I know there's already a thread but I'm hoping my old thread starting magic powers will kick in again and get us out of this hole Rams' thread has dug us into.
ENG v RSA 2nd Test...
- Thread starter GiggsysGirl
- Start date
Nevermind 
ARGH! Cricket is supposed to provide me with a respite from seething at my television but that's what I ended up doing yet again yesterday.
Umpires aren't allowed to use replays to see if a ball has brushed bat and not trouser leg (something it can clear up in an instant) but they are allowed to use it to see if a ball has been grounded (something it only confuses more)? Madness!
And bloody Smith and Nel telling Amla to go back after he's been given out officially? Who put them in charge?
ARGH!
Umpires aren't allowed to use replays to see if a ball has brushed bat and not trouser leg (something it can clear up in an instant) but they are allowed to use it to see if a ball has been grounded (something it only confuses more)? Madness!
And bloody Smith and Nel telling Amla to go back after he's been given out officially? Who put them in charge?
ARGH!
peace love and chill out gg - its only a test match
I can't.
My world is caving in around my ears.
A precedent was set when Pietersen was sent back against India at Lords(I think it was Lords). So we can't cry foul, that'd be uber hypocritically.
The difference there being it was one of the umpires who had doubt and called to refer it. This was referred because of 3rd party interference
Either way, just because England may have benefitted before, doesn't make it right. They need to clear this up, as GG says, why not refer a decision like Cooks where he clearly didn't touch the ball? When an umpire gives a player out, that should be the end of it
Looking at the Vaughan catch, one angle appears to show the ball bouncing, another seems to show his fingers wrapped underneath the ball. The camera technology isn't good enough to decide these matters yet
The real disgrace of yesterday anyway was De Villiers. He got a lovely reception as he walked out to bat today. Sometimes with these things you have your eyes closed, or can genuinely think you've caught the ball when you haven't. The ball bloody fell out of one hand and was caught (barely) with the other. We're meant to take peoples word for it regarding catches, how can you when there are cheats like this operating in the game
Vaughan's catch looked uncaught from every angle I've seen. It was clearly not out. And to be fair, Bell also had one of those 'I'm not sure it was out' moments. So, I reckon we're being very hypocritical here. Both sides have been as bad as each other.
Well it wasn't 'clearly' out, one of the angles you evidently haven't seen shows his fingers underneath the ball
When they clearly aren't underneath the ball. And as for sportsmanship and cheating. . .Collingwood sure played his part, in that one-dayer against New Zealand. I hate it. . . it's cricket for feck's sake. As I said, for everything they've done, England have been just as guilty. I'd ban players for cheating and unsportsmanlike conduct(for a few matches).
I read today that DeVilliers wasn't sure about his catch and suggested they look at it but his teammates surrounded him to shut him up basically. Don't know if that's true.
And as for Vaughan's catch, there's no way he could have known for sure himself since his head was up and his eyes were probably closed but from the way he reacted he definitely felt he had it and so did Bowden who was only a few feet away. It was only looked at after the RSA dressing room complained. If Bowden's word was final on the Collingwood/Cook dismissals, why wasn't it in this case? Even the guys on TMS this morning having viewed it several times concluded it was out.
And as for Bell's catch. He wasn't sure he had it so he shrugged his shoulders meaning "look at it again" but the RSA team were still bleating on about it saying he should've owned up straight away. So we can't win apparently.
Well, it's all irrelevent I suppose seeing as our batting and the bowling hasn't been good enough but these one sided bad decisions don't seem to be doing us any small favours.
I think Bowden still hates us after the Collingwood/Sidebottom run out.
And as for Vaughan's catch, there's no way he could have known for sure himself since his head was up and his eyes were probably closed but from the way he reacted he definitely felt he had it and so did Bowden who was only a few feet away. It was only looked at after the RSA dressing room complained. If Bowden's word was final on the Collingwood/Cook dismissals, why wasn't it in this case? Even the guys on TMS this morning having viewed it several times concluded it was out.
