injuries etc., how can the 'purists' be in uproar about the referral system?
Originally posted by Crowley There is no proof the [South African] players were waiting for a signal, but I sincerely hope they didn't do something like that.
Agreed about England's daft referral.
As for the alleged "signal from the dressing room", if it turned out to be true, would you advocate stiff punishment?
Originally posted by FMF Agreed about England's daft referral.
As for the alleged "signal from the dressing room", if it turned out to be true, would you advocate stiff punishment?
Absolutely. I would want at least a 2 or 3 match ban for the captain and a fine for the whole team if they abused a system put in place specifically to make the game fairer to the players.
I know the system is getting flak from the likes of Dickie Bird, but in this professional era it is an absolute necessity. Whether umpires like it or not doesn't matter - they seem to be worried that a magnifying glass is being put to their decisions.
The players need to decide if they want to keep this system, as their professional careers are linked to decisions, good or bad, by umpires who are just human.
21 Dec '09 10:18
England tour of SA
Back to Top