England tour of South Africa 09/10
- Thread starter Mike23
- Start date
Not a great performance by England throughout, not helped by umpiring referral cock-ups (URCs) which would have had the damaging psychological effect you don't need as players can hide behind errors.
Before referrals umpires could hide behind human error, they didn't have the benefit of replays with SOUND. Now they have it they have to get decisions right, if he couldn't hear sound then he should have asked for it. I think the ICC have made a balls up of this referral system, not least because it is the FIRST and ONLY use of technology in cricket where it isn't down to the UMPIRE to refer it - they do on balls crossing the boundary, clean catches and run outs. As such the players treat them like they do power-plays, like some kind of toy without reason and with reasonable doubt ie they use them like it will somehow make a not-out decision out rather than knowing a genuine mistake has been made. Perhaps they should have limited it to a select set of appeals ie you can appeal against lbw ONLY if you hit it or know it pitched outside the line of the stumps (and were playing a shot for outside off), or for a catch if you KNOW (not think or hope) the batsman got an edge. If they do away with lbws on height, 'might be missing' leg etc then we might get further. As for no balls, well how many do umpires miss that aren't wickets BUT would be runs?!? Think if an umpire misses them in ODIs it can be the difference between winning and losing, there could be plenty of no balls missed given they can bowl over 300 balls per innings. So it's absolutely vital they determine if a ball was four or if it was a run 2-3, but the five or six no balls they might have missed go unchecked..................
As for the state of this Test, well we need a Pietersen or more likely Atherton-Russell batting miracle. I don't know why, maybe SSN knew something, but they showed a piece on Russell and that Atherton-Russell batting miracle BEFORE this Test began. I'd think it would be most likely Collingwood-Bell than involve Pietersen or Prior, but you never know. Whatever happens the remaining wickets need to do better than the batting has to date in general this series.
England batting vs South Africa 09/10*
317 runs : Collingwood @ 52.83 (50 x2)
313 runs : Bell @ 52.17 (100 x1, 50 x1)
287 runs : Cook @ 41.00 (100 x1, 50 x2)
190 runs : Trott @ 27.14 (50 x1)
177 runs : Pietersen @ 25.29 (50 x1)
170 runs : Strauss @ 24.29 (50 x1)
158 runs : Prior @ 26.33 (50 x2)
151 runs : Swann @ 30.20 (50 x1)
75 runs : Broad @ 12.50
55 runs : Anderson @ 13.75
11 runs : Onions @ n/a
0 runs : Sidebottom @ 0.00
*as at 101/4
Only four batsmen scoring more than 45 runs per Test (4x 45 = 180 runs) 11 fifties between them and yet only two hundreds tells its own tale, while our South African contingent of Trott (28 & 69) and KP (40 & 81) made 218 runs between them in the 1st Test and only 149 runs between them in the remaining three Tests at an average of 14.90 including five single figure innings, two over 30 and a highest score of 42.
I think England should declare, we've now lost Bell and Prior and any hope of saving the Test. England will be lucky to best their 180 1st innings 'effort'
England batting vs South Africa 09/10*
318 runs : Collingwood @ 63.60 (50 x2)
318 runs : Bell @ 53.00 (100 x1, 50 x1)
287 runs : Cook @ 41.00 (100 x1, 50 x2)
190 runs : Trott @ 27.14 (50 x1)
177 runs : Pietersen @ 25.29 (50 x1)
170 runs : Strauss @ 24.29 (50 x1)
158 runs : Prior @ 22.57 (50 x2)
151 runs : Swann @ 30.20 (50 x1)
*at 103/6, Collingwood on 45no, Bell out for 5 and Prior for a duck
Before referrals umpires could hide behind human error, they didn't have the benefit of replays with SOUND. Now they have it they have to get decisions right, if he couldn't hear sound then he should have asked for it. I think the ICC have made a balls up of this referral system, not least because it is the FIRST and ONLY use of technology in cricket where it isn't down to the UMPIRE to refer it - they do on balls crossing the boundary, clean catches and run outs. As such the players treat them like they do power-plays, like some kind of toy without reason and with reasonable doubt ie they use them like it will somehow make a not-out decision out rather than knowing a genuine mistake has been made. Perhaps they should have limited it to a select set of appeals ie you can appeal against lbw ONLY if you hit it or know it pitched outside the line of the stumps (and were playing a shot for outside off), or for a catch if you KNOW (not think or hope) the batsman got an edge. If they do away with lbws on height, 'might be missing' leg etc then we might get further. As for no balls, well how many do umpires miss that aren't wickets BUT would be runs?!? Think if an umpire misses them in ODIs it can be the difference between winning and losing, there could be plenty of no balls missed given they can bowl over 300 balls per innings. So it's absolutely vital they determine if a ball was four or if it was a run 2-3, but the five or six no balls they might have missed go unchecked..................