And as for Bell's catch. He wasn't sure he had it so he shrugged his shoulders meaning "look at it again" but the RSA team were still bleating on about it saying he should've owned up straight away. So we can't win apparently.
Well, it's all irrelevent I suppose seeing as our batting and the bowling hasn't been good enough but these one sided bad decisions don't seem to be doing us any small favours.
I think Bowden still hates us after the Collingwood/Sidebottom run out.
The ball after, when Bowden gave a no-ball when Flintoffs foot was plenty well on the line if not just behind it, was a very interesting decision indeed. It was a late call, personally I think he ducked the decision of whether Anwar had gloved it to the keeper down leg side or not
Apparently DeVilliers reckons he wasn't sure. . .I think Smith and the others started celebrating. I'll have to look it at it again, though. And I don't think Bowden hates anyone. Not sure who gave Amala (sp) out, but he got a very bad decision. It looked as if it was going down leg side from the naked eye. Many players throughout history have claimed catches that simply didn't carry, but you can;t get way with it anymore. There are too many cameras. And our batting has been awful, and that's really the reason why SA look as if they're going to win. Too many loose shots, symptomatic of 20/20 and the 50 overs game. Also, you have to say, that most wickets around the world are very flat and lifeless, get most players on a pitch that may offer a little, and you see them struggle.
So I don't get any cricket coverage over here, which is terrible. Anyone feel like giving me a run-down of how the series has panned out so far?
England started brilliant; but eventually it became evident English bowlers are unable to take 20 Safrican wickets in a match, and we're now going through the long slow process of losing the series heavily
Yeah, the Saffies have paid God to make it cloudy when we bat, sunny when you bat and Billy Bowden even more mental than he was before.
Ah, good news then. Thanks for that.
Jimmy's gonna get a hundred.
I always said Jimmy could bat a bit. He's a very harsh 11th man usually
It's sun all the way for the rest of this test now. We won't because we're England and we eventually throw our wickets away, but there should be no reason why we can't dig in until the afternoon session of tomorrow, having seen what the Safricans can do with the bat, and the lack of cloud cover. With the runs we'll have scored in that time, might just be enough to get out of jail
I reckon Cook needs to bat at least until tea, and that we can only afford to lose Jimmys wicket by then. If we keep it to no worse than 4 down at the end of play, its game (or rather draw) on. Possibly
It's sun all the way for the rest of this test now. We won't because we're England and we eventually throw our wickets away, but there should be no reason why we can't dig in until the afternoon session of tomorrow, having seen what the Safricans can do with the bat, and the lack of cloud cover. With the runs we'll have scored in that time, might just be enough to get out of jail
I reckon Cook needs to bat at least until tea, and that we can only afford to lose Jimmys wicket by then. If we keep it to no worse than 4 down at the end of play, its game (or rather draw) on. Possibly
KP frightens me.
Edit:
Edit:
feck sake, just as i started to think we had a chance.
Great effort from Anderson there though, no faulting him.
All rests on Bell and Cook putting 200 atleast on now.
Great effort from Anderson there though, no faulting him.
All rests on Bell and Cook putting 200 atleast on now.
Hundreds from each of them methinks...and fifties from Fred and Broad.
Where would we be then? My maths is shocking.
End of test...
Going to be difficult to come back, as i don't see us taking 20 SA wickets, ecspecially at the Oval.
Going to be difficult to come back, as i don't see us taking 20 SA wickets, ecspecially at the Oval.
Not without replacing Pattinson.
Pattinson. What the feck?
I'd even have preferred Harmison...and I hate that guy.
He's an Aussie for feck sake, poor mans Hoggard.
If we would have kept to my thread Pieterson would be still batting with Cook
No I just didn't start mine quick enough. Yours had already put the mockers on us.
Mockers?
