Well done to Graeme Smith

Well done to Graeme Smith

Post by mark » Sat, 26 Jul 2003 04:37:20


After all the controversy over Klusener and comments about his age and
ability to lead the side, the SA skipper has surely silenced his critics.
Even today, the Channel 4 (UK TV) commentators were patronising,
congratulating him on doing well despite being a limited player. As an
England supporter, I've been really impressed with his batting and attitude
and he certainly made a pretty potent bowling attack seem ordinary.

--
All my powers of expression and thoughts so sublime
Could never do you justice in reason or rhyme

 
 
 

Well done to Graeme Smith

Post by Diogenes The Tram » Sat, 26 Jul 2003 05:03:26


Quote:
> After all the controversy over Klusener and comments about his age and
> ability to lead the side, the SA skipper has surely silenced his critics.
> Even today, the Channel 4 (UK TV) commentators were patronising,
> congratulating him on doing well despite being a limited player. As an
> England supporter, I've been really impressed with his batting and
attitude
> and he certainly made a pretty potent bowling attack seem ordinary.

"pretty potent"???

398/1??

you *are* Mike Holmans and I claim my $5

 
 
 

Well done to Graeme Smith

Post by mark » Sat, 26 Jul 2003 05:18:44



Quote:



> > After all the controversy over Klusener and comments about his age and
> > ability to lead the side, the SA skipper has surely silenced his
critics.
> > Even today, the Channel 4 (UK TV) commentators were patronising,
> > congratulating him on doing well despite being a limited player. As an
> > England supporter, I've been really impressed with his batting and
> attitude
> > and he certainly made a pretty potent bowling attack seem ordinary.

> "pretty potent"???

> 398/1??

> you *are* Mike Holmans and I claim my $5

LOL. Potentially potent may have been more appropriate.

- Show quoted text -


 
 
 

Well done to Graeme Smith

Post by Lenin Mara » Sat, 26 Jul 2003 05:22:04


Quote:





> > > After all the controversy over Klusener and comments about his age and
> > > ability to lead the side, the SA skipper has surely silenced his
> critics.
> > > Even today, the Channel 4 (UK TV) commentators were patronising,
> > > congratulating him on doing well despite being a limited player. As an
> > > England supporter, I've been really impressed with his batting and
> > attitude
> > > and he certainly made a pretty potent bowling attack seem ordinary.

> > "pretty potent"???

> > 398/1??

> > you *are* Mike Holmans and I claim my $5

> LOL. Potentially potent may have been more appropriate.

Nah, "a pretty potential bowling attack" would have been sufficient.

Peace,
Lenin

 
 
 

Well done to Graeme Smith

Post by Mike Holman » Sat, 26 Jul 2003 05:52:55


Quote:



>> After all the controversy over Klusener and comments about his age and
>> ability to lead the side, the SA skipper has surely silenced his critics.
>> Even today, the Channel 4 (UK TV) commentators were patronising,
>> congratulating him on doing well despite being a limited player. As an
>> England supporter, I've been really impressed with his batting and
>attitude
>> and he certainly made a pretty potent bowling attack seem ordinary.

>"pretty potent"???

>398/1??

>you *are* Mike Holmans and I claim my $5

I think you mean Yuk Tang. He's the one who goes on and on about how
fantastic our attack is. I have said all season that both Anderson and
Harmison are at least a year short of being good-quality Test bowlers.

Cheers,

Mike

 
 
 

Well done to Graeme Smith

Post by Yuk Tan » Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:12:44

Quote:

> I think you mean Yuk Tang. He's the one who goes on and on about how
> fantastic our attack is.

You misrepresent me.  I have never said that our cutting edge is
particularly sharp.  What I have (probably mistakenly) repeatedly said is
that we have a lot of decent backup, more than any other country except
Australia.

In any case, General Rain is coming to our rescue, unless Smithy decides to
declare at 400 and have a bowl in suitable conditions.

Cheers, ymt.
Who blames the situation on not being able to see any play.

 
 
 

Well done to Graeme Smith

Post by Mike Holman » Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:53:23


Quote:

>> I think you mean Yuk Tang. He's the one who goes on and on about how
>> fantastic our attack is.

>You misrepresent me.  I have never said that our cutting edge is
>particularly sharp.  What I have (probably mistakenly) repeatedly said is
>that we have a lot of decent backup, more than any other country except
>Australia.

