Mickey Arthur?

[Pratters]

Jennings hasnt done a satisfactory job which shows in the fact that his 6 month contract wasnt renewed. He is known extending the strict discipline to a new level which I am not in favour of.

Regarding Arthur not having any thing noteworthy as a coach cricinfo has this to say "He coached Griquas in the domestic competition before taking over the Eastern Cape side in 2003, who he guided to the finals of the Standard Bank Pro20 series in the last two seasons."

 

[Richard]

Jennings hasnt done a satisfactory job which shows in the fact that his 6 month contract wasnt renewed. He is known extending the strict discipline to a new level which I am not in favour of.

I am hoping that the reason his contract was not renewed was because The UCBSA realised what Allan Donald pointed-out sometime during The Third Test - that Jennings often turns a problem around, but makes enemies in doing it and therefore is good on a short-term basis but not on a more medium-term.

 

[Richard]

well they certainly have a better balance in the side than SA do

Better balance, between bat and ball? You joking?
South Africa have plenty of talent with bat and ball (not that the ball was always present), far more than the squad England took.

 

[Swervy]

Better balance, between bat and ball? You joking?
South Africa have plenty of talent with bat and ball (not that the ball was always present), far more than the squad England took.

well isnt that a part of the home field advantage, that the home team has a bigger pool of players to draw from whereas the touring team is generally restricted by who is in the touring party....quite simply England looked the better test outfit...in fact, not only did they look the better outfit..they WERE the better outfit in both batting and bowling. The fact that England made headway into the SA batting a lot with their main strike bowler struggling (Harmison) suggests that England had better depth in the bowling than the Saffies did

 

[Richard]

No, it suggests that the SAfricans didn't perform well enough to expose as substandard certain England bowlers (Jones, Flintoff).
And that they missed their best bowler for most of the series so didn't, quite, have the firepower to expose as substandard certain England batsmen (Trescothick).

 

[Swervy]

No, it suggests that the SAfricans didn't perform well enough to expose as substandard certain England bowlers (Jones, Flintoff).
And that they missed their best bowler for most of the series so didn't, quite, have the firepower to expose as substandard certain England batsmen (Trescothick).

what a pile of tripe!!!!!!

Who was the 'best bowler' missing for most of the series....Pollock played 5, Ntini played 5...please dont say you think that either Nel or langeveldt are SA';s best test bowlers.

Both Pollock and Ntini had successful series

And whats this about Flintoff being substandard?????

Richard..get your head from out of your exit, wipe your face and open your eyes..you might actually start seeing the game a bit better

 

[Richard]

Insults like that b\s aren't going to get you anywhere.
Nel since his return has very, very clearly been SA's best bowler, you've got to be exceptionally short-sighted to have missed that.
Flintoff, as per usual, bowled very few wicket-taking deliveries and got a good average.

 

[Swervy]

Insults like that b\s aren't going to get you anywhere.
Nel since his return has very, very clearly been SA's best bowler, you've got to be exceptionally short-sighted to have missed that.
Flintoff, as per usual, bowled very few wicket-taking deliveries and got a good average.

Nel was the best SA bowler in the WI, but then again pollock only played one test, so you cant really make the judgement that Nel is all of a sudden a better bowler than Pollock

 

[vic_orthdox]

Insults like that b\s aren't going to get you anywhere.
Nel since his return has very, very clearly been SA's best bowler, you've got to be exceptionally short-sighted to have missed that.
Flintoff, as per usual, bowled very few wicket-taking deliveries and got a good average.

Fred Flintoff. The first person ever to be denigrated by being described as having similar attributes to Glenn McGrath.

 

[Richard]

Nel was the best SA bowler in the WI, but then again pollock only played one test, so you cant really make the judgement that Nel is all of a sudden a better bowler than Pollock

Nel has always been able to do things Pollock can't - ie bowl well on flat pitches.
No, of course he's not yet a better bowler than Pollock because he's only had 8 good Test-matches, but if you seriously think his presence wouldn't have made a large impact on the England series you're deluded.

 

[Richard]

Fred Flintoff. The first person ever to be denigrated by being described as having similar attributes to Glenn McGrath.

No, there are quite a few.
Most only last a short time - McGrath and Pollock (to a slightly lesser extent) last, for some reason, much longer.
I'm still fairly confident Flintoff will only last a short time - it's only been 19 Tests so far.

 

[C_C]

McGrath and Pollock (to a slightly lesser extent) last, for some reason, much longer.

That is usually the difference between an alltime great player and a decent player making hay against some decent teams while being in the prime of his life.

 

[C_C]

Nel has always been able to do things Pollock can't - ie bowl well on flat pitches.

The idiocy never stops apparently.

 

[Richard]

So... what's wrong about Nel being skilled at both types of swing and (to a lesser extent) cutters and Pollock's sole weapon being seam-movement and uneven bounce?

 

[Richard]

That is usually the difference between an alltime great player and a decent player making hay against some decent teams while being in the prime of his life.

None of it has anything to do with the bowlers, it's all about how long the poor batting against them lasts.

 

[C_C]

None of it has anything to do with the bowlers, it's all about how long the poor batting against them lasts.

Perhaps poor batting against McGrath doesnt last half as long as it does against Flinty because McGrath is a FAR more skilled bowler and a FAR more consistent bowler ?

So... what's wrong about Nel being skilled at both types of swing and (to a lesser extent) cutters and Pollock's sole weapon being seam-movement and uneven bounce?

First, Nel is nowhere as skilled a swinger of the ball as Pollock was at his prime.
Second, Nel even NOW is not a consistent swinger of the ball as Pollock is with his bowling.

 

[Richard]

I can only wonder what you've been watching, then - Nel is very clearly an extremely skilled user of swing, far better than Pollock who only swings the ball fairly seldom these days.
Whether Pollock used to be better at using swing (and he did) is not something I commented on, Nel has only been playing international cricket for a fairly short time.

 

[Richard]

Perhaps poor batting against McGrath doesnt last half as long as it does against Flinty because McGrath is a FAR more skilled bowler and a FAR more consistent bowler ?

Thing is, we don't know how long the poor batting against Flintoff is going to last.
It's lasted 19 Tests so far - with McGrath it lasted 21 as far as I know (it may be longer).

 

[C_C]

I can only wonder what you've been watching, then - Nel is very clearly an extremely skilled user of swing, far better than Pollock who only swings the ball fairly seldom these days.

Nel has been bowling well but he is still nowhere as consistent as Pollock is. And consistency is essentially the biggest chunk of skill.

'

Thing is, we don't know how long the poor batting against Flintoff is going to last.
It's lasted 19 Tests so far - with McGrath it lasted 21 as far as I know (it may be longer).

eh ?????????
it lasted 21 ? 21 what ???

 

[Richard]

Test-matches? Maybe? The Oval 2001 to The 'Gabba 2004\05, yes?
And it might have been before The Oval 2001, might well.