Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
England in South Africa
Sorry not discounting Trott at all. Best no. 3 we've had in many years. Bell certainly did have a couple of golden spells in his career. For a while it looked like he was going to a be a great. Still 22 test hundreds and nearly 8000 test runs puts him up there. Yes maybe a bit early for Root but he seems to done it over a period of time now and at just 25 he should have his best years ahead of him. Bound to have a dip at some point but he's a cocky sort of guy that looks like he exudes confidence.

A cocky Yorkshire man?, surely not!
No its a strange thing Simon they are normally so shy and reserved.

England need to show some of that "killer instinct" and go for 3-0 and not be just take being good and accepting a 2-1 series win..... It will be interesting to see how Anderson performs..... and also Woakes .... if he performs well, then his absense on England duties will impact on us. Important game for him IMHO.
Well he got a wicket on what really was a poor day for England. Anderson below par this series.

To be fair, Woakes was poor today.
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at
As Dobell says on cricinfo, Woakes has one last chance to prove himself a Test bowler today. If he doesn't take it, as he hasn't thus far, it could be curtains.
Lara, Tendulkar ... Pilling.
Yes probably but there could be injuries next summer so who knows.

What with injuries and many days of carrying drinks, Chris Woakes has played very little red ball cricket in the past year. No wonder he doesn't look in peak form.

England clearly fancy him and quite right too. There's still time for him to develop into another Sean Pollock. Whether he will be able to do that when most of his appearances are in limited overs cricket is a moot point. I'd sooner see him given a fairly uninterrupted season of Championship cricket when I suspect he would be able to resume the development that was interrupted by his injury last March.
Yep but the thing is we still think of him as a young player who is in the development phase, but he will be 27 in March and most seamers have made it at international level by then.

We learnt a lot from this series..... The good and the bad. One of those is that, at nearly 27, sadly Woakes is not a test bowler. He has great ability at championship level and perhaps at IT20 and I50 cricket.
This series really needed a fifth game, it would have been much more entertaining than weeks of T20's.

The series is significant for the ZA side, who now have the right captain, and have added four players to the side that have the ability to play test cricket for several years.
While Robert may be bad, Robert is not all Mugabe's.
There are GOOD Mugabe's
It is Warwickshire County Cricket Club!
We shot our bolt in this test as the series was won... Very unprofessional.

I have been disappointed with Anderson and Hales in this series..... But there have been a lot of successes and England look in much better shape than twelve months ago.

Fifty over cricket needs to be scraped quickly .... Giving time for a major test series to be five matches with a few IT20 matches.
There is no place for T20 cricket at International level IMO
LE - aka John
I'm not at all surprised that Hales proved to be a waste of a shirt. Opportunity there for Chopra now if he can strike some form.

And, unless they wanted to keep an eye on what he was eating, why exactly was Samit Patel on the tour? You do wonder about the England management's thinking sometimes.
[-] The following 1 user Likes GrizzlyBear's post:
That place is certainly up for grabs....

Patel is probably there for those 50 over games.... All five ..... Strange they have five 50 over games but only four tests. From memory there are only a couple of IT20s.... But even I would sacrifice them and the numerous fifty over games to have a five series test. Far too many fifty over games played each year at International level anyway ....
I have said for many years we should use this formula for deciding the number of games in a series

number of ODI= number of Tests - 2

number of T20 = number of Tests -4
While Robert may be bad, Robert is not all Mugabe's.
There are GOOD Mugabe's
It is Warwickshire County Cricket Club!
Whilst I slightly disagree with the math's in your formulae, the idea is a good one.
The formula is designed to protect the supremacy of the ultimate form of the game.

The 50 over game is also a more complete test of the games skills than shorter forms of the game, which are more vulnerable to illegal match fixing activity.
While Robert may be bad, Robert is not all Mugabe's.
There are GOOD Mugabe's
It is Warwickshire County Cricket Club!
The supremacy of the ultimate form of the game is IMHO Test cricket. Skill, strategy and measured thrust.

T20 is the joie de vivre and excitement of the game. Skill, speed and available to the working public.

A formulae needs to be arrived at that encourages the worlds best to play both formats.

50 over cricket is the too frequently played leach that will slowly suck the life out of the game. We should have just two formats - 4 / 5 day cricket and T20. T20 cricket competitions should partly fund the longer form of the game and Test players salaries.

A reminder that all forms of the game are vulnerable to illegal match fixing and that is a separate problem. If we are going to stick with 50 overs for the moment then I suppose we end up with a miss match of 4 and 5 test series against Australia, India and SA and five ODIs ..... whilst the worlds great players go off and play in the big bash etc. for cash.

Fifty over cricket needs to be let go...... I fear the next world cup to be its embarrassing last stand.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)