The England batting line up

[Richard]

You really think the England side are bothered by a hostile crowd? Not that crowds that series were especially large, in any case.
Just because you know the weather and the typicalities of the square (and I'll say it again - SA certainly didn't maximise their home advantage, especially in the First Test) doesn't mean you're better positioned to exploit it.

 

[marc71178]

How exactly were Eng on top and more likely to win at the close on day-two?

Since when did the game finish after day 2?

 

[tooextracool]

You really think the England side are bothered by a hostile crowd? Not that crowds that series were especially large, in any case..

why would they not be? name me one team that would rather play away from home than at home. playing away from home involves having to play away from your family, having to play in what are alien conditions(with very little time to adjust to the conditions given how many warm up games we have), and having to play against a side that not only has full support from the crowd but is also familiar with the conditions(both pitch and weather conditions). Further many teams have pulled a rabbit out of the hat by making visiting teams play on conditions completely different to the conditions that would be available for the first test match(most recently Pakistan did exactly that, even though it didnt really pay off, although one might say that plenty of England batsmen were out of form because they didnt get enough time on those minefields in the warmups). You'd have to be deluded if you thought home advantage doesnt mean a thing in international cricket

Just because you know the weather and the typicalities of the square (and I'll say it again - SA certainly didn't maximise their home advantage, especially in the First Test) doesn't mean you're better positioned to exploit it.

why because you say so?fact is that England knew their conditions far better than NZ did and SA knew their conditions and their players were far more comfortable batting and bowling in home conditions than they would have been were they to be playing in England. and if you think playing in England is not that much different from playing at home, ask Jacques Rudolph.

 

[Richard]

Since when did the game finish after day 2?

Since when did the fact that it didn't finish after day-two matter?

 

[Richard]

why would they not be? name me one team that would rather play away from home than at home. playing away from home involves having to play away from your family, having to play in what are alien conditions(with very little time to adjust to the conditions given how many warm up games we have), and having to play against a side that not only has full support from the crowd but is also familiar with the conditions(both pitch and weather conditions). Further many teams have pulled a rabbit out of the hat by making visiting teams play on conditions completely different to the conditions that would be available for the first test match(most recently Pakistan did exactly that, even though it didnt really pay off, although one might say that plenty of England batsmen were out of form because they didnt get enough time on those minefields in the warmups). You'd have to be deluded if you thought home advantage doesnt mean a thing in international cricket

Err, when did I say it didn't mean a thing? All I said is that there aren't really that many teams for whom a hostile crowd is a disadvantage - for some it even inspires them to play even better than a friendly one.
Of course there are disadvantages to playing away relative to at home - many of them.
But the crowd is not often one, and I can't see that it was for either NZ in Eng and certainly not Eng in SA.

why because you say so?fact is that England knew their conditions far better than NZ did and SA knew their conditions and their players were far more comfortable batting and bowling in home conditions than they would have been were they to be playing in England. and if you think playing in England is not that much different from playing at home, ask Jacques Rudolph.

Of course the fact that he was batting at three (remembering he's an opener) in 2004\05 whereas he was at five and six in 2003 made no difference whatsoever?
I don't think conditions played the slightest part in England beating NZ in 2004 - NZ were simply rubbish. Nor do I think conditions in the last 4 Tests in the SA-Eng series really helped one team more than the other.

 

[marc71178]

Since when did the fact that it didn't finish after day-two matter?

It's the whole point.

You're claiming that SA were close to victory because of the early part of the game, and completely ignoring the FACT that they were then overtaken and if the game had run its natural course were extremely odds on to lose.

The Day 2 position would be relevant if Days 3, 4 and 5 were rained off, but they weren't, so it has no real effect on the final outcome.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Okay Richard, you seem to know what all the problems are.

WHAT ARE THE SOLUTIONS.

 

[tooextracool]

Err, when did I say it didn't mean a thing? All I said is that there aren't really that many teams for whom a hostile crowd is a disadvantage - for some it even inspires them to play even better than a friendly one.
Of course there are disadvantages to playing away relative to at home - many of them.
But the crowd is not often one, and I can't see that it was for either NZ in Eng and certainly not Eng in SA.

so you dont think that England would be far more comfortable playing in front of their home crowd than they would have been in SA? i dont see how that makes any sense.
As far as im concerned, you seemed to be completely denying the impact that home advantage has on a team by comparing 2 series that happened in completely different locations, one against a visiting side and the other against a home side. take a wild guess which one is likely to do better. and its not like too many teams in recent times have managed to pull off series victories over NZ in NZ.

