Mickey Arthur?

[Richard]

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

Nel has been consistent extreme - since his comeback, at least.
Yes, he bowled extremely poorly in The First Test in New Zealand - that's 1 Test out of 10. Since his comeback he's averaged (excluding against Zim) 24.12, which is quite outstanding considering he's mostly been bowling on very flat pitches. In the same time Pollock has averaged 29.33.

 

[C_C]

In the same time Pollock has averaged 29.33.

in 1993 and 1994, Srinath averaged better than Kapil Dev. Therefore,Srinath is a better bowler than Kapil Dev.

 

[marc71178]

in the last 6 months i dont think Jennings had done too bad a job, certainly enough there i would have thought to keep him on abit longer

The worrying thing is he's said he acheived all he set out to in the 6 months.

So he set out to be comrehensively outplayed by England?

 

[marc71178]

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).

Interesting how apparently Smith was out of form when his faults were yet again shown up, yet Trescothick only scored runs because SA didn't bowl well.

It's a long list of coincidences isn't it...

 

[marc71178]

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

If he ends up with even half McGrath's record nobody will be complaining!

 

[marc71178]

I'm still fairly confident Flintoff will only last a short time - it's only been 19 Tests so far.

"Only 19" games, all of which have come since his change in approach to bowling.

Hmm, there's a connection there, wonder what it might be?

And 19 Tests is not a short period.

 

[Pratters]

So he set out to be comrehensively outplayed by England?

It wasnt comprehensively outplayed. It was a close series.

 

[marc71178]

Erm no, it was not.

It was a close result, but the series was not close.

3-1 wouldn't have flattered England, 2-1 definitely flattered SA.

 

[Swervy]

Erm no, it was not.

It was a close result, but the series was not close.

3-1 wouldn't have flattered England, 2-1 definitely flattered SA.

thats right, England were clearly the better team

 

[Pratters]

Erm no, it was not.

It was a close result, but the series was not close.

3-1 wouldn't have flattered England, 2-1 definitely flattered SA.

Erm the series was fought out pretty closely.

 

[Pratters]

First test - http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/135956.html

At the end of day 3 cricinfo reported honours are even between the two sides.

Second test - http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/136213.html

First two days South Africa, last two England. In the end rain wins it. The test match was fight closely although South Africa would ahve lost it. Very exciting match.

Third test - http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/144954.html

Good win for South Africa with them donning the headline all through

A close fought series till now definitely

Fourth test - http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/145237.html

England good on day 1.
Close fought day 2 with England turning it on in the last session
Day 3 - Gibbs plays well for South Africa and they don the headline
Day 4 - Fluctuating day as reported by cricinfo
Day 5- Hoggard wins it for England

Fifth test - http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/145429.html
Day 1 - washed out
Day 2- Competitive day with England taking advantage on the day
Rain proves the winner in what cricinfo describes as a roller coaster finish with South Africa declaring and England at 73/4

So a well fought out series with England rightful winners.

 

[Swervy]

First test - http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/135956.html

At the end of day 3 cricinfo reported honours are even between the two sides.

Second test - http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/136213.html

First two days South Africa, last two England. In the end rain wins it. The test match was fight closely although South Africa would ahve lost it. Very exciting match.

Third test - http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/144954.html

Good win for South Africa with them donning the headline all through

A close fought series till now definitely

Fourth test - http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/145237.html

England good on day 1.
Close fought day 2 with England turning it on in the last session
Day 3 - Gibbs plays well for South Africa and they don the headline
Day 4 - Fluctuating day as reported by cricinfo
Day 5- Hoggard wins it for England

Fifth test - http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/145429.html
Day 1 - washed out
Day 2- Competitive day with England taking advantage on the day
Rain proves the winner in what cricinfo describes as a roller coaster finish with South Africa declaring and England at 73/4

So a well fought out series with England rightful winners.

forget what cricinfo says....I am sure you watched the series as well

First test..pretty much from ball 2 of the game, SA were un the back foot

Second test....fair do's, England batted the worst I have seen them bat for a long time...but then again, SA failed (apart from Kallis ) to really take advantage. Overall, England actually played the better cricket in the final 3 innings of the match,and were very unlucky to have not come away with a win

Third test..SA played well, England didnt, fair result

Fourth test..even match, until SA capitulated against top bowling...England deserved the win

Fifth test...after being 3 for nearly 200, SA were in fact never really in the game..England again looked the better team, but draw was fair enough

net result : England chuffed with 2-1 but knowing that in fact it should have been more

 

[Richard]

in 1993 and 1994, Srinath averaged better than Kapil Dev. Therefore,Srinath is a better bowler than Kapil Dev.