As for the state of this Test, well we need a Pietersen or more likely Atherton-Russell batting miracle. I don't know why, maybe SSN knew something, but they showed a piece on Russell and that Atherton-Russell batting miracle BEFORE this Test began. I'd think it would be most likely Collingwood-Bell than involve Pietersen or Prior, but you never know. Whatever happens the remaining wickets need to do better than the batting has to date in general this series.
England batting vs South Africa 09/10*
317 runs : Collingwood @ 52.83 (50 x2)
313 runs : Bell @ 52.17 (100 x1, 50 x1)
287 runs : Cook @ 41.00 (100 x1, 50 x2)
190 runs : Trott @ 27.14 (50 x1)
177 runs : Pietersen @ 25.29 (50 x1)
170 runs : Strauss @ 24.29 (50 x1)
158 runs : Prior @ 26.33 (50 x2)
151 runs : Swann @ 30.20 (50 x1)
75 runs : Broad @ 12.50
55 runs : Anderson @ 13.75
11 runs : Onions @ n/a
0 runs : Sidebottom @ 0.00
*as at 101/4
Only four batsmen scoring more than 45 runs per Test (4x 45 = 180 runs) 11 fifties between them and yet only two hundreds tells its own tale, while our South African contingent of Trott (28 & 69) and KP (40 & 81) made 218 runs between them in the 1st Test and only 149 runs between them in the remaining three Tests at an average of 14.90 including five single figure innings, two over 30 and a highest score of 42.
I think England should declare, we've now lost Bell and Prior and any hope of saving the Test. England will be lucky to best their 180 1st innings 'effort'
England batting vs South Africa 09/10*
318 runs : Collingwood @ 63.60 (50 x2)
318 runs : Bell @ 53.00 (100 x1, 50 x1)
287 runs : Cook @ 41.00 (100 x1, 50 x2)
190 runs : Trott @ 27.14 (50 x1)
177 runs : Pietersen @ 25.29 (50 x1)
170 runs : Strauss @ 24.29 (50 x1)
158 runs : Prior @ 22.57 (50 x2)
151 runs : Swann @ 30.20 (50 x1)
*at 103/6, Collingwood on 45no, Bell out for 5 and Prior for a duck
Sartaj
Panel of Selectors
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2009
- Location
- Frisco, Texas
Oh yes yes yes yes yesssssssssss!!!
Morne Morkel,you are THE MAN!!!
Superb fast bowling to leave England in tatters.:hpraise
Morne Morkel,you are THE MAN!!!
Superb fast bowling to leave England in tatters.:hpraise
It's worse than that, just imagine if say Ponting, Clarke and Hussey were to constantly throw their wickets away and the team was losing as often as it were winning - what would you do? We know Strauss, Cook and Pietersen are our better batters, the ones with all the ability, yet they're not producing enough (consistently) for the side to become better than P3 W1 D1 L1 or lose win and draw in equal measure.
Collingwood seems to be standing alone this Test trying to save it, shame for Bell he couldn't have supported him for a while to dispel myths he only scores 'icing on the cake' runs and perhaps get a few supporters off his back. Shame is, like Kuyt and Lucas for Liverpool, Bell is an easy target and not a big fan's favourite. He'll get stick left, right and centre while poncy primadonnas like Pietersen will be remembered for the fact they average near fifty and won us the Ashes FOUR AND A HALF YEARS AGO. Bell's been dropped, arguably rightly so, but when are we likely to give KP the kick up the backside his cricket sometimes merits? He's been shocking this series, not even the runs to back up his talent and make us overlook his dismissals.
Up until the 2009 West Indies series, Pietersen had only failed to score a hundred in a series twice in 14 series. He's not scored a hundred in any of his last three series and his 177 runs this series is his 'best' offering. He might well have scored more runs in the Ashes but for injury, but even then his scores of 69, 8, 32 and 44 point to more starts and not going on. His 69 at Cardiff came soon after Collingwood was out and left us 241/5, his dismissal in the 2nd innings left us 31/3 and soon to become 46/4 and 70/5. He's picked on reputation and ability, shame he doesn't fulfil his potential and average well over 50 instead of dance up and down either side of it
Owzat added 4 Minutes and 39 Seconds later...
Just read on BBC commentary that Swann claimed on twitter he'd score his maiden Test hundred - how daft is he?!?!?
