Carberry? T3 RSA-Eng
R Bharat Rao
This will be a big loss of England -- Collingwood has been the man in
form, big time. Haven't heard a lot about him -- are Bopara and Key
(and any of the others who have played in the last few years) out of
the picture totally?
Anyway, prediction for England to get thumped still holds (barring
help from the rain gods -- even "John" can't control that :-)
Bharat
John Hall
<a9523913-0d6d-4d39...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
R Bharat Rao <rao.b...@gmail.com> writes:
>Any scoop on the batsman drafted in to replace a 50-50 Collingwood?
>This will be a big loss of England -- Collingwood has been the man in
>form, big time.
I'll be surprised if Collingwood doesn't play. He's pretty tough.
However he may not be able to field close to the wicket, which would be
a big loss.
> Haven't heard a lot about him -- are Bopara and Key
>(and any of the others who have played in the last few years) out of
>the picture totally?
Looks like it. I'm a bit surprised that they haven't gone for Denly, who
had seemed to be the next in line.
>
>Anyway, prediction for England to get thumped still holds (barring
>help from the rain gods -- even "John" can't control that :-)
>
>
>Bharat
England might lose, but I'll be disappointed if they get thumped. South
Africa's bowling should be more potent. De Wet will presumably replace
Ntini, and Steyn and Kallis should be that much fitter. I imagine that
it's likely to be the same batsmen (though it's possible that Duminy
might be dropped), but one assumes that they can't bat as badly again.
Presumably the advantage of interposing the bat between the ball and the
wicket will have been drummed into them by the coach. :)
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)
R Bharat Rao
> England might lose, but I'll be disappointed if they get thumped. South
> Africa's bowling should be more potent. De Wet will presumably replace
> Ntini, and Steyn and Kallis should be that much fitter. I imagine that
> it's likely to be the same batsmen (though it's possible that Duminy
> might be dropped), but one assumes that they can't bat as badly again.
> Presumably the advantage of interposing the bat between the ball and the
> wicket will have been drummed into them by the coach. :)
IMO, RSA is a shade better than England, or about the same, and when
you throw in the home-field expect them to be better. IMO RSA were
over-confident going into T2, and England went in on a high after T1
and simply took them apart. I expect RSA to be much more disciplined
this time around, give people like Swann the respect they deserve, and
England to be that touch bit more celebratory, and as a result to get
creamed. Once England got a big lead in I2, it was over -- all the
mattered was the margin, if rain didn't come in. The extent of RSA's
capitulation surprised me, I must admit. So there is some chance they
will sink into a big hole of depression, but I expect Smith to read
them the riot act for this Test, and for Steyn and others in the pace
attack to come out with something to prove...
Bharat
John Hall
<c002e45a-187f-41b1...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>
>> England might lose, but I'll be disappointed if they get thumped. South
>> Africa's bowling should be more potent. De Wet will presumably replace
>> Ntini, and Steyn and Kallis should be that much fitter. I imagine that
>> it's likely to be the same batsmen (though it's possible that Duminy
>> might be dropped), but one assumes that they can't bat as badly again.
>> Presumably the advantage of interposing the bat between the ball and the
>> wicket will have been drummed into them by the coach. :)
>
>IMO, RSA is a shade better than England, or about the same, and when
>you throw in the home-field expect them to be better. IMO RSA were
>over-confident going into T2, and England went in on a high after T1
>and simply took them apart. I expect RSA to be much more disciplined
>this time around, give people like Swann the respect they deserve,
I think that they may have given Swann too much respect. Even in the
first innings, they didn't seem to try to attack him, apart from Steyn.
> and
>England to be that touch bit more celebratory, and as a result to get
>creamed. Once England got a big lead in I2, it was over -- all the
>mattered was the margin, if rain didn't come in.
Given the time likely to be lost to bad light at the end of the day, I
don't think that an England win was guaranteed.
> The extent of RSA's
>capitulation surprised me, I must admit. So there is some chance they
>will sink into a big hole of depression, but I expect Smith to read
>them the riot act for this Test, and for Steyn and others in the pace
>attack to come out with something to prove...
Another factor is that Harris bowled poorly, and it was suggested that
the blustery wing upset his rhythm. So he may also bowl better, One of
the England party said that the pitches in the first two Tests had been
slower and helped spin more than they had expected. If that continues,
then the spinners could continue to play an important part.
Jellore
> In article
> <c002e45a-187f-41b1-9461-fd8b201ed...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Why can't you just say it? England completely outplayed RSA at Durban,
in all aspects of the game. Smith certainly admitted to it. Stop
looking for excuses.
Jellore
So the single biggest factor for England's thumping win was the fact
they escaped with a draw at Pretoria? Give me a break please.
It will be interesting to see how SA respond at Cape Town.
Mike Holmans
<rao.b...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Any scoop on the batsman drafted in to replace a 50-50 Collingwood?
>This will be a big loss of England -- Collingwood has been the man in
>form, big time. Haven't heard a lot about him -- are Bopara and Key
>(and any of the others who have played in the last few years) out of
>the picture totally?