No, they were both equal underperformers who should have done far, far better than they ended-up doing.
Quite what the hell you hope to achieve with that comment I don't know, because surely everyone knows that Srinath was indeed a better bowler than Kapil in 1993 and 1994 - Kapil was past it by then, everyone said so, whereas Srinath was at the start of his career.

 

[Richard]

Interesting how apparently Smith was out of form when his faults were yet again shown up, yet Trescothick only scored runs because SA didn't bowl well.

It's a long list of coincidences isn't it...

Not a coincidence at all.
Smith has scored runs against bowling as unchallenging as England's before. Yet during the series he managed to get dismissed cheaply or relatively cheaply by: three slip-catches, a catch at deep square leg, a catch off a slog, and a catch off a spinner. All of which suggest he was not worked-out but out of touch.
Trescothick, of course, has failed against good bowling before and had there been 3 bowlers in the side capable of troubling him I somehow highly doubt he'd have scored the 2 centuries he did (doing very little besides).

 

[Richard]

"Only 19" games, all of which have come since his change in approach to bowling.

Hmm, there's a connection there, wonder what it might be?

No, there's no connection - his supposed (non-existant) change in bowling (imaginarily caused by the change in attitude) didn't, as I've shown so many times, come since the change in attitude.
The change in figures in fact came 5 Test-matches before this change in attitude.

And 19 Tests is not a short period.

It's been less than 2 years, it's not a long time.

 

[Richard]

forget what cricinfo says....I am sure you watched the series as well

First test..pretty much from ball 2 of the game, SA were un the back foot

Second test....fair do's, England batted the worst I have seen them bat for a long time...but then again, SA failed (apart from Kallis ) to really take advantage. Overall, England actually played the better cricket in the final 3 innings of the match,and were very unlucky to have not come away with a win

Third test..SA played well, England didnt, fair result

Fourth test..even match, until SA capitulated against top bowling...England deserved the win

Fifth test...after being 3 for nearly 200, SA were in fact never really in the game..England again looked the better team, but draw was fair enough

net result : England chuffed with 2-1 but knowing that in fact it should have been more

The basic fact of the matter is the series was swung by a quite miraculous performance in The Fourth Test.
England dominated most of a Test only at the start - not surprising given that SA's side was weakest at that point.
All your comments on the matches are viewed taking them in the context of the previous series. If you take every Test in isolation you can see there wasn't much dividing the sides, except for most of The First Test and pretty much all of The Third.
As always since SA's readmission, the two sides, however one appeared superior at the start of the series, fought it out closely.

 

[sledger]

No, they were both equal underperformers who should have done far, far better than they ended-up doing.
Quite what the hell you hope to achieve with that comment I don't know, because surely everyone knows that Srinath was indeed a better bowler than Kapil in 1993 and 1994 - Kapil was past it by then, everyone said so, whereas Srinath was at the start of his career.

i agree that srinath was indeed better than kapil, but still never really achieved his potential and was a waste of talent, bar that hes been indias best seamer from that date until current daym although srinath didnt achieve his potential he is still superior to the likes of pathan and nehra.

 

[Swervy]

The basic fact of the matter is the series was swung by a quite miraculous performance in The Fourth Test.
England dominated most of a Test only at the start - not surprising given that SA's side was weakest at that point.
All your comments on the matches are viewed taking them in the context of the previous series. If you take every Test in isolation you can see there wasn't much dividing the sides, except for most of The First Test and pretty much all of The Third.
As always since SA's readmission, the two sides, however one appeared superior at the start of the series, fought it out closely.

you cant just take each game in isolation...the way a previous test is played DOES have a a link to how the next test is played.

You say the fourth test was only swung by a 'quite miraculous performance' as though that doesnt really matter...its what the good teams do, they pull stuff out of the bag in order to win, when it is needed.England did it in the Fourth and almost did it in the second..SA didnt have the firepower to do such business

 

[BoyBrumby]

The way I remember it Englang really should've won the 2nd, we batted rubbish first up, but we had by far the better of the last three days.

The fact remains tho we won the series pretty comfortably without ever looking near our best; even Strauss's purple patch was over by the end of the series.

 

[Pratters]

forget what cricinfo says....I am sure you watched the series as well

Yes I did watch the series which is why I said it was closely fought. I really dont see why cricinfo should be forgotten when it does give a more neutral perspective than most fans might over all.