3rd Test South Africa vs England

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

I have to question the captain's decision to send in a night watchman as well. Curious, given that there was only an over to go and Thorpe was there on strike. Follow on is not at all out of the question, I'd say.

Big mistake,
Sending in a night watchman is likely to backfire, say he hangs arround a while tomorrow, and gets out, that brings in Flintoff with Thorpe, and when one of these two get out, there is less tail to bat with.
Or if Thorpe gets out, in comes Flintoff batting with the tail, after G O Jones.
Stupid decission.

[Moss]

It seems to be a preferred plan of Vaughan's, to bring in Hoggard as the NW.
It must be the third time this season that the occasion has arisen.

[Occasional Fan]

I'd have found it easier to understand if there were two overs left, or if Thorpe had been stranded at the non-striker's end. However, six balls to face and Thorpe on strike - night watchman surely not necessary.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

I have to question the captain's decision to send in a night watchman as well. Curious, given that there was only an over to go and Thorpe was there on strike. Follow on is not at all out of the question, I'd say.

You have rather missed the point of the nightwatchman here: the whole point was to ensure that Thorpe did NOT have to face any more deliveries: he'd only faced 19 and was just as vulnerable as any new man to the crease. Far better for the night watchman to face the last few balls: if he gets out in the last over then the days cricket is brought to a premature end anyway!

Only flaw was that Thorpe didn't manage to get off strike.

Had Thorpe been playing beautifully with 60 or 70 on the board then Vaughan might have been confident that he could take the last few deliveries without incident and ensure that the new batsman had nothing to do... but in this case Thorpe was still fairly new to the crease.. and had Flintoff been the other end... you'd be stuck as to who should face the last few balls!

The objection that Hoggard's likely to just get in the way tomorrow also holds little water: this match was there for SA to win and for England to lose from the moment England lost the toss. That's why Vaughan was entirely justified in playing very negatively on day one.. and why solidity was the key in this innings. Now these wickets have gone down.. accelerating the scoring is the last thing that matters.

Plan 'A', in the morning, has to be survival. With any luck Hoggard and Thorpe will shield Flintoff from the fresh bowlers for an hour.. and if that increases the chances of Flintoff getting started then the job Hoggard will have done in themorning will have been as important as the one he managed tonight.

The only time nightwatchmen are not justified is when you are in a position of strength and keen on forcing a win: England are not in that position.. and being one nil up in the series... absolutely HAD to play safe.

[Chuck Palumbo]

I really don't understand bringing Hoggard in as nightwatchmen- I would have personally preffered to bring in Giles as at least he can get some runs the next morning and keep the tempo up. Hoggard will just block and block tommorrow until he goes out and we will still be in a mess.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Chuck Palumbo

I really don't understand bringing Hoggard in as nightwatchmen- I would have personally preffered to bring in Giles as at least he can get some runs the next morning and keep the tempo up. Hoggard will just block and block tommorrow until he goes out and we will still be in a mess.

Every ball that Hoggard blocks tomorrow is one that will take something out of a SA bowler. It's going to hot, and it's going to be a long day, and making Pollock and Ntini toil eary on will make the job of Flintoff and Jones easier.

As to keeping the tempo up... Why? There's a series to be won or lost at stake... and England are currently 1-0 up. Trying to keep the tempo up will just put that sender lead at risk.

If the SA side were leading the series 1-0 and this was the penultimate / final game then sure, there would be a good case for taking risks in the hope of sneaking a victory.. but England will be very, very satisfied, now, to just get away with a draw in this Test and maintain their 1-0 lead.

It's SA that are under pressure to gamble ('cos they have to win a game to level the series). There's certainly no pressure for England to gamble!

ps. Follow on? I doubt it. If England are all out by tea tomorrow then I suspect the SA side will bat again (3 sessions) and wait for the pitch to get more perilous.

[R W S]

Grrrr! This kind of inept batting (on the back of the Durban 1st innings disaster) is demonstrating a weakness that the Aussies will be quick to exploit in the summer. Still, you can expect Strauss to learn not to play expansive strokes at 80/3 five minutes before close of play so maybe there is a positive to take out of it.

What Vaughan needs is a three day match against a state side before the next test, oh, there isnt one.

And Mr Pop'n'Fresh must have slept through the Saffers first innings - where no one played a hook shot untill very well set, actually only Kallis did.

I'll judiciously stay mute over Banger's dismissal.

On the subject of nightwatchman, I understand that the England policy is that the decision is with the batsman who is due in - so in this instance Freddie would have said 'Fletch, send in a nightwatchman, er, sorry Hoggy'.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by R W S

On the subject of nightwatchman, I understand that the England policy is that the decision is with the batsman who is due in - so in this instance Freddie would have said 'Fletch, send in a nightwatchman, er, sorry Hoggy'.

So Freddie gets to think: "right.. do I want to face polock when he's bright as a button for the first ball of the day tomorrow... or would I prefer to come ina bit later.. maybe when Boje and kallis are bowling...."

Tough decision, that!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

So Freddie gets to think: "right.. do I want to face polock when he's bright as a button for the first ball of the day tomorrow... or would I prefer to come ina bit later.. maybe when Boje and kallis are bowling...."

Tough decision, that!

LOL,
Freddie would not have made any decission,managment job, and I doubt the likes of Pollock bother him.
Course no decission would have had to have been made, had the captain made some runs, or at least apend a little time at the crease.

Test cricket is about contributions, like Flintoff getting 4 wickets earlier, Pollock was one of them I believe.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Rachael

You have rather missed the point of the nightwatchman here: the whole point was to ensure that Thorpe did NOT have to face any more deliveries: he'd only faced 19 and was just as vulnerable as any new man to the crease. Far better for the night watchman to face the last few balls: if he gets out in the last over then the days cricket is brought to a premature end anyway!

Only flaw was that Thorpe didn't manage to get off strike.

Fair comment, Rachael.