England v South Africa test series

FC Wrote:

---

> I was trying to put the cricketing genius that is
> Kallis record into perspective using his current
> opposition...he has more runs than any English
> player will ever make...and more wickets than all
> the current generation of bowlers...if he was
> English he would be a SIR

Sorry mate, where did you mention Kallis?

For me, no-one needs to put anything Kallis has done or achieved into perspective... a truly outstanding cricketer who not only can take his rightful place in the same batting conversations that involve Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting et all, but a very fine bowler too (which for quite a chubby chap is some achievement lol ). There is every chance that if he was English he would be, or would become a "Sir".

IMO you should not use the word "ever" FC... hopefully the world has many millions of years left and cricket will hopefully still be a part of the world for many years to come. Even now, Alistair Cook has half the runs Kallis has made and potentially has another 10 years of test cricket left in him... I do not say he will ever be as great a batsman as Kallis but in terms of total runs, he may well surpass whatever amount Kallis finally ends up with. If he does surpass that total then I suspect there is a fair chance that one day we will be listening to Sir Alistair Cook commentating

chicken 'n chips Wrote:

---

> the papers in the morning will say the match ended
> in a draw and that the South Africans are still
> 1-0 up. Thats all that matters to us SA fans.


Yes we are 1-0 up, but I have to wonder what Smith was thinking by having a go and then declaring - surely the odds were heavily in England's favor in getting the runs (as opposed to SA taking 10 wickets in a session) - thankfully SA got rid of KP early (and even after that, England went along for a good couple of overs at between 6 and 7 runs per over), otherwise everybody would be calling for Smith's (and whoever else had input into the decision to declare) head. I'm all for sporting declarations, but not when the oddds are heavily against and a number one test ranking comes into play.

In terms of the umipiring; yes it goes both ways, but imo SA gets the worst of it (remember Darryll Hair) and as was also mentioned by the discussion panel, the TV umpire can NOT get it wrong; yes there was a small blip on Smith's bat, but that was on the bottom end of the bat (where it struck the ground) and not where the ball would have hit, which was about 6 inches above that; I agree totally with Nassir Hussein, who said the decision was 'rubbish'. And then the LBW of AB - extremely poor.

Frodo Wrote:

---

> chicken 'n chips Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > the papers in the morning will say the match
> ended
> > in a draw and that the South Africans are still
> > 1-0 up. Thats all that matters to us SA fans.
>
>
> Yes we are 1-0 up, but I have to wonder what Smith
> was thinking by having a go and then declaring -
> surely the odds were heavily in England's favor in
> getting the runs (as opposed to SA taking 10
> wickets in a session) - thankfully SA got rid of
> KP early (and even after that, England went along
> for a good couple of overs at between 6 and 7 runs
> per over), otherwise everybody would be calling
> for Smith's (and whoever else had input into the
> decision to declare) head. I'm all for sporting
> declarations, but not when the oddds are heavily
> against and a number one test ranking comes into
> play.
>
> In terms of the umipiring; yes it goes both ways,
> but imo SA gets the worst of it (remember Darryll
> Hair) and as was also mentioned by the discussion
> panel, the TV umpire can NOT get it wrong; yes
> there was a small blip on Smith's bat, but that
> was on the bottom end of the bat (where it struck
> the ground) and not where the ball would have hit,
> which was about 6 inches above that; I agree
> totally with Nassir Hussein, who said the decision
> was 'rubbish'. And then the LBW of AB - extremely
> poor.

Frodo, think you were worrying unnecessarily The chances of SA losing were miniscule. There are so many things Smith could have done to restrict the runs... 7 people on the boundary, bowling down the leg side etc etc... it would have been difficult in a one day match to get that total let alone on a 5th day test match wicket without the same bowling and fielding restrictions. If England had lost 1 or 2 more wickets straight after KP was out then nerves would have set in big time in the England camp and you never know... much of it was all just mind games in prep for the 3rd test.

It is my understanding that the 3rd ump can't overturn a decision, he can only advise the onfield ump. If you say it wasn't out then fair enough but the fact that there seemed to be some doubt in the mind of Barry Richards would also imply that there could have been some doubt in the mind of the 3rd ump. On what I have seen though I also agree with Mr Hussein's opinion.

I think Muttiah Muralitharan may argue he got the worst of Mr Hair's umpiring. Its all swings and roundabouts. IMO England get by far the worst of them

Frodo, the greatest captain of all, Steve Waugh use to do just that, he ALWAYS backed his side to win and 99% of the time he was right....

greg mark taylor and alan border were better oz captains than steve waugh ever was

the lords test may well be Pietersons last for England. Watch out, the England selectors will be scouting in SA come the summer, searching for a replacement for him

pirates Wrote:

---

> greg mark taylor and alan border were better oz
> captains than steve waugh ever was


The cold has obviously got to you Pirates...<

Pirates to be fair I didn't see much of Border....

gregbucks Wrote:

---

> Pirates to be fair I didn't see much of
> Border....


neither did most as he is a short little man

Englander - of course the 3rd ump can overturn, if the on-field umpire gives a decision and either side review, then the 3rd umpire will overturn if the evidence permits. Let's look at the Rudolph stumping in the first innings; he was given out and it was referred - but there was no clear evidence that some part of his foot/toe/boot was behind the line, so the 3rd ump did not over-rule (correct decision imo). But he did over-rule twice on the Peterson LBW's (given out by the on-field ump).

And on England getting the runs, you could be right, but why take the chance?

gregb, that may be so, but I don't believe any other captain would have made that decision, given that a world no1 spot is at stake. First rule in test cricket imo is ' make sure the other team can't win, then try and win yourself'

Anyway - on to Lords, I just hope SA can put our best team on the field - Kallis would be a huge gap to fill if he can't play - Albie Morkel probably the replacement and that would mean a batting order re-shuffle'

chicken 'n chips Wrote:

---

> gregbucks Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Pirates to be fair I didn't see much of
> > Border....
>
>
> neither did most as he is a short little man


lol... you cock!!!....<

stupid game any body who play 5 days with out a winner must be mad