• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Eng v South Africa 3rd Test

Status
Not open for further replies.

i do wonder if any of them had an ounce of self belief that told them that they had any chance of getting anything from the game once they where set the total ..................... characterless, gutless lambs to the slaughter
 
45-4, looking good

:lol: Agreed, looks like I was wrong, team spirit is everything :lol:

You honestly think that if KP had played he would have bettered 95 in his first innings and not been a walking wicket? Especially given he went for a duck twice in the match he did play? If his head's not in the right place he's a goner.

Sadly as soon as it all came out there was no chance of KP making a useful contribution either way.
 
45-4, looking good



You honestly think that if KP had played he would have bettered 95 in his first innings and not been a walking wicket? Especially given he went for a duck twice in the match he did play? If his head's not in the right place he's a goner.

Sadly as soon as it all came out there was no chance of KP making a useful contribution either way.

Like he did in the last game in the chase hitting a couple of boudaries then getting caught out for less than 20? ;-)
 
Take out Trott and Pietersen were no better than New Zealand

Strauss is most definitely past it

Impressed with Broad, Prior, Cook and Anderson but the rest blow hot and cold far too much to ever challenge the top sides by and large
 
Take out Trott and Pietersen were no better than New Zealand

Strauss is most definitely past it

Impressed with Broad, Prior, Cook and Anderson but the rest blow hot and cold far too much to ever challenge the top sides by and large

Hard to argue with that mind.

Got some good youngsters coming through the ranks but they need time to develop. Cook is a good player but technically flawed.
 
Take out Trott and Pietersen were no better than New Zealand

Strauss is most definitely past it

Impressed with Broad, Prior, Cook and Anderson but the rest blow hot and cold far too much to ever challenge the top sides by and large

Except for the fact that we have consistently challenged the top sides for the last three years of course.

It wouldn't take much for us to really cement second place-SA are too far ahead of everyone, complete all round package, only weakness is that their core is getting on-replace Strauss with a reliable opener and use 5 bowlers instead of four and concentrate on our strengths and we'd continue to be a proposition for anyone.

With an attack of five we'd have run the saffers far closer as well. I appreciate that an attack of four got us to number one but given our strength is in the attack I don't understand why we're persisting with it. If you want to win a test you have to take 22 wickets, no exception. You can score a million runs but without taking 22 wickets you won't win.
 
Take out Trott and Pietersen were no better than New Zealand

Strauss is most definitely past it

Impressed with Broad, Prior, Cook and Anderson but the rest blow hot and cold far too much to ever challenge the top sides by and large

Agree with your general point, although not sure about the New Zealand bit. Thing is, once you get past SA, which teams would you rank as top sides? Australia are very hit and miss at the moment and can't seem to work out their best 11, India are looking past it most of the way through the order, Pakistan have a strong bowling attack, but their batsmen were often susceptible to our bowlers in the winter and Sri Lanka can't back up their strong batting line up with bowling to match.

I don't think number 2 in the world will flatter us, though despite India's growing weaknesses, they will still be a tough challenge on their own patch. We have a good spine to our team with Cook, Trott, Prior, Broad, Anderson and Finn and we can offer a game to any other test team in the world, but for a couple of dropped catches, we could be looking at a victory in this test and a drawn series, that's cricket.
 
Agree with your general point, although not sure about the New Zealand bit. Thing is, once you get past SA, which teams would you rank as top sides? Australia are very hit and miss at the moment and can't seem to work out their best 11, India are looking past it most of the way through the order, Pakistan have a strong bowling attack, but their batsmen were often susceptible to our bowlers in the winter and Sri Lanka can't back up their strong batting line up with bowling to match.

I don't think number 2 in the world will flatter us, though despite India's growing weaknesses, they will still be a tough challenge on their own patch. We have a good spine to our team with Cook, Trott, Prior, Broad, Anderson and Finn and we can offer a game to any other test team in the world, but for a couple of dropped catches, we could be looking at a victory in this test and a drawn series, that's cricket.

Yes, all of this. If you're talking about a team which would have been able to provide competition with the great cricket teams of the ages in the past three years there has only been SA, followed by India and England at their very best-which they achieved in maybe one series each, at most-who would rank, and they would be comfortably beaten I suspect.

What matters though is that the competition has been more or less equal, one or two top teams then three of four who are capable of beating anyone on their day but also capable of shockers. The quality might not be there but in terms of what it's all about Test Cricket is alive and well.
 

"is this team as good as the England one that chased down the record?"

He went mental at the incredulity of them asking.

He's also hammering Trott. And England in general. He's going ballistic at the top 3 and says we should "entertain the crowd as we ain't gonna get t'win"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top