Well Nostradamus you've done it again.

Defensive? The only way to win a Test match is to take 20 wickets, and the only way to do that is to set attacking fields to maximise your chances of taking them. I didn't see the last 100 runs, but if Vaughan was still trying to get the guy out then full credit to him.

I agree there. Anderson's series figures are worse than Sidebottom's are, so it almost feels like Sidebottom's being scapegoated. He did take wickets in the first innings.

Hoggard fine, but personally I think that Harmison shouldn't be selected for England again- especially on a tour. He just doesn't seem to be up to it.

I agree Aurelius that the only way for England win this test match was to take 10 wickets. But I really didn't understand the need to have slips and gullies when the ball stopped swinging, neither did I understand chest high short balls happily put away by Smith or all the full deliveries happily driven away by both batsmen when there was no swing. IMO all the english bowlers in the team except Flintoff are too reliant on swing and if it doesn't work they run for cover.The four bowlers looked exhausted after a long session with Sidebottom looking in discomfort(injury resurfacing??) which might put forward the case for them to have 5 bowlers with Flintoff at number 6. Panesar was getting great purchase out of the rough but when Smith moved outside off stump to negate the lbw decisions, he just had no clue what to do next, add to it all the frivolous appeals which robbed him of 2 wickets, one of the key man Smith. He has to learn to reign in his excitement/nervousness in tense match situations.

I'm just wondering if the South Africans would be frustrated if they didn't get thier runs quick enough in a defensive ploy which would cause them to start panicking. They were eager to finish off the match that day and also had decided quite a while before that they would ask for the extra half hour(light permitting ofcourse).

I understand what you're saying, but a defeat on the fifth evening is just the same as a defeat on the fourth day. Trying to dry up the runs wouldn't have served much of a purpose with Smith in such great form. Besides, look at it this way- how terrible would it be if an edge went to slip and there was no one there? Edges can happen at any time, and most catches are still taken behind the bat, so keeping slips and gullies for the edges is a positive move which I applaud.

Well done South Africa they have been the better side in the series and deserve the win despite the fact that Smith was out twice and wasn't given.

I hope there are drastic changes for the next test as the following players shouldn't play

Vaughan - Time to go.
Flintoff - Why risk him in a dead game.
Ambrose - Out of form
Sidebottom - Unfit
Anderson - Rest him for the one dayers but tell him his winter place is safe.

In would come Bopara,Broad,Davies,Harmison and Jones.The dead rubber being a good time to give Bopara a chance and Broad can bat at 7 instead of Flintoff.Davies is the young pup and he has had a good season so give him a taster and Harmison and Jones can be picked on form and you can see whether Harmison still has the appetite for the top level and Jones the fitness for 5 days.

What have we got to lose?

Look at it this way Aurelius when Tendulkar was batting yesterday, he was scoring at over a run a ball and we all know what can happen to spinners irrespective of pitch conditions when he is in that kind of a mood. Jayawardene was quick to realise that if he let Tendulkar stay there for another hour it was game over for them. What did he do?? He packed an off side field and Vaas bowled ball after ball outside the off stump just leaving him and this went on for about 3 overs and eventually inducing an edge caught by Jayawardene who was standing inbetween first and second slip.

The key here was having a guy like Vaas who can bowl so accurately, a job Flintoff couldve done against Smith but you need people who can keep it tight or apply pressure from the other end which wasn't happening. Who knows Smith in that mood looking to score quickly couldve made a mistake when they frustrated him enough. I remember the commentator at some point( when they had 120 or so runs remaining) saying the Saffers scored 55 in 10 overs, thats far too many loose deliveries they gifted.

Either way I think the Englishmen fought back really well to give themselves atleast a chance after being down in the dumps and they really deserve credit for thier performance. I guess I'll end it at that.!!!

Things realy took a nosedive from the time they tinkered around with what up until then had been a fairly succesfull squad prior to the 2nd Test.

If Colly was left alone, Flintoff had just replaced the injured Sidebottom and the illfated Pattinson experiment had not been attempted...who knows we might have been discussing England's great series win right now.

The difference is that Smith already had 100 to his name, whereas Tendulkar had just come to the crease. Besides, Tendulkar was caught at slip, so how can you argue that Vaughan shouldn't have had one for Smith?

Basically, I think that in order to maximise their chances of taking 20 wickets, they have to set attacking fields, and never stop attacking even when a batsman's on top form. Otherwise, by setting a defensive field you're basically hoping for the batsman to mess up.

That's it. People hark back to the Ashes win of 2005 often seem, conveniently, to forget they had five bowlers to bowl at the Aussies.

Not really. Sidebottom has been totally innefective when the ball doest swing and not much better when it does. He may have got 3 wickets in the first innings but 2 of them were tailenders.

I'd go with that, but I'd tell Siders he's finished, Moores to go with Vaughan and the selectors Giles and Whitaker to go back to their counties as well.

Vaughan wouldnt waste Flintoff doing that but he used to use that tactic well when he had Hoggard in the team. The problem is that none of the other bowlers selected in this match could do that.

Not really Acker, the wins over a poor NZ side hid the problems caused by Moores' selection policies. Whenever we have played a half decent team we have lost, without ever looking like winning.

I've been mentioning this since the India series last year and have been proved right all along.

Namely:
We cant go along with 4 bowlers.
Siders isn't good enough at test level against good teams.
Medium paced swing bowlers aren't effective at test level.
The top 6 shouldn't be an exclusive club.
Flintoff can bat at 6, he was successful there against the best teams around.
Broads bowling isn't ready for test cricket.

__________________
Mark.

Probably a good job none of us are selectors then. The guy's obviously not been fit all summer. And you're happy to discard a man who takes his Test wickets at under thirty? Presumably you'd have Anderson and Harmison around both who average over thirty?

While we're at it; Freddie only got his wickets yesterday through the batsmen not seeing the ball at all. Apart from that he looked completely ineffective. The question that needs asking is why he didn't bowl more yorkers at Boucher who was obviously having a few issues? None of the bowlers really looked like getting wickets yesterday: Anderson was rubbish, Sid down on pace and not fit and Monty didn't bowl as we know he can.

I'd get rid of the keeper; his batting appears to be no better than Sid's! Who to bring in is the problem, I suppose it will have to be the batsman from Sussex who puts gloves on and stands somewhere behind the timbers!