Day 3, 4th Test - SA vs Eng - Johannesburg

[Alison]

Originally Posted by Rahul_Dravid_is_No.1

well england were quite a bit slower than the saffers.

Were we? Earlier in this thread someone was saying that England were overunning by 13% and someone else said that SA overran by 25%, and that seemed to be taking the weather interupptions into account.

[Rahul_Dravid_is_No.1]

yeh, fines are not going to solve the problems and stricter action must be taken. but its hard to draw the line on what is strict enough, and when it will be going too far

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Rahul_Dravid_is_No.1

well england were quite a bit slower than the saffers. also weather played a big part in the s. africans taking 2 days to bowl 124 overs. quite a bit was lost to rain wasnt it? and then bad light or something

SA delivered 124 overs in 558 minutes, a rate of 4.5 minutes per over. England have so far delivered 91 overs in 422 minutes, a rate of 4.63 minutes per over. The difference is 7.8 seconds per over or 2.8%, which is not all that significant. I now have to say that, if Michael Vaughan is called to account for this, Graeme Smith also needs to be called.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Alison

Were we? Earlier in this thread someone was saying that England were overunning by 13% and someone else said that SA overran by 25%, and that seemed to be taking the weather interupptions into account.

Alison - it was me on both occasions and poorly researched on one of them. Accurate figures in the preceding post, based on the Cricinfo scorecards.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan 34009

One comment to Maranello: I'm not all that happy with the comment that Vaughan has been guilty more than once, as he hasn't faced a charge yet. That's just me being pedantic and quasi-lawyerly though - quite possibly he should have been charged already. I do agree with you that there is a prima facie case to answer tonight.

OF, apologies for my lax language, but then not everyone can be as lawyerly as you I did not mean to imply that Vaughan was guilty in the criminal law sense, only that this was not the first occasion his actions merited closer scrutiny by the officials. Culpable might have been a more appropriate word.

Originally Posted by Alison 34026

Were we? Earlier in this thread someone was saying that England were overunning by 13% and someone else said that SA overran by 25%, and that seemed to be taking the weather interupptions into account.

Alison they were 25% over their time if one assumes they had a full 5 sessions (or 10 hours). I am not sure they had uninterrupted play each session. In fact there were interruptions to most sessions, and time was lost due to rain, bad light and similar atmospheric conditions. Hence not sure if they were as slow as England today, who had an uninterrupted day today.

On a general note, over rates were not really an issue for Australia against Pakistan in their series recently, and for Pakistan, were only an issue when Akhtar bowled a good chunk of the overs. With his 33 metre run-up, he takes 7 minutes an over and was seriously affecting the over-rates. Still, generally the team did get the overs they had to.

RD1 - I don't think you can blame England for where the match is now. They batted very well in difficult conditions, most other teams would have struggled to get to 411 in the time they did, in fact most teams would have been out! Those were difficult conditions against two very good pace bowlers.

PS: OF, just saw your latest post. I presume the 558 mins for the SA performance excludes rain breaks etc? If so, you are right, both sides are equally culpable. Which means that neither would be sanctioned... or maybe I am too cynical.

[Ernest]

I don't think there is any solution, when these clever cloggs commentators, tell us how we used to get so many over in, they omit to say, in days gone in the past, 2 spinners were often employed, and there were more genuine medium pacers, with lesser run ups.

It all started with the great West Indies quartet of bowlers, so there is no answer.

The only thing that can be done, is to punish players and captains who deliberatly waste time.

4 seam bowlers with, cannot bowl 15 overs a hour IMHO.

[Moss]

Originally Posted by Rahul_Dravid_is_No.1

Lee, ponting and harmison, i dislike them way more than smith

Why is that RD1?
I can understand Lee and Ponting, as their arrogance often shines through in interviews, particularly Lee, but Harmison always appears as one of the nicest, unassuming blokes you could meet.

I loved Smith falling over today.
I was lucky enough to watch most of the last two sessions, and it was great to see it for a change.
Poor Hoggard the workhorse though!

Very annoyed at GO Jones and his dropping Gibbs. The Sky commentator said "....and Read is waiting in the wings...." when he got injured, which made me think of a few people on here.

I hope Gibbs gets out soon tomorrow. I have this feeling he could continue to be the danger man tomorrow.

Ernest - with reference to your post in the Day 2 thread, my husband was very offended that you thought he looked like Rob Key! Only joking. Rob's a fine figure of a man. I like 'em solidly built.

I can't call this match. So many factors hang over the outcome, not least of all the weather.
I think Vaughan did the right thing declaring. Now he just needs Harmison to come to the party.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Maranello

PS: OF, just saw your latest post. I presume the 558 mins for the SA performance excludes rain breaks etc?

It must be actual time played, as five sessions measured any other way would come to 600 minutes (also, scorers usually do record actual time played).

Originally Posted by Maranello

If so, you are right, both sides are equally culpable. Which means that neither would be sanctioned... or maybe I am too cynical.

Both could be sanctioned - if Michael Vaughan had any of his match fee left, of course! More likely Clive Lloyd will let this one go - and who can blame him after his efforts to discipline Ganguly were thrown back in his face on appeal?

[Alison]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Alison they were 25% over their time if one assumes they had a full 5 sessions (or 10 hours). I am not sure they had uninterrupted play each session. In fact there were interruptions to most sessions, and time was lost due to rain, bad light and similar atmospheric conditions. Hence not sure if they were as slow as England today, who had an uninterrupted day today.

I was just working on what I'd read earlier in the thread, I'm not quite sure where to get the figure for actual amount of time played, and since someone else appeared to have worked it out I was happy tp just accept their figures.

[Maranello]

That is exactly what I would have done too Alison. OF has now pointed out the correct times in his post above, and it seems both sides were more or less equally slow...