View Full Version : Final Test England v South Africa
In what is Alec Stewart's final test match at his home ground The Oval England has finally shown some batting in a day to be remembered for Marcus Trescothick made his maiden double-century before being dismissed for 219. Graham Thorpe also returned to the England side with 124.
England are 7/502 at stumps on day three in reply to South Africa's 484 on a docile pitch.
thewhippersnapper
7 Sep 2003, 12:45
Good to see Thorpe is finally back and he gets a hundred.
England selectors are sooo..... umm dumb.
This one is going to be a draw.
Generalissimo
7 Sep 2003, 21:29
How did Stewart go? I don't have much love for England, but I do like to see a veteran go out on a high note.
thewhippersnapper
7 Sep 2003, 22:38
The score now:
South Africa 484 & 19/0 (4.4 ov)
England 604/9d
Stewart caught 2 caughtbehinds in the 1st innings and scored 38 in Englands Innings.
wagstaff
7 Sep 2003, 23:24
It's probably an appropriate time to mention that South Africa have a reputation of being cricket's version of Port Power. And this Test match has all the hallmarks of being cricket's version of the Swans/Power match today.
They've dominated the series - apart from their 2 Test victories they had by far the better of the 1st Test but their chances were hampered by rain. England won the 3rd Test but many people said that if SA had won the toss in that game, the would've won.
Many have said they could conceivably be 4-0 up and this Test was their chance to prove their dominance over an injury-riddled and turmoil-ridden English lineup.
On the first day, everything was going according to plan. They blitzed the makeshift English bowling attack and reached 1/290 late on the first day. They didn't take full advantage and only scored 484 when they should've scored 600+.
However they still looked safe as very few teams have ever lost after such a high 1st innings score.
Yet, here we are halfway through the 4th day and South Africa are 70 runs behind with 8 wickets in hand and throwing away a golden opportunity to win their first series in England since 1965.
If they lose this, it will definitely be a choke.
England won by 9 wickets, successfully chasing down a total of 110.
Chokers! :D
thewhippersnapper
8 Sep 2003, 23:12
England definitely didn't deserve to win this series.
SA deserved the 1st 3 tests.
Nobody's saying we did deserve to win the series:confused: & we didn't.
As for this crap you've been spouting about us deserving to lose the first 3 Tests I asked you to explain it on the other thread & you didn't but as far as I'm concerned it's a load of bollocks.
I don't have any argument that SA have played the better cricket this series & were unlucky due to rain in the first Test, they then won the 2nd Test & we won the 3rd Test on a wicket where the bounce was pretty shocking-a lot staying low & some bouncing through high.
So it's possible that you can say that England were fortunate to win the toss & bat first on that pitch, but as far as I'm concernedd that's cricket, you win some tosses & you lose some & some prove to be more important than others(you'll find that SA have won more tosses in this series than us).
But there is absolutely no logic whatsoever in saying that a team deserved to win a test match that they lost just because they had the worst of the conditions, it makes no sense.
If you're just a professional pommie basher than just come out & say it but don't give it all this BS that we deserved to lose a test that we won.
I mean God forbid that you could actually give us credit for coming back & winning a test where the opposition rattled up 484 in the first innings & were about 280/1 at one point.
EagleBlue
9 Sep 2003, 11:35
Originally posted by DIPPER
Nobody's saying we did deserve to win the series:confused: & we didn't.
As for this crap you've been spouting about us deserving to lose the first 3 Tests I asked you to explain it on the other thread & you didn't but as far as I'm concerned it's a load of bollocks.
I don't have any argument that SA have played the better cricket this series & were unlucky due to rain in the first Test, they then won the 2nd Test & we won the 3rd Test on a wicket where the bounce was pretty shocking-a lot staying low & some bouncing through high.
So it's possible that you can say that England were fortunate to win the toss & bat first on that pitch, but as far as I'm concernedd that's cricket, you win some tosses & you lose some & some prove to be more important than others(you'll find that SA have won more tosses in this series than us).
But there is absolutely no logic whatsoever in saying that a team deserved to win a test match that they lost just because they had the worst of the conditions, it makes no sense.
If you're just a professional pommie basher than just come out & say it but don't give it all this BS that we deserved to lose a test that we won.
I mean God forbid that you could actually give us credit for coming back & winning a test where the opposition rattled up 484 in the first innings & were about 280/1 at one point.
Agreed. Not Englands fault SAF are crickets version of Port Adelaide :D A great fightback against the big-headed wannabies, Its not always the best team that wins/draws test series. Australia v NZ in Aus 2 summers ago and Australia v India in India last time are perfect examples of that. A fitting end to the career of Alec Stewart, imagine how good his stats would have been if he didnt have to keep wicket as well as sometimes at the same time opening the batting and being captain for a while, (or you could take out his record against Australia and it would be more impressive ;)
thewhippersnapper
9 Sep 2003, 21:08
1st Test: SA lost because of Rain
2nd Test: SA Won
3rd Test: England won because they batted 1st.