Of course the fact that he was batting at three (remembering he's an opener) in 2004\05 whereas he was at five and six in 2003 made no difference whatsoever?.

err you dont look absolutely clueless against swing if you are moved up or down the order. you either have the required technique to handle it or you dont. Rudolph looked like a novice amongst professionals in England in 2003.

I don't think conditions played the slightest part in England beating NZ in 2004 - NZ were simply rubbish. Nor do I think conditions in the last 4 Tests in the SA-Eng series really helped one team more than the other.

because obviously you know best. Fact = England knew the home conditions and most of their players had played county cricket in those conditions. Fact 2 = England were certainly not used to the conditions in SA and the fact that players like Langeveldt, the rubbish Ntini from 2004 actually did well was because they were actually used to SA conditions.

 

[Richard]

It's the whole point.

You're claiming that SA were close to victory because of the early part of the game, and completely ignoring the FACT that they were then overtaken and if the game had run its natural course were extremely odds on to lose.

The Day 2 position would be relevant if Days 3, 4 and 5 were rained off, but they weren't, so it has no real effect on the final outcome.

Err, yes it has.
The game did run it's natural conclusion - no timeless Tests any more.
And thus - at some point SA were on top. Then, later, Eng were on top.
But neither of these being-on-top times resulted in victory.

 

[Richard]

Okay Richard, you seem to know what all the problems are.

WHAT ARE THE SOLUTIONS.

Err, what?
Could you be a bit more specific, rather than just banging-on with some obscure metaphor.

 

[Richard]

so you dont think that England would be far more comfortable playing in front of their home crowd than they would have been in SA? i dont see how that makes any sense.
As far as im concerned, you seemed to be completely denying the impact that home advantage has on a team by comparing 2 series that happened in completely different locations, one against a visiting side and the other against a home side. take a wild guess which one is likely to do better. and its not like too many teams in recent times have managed to pull off series victories over NZ in NZ.

Given that WI, Ind and SL are never going to win away against anyone, I hardly see how that's too important. Aus and Pak did win, and Eng failing to do so was something that virtually defied belief, as NZ were rarely if ever the better side during that series; of course, SA did not manage to.
NZ hardly ever play in front of big crowds at home in Tests - nor do SA - so I don't think something like a crowd is very likely to impact on either. Nor do I think the current Eng side are very likely to be bothered by a crowd even if one is present.
I'm not saying home crowds are totally irrelevant, but I don't really think they could be said to have had a massive impact on either of the said series.

err you dont look absolutely clueless against swing if you are moved up or down the order. you either have the required technique to handle it or you dont. Rudolph looked like a novice amongst professionals in England in 2003.

And that was down to swing...? AFAICS, he was only made to look foolish once, and that was in a way that most if not all left-handers would have been, because it was a very, very good piece of bowling.

because obviously you know best. Fact = England knew the home conditions and most of their players had played county cricket in those conditions. Fact 2 = England were certainly not used to the conditions in SA and the fact that players like Langeveldt, the rubbish Ntini from 2004 actually did well was because they were actually used to SA conditions.

Err, no, it was not - it was because Langeveldt actually bowled well for once, and there were quite a few pretty poor batsmen in the England team, from which Ntini benefited.
It was not due to either of them knowing whatever conditions prevailed better than their English-bowler counterparts.

 

[marc71178]

Err, yes it has.
The game did run it's natural conclusion - no timeless Tests any more.
And thus - at some point SA were on top. Then, later, Eng were on top.
But neither of these being-on-top times resulted in victory.

You really are the most pigheaded person in the history of this forum.

No matter how many people show your point to be utter copswallop, you continue to argue that its not.

Whatever the position at Day 2 has no bearing on the final result if it is reversed by the time the game ends.

 

[adharcric]

You really are the most pigheaded person in the history of this forum.