Jimmy was our MOM for me. Bowled well with little luck and batted like a trooper. Even took a blow to the head for his troubles. Broad may also have saved his skin at the end there. Very brave stuff.
Questions need to be asked of Vaughan. Anyway sign of a good team is if they can bounce back, come on england!
Operation: Straw Clutch
Ok so yeah they effectively beat us by an innings...but if you look at the actual scorecard, apart from Prince's 149 and De Villiers' 174 no other RSA batsman made more than 44.
So tecnically, if you discount those two...the top scoring batsmen were Cook and Broad.
I feel better now.
Ok so yeah they effectively beat us by an innings...but if you look at the actual scorecard, apart from Prince's 149 and De Villiers' 174 no other RSA batsman made more than 44.
So tecnically, if you discount those two...the top scoring batsmen were Cook and Broad.
I feel better now.
If it's a flat pitch, expect Bell and Pietersen to score big centuries.
Why couldn't our specialist top order batsmen apply themselves in a similar manner to Broad and Anderson though? It irritates the crap out of me when we just give our wickets away like that
Players like Bell, Vaughan and Straus are keeping their places by putting in one big innings, quashing reports they should be dropped, then putting together a succession of failures. Collingwood has bailed out the England top order on many an occasion, but because he hasn't had that get out innings for a while, he's dropped. I don't disagree with him being left out if he isn't performing, but I don't think we're as ruthless with the batsmen higher up the order
exactly, im getting very close to wishing he would just step down.
If he wasn't capt do you think he would still be selected? and the problem arises of who should replace him?
A lot of it has to do with limited overs cricket. There's no chance quality batsmen of yesteryear would've given their wickets away as cheaply as many batsmen do thesedays. Must've seen top order batsmen get out fetching a wide ball outside the off stump, a zillion times, which is symptomatic of one day cricket. Also, the other problem is that most wickets around the world are very flat. . .get players on wickets that may offer a little and you'll see them struggle. That's certainly been the case for English batsmen. A couple of decades ago, in fact even a decade ago, most English pitches offered lateral movement, and the players were well adapted to them. Not the case, anymore.
Get Shah in the side ahead 0f Vaughan.
We seem to be going backwards under Peter Moore's.
We seem to be going backwards under Peter Moore's.
Vaughan won't be dropped. Apart from maybe Strauss, there's no other proven leader out there.
That said, they should give Strauss a go (keeping Vaughan in the dressing room). His batting improved last time he captained. Unlike Fred who got worse.
P.s. Can't drop Bell either. He's class.
That said, they should give Strauss a go (keeping Vaughan in the dressing room). His batting improved last time he captained. Unlike Fred who got worse.
P.s. Can't drop Bell either. He's class.
That's not true. Aussie batsmen play shots and chase deliveries much more than others and they still stack up big scores. There is a certain class of cricketers who model themselves for ODIs but majority around still focus on excelling at the test level.
Point made spoons..The wickets are flat and standardized with boundary ropes reduced by more than 10-15 metres. Moreoever the fat fecks of BCCI pull the strings in ICC...Cricket is basically run to wet the marketing apetite of Indian sponsors and they give sod all to test cricket. Marketing alone matters here...
Agree spoonez
Botham was complaining about the wickets in London. Lords and Oval are very flat and slow. To be fair, so is Headingly, but that totally changes when there's cloud cover. It's definitely a batman's came thesedays. Back in the 70's, they used to bat on uncovered pitches. How times have changed.
You've totally missed my point. I recall a time when one day cricket wasn't as big. . .but due to it's success, batting has changed. I think 20/20 will change it further. It's not as if cricketers say, well I want to be a one day batsman, so I'll try to hit every ball to the boundary. . .but unintentionally, it has changed the mindset. That said, I doubt Test cricket will be around for much longer. The game will be taken over by 20-20. It's just such a huge cash cow.
If this happens,I will probably give up watching cricket alltogether.20/20 is a shit game of slogging with hardly any tactical sense and more of a lottery.