*Official* England in South Africa Thread

[Richard]

Little bit of Afroman, eh?

Ah, 'twas a valuable cautionary tale.

 

[Richard]

I do intend to, if I can get hold of the full copy - sometime over the Christmas break.

Good luck!
Somehow I get the feeling attaining a full copy of the thing will be akin to getting the proverbial blood out of a stone.

 

[Langeveldt]

Return?
I've been nowhere.
Just because I've not been able to post with the regularity of this evening (due to a damaged computer which refused to stay "on" for more than about 5 minutes in a usual period)

Well I caught you snacking on some peripherals...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Little bit of Afroman, eh?

Upon further consideration, how can you be overcome by an urge and manage to post about it. Wouldn't that be resisting the urge you were supposedly overcome by?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Upon further consideration, how can you be overcome by an urge and manage to post about it. Wouldn't that be resisting the urge you were supposedly overcome by?

Given that the urge involved typing, no

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It's quite interesting how quickly this thread has evolved to 3 pages with such a blend of rubbish and meaningful discussion. CW classic already.

 

[Langeveldt]

It's quite interesting how quickly this thread has evolved to 3 pages with such a blend of rubbish and meaningful discussion. CW classic already.

Well, this series is my most eagerly awaited one since the 2000 series in SA..

They have plummeted to such lows Im talking about Richard eating his own mouse at the beginning of the official thread...

Beats comparing Peterson and Ontong...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Given that the urge involved typing, no

But was it to type that particular post?

 

[Richard]

Well, this series is my most eagerly awaited one since the 2000 series in SA..

They have plummeted to such lows Im talking about Richard eating his own mouse at the beginning of the official thread...

Beats comparing Peterson and Ontong...

In your position I'd surely have anticipated the 2003 one more.
I'm presuming you were in the country at the time?

 

[marc71178]

Yes, yes, I know, there's still 21 days (and 7 matches) to go until England arrive in South Africa, but surely World cricket's most exciting series of the last 10 years deserves some early discussion?

Erm, I suggest you look at some of the Australia-India series.

 

[marc71178]

And if it doesn't happen I'll admit Smith played poorly, something he hasn't done all that often - let alone over a period of 5 whole Test-matches.

35, 5, 2, 14, 18, 19, 33, 12, 2, 65...

 

[Richard]

Yep - and these sort of sequences haven't happened very often, have they? Which, funnily enough, is what I said.

 

[Richard]

Erm, I suggest you look at some of the Australia-India series.

Yes, two sensational ones, one good one (97\98 [I think, it might have been 96\97]) and three horrible one-sided things.
The best of Australia-India might have been sensational, but if you add every Test between the two sets (Eng-SA, Aus-Ind) you'll get a far more interesting saga with the whole Eng-SA thing since 1994 than you will Aus-Ind in the same period.

 

[marc71178]

Yep - and these sort of sequences haven't happened very often, have they? Which, funnily enough, is what I said.

Yet it is the 5 Test run you said hasn't happened...

 

[tooextracool]

If you ask me the England squad that toured in 1999\2000 was actually a bit better than the one picked this time around.
Of course SA aren't anywhere near as good as when they had Kirsten, Cullinan, Cronje, Rhodes and Donald..

err no it was not, the bowling consisted of caddick, a returning from injury darren gough who was completely out of it for most of that series, a rubbish andrew flintoff, chris silverwood, and phil tufnell.
surely harmison,flintoff(current), hoggard, giles and jones/anderson is a more formidable attack than that.
the fielding, well lets just say that any side that includes phil tufnell cant be anything above rubbish.
and the batting:atherton, butcher who we all know that he was a shade of the player he is now, hussain,vaughan(certainly not as good as he is now), stewart, chris adams- lets not even go to him, gavin hamilton( i wouldnt be surprised if you defended him but the fact is that he averaged 0), darren maddy and well flintoff again.
you've got to be out of your mind if you think that having players like thorpe,strauss and flintoff(current) make this batting just as good as the one then/the players that we have on the bench this time around(key and collingwood) are far better than maddy,chris adams and the flintoff who played then.

