Cricket World Cup Thread
Posted 24 August 2003 - 11:11 PM
Does anyone else think we have the longest tail of any Test playing nation, starting from Bickwell downwards? Apart from the Bangas of course, whose tail starts with their number 3 batter.
There is Anderson I suppose. Averages 43 in Test cricket I believe. :confused:
Posted 25 August 2003 - 11:45 AM
August 25, 2003
England v South Africa, 4th Test, Headingley, Day 5
It didn't take long - less than an hour of a gentle workout for South Africa to polish off England's resistance on the fifth morning at Headingley. They did what England signally failed to do yesterday, admittedly in less helpful conditions: Mark Butcher was despatched in the first over, Andrew Flintoff didn't last much longer, and the tail was docked with all the precision of the local Yorkshire vets that James Herriot made famous. In contrast England's clumsy attempts to remove South Africa's tail would have had the Canine Defence League on the phone in no time.
There was time today for Jacques Kallis to show England's five-man pace attack how to bowl on this Headingley pitch. Kallis is a somewhat reluctant bowler these days, but he bowled at the stumps, on a good length (with the occasional short one to keep the batsmen honest) and finished with match figures of 9 for 92. Compare that with Martin Bicknell (4 for 125), James Kirtley (5 for 145), Kabir Ali (5 for 136) and James Anderson (2 for 119). Only Flintoff put the ball consistently in the right place, and ill-luck contributed to ordinary match figures of 4 for 118. Horses for course? This lot were selling-platers.
The turning points of the match mainly hinged on England mistakes. Flintoff's marginal overstep that led to a wicket off a no-ball - Gary Kirsten added 102 more runs after that in the first innings. If Kirsten had gone then it would have been 70 for 5 at lunch on the first day, and without the wise counsel of the player one newspaper called "the dome-headed veteran", it's hard to believe that Monde Zondeki would have hung around long enough to make his 59. Upshot: South Africa, who should have been bowled out for about 142, made 200 more than that.
Next was England's dubious decision to go off on the second evening, at a time when they were creaming the ball around. The walkoff gave the South African think-tank a chance to sit their bowlers down and address their faults. It stopped the batsmen in full flow. And, with blue sky looming over "Will's Mother's", as they say up north, it was just about guaranteed that England would be back out there soon. They were, Marcus Trescothick departed immediately, Butcher soon followed, and South Africa never looked back.
Then there was the black comedy of the fourth morning. Quick wickets for England would have set up an intriguing finale - a target of between 220 and 250 could led to a classic. Instead one feared that Billy Bowden would suffer RSI after signalling a succession of fours with that arm-waving arrangement straight out of the Last Night of the Proms. Yesterday South Africa helped themselves to 201 runs at five an over on a helpful pitch ... and the eventual winning margin was 191.
Overall England were outbatted and outbowled at Headingley - and more damagingly they were out-thought. It doesn't bode well for The Oval. England need a strike bowler, a spinner, and a middle-order batsman likely to manage more than a flashy fifty (and if Nasser Hussain is unfit, now his poppadum fingers have tuned into twiglet toes, make that two). It's time for the selectors to swallow their misplaced pride and recall Graham Thorpe. Ashley Giles will presumably return, although Jason Brown might worry South Africa's left-handers more. But the strike bowler? It could be a long meeting ...
That silly break for "bad" light...
Posted 25 August 2003 - 02:27 PM
I think the difference was SA's better bowling, and our long tail. The South Africans put on 333 runs for their last 3 wickets in that match. We only put on 58 for our last 4 wickets in the match. That is just not good enough. At least we have proven that we can batter the enemies top order, but I just think the Gibbs, Smith and Kallis are due for big scores now. :eek:
Posted 27 August 2003 - 08:38 AM
Is the next test Stewarts last?
and no they shouldnt bring thorpe back.
Posted 28 August 2003 - 03:49 PM
What England needs is a strengthened batting lineup. Thorpe can always be "hidden" in the field. After all, its not a one-dayer.
Yup. When the tail starts at No 4, you need to put some beef into the batting, and Thorpe would be a good choice. He would lock up one end.
Posted 30 August 2003 - 07:26 PM
Gentlemen, I am proud to present to you The lowest ever score in any important cricket match.
Sadly alas, as with so many very old matches the fall of wickets and bowling returns are not recorded.
Posted 04 September 2003 - 06:36 PM
SA 360-odd for 4. Watching after tea I thought they'd be 400-1 at the close but England have something to play with tomorrow. There're still some good batters to come so I wouldn't expect SA to get less than 520.
Posted 05 September 2003 - 11:56 AM
As for the fifth test - so much for south africas tail the last 5 wickets fell for only 70 odd runs.
England need to get the last man out soon after lunch and then two of Englands first three batsmen need to make centurys today or get pretty close, i would say.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users