I don't think you're mistaken. Our seventh-preference specialist pace
bowler (ie not including the all-rounder Flintoff) when everyone's fit
is Kirtley, whose odo and f-c performances show he would probably not
be embarrassing in a Test match. I suppose that Silverwood, with
several Test appearances already to his credit, would be eighth.

I'm not entirely sure that Australia's eighth (assuming no all-rounder
type) best pace bowler is as good as Silverwood.

Quote:
>In any case, General Rain is coming to our rescue, unless Smithy decides to
>declare at 400 and have a bowl in suitable conditions.

Well, the weather forecast is fine for the next three days. It will be
interesting to see what Smith decides would be a nice follow-on
target, assuming he gets the chance to make the decision himself.
(With the exception of Headingley last year, recent England bowling
disasters have usually been followed by a fairly storming performance
the next day. Though perhaps the man upstairs will claim to have put
in the storming performance himself today.)

Cheers,

Mike

 
 
 

Well done to Graeme Smith

Post by Raghu Jetle » Sun, 27 Jul 2003 01:46:12

Quote:



>>> I think you mean Yuk Tang. He's the one who goes on and on about how
>>> fantastic our attack is.

>> You misrepresent me.  I have never said that our cutting edge is
>> particularly sharp.  What I have (probably mistakenly) repeatedly
>> said is that we have a lot of decent backup, more than any other
>> country except Australia.

> I don't think you're mistaken. Our seventh-preference specialist pace
> bowler (ie not including the all-rounder Flintoff) when everyone's fit
> is Kirtley, whose odo and f-c performances show he would probably not
> be embarrassing in a Test match.

Sadly the top 6 are sometimes embarrasing in a test match.
Sort of like yesterday, like the 3rd test against India etc etc.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> I suppose that Silverwood, with
> several Test appearances already to his credit, would be eighth.

 
 
 

Well done to Graeme Smith

Post by JLichte » Sun, 27 Jul 2003 07:03:44

Quote:



> >> I think you mean Yuk Tang. He's the one who goes on and on about how
> >> fantastic our attack is.

> >You misrepresent me.  I have never said that our cutting edge is
> >particularly sharp.  What I have (probably mistakenly) repeatedly said is
> >that we have a lot of decent backup, more than any other country except
> >Australia.

> I don't think you're mistaken. Our seventh-preference specialist pace
> bowler (ie not including the all-rounder Flintoff) when everyone's fit
> is Kirtley, whose odo and f-c performances show he would probably not
> be embarrassing in a Test match. I suppose that Silverwood, with
> several Test appearances already to his credit, would be eighth.

What about South Africa?
1. Pollock, 2. Ntini, .... the rest, in no particular order: 3.
Zondeki, 4. Willoughby, 5. Dawson, 6. Nel, 7. Pretorius, 8. Terbrugge,
9. Hayward. And that not accounting for the likes of Elworthy, who
clearly will never play for RSA again, and Langeveldt, who may yet get
a chance at Test level (tho I hope not).
If we throw in the likes of Kallis, Klusener, and Hall, as
allrounders, as compared to Flintoff, RSA clearly have as much seam
bowling depth as England, if not more.
Its true that ENgland's top 4 may appear slightly more formidable than
RSA's, depending on the confluence of a bunch of "ifs" on any given
day, but the next 4? I'd say the depth between the two countries is at
least equal, but probably slightly give the edge to RSA.  Now if only
the selectors could figure out how to groom them all to make any of
them stepping in if needed seamless, and how to combine the right 4 at
any given time.
 
 
 

Well done to Graeme Smith

Post by The Wo » Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:50:39


Quote:


> I don't think you're mistaken. Our seventh-preference specialist pace
> bowler (ie not including the all-rounder Flintoff) when everyone's fit
> is Kirtley, whose odo and f-c performances show he would probably not
> be embarrassing in a Test match. I suppose that Silverwood, with
> several Test appearances already to his credit, would be eighth.

> I'm not entirely sure that Australia's eighth (assuming no all-rounder
> type) best pace bowler is as good as Silverwood.

Probably not, although AUS' 8th best bowler doesn't get as much Test match
experience as Silverwood so it's not exactly a fair comparison. Probably
also depends where we're expecting them to bowl. The 8th best Pom might have
an awfully tough time of it on AUS pitches - Ronnie Irani didn't make a
great case for the ENG depth last summer.

