England Tour of South Africa

[BrettieAngell]

You're trying to win a series so pick a guy who hasn't played for nearly a year and drop a guy who has been bowling really well in this series, makes no sense at all!

 

[southend4ever]

conditions********** could be a big error. we have hindsight... strauss doesn't.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Was that at Strauss' first ball dismissal or England's decision to pick a swing bowler because they think it'll swing and then bat first?

Indeed. When you combine that with the fact that, as Mike Selvey pointed out in his match preview (emphasis added):

For this game, whoever wins the toss must consider putting the opposition in knowing that no side has ever been inserted at the Wanderers and won, but then swallow hard, and bat in the further knowledge that there will be some trying times ahead.

We knew they were preparing a result pitch, we knew there was a lot of weather, Strauss talked about "going for the win", there's that extraordinary stat about the Wanderers... but Strauss promptly went for the draw by electing to bat first.

Weak. Really weak.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

You're trying to win a series so pick a guy who hasn't played for nearly a year and drop a guy who has been bowling really well in this series, makes no sense at all!

Indeed - especially where I thought that Onions was a bowler who liked to swing the ball and who prospers most in "English conditions" (i.e. atmospheric overhead). Barking - and a bit of kick in the teeth for Onions, who has played well this series.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I think I'd dispute how well Onions has bowled this series. He's put in some decent spells but has also bowled far too short far too often. I'd also question his stamina.

My issue is with the lack of joined-up thinking. I'd also have had Plunkett ahead of Sideshow.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Indeed - especially where I thought that Onions was a bowler who liked to swing the ball and who prospers most in "English conditions" (i.e. atmospheric overhead). Barking - and a bit of kick in the teeth for Onions, who has played well this series.

I can understand why Sideshow was picked over Onions, left armer, different angle, blah, blah, but having picked him and won the toss Strauss didn't put the Saffers in. I've always liked the Richie Benaud school of thought, think what the opposition don't want to do and do it. The fact that the Saffers have gone with a battery of quicks shows what their intentions were had Smith not been such a useless tosser. I think England have played right into their hands.

 

[Pubey]

I can understand why Sideshow was picked over Onions, left armer, different angle, blah, blah, but having picked him and won the toss Strauss didn't put the Saffers in. I've always liked the Richie Benaud school of thought, think what the opposition don't want to do and do it. The fact that the Saffers have gone with a battery of quicks shows what their intentions were had Smith not been such a useless tosser. I think England have played right into their hands.

:clap::clap:

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I can understand why Sideshow was picked over Onions, left armer, different angle, blah, blah, but having picked him and won the toss Strauss didn't put the Saffers in. I've always liked the Richie Benaud school of thought, think what the opposition don't want to do and do it. The fact that the Saffers have gone with a battery of quicks shows what their intentions were had Smith not been such a useless tosser. I think England have played right into their hands.

Apparently Greg Ranatunga would have batted if he'd won the toss, so according to the theory it was a maaaaaaaaaaaarvelous decision to bat first.

The problem is that England's batting was pathetic. Trott resembled Bopara in at 3. Capey was another Saffer double agent.

Strauss' dismissal was unfortunate and Cook got a good (no)ball.

From that position it was game over barring miracles.

 

[canveyshrimper]

I've not seen any of the "action" Matt, I take it England didn't use a referral on Cook?

 

[MrB]

I've not seen any of the "action" Matt, I take it England didn't use a referral on Cook?

It was referred and still given.

 

[BrettieAngell]

I've not seen any of the "action" Matt, I take it England didn't use a referral on Cook?

Borderline no ball! :madman:

 

[canveyshrimper]

It was referred and still given.

Borderline no ball! :madman:

Bugger, although I doubt if it would have made much of a difference.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I've not seen any of the "action" Matt, I take it England didn't use a referral on Cook?

They did, because it was pretty marginal as to whether it had pitched outside leg, but Daryl Harper was third umpire.

I think his guide dog had his paw on the monitor or something.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

They did, because it was pretty marginal as to whether it had pitched outside leg, but Daryl Harper was third umpire.

I think his guide dog had his paw on the monitor or something.

It seems like his guide dog had his paw on the mute button today, as Greg Ranatunga should have been given out (much like he should have been several times in his series decisive innings at Edgbaston) early in his innings today when England referred an edge. Expect to hear more about this (assuming you aren't Daryl ****ing Harper).

Rain, hoorah!

 

[canveyshrimper]

It seems like his guide dog had his paw on the mute button today, as Greg Ranatunga should have been given out (much like he should have been several times in his series decisive innings at Edgbaston) early in his innings today when England referred an edge. Expect to hear more about this (assuming you aren't Daryl ****ing Harper).

Rain, hoorah!

I saw the incident before I left this morning, sounded pretty clear to me, yet Harper claimed he didn't hear it on the SABC coverage. I've never been in favour of the referral system, and maintain that replays should only be used for line decisions.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I saw the incident before I left this morning, sounded pretty clear to me, yet Harper claimed he didn't hear it on the SABC coverage. I've never been in favour of the referral system, and maintain that replays should only be used for line decisions.

I've never been in favour of Daryl Harper and maintain that he should only be used for keeping count of the number of balls bowled in each over.

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

I've never been in favour of Daryl Harper and maintain that he should only be used for keeping count of the number of balls bowled in each over.

He'd probably still get that wrong 2 or 3 times per test....

 

[southend4ever]

muggy little

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

I saw the incident before I left this morning, sounded pretty clear to me, yet Harper claimed he didn't hear it on the SABC coverage. I've never been in favour of the referral system, and maintain that replays should only be used for line decisions.

According to the Grauniad OBO:

One other interesting twist in today's big story is this: Test Match Special, along with several other sources, are now stating that the referral fiasco was explicitly umpire Harper's fault. Apparently he did not realise that he had a volume control switch in his booth, and had failed to turn up the noise when he was confronted with silent footage. Quite simply: d'oh, and double d'oh.

Unbef***inlievable.

:thump:

Still, trying to see the funny side - again on OBO:

"What's on Daryl Harper's iPod?" asks Richard Marsden, rhetorically. "Pump Up The Volume, obviously."

 

[Pubey]

Just saw it on ssn. ****ing unbe****inglievable