He's coming in at SEVEN WICKETS DOWN, he may have the ability but he will always rely heavily on his partners to stick around and while Collingwood might stick around, will the 150-200 runs realistically needed for Swann to make a hundred (of them) really be added for the last three wickets?!?!?I think Morkel epitomises what England lack, a penetrative attack. Anderson picked up 0/11 off 30 overs, the rest produced tidy figures but none the 5/51 of Steyn or current 4/49 of Morkel. That said, the England bowlers don't have England batsmen to bowl out who give the bowlers as much assistance as the conditions!
venom2011
Club Cricketer
Look, two 50/50 decisions going SA's way does/should not spoil the whole series for England. Morkel's no-ball issue was a tough one because his heel was slightly raised and the delivery could have been borderline legal if his foot was flat. Nothing too wrong there.
Smith's edge: Well Smith himself reckons he did not feel he hit it at all and he's as honest as they come. Now I'm not saying he didn't nick it, but in Aus test this morning there was another apparent edge with only sound to go on, but hotspot showed nothing.
It can not be doubted that the UDRS system has been by and large pretty successful this series. Smtih's and Morkel's reviews would still have had the same result without the system, and then you take into account someone like AB's fortunes who has reviewed his own dismissals 7 times and 6 times has had it overturned.
What more can you ask for.
Last edited:
MaD
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Ho, Ho Ho! Collingwood = Final Hope!! I don't see him lasting long!
Highlander999
ICC President
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2006
- Location
- London
Any chance a monsoon is a few minutes away to save us?
drainpipe32
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2008
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
Sad to see the Poms throw away this series.
Hey, I'm not making half as big an issue as some of the ultra defensive saffers on here, not highlighting one part of a post in which I was pointing out that it was as much psychological damage and an excuse for England as it was costing the Test. We didn't play well, you need to stand on your soap box to clear your conscience that you've won fair and square then knock yourself out. TWO decisions don't cost teams series, plenty of cricket "fans" will convince themselves they have/do, as much as you think you'll persuade me whatever your three paragraphs of drivel contain (just got the general gist which is more than needs to be gotten from it)
We will lose/have lost, probably on balance of the series should be thankful to have drawn the series and the referrals are a shambles. In fact I've just re-read what I said that you've quoted and I don't even blame the referrals for our demise, I never have. I suspect you want to vent your spleen against the complaint of England and their fans in general, I am trying to point out the referral system has proven bad because before the umpires had human error whereas now any errors slipping through are going to be labelled incompetence. The fact that the players themselves squander their appeals, they're not using them properly is another matter. I also pointed out that this is the only use of technology to make decisions that is taken out of the hands of the umpires, that and what you quoted indicates I am criticising the referral system and not pinning blame on the decisions for the series
Get over yourself
I'm guessing you want the saffers off the top of the "championship" table, I haven't seen one any more recent than Dec 14th but the way they played in three of the four Tests they might be top or perhaps the aussies picked up enough points by stuffing Pakistan that they might return to the top. Can't see them batting to survival, not four down and having dropped their batsman keeper to boot! Would have taken a big innings from Yousuf, the rest of their batting order looks nothing special.
India aren't exactly crushing Bangladesh, 208/7 with Tendulkar's 73 the standout score. Good effort from the banglas, I suspect they will still lose the Test as their batting is poor. I was looking at their batting the other day when looking at keeper averages and they had one current batsman averaging over 30 in Tests. I'd love to know why ICC felt they were worthy of Test status, Kenya had a greater case for inclusion in my opinion and would have been great for cricket by spreading it further into Africa. The only better options in terms of spreading it would have been to have given a European team (Holland) or Americas team (Canada, USA, Bermuda etc) Test status. Given Bangladesh aren't doing great and could always take longer than Zimbabwe (6-8 years) or Sri Lanka (about 10-12 years) to establish themselves, would it have perhaps made a better move overall?
I'd rather they had a proper championship and not just a ratings table that passes itself off as a championship.
Collingwood50
Club Cricketer
Eurgh if you say that all the pietersenfanboys get cross saying he's our best player. Um......he clearly is pietersens best player not Englands best player. He infuriates me! He will go to Bangladesh make millions and everyone will Start worshiping him
as for today, I am disgusted at England, bell once again showed his mental frailty, prior and kp were stupid. Who was the only player for england who actually stood up and tried? OH Collingwood! And yet I bet his place is more under threat than pietersens. And SWANN? Man of the series? I might just explode.Swann was the leading wicket taker on either side...
As for Bangladesh I think we're all in danger of taking this tour too lightly. Maybe 5 years ago we could have dropped leading players, wandered in with a blas? attitude and got some batting practice but if no-one else has noticed the "best batting lineup in world cricket" is currently 200/7 odd.
As for Bangladesh I think we're all in danger of taking this tour too lightly. Maybe 5 years ago we could have dropped leading players, wandered in with a blas? attitude and got some batting practice but if no-one else has noticed the "best batting lineup in world cricket" is currently 200/7 odd.
Collingwood50
Club Cricketer
Oh but couldn't you predict it a mile off
Similar threads
- Poll