No matter how many people show your point to be utter copswallop, you continue to argue that its not.

Whatever the position at Day 2 has no bearing on the final result if it is reversed by the time the game ends.

That should do the trick.
Actually wait, this is relentless Richard here, it won't be enough.

 

[Richard]

You really are the most pigheaded person in the history of this forum.

Utter nonsense - I could name quite a few far more pigheaded.
Not surprising that we see the resort-to-insults tactics again...

No matter how many people show your point to be utter copswallop, you continue to argue that its not.

However many people say something - if they're all saying the exact same thing, I have no difficulty debunking it, as I have done several times.
If I continue to argue that it's not, people haven't shown it to be utter codswallop.

Whatever the position at Day 2 has no bearing on the final result if it is reversed by the time the game ends.

Err, obviously - but in fact, neither position had any bearing on the result. It was a draw. But it was a draw in which both teams were at various points on top. Hence, it was not a game either side particularly deserved to win.

 

[marc71178]

Utter nonsense - I could name quite a few far more pigheaded.
Not surprising that we see the resort-to-insults tactics again...

No insults there, and certainly I can assure you that you can't.

However many people say something - if they're all saying the exact same thing, I have no difficulty debunking it, as I have done several times.
If I continue to argue that it's not, people haven't shown it to be utter codswallop.

Except you haven't debunked anything.

Err, obviously - but in fact, neither position had any bearing on the result. It was a draw. But it was a draw in which both teams were at various points on top. Hence, it was not a game either side particularly deserved to win.

You really don't get it do you?

SA were nowhere near winning it by the close, yet you claim it to be close.

 

[Richard]

No insults there

Calling someone pig-headed is not an insult now.

and certainly I can assure you that you can't.

I can - amits, the Camel56 types, and EXD, to name 3

Except you haven't debunked anything.

I have - I've said time and again the same thing - just because England were on top near the end, it's not the be-all-and-end-all.
And no-one has managed to come-up with an unrespondable reason as to why it is.

You really don't get it do you?

SA were nowhere near winning it by the close, yet you claim it to be close.

I get that SA were nowhere near winning it on the day-five Close, but it's you that doesn't get that SA were in a winning position before England.
You also don't seem to get that neither team converted their winning position, as both times the opposition did Houndinis.

 

[marc71178]

I have - I've said time and again the same thing - just because England were on top near the end, it's not the be-all-and-end-all.
And no-one has managed to come-up with an unrespondable reason as to why it is.

Yes, they have, they've shown you that SA lost their advantage on the field, England only lost theirs because of the weather.

I get that SA were nowhere near winning it on the day-five Close, but it's you that doesn't get that SA were in a winning position before England.

Oh I get that, but that is irrelevant to the final outcome because they lost that position, therefore to say they were close to winning the Test actually ignores the pure facts of what happened after they were in the position.

You also don't seem to get that neither team converted their winning position, as both times the opposition did Houndinis.

How do SA get credit for the bad light ending the game?

 

[Richard]

Yes, they have, they've shown you that SA lost their advantage on the field, England only lost theirs because of the weather.

And who's to say the weather didn't contribute towards them getting into the position ITFP?
In fact, England lost their advantage when de Villiers and Pollock put together their 27-over stand. Even had the light not been offered, it's still perfectly conceivable SA would've survived for the draw.
Simply speaking - both teams recovered from their precarious positions through their own skill.

Oh I get that, but that is irrelevant to the final outcome because they lost that position, therefore to say they were close to winning the Test actually ignores the pure facts of what happened after they were in the position.

No, it doesn't. What happened after doesn't change what'd happened before. And nor does vice-versa. Both teams were on top in that match. And yet both teams performed remarkable rearguards.

How do SA get credit for the bad light ending the game?

Same way England get credit for the conditions which caused the bad light helping them get SA wickets.
In any case - as I've said, they were doing perfectly OK before the light became an issue.

 

[SJS]

Im going to enter the London Marathon, sprint the 1st 200 yards and as the Kenyans soon catch and pass me I can honestly claim that I was in the lead at some point and it does not matter that they were ahead of me at the end. Therefore I am a champion marathon runner. Hurrah, I find new skills I possess every day
.

Brilliant !!