SA are a better team. England think there real good and they aren't. They actually think there 3rd in the world.
wagstaff
9 Sep 2003, 21:11
Originally posted by BomberAUS
1st Test: SA lost because of Rain
2nd Test: SA Won
3rd Test: England won because they batted 1st.
SA are a better team. England think there real good and they aren't. They actually think there 3rd in the world.
South Africa didn't lose the 1st Test, it was a draw.
And yes, South Africa were the better side on paper. But as Port Adelaide showed over the weekend, just because you're the better side doesn't mean you'll win and South Africa have no justification for claiming they were robbed in this series. To not even get close to a draw after scoring almost 500 in the 1st innings was a pitiful effort.
thewhippersnapper
9 Sep 2003, 21:14
Originally posted by wagstaff
South Africa didn't lose the 1st Test, it was a draw.
And yes, South Africa were the better side on paper. But as Port Adelaide showed over the weekend, just because you're the better side doesn't mean you'll win and South Africa have no justification for claiming they were robbed in this series. To not even get close to a draw after scoring almost 500 in the 1st innings was a pitiful effort.
If there was no rain SA would have won.
So they did lose it really.
Originally posted by BomberAUS
If there was no rain SA would have won.
So they did lose it really.
It's funny that you seem to back yourself pretty strongly to predict the outcome of Test matches.
Posted by BomberAUS
This one is going to be a draw.
Yeah mate I advise you get down the TAB they love blokes like you.
Originally posted by BomberAUS
1st Test: SA lost because of Rain
2nd Test: SA Won
3rd Test: England won because they batted 1st.
SA are a better team. England think there real good and they aren't. They actually think there 3rd in the world.
Do England think they're 3rd best in the world?
Really have they told you that?
As far as I've seen our captain(s) have reminded the media how SA are the 2nd best side in the world & how we can't expect to just roll them over, which is what everyone thougt after we beat them in the one day series.
As it is although SA were thumping us in the 1st test & thumped us in the 2nd Test it was pretty close after that.
We won the 3rd Test on that dodgy pitch & then in the 4th we had a number of points where we could have taken control of the game but didn't in a similar way to how they didn't take control of this test when they should have.
There wasn't a great deal in it at the back end of the series, they caught us cold in the first 2 Tests where we made the mistake of not playing any of our one day squad in any county matches & so most of the team hadn't played 'normal' cricket since the last Test against Zimbawbe about 40 days before, we paid the price for that & didn't have a plan to deal with Smith & the way he shovels everything onto the leg side, the minute we started putting in a couple of fielders on the leg side & giving the bowlers the protection to try for the LBW he didn't look half the player he was at the start.
I don't think ther's too much between us & SA, but it's clear they had the better of this series, there's a few sides jostling for second place behind Australia but as far as I'm concerned it's not too much to be proud of becasue they're all so far behind the Aussies that's it's embarassing.
Originally posted by EagleBlue
A fitting end to the career of Alec Stewart, imagine how good his stats would have been if he didnt have to keep wicket as well as sometimes at the same time opening the batting and being captain for a while, (or you could take out his record against Australia and it would be more impressive ;)
Well you should ask him about that because according to him he reckons that without having to keep wicket that he could have been England's 'greatest ever opener'.
That's better than Hutton, Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Boycott & Gooch:rolleyes: .............bloody hell he must have been some player, where was I when he was threatening to outshine all of them?:D
Originally posted by DIPPER
Well you should ask him about that because according to him he reckons that without having to keep wicket that he could have been England's 'greatest ever opener'.
That's better than Hutton, Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Boycott & Gooch:rolleyes: .............bloody hell he must have been some player, where was I when he was threatening to outshine all of them?:D
When Alec Stewart took over the gloves from Jack Russel he had a batting average of 53. When he retired that had dropped to 40. Maybe there is some merit in his comment?
I'm just glad to see England oput together arguably there best performance in a long time in a test match to farwell Stewart. Better than Sydney.
England have inveriably wilted under pressure over recent decades and when SA scored 484 I personally thought the match was over. Although Trescotchick was mostly responsible for the batting with some help from Thorpe. England actually fought out a test match and when there batsmen produced the bowlers actually did something in the second innings, remarkable. This may show some improvement but it's still not the light at the end of the tunnell.
For what it's worth...
Filter: not as designated wicket-keeper
Mat I NO Runs HS1 HS2 HS3 Ave 100 50 0
unfiltered 133 235 21 8463 190 173 170 39.54 15 45 14
filtered 51 90 6 3923 190 170 148 46.70 9 22 3
Originally posted by DaveW
For what it's worth...