Of course, those north of the border might argue that
- Our 8th best quick gets HEAPS of Test cricket,
- He isn't as good as Silverwood, and
- The 8th in line to be picked, as opposed to the 8th best, is one of the
no-name Qlders like Adam Dale or Kasper someone and he's not only better
than Silverwood, he would be the first picked in any other team and ours too
if he was from NSV.

Quote:
> (With the exception of Headingley last year, recent England bowling
> disasters have usually been followed by a fairly storming performance
> the next day. Though perhaps the man upstairs will claim to have put
> in the storming performance himself today.)

ENG batted for ever in the 1st (?) home Test v SL to easily save a match
that started off like it was going to go pear-shaped on them.

Wog

 
 
 

Well done to Graeme Smith

Post by John P Darc » Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:00:45

Quote:

> ENG batted for ever in the 1st (?) home Test v SL to easily save a match
> that started off like it was going to go pear-shaped on them.

Which reminds me ... how's Trescothick's finger?  Anyone?

--

Cheers

John
Pedro struck out 10 but lost the lead ... ***

 
 
 

Well done to Graeme Smith

Post by Paul Robso » Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:36:43

Quote:

> What about South Africa?
> 1. Pollock, 2. Ntini, .... the rest, in no particular order:

Yeah, the first two.....

Quote:
> 3. Zondeki,

One test, no real pace, may get there.

Quote:
> 4. Willoughby,

No comment. Not seen him.

Quote:
> 5. Dawson,

One of a type of which there are dozens in England.

Quote:
> 6. Nel,

Seems to have gone backwards.

Quote:
> 7. Pretorius,

Not seen him.

Quote:
> 8. Terbrugge,

Same as dawson.

Quote:
> 9. Hayward.

Is he ever likely to play for RSA again after abandoning them for county
cricket ?

Quote:
> And that not accounting for the likes of Elworthy, who
> clearly will never play for RSA again, and Langeveldt, who may yet get
> a chance at Test level (tho I hope not).
> If we throw in the likes of Kallis, Klusener, and Hall, as
> allrounders, as compared to Flintoff, RSA clearly have as much seam
> bowling depth as England, if not more.

Well, yeah, except Kallis' bowling has gone way backwards in the last two
years, Klusener is persona non grata probably permanently, and Hall is a
little trundler with a dodgy action.
 
 
 

Well done to Graeme Smith

Post by JLichte » Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:13:49

Quote:


> > What about South Africa?
> > 1. Pollock, 2. Ntini, .... the rest, in no particular order:

> Yeah, the first two.....

> > 3. Zondeki,

> One test, no real pace, may get there.

> > 4. Willoughby,

> No comment. Not seen him.

> > 5. Dawson,

> One of a type of which there are dozens in England.

> > 6. Nel,

> Seems to have gone backwards.

> > 7. Pretorius,

> Not seen him.

> > 8. Terbrugge,

> Same as dawson.

> > 9. Hayward.

> Is he ever likely to play for RSA again after abandoning them for county
> cricket ?

> > And that not accounting for the likes of Elworthy, who
> > clearly will never play for RSA again, and Langeveldt, who may yet get
> > a chance at Test level (tho I hope not).
> > If we throw in the likes of Kallis, Klusener, and Hall, as
> > allrounders, as compared to Flintoff, RSA clearly have as much seam
> > bowling depth as England, if not more.

> Well, yeah, except Kallis' bowling has gone way backwards in the last two
> years, Klusener is persona non grata probably permanently, and Hall is a
> little trundler with a dodgy action.

My point was none of these players are worse than anything Eng has in
reserve, and probably overall its a better bunch than the 8-9 Eng has.
The fact that Dawson and Terbrugge are the same as English bowlers
(ditto Willoughby btw) just reinforces my point.
Hayward will play for RSA again - he is still young.
Hall's action didnt look dodgy at all to me in ODIs - he has a
slightly bent elbow, but there was zero sign of straightening. He also
was consistently quicker than Pollock and around the same pace as
Kallis (low 80s) so I dont know about trundler.
Nel did not seem to have gone backwards from what I saw in the ODIs.
He looked pretty decent actually, considering the alternatives.
Pretorius is raw, but also very young.