fish fingers Posted 14 January, 2010 Posted 14 January, 2010 The Jo'burg Golf Open are currently off for "electrical activity". Why isn't that stopping the cricket?!! Probably not using any at the cricket.
farawaysaint Posted 14 January, 2010 Posted 14 January, 2010 I can say as a South African supporter it's only a matter of time before we achieve a phenomenal collapse. I'm guessing Prince clean bowled then Smith LBW stepping across his stumps, followed by a gutsy 100 by kallis and the rest of the team scoring absolutely nothing.
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 14 January, 2010 Posted 14 January, 2010 Sidebotham will do well on this wicket if he bowls intelligently, as he can. Have to say though that it looks a decent wicket with a bit of swing and I would expect SA to score 300+ 155-9 The Sidebotham of a couple of years ago would do well on this wicket but he appears to have lost his zip and does not have the pace to worry test match batsmen now. Hope i am proved wrong.
Nellie Posted 14 January, 2010 Posted 14 January, 2010 No correct decision was to bat. Smith said he would have done the same. Smith is tactically clueless, it's only a shame he didn't win the toss. I'm fairly certain the correct decision would have been to bowl. It would have heaped all of the pressure onto South Africa to bat well, then worry about declarations and if they can get twenty wickets. They are notorious chokers. When the pitch has clearly been prepared for seam bowlers, as evidenced by SA's inclusion of five of them, why not bowl first? We've already inserted them twice before in this series, on two far better batting wickets. Crikey, even Boycott was advocating fielding and he's straight out of the 'win the toss then bat' mould. That said, a number of **** poor shots (what the hell was Trott doing?), and a less than helpful effort from Daryl Harper really didn't help matters.
saint1977 Posted 14 January, 2010 Posted 14 January, 2010 The Sidebotham of a couple of years ago would do well on this wicket but he appears to have lost his zip and does not have the pace to worry test match batsmen now. Hope i am proved wrong. Very strange decision by England, can only assume Onions said something yesterday in the nets that upset one of the ECB Counties set and England wheeled one of their county stalwarts in. Sidebottom was ok against NZ and WI in 2007 but well past it now and he was poor in WI last winter.
hutch Posted 15 January, 2010 Posted 15 January, 2010 Bright and sunny here this morning. But at this time of year that can change very quickly.
bungle Posted 15 January, 2010 Posted 15 January, 2010 Smith edged, caught behind. Given not out. England refer. Still not out. Sky say there was a clear noise and he clearly edged it. Turns out SABC didn't given the 3rd umpire any sound during the review.
saints_is_the_south Posted 15 January, 2010 Author Posted 15 January, 2010 1 wicket taken so far this morning, Broady getting rid of Prince. SA currently 70-1.
Nellie Posted 15 January, 2010 Posted 15 January, 2010 What the hell is going on with the review system? There is no hot spot or snickometer to begin with, which I can understand as at the moment it's at the television broadcasters cost (why the ICC don't fund it if they want to go down the review system route, I don't know). However, firstly the standing umpire doesn't pick up a blatant edge, with a clear snick, from Smith. Then when it's reviewed, the broadcasting company (South African), doesn't give Daryl Harper the sound to hear the snick. Hmm, a little suspicious.
farawaysaint Posted 15 January, 2010 Posted 15 January, 2010 What the hell is going on with the review system? There is no hot spot or snickometer to begin with, which I can understand as at the moment it's at the television broadcasters cost (why the ICC don't fund it if they want to go down the review system route, I don't know). However, firstly the standing umpire doesn't pick up a blatant edge, with a clear snick, from Smith. Then when it's reviewed, the broadcasting company (South African), doesn't give Daryl Harper the sound to hear the snick. Hmm, a little suspicious. SABC is useless and bankrupt, not malicious suspicious it my be but I'm willing to bet it was just their overwhelming ineptitude that carried the day not some ulterior motive.
DS Posted 15 January, 2010 Posted 15 January, 2010 Weather's not great down here at the moment. Don't give up hope yet. Would now be a good time to give up hope? England 180 South Africa 180-1 (54 overs)
dubai_phil Posted 15 January, 2010 Posted 15 January, 2010 Thank fook I will be in an internet and Sky free zone for the rest of the weekend and won't have to suffer watching this
St Lej Posted 15 January, 2010 Posted 15 January, 2010 Would now be a good time to give up hope? England 180 South Africa 180-1 (54 overs) This was sadly very predictable once we'd been shot out. Total momentum swing from the word go. Yesterday i said SA would post 300 minimum, thats now looking very optomistic! 500 would be more to the mark now!
hutch Posted 15 January, 2010 Posted 15 January, 2010 It's coming, but not for another hour or so here (I'm about 40 miles away)
saints_is_the_south Posted 15 January, 2010 Author Posted 15 January, 2010 Play delayed due to rain & thunder storms. w00t!
