Fifth Test, Centurion. South Africa v England Day 1.

[Richard Jenkins]

Rachael states that she hasn't enjoyed the tour to it's maximum because she feels that neither side has 'fired on all four' and that this has (my interpretation) dissapointed her.
i feel the tour has been a bit 'stop start' for England and that south Africa should have managed to draw the last test match. England applied pressure and they crumbled; But Gibbs and smith should have saved the match.
Ok, So both teams have had iffy sessions and no test has seen a side really dominate. But it does show how evenly matched the sides are. Even paper, it's a mouth watering contest. Ok so i've been dissapointed, particularly in Pollocks batting and Flintoffs batting. And Thorpe although scored a century has semed below par. Smith hasn't really performed either.
However I don't think that the lack of excellence (or perfection) from either team has blead to a 'boring' series, quite the reverse. Boring serires are those in which you know the outcome beforehand. if Zimbabwe played Australia or banagladesh played Australia you know that the aussies will win. However the delight comes when teams like zimbabwe win verses the top teams (odi Zim has beaten everyone)
Even in outclassed encounters there are often displays we can admire.
Bad performances by individuals don't equate to a bad team performance.
i'd say that it's been the outstanding performances by individuals that has made some of the difference between the teams; Smith, Hoggard, Trescothic , Gibbs all produced outstanding performances in the last test; What made the difference between the sides was the captaincy of Vaughan. Smith was concussed on the last day and it showed.
That then is the difference. In the last test both sides did have abject performances by certain individuals and outstanding performances by others. It was the mental (phychological) side of the game that was the difference, and it was that side of the match that had me biting my finger nails wondering if England would win loose or draw. Untill Gibbs went, i thought South Africa had a chance of drawing and an outside chance of winning. Good cricket is , for me this. Ok, I like to see the shots and the wickets and the big scores. But it's the fridction between the sides which sets the back of my hairs on end and its this which makes the tour one of the best overseas tours i can remember. When england toured WI last winter most England fans thought we'd win. But V the Saffers, most thought we'd struggle; We have struggled, and so far we're on top. It's this struggle that makes the games so appetising .
Only Australia seem to produce this 'perfectionist' consistency, and even they have bad days/shots/moments.



I doubt that anyone would question either England's or South Africa's claims to test status.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Richard Jenkins

I doubt that anyone would question either England's or South Africa's claims to test status.

Someone who doesn't watch it might

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Richard Jenkins

and an outside chance of winning. Good cricket is , for me this. .

That's when I accused you of being on the loopy juice and coming from La La Land

Originally Posted by Richard Jenkins

I doubt that anyone would question either England's or South Africa's claims to test status.

Only someone on Loopy Juice would do that

Originally Posted by Rachael 35258

Let's hope both sides can sort there act out for this last Test and actualy show signs that they are worthy of their Test status.. because that's NOT been the case so far.

Jenko, have you been passing out the Loppy Juice to Rachael?

[flanflinger]

Jenko,

I think I am with you on this one. For me the entertainment comes through contest. Without contest this game is nothing.

Australia may play almost perfect Cricket, but sometimes their games are dreadful to watch because there is little contest. Rachael used the Australia/Sri Lanka series as an example of a great series, although there were some great games, the series was a 3-0 white wash. The third Test went to the wire - but it was by then a dead-rubber.

For me these two teams, both not quite in gear, thrashing it out in 4 evenly contested Tests, is better than anything.

[Milo]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Contrast this series with the Sri Lanka vs Australia series of a few months back and I think you see a gulf in quality that is undeniable: in that series, both sides played to a level that would have made them worthy winners.... and it was unfortunate that one side had to lose. Both teams came away heartened by the experience of having played good cricket in a very tough series.

I'm not sure that anyone prepared to do the decent thing and take a neutral standpoint could say the same of the cricket in this series: we've seen some of the most horrific days of cricket either side have seen in decades.

Rachael, you did not watch this series; you have absolutely no idea of how the players were dismissed. Bad shots or good balls, you have no idea. And do not tell me you got the information from reading The Wisden Cricketer or the Guardian.

This series has been good for one reason. After four tests, we have seen a surprisingly competitive series between two evenly matched teams and the bat and ball. Good to see quality batting, from players playing well and in form scoring runs (Strauss and Kallis), but also equally good to see players out of form (if you like) struggling to get runs. That is how test cricket should be. The bowling hasn't been exceptional, but it has been good enough to get the likes of Vaughan, Thorpe, Rudolph, Trescothick (two first ballers), Smith out more times than not. Nice to see Gibbs play a few good innings, but for an atrocious LBW decision he would have saved the last test.

A very good sporting series. All the tests could have had different results. Poor 'quality' as you seem to call it can make for very good sport.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Milo

. Nice to see Gibbs play a few good innings, but for an atrocious LBW decision he would have saved the last test.

He'd already had two atrocious LBW decision's go in his favour. One from an Anderson was plumb as you like. I think, for Dar, that Giles Decison was a "make-up"

[Milo]

Let's not get too into the ins and outs of umpire decisions. My point was to emphasize the closeness of both the sides (and hence a good series) - but for one or two decisions it could have been 3-1 to England or 2-2....or even 3-1 to South Africa.

[Lee Johnson]

Your entitled to your opinions but Im affraid you talk *******, pay for Sky, Watch some of the most entertaining cricket theres been in years and come back with more sensible and slightly more positive comments.

As for not being worthy of test status, comments like that make me think you know very little about cricket. You seem to want to analyse everything but your thoughts always seem to fall someway short of the mark.

How much cricket have you actually watched live? Your knowlege of the game seems to come from books, which is all well and good but it doesnt give a balenced view. If you are to believe what you read a good batsmen will never get himself out and bowlers should always land the ball on that same spot.

Have you played the game? I know wasnt a lot of Ladies cricket until recently so i doubt it. But it helps you understand the difficulties of playing this game. As a club level all rounder i know how difficult it is to pitch the bal in the same spot over after over and to pick the correct shot to play every ball is impossible. I know thats the difference between club players and people who go further but we are not machines and will make mistakes. Without these Mistakes the game we love would be very boring indeed.

Well its still raining in South Africa, so probably this is how you like your cricket. Long live stonewallers like Boycott who never gave the oppposition anything!

[flanflinger]

Still raining, covers still on. Very wet on the outfield, I can't see a ball being bowled today...

[Lee Johnson]

Well good news for england, not great for the fans though