The 1999\2000 series wasn't anywhere near as one-sided as you seem to be suggesting - after The First Test England's cricket was by-and-large equal and occasionally superior to a very strong side - just two horrible periods in The Fourth (after 2-and-a-bit days in the field in The Third) lost that game and hence the series. Of course, we can't take the result of The Fifth too seriously but nonetheless it was part of England performing more competantly than most really expected.

rubbish, we got hammered in the first test, were completely outplayed in the 2nd, did well in the 3rd, then got hammered in the 4th by an innings and really would probably not have won the 5th had it not been for hansies generous declaration. how in the hell is that more or less equal to you?

 

[tooextracool]

I'm sure you didn't, but people with similar ideas to you did. And I opposed them, and I was proven (spectacularly) right until the final rites of the series.

amazing how often you are right isnt it?
predictions predictions, what was it that you said before the recent aus-ind series?
katich + martyn = poor players of spin

interestingly enough i backed both those players and they ended up being 2 out of the 3 most prolific players in india......

 

[wpdavid]

err no it was not, the bowling consisted of caddick, a returning from injury darren gough who was completely out of it for most of that series, a rubbish andrew flintoff, chris silverwood, and phil tufnell.
surely harmison,flintoff(current), hoggard, giles and jones/anderson is a more formidable attack than that.
the fielding, well lets just say that any side that includes phil tufnell cant be anything above rubbish.
and the batting:atherton, butcher who we all know that he was a shade of the player he is now, hussain,vaughan(certainly not as good as he is now), stewart, chris adams- lets not even go to him, gavin hamilton( i wouldnt be surprised if you defended him but the fact is that he averaged 0), darren maddy and well flintoff again.
you've got to be out of your mind if you think that having players like thorpe,strauss and flintoff(current) make this batting just as good as the one then/the players that we have on the bench this time around(key and collingwood) are far better than maddy,chris adams and the flintoff who played then.

You beat me to it, and I really think we need to slay the myth that the late 1990's were a golden age for English cricket. A composite side from the 2 tours would include only a few players from the 1999/2000 side. Atherton, of course, and probably Hussain would be all from the batsmen. Maybe Stewart ahead of Jones as keeper. As for the bowlers, Giles is far better than Tufnell away from home, and I could live without Caddick averaging about 35, as he did last time, or an unfit Gough doing even worse.

 

[Richard]

Yet it is the 5 Test run you said hasn't happened...

No, I did not.
I said it hadn't happened very often. I did not say it had not happened at all.

 

[Richard]

amazing how often you are right isnt it?
predictions predictions, what was it that you said before the recent aus-ind series?
katich + martyn = poor players of spin

interestingly enough i backed both those players and they ended up being 2 out of the 3 most prolific players in india......

Yes, Damien Martyn has scored far more runs than anyone could possibly have realistically predicted. Someone flailing in the dark (such as you) could maybe have predicted his success, but not someone with a realistic approach. Equally, no-one could have used the same logic to predict that Hayden would have as moderate a series as he did.
And yet again you have tried to twist my words WR Katich - I never said he was a poor player of spin, and I now say indeed quite the opposite - there is easily enough evidence to label him a very good player of spin.

 

[garage flower]

No, I did not.
I said it hadn't happened very often. I did not say it had not happened at all.

You said: "And if it doesn't happen I'll admit Smith played poorly, something he hasn't done all that often - let alone over a period of 5 whole Test-matches.".

The implication is that Smith hasn't played poorly very often and has never played poorly for a 5 match period.

Your remark about Harmison is, of course, the real shocker, but I can't see the point in getting into to it. I'll leave TEC and Marc to bang their heads against a brick wall.