Filter: not as designated wicket-keeper
Mat I NO Runs HS1 HS2 HS3 Ave 100 50 0
unfiltered 133 235 21 8463 190 173 170 39.54 15 45 14
filtered 51 90 6 3923 190 170 148 46.70 9 22 3
Yeah I though it was 46 for opening.
The thing is as good as he was as an opener it reeks of arrogance to think that he was going to be better than those that I've mentioned.
His record against the Australians counts against him as does his woeful playing of spin.
Really in many ways you should be able to get an easier ride playing down the order.........that is if you can play spin.
My memory of Stewart will be at I think Perth last winter, with the tail, Brett Lee taking no prisoners & Stewie refusing to shield his tailenders & more than happy to get off strike with a single.
Contrast with Flintoff this game.
One record he does hold & may well do for some time is the cricketer who's apeared in more losing Tests than any other.:D
Originally posted by DIPPER
Yeah I though it was 46 for opening.
44.64 as an opener
45.98 as an opener when he wasn't the designated keeper
The thing is as good as he was as an opener it reeks of arrogance to think that he was going to be better than those that I've mentioned. Well we've got Anthony Mundine telling us that his achievements as a boxer will outshine Bradman's achievements as a cricketer.
Which I also find the height of disrespect. In my - very biased - opinion, Bradman as a sportsman was second to none.
Oh well, that's Mundine for you. If he was a cricketer, he'd be a flat track, poor bowling bully who would always be quick to get to the non-striker's end when there's a topline bowler on. But I've probably gone way off topic here, so I digress...
His record against the Australians counts against him as does his woeful playing of spin. Yeah one of Warne's favourites. :D
Really in many ways you should be able to get an easier ride playing down the order.........that is if you can play spin. And his record as a number 4,5,6 batsman is very poor.
My memory of Stewart will be at I think Perth last winter, with the tail, Brett Lee taking no prisoners & Stewie refusing to shield his tailenders & more than happy to get off strike with a single. Has he been reading How to inflate your Test batting average by Steve Waugh? :D
One record he does hold & may well do for some time is the cricketer who's apeared in more losing Tests than any other.:D And the most wins record is unsurprisingly held by the aforementioned Australian captain, probably by some margin too.
Originally posted by DaveW
And his record as a number 4,5,6 batsman is very poor.
This is one of the points that screws up the argument of how good much better he was as an opener.When he started for England he wasn't a county opener & he played for England at 3 for a bit as well as furthur down (5/6), he struggled for a long time making decent 20s & 30s until after quite a while he made a breakthrough & then he got the job of opening with Atherton when Goochie was getting on & moved down to 3.
So all those low scores he got early on don't count against his opening record but his record down the order, so it makes the difference between the two look even bigger when in reality he would have struggled just as much if not more as an opener in those days when he was finding his feet at Test level.
Yeah one of Warne's favourites. :D
Hehe well that's a subject I've brought up from timer to time ;) , especially his reading of the flipper- (Warne drops short Stewart gets on the back foot ready to smash long hop through midwicket, Stewart distressed to see the ball shooting through low & catching him plumb in front mid way down his pads).
I'll give Stewart his due he was a fine player of quick bowling esepcially when opening, in fact around 94 I remember reading about Atherton asking Ambrose & Walsh to name their world XIs & they both named Stewart as opener.Which I think even surprised Atherton.
Has he been reading How to inflate your Test batting average by Steve Waugh? :D
He probably read the Geoffrey Boycott version first, they're trying to make Stewart out to be this real team man now who sacrafised his career for the good of the team by taking the gloves
But he's always been out for himself, he's always more keen than most to cut a deal with anyone & always makes sure he knows the going rate.
Whether he was involved with that Indian bookmaker or not I don't know but even if he wasn't it's no surprise that he was the one named because he was the most believable.
I still remember him as captain on the last but one Ashes trip down there, we had a blatant run out against Slater which went to the video umpire who couldn't give it because I think Mullaley was in the way of the ball.It was pretty clear & Slater went on to make about 120 odd from a total of 180ish & it's fair to say with out that innings we may have won the Test & drawn the series.
But it didn't hide the fact that we'd been pretty mcuh outplayed for the whole series & that at Brisbane we we're staring at a thrashing before a thunderstorm ruined the match but to listen to Stewart whinging about how unlucky we were for months afterwards was enough to almsost make me puke.It's people like him that talk things & themeselves up rather than confront the deficiencies of English cricket that hold us back.
And the most wins record is unsurprisingly held by the aforementioned Australian captain, probably by some margin too.
Which makes your dislike of him hard for me to understand, I mean I can justify my dislike of Stewart, he's a serial loser........the complete opposite to S Waugh.
BTW it's funny that you mention Mundine because when I was out there he was still telling anyone that would listen how he was the best 5/8 in Australia & how it was outrageous that he wasn't first choice for the Kangaroos.
Mind you I do remember him decking an opposition prop in one game, it was peach of a punch.:D