-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** South Africa in England
- Thread starter TT Boy
- Start date
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Shoulda bin tekken, but it was Cook, not Vaughan.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
My earlier post was about Vaughan at leg slip when Panesar was bowling.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
Yup. Realistically it won't affect the result, but it still rankles.Oh right... for some odd reason I've missed that.
No matter anyway - Cook certainly should've taken him.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Athers just picked up on the "wear them down" theory. A bit slow, he is. He should be reading CW for his commentary insights.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
That's why I wasn't and never am in favour of enforcing the follow-on and more so than ever in the first of back-to-back games. Looks almost certain to turn-out fruitless as well, as it might or might not have done had England batted again.
The chance of either Sidebottom or MSP not playing at Headingley are presumably roughly zero, and if Flintoff or even Jones come in it won't be considered "resting" in the slightest.
The chance of either Sidebottom or MSP not playing at Headingley are presumably roughly zero, and if Flintoff or even Jones come in it won't be considered "resting" in the slightest.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Disagree entirely. The only real hope of winning this game was to see if S Africa had the gumption to survive (against the odds) for over 2 days while facing an enormous first innings deficit. England batting again would have done nothing but use up more time. It's not as though the pitch was looking as though it was going to deteriorate on the final day.
S Africa have done it and well done them.
Last edited:
James90
Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah strongly disagree with Richard. Would hate to bring out the old cliche of "just talking it one game at a time" but I just have.
First and foremost you've got to try to do all you can to win the test you're playing in. England had done everything right up until the follow-on and it would have been a shame to see them over-compensate and reduce the chance they had to win the test just so a few of their quicks could have a rest. They would have to bowl the overs anyway and Vaughan did his best to use the quicks sparingly at first. As it was, they set South Africa a massive task to defuse the impending English victory and they complied. Bad luck.
First and foremost you've got to try to do all you can to win the test you're playing in. England had done everything right up until the follow-on and it would have been a shame to see them over-compensate and reduce the chance they had to win the test just so a few of their quicks could have a rest. They would have to bowl the overs anyway and Vaughan did his best to use the quicks sparingly at first. As it was, they set South Africa a massive task to defuse the impending English victory and they complied. Bad luck.
Exactly
SA have held out with 2 days for Eng to bowl them out
Had Eng batted again, we might as well have declared the game a draw yesterday
James90
Cricketer Of The Year
If this game goes the whole two hours, which I strongly doubt, and Monty bowls right through, he'll have delivered more than 70 overs in the innings. I'm sure I've seen this before but for interest's sake, what's the most overs bowled by an individual in an innings post-timeless tests?
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
Maybe Sonny Ramadin in that test where May & Cowdrey padded away the last couple of days. Late 50's - possibly 1957.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Not sure if they played five-dayers in Australia before timeless Tests became the norm, but the first five-day ones in England were in 1947.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Had England batted again, they could have smashed a few and put SA in the sort of "on the back-foot" mindset that, to some extent, saw their middle- and lower-order fall over on Saturday. Whether it'd have done so again we can't know, but it was no less likely to be effective than the follow-on was.
Collingwood gets the third new-ball.