OldNick Posted 15 January, 2010 Posted 15 January, 2010 Would now be a good time to give up hope? England 180 South Africa 180-1 (54 overs) If you were a SA batsman and knew that Onions had been replaced by the lazy swing of Sidebottom I would have thought that would have been a philip from the first moment. it was the most ridiculous decision
bungle Posted 15 January, 2010 Posted 15 January, 2010 It's coming, but not for another hour or so here (I'm about 40 miles away) Incorrect.
saints_is_the_south Posted 15 January, 2010 Author Posted 15 January, 2010 Still 25 minutes to go. I'll let you know. Huh? It's already raining in Johannesberg, infact its thundering & lightning aswell! Big puddles on the outfield according to BBC, would have thought anymore play unlikely today.
Nellie Posted 15 January, 2010 Posted 15 January, 2010 SABC is useless and bankrupt, not malicious suspicious it my be but I'm willing to bet it was just their overwhelming ineptitude that carried the day not some ulterior motive. It turns out it wasn't SABC's fault at all. According to TMS, Daryl Harper just hadn't turned up the volume on the footage sufficiently. Good God he's incompetent. Why bother having the system if you're going to have inept standing umpires, being reviewed by equally inept TV umpires?
hutch Posted 15 January, 2010 Posted 15 January, 2010 And here now as well. Call me a liar for 15 minutes.
bungle Posted 15 January, 2010 Posted 15 January, 2010 And here now as well. Call me a liar for 15 minutes. Many apologies. I mis-read your earlier post as it was raining where you are and would take 40 minutes to reach J'burg. Many apologies.
hutch Posted 15 January, 2010 Posted 15 January, 2010 No sweat. I've got very very thick skin. I'm a Saints supporter.
bungle Posted 15 January, 2010 Posted 15 January, 2010 No sweat. I've got very very thick skin. I'm a Saints supporter. How come when you live 40 miles away, you aren't at the Test? Out of interest. etc.
hutch Posted 15 January, 2010 Posted 15 January, 2010 Duty calls. Got to pay the bills somehow. Went to the first Pro20, where we got absolutely slaughtered. Andy Strauss asked me to stay away after that.
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 15 January, 2010 Posted 15 January, 2010 It turns out it wasn't SABC's fault at all. According to TMS, Daryl Harper just hadn't turned up the volume on the footage sufficiently. Good God he's incompetent. Why bother having the system if you're going to have inept standing umpires, being reviewed by equally inept TV umpires? England are makng an official complaint about the useless Harper.
hutch Posted 16 January, 2010 Posted 16 January, 2010 It's pretty overcast here this morning. And humidity is high. The forecast here is the same today as it was yesterday, but there will be more rain here in Pretoria. I expect Jo'burg will be the same. If it stays like this the conditions will definately suit the bowlers.
Hatch Posted 16 January, 2010 Posted 16 January, 2010 Swanny on, takes wicket in his first over. AGAIN.
hypochondriac Posted 16 January, 2010 Posted 16 January, 2010 If England win this I'll buy a pompey season ticket
OldNick Posted 16 January, 2010 Posted 16 January, 2010 oh what a joy. Seeinjg the look on Strauss face as he was given out as the realisation of what a mess he made of things summed it up for me. How many wickets did Sidbottom get by the way?
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 17 January, 2010 Posted 17 January, 2010 Pathetic batting from England again, apart from Collingwood who at least put up some resistance. Problem is these same underperforming batsmen are not in danger of losing their places :-(
Hatch Posted 17 January, 2010 Posted 17 January, 2010 1-1 series draw, but should have been a 3-1 defeat. Not a great series.
jeff leopard Posted 17 January, 2010 Posted 17 January, 2010 1-1 series draw, but should have been a 3-1 defeat. Not a great series. Not a great series as far as England's performance, but as entertainment, I thought it was brilliant from start to finish. More proof, if proof be need be, that test cricket rocks. Its almost a year until the ashes, but the aussies must be licking their lips at the thought of giving us another good hiding
DS Posted 17 January, 2010 Posted 17 January, 2010 1-1 series draw, but should have been a 3-1 defeat. Not a great series. I'm with Jeff Leopard on this- I thought it was a thoroughly entertaining series and a great advert for test cricket (although I'd prefer it if the review system was abolished).
farawaysaint Posted 17 January, 2010 Posted 17 January, 2010 I'm with Jeff Leopard on this- I thought it was a thoroughly entertaining series and a great advert for test cricket (although I'd prefer it if the review system was abolished). I agree, the review system just seems to make decisions more controversial rather than less and now umpires seem to be somewhat pointless when every decision isa reviewed.
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 17 January, 2010 Posted 17 January, 2010 I agree, the review system just seems to make decisions more controversial rather than less and now umpires seem to be somewhat pointless when every decision isa reviewed. I think the review system works ok apart from when Harper is involved.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now