I'm sure Bopara will be back at some point, but since he made a muck
of the Ashes series, it's only reasonable to give someone else a go
first. Key is a waste of an enormous amount of space.
Carberry was the outstanding uncapped f-c batsman last season
(international caps, that is - of course he's a capped player at
county level). He's usually an opener but no doubt will bat wherever
he's picked, if he's picked. He's also a superb fielder. John was
surprised they hadn't gone to Denly, but I think he was specifically
picked as a one-day opener, since his f-c record isn't quite as
stellar as Carberry's has been in the last couple of years.
Cheers,
Mike
--
John Hall
<9cf0b93d-8cf9-4ad0...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,<snip>
>>
>> Another factor is that Harris bowled poorly, and it was suggested that
>> the blustery wing upset his rhythm. So he may also bowl better, One of
>> the England party said that the pitches in the first two Tests had been
>> slower and helped spin more than they had expected. If that continues,
>> then the spinners could continue to play an important part.
>
>in all aspects of the game. Smith certainly admitted to it. Stop
>looking for excuses.
Um, I support England, not South Africa. I'm naturally very pleased by
the result.
chris....@gmail.com
>
> Jellore <jell...@bigpond.com> writes:
> >On Jan 2, 8:00 am, John Hall <nospam_no...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >> Another factor is that Harris bowled poorly, and it was suggested that
> >> the blustery wing upset his rhythm. So he may also bowl better, One of
> >> the England party said that the pitches in the first two Tests had been
> >> slower and helped spin more than they had expected. If that continues,
> >> then the spinners could continue to play an important part.
>
> >Why can't you just say it? England completely outplayed RSA at Durban,
> >in all aspects of the game. Smith certainly admitted to it. Stop
> >looking for excuses.
>
> Um, I support England, not South Africa. I'm naturally very pleased by
> the result.
The natural reaction of the Englishman to success is to try to ease
the suffering of the vanquished, after all it's not their fault that
they are inferior. So it's polite to look around for a few excuses
for their failure, pat them on the back, and say 'You might have
better luck next time, old chap'.
Your correspondent is evidently not aware of this, John.
Regards
Chris
R Bharat Rao
wrote:
> The natural reaction of the Englishman to success is to try to ease
> the suffering of the vanquished, after all it's not their fault that
> they are inferior. So it's polite to look around for a few excuses
> for their failure, pat them on the back, and say 'You might have
> better luck next time, old chap'.
Even stranger is the Englishman's predilection to glorify his worst
failures -- Charge of the Light Brigade & Dunkirk come to mind.
About Dunkirk, I think it was one of the most courageous displays by a
civilian populace -- the military got its hide kicked. Though to be
fair, the Battle of Britian (which the Brit's actually won) is also
glorified... hmmm
Bharat [popping off for a re-think]
John Hall
<292646b3-5574-4bd3...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
:)
Also, we know that - if both teams play to their best - there is no way
that England can be better than South Africa by such an enormous
bargain. England collectively did play close to their best, but South
Africa clearly fell well short of theirs. So it's interesting to try to
analyse the reasons why that happened.
rter...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:25:36 -0800 (PST), R Bharat Rao
>
> >Any scoop on the batsman drafted in to replace a 50-50 Collingwood?
> >This will be a big loss of England -- Collingwood has been the man in
> >form, big time. Haven't heard a lot about him -- are Bopara and Key
> >(and any of the others who have played in the last few years) out of
> >the picture totally?
>
> I'm sure Bopara will be back at some point, but since he made a muck
> of the Ashes series, it's only reasonable to give someone else a go
> first.
Bopara has been tried twice and found wanting twice. It may be some
time before he gets near an England cap again.
What has surprised me about Carberry's call up, is that he wasn't
originally part of England's squad. England didn't really have a spare
batsman in their tour party, unless you count Wright, but when there
really might be the need for someone to step in, they pick Carberry
from outside the tour party to leapfrog Wright.
IIRC, the same happened during the ODI series when Swann was uncertain
to play. Rashid was actually in the squad, but Tredwell (was it?) was
flown in as cover.
I know they're all grown ups and all that, and so Wright can't play
the "Hey, I was here first"-card, but still.
> Key is a waste of an enormous amount of space.
>
Ah ah!
Cheers,
RtH
Unknown
>On 1 jan, 23:30, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:25:36 -0800 (PST), R Bharat Rao
>> <rao.bha...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>>
>> >Any scoop on the batsman drafted in to replace a 50-50 Collingwood?
>> >This will be a big loss of England -- Collingwood has been the man in
>> >form, big time. =A0Haven't heard a lot about him -- are Bopara and Key
>> >(and any of the others who have played in the last few years) out of
>> >the picture totally?
>>
>> I'm sure Bopara will be back at some point, but since he made a muck
>> of the Ashes series, it's only reasonable to give someone else a go
>> first.
>
>Bopara has been tried twice and found wanting twice. It may be some
>time before he gets near an England cap again.
>
>What has surprised me about Carberry's call up, is that he wasn't
>originally part of England's squad. England didn't really have a spare
>batsman in their tour party, unless you count Wright, but when there
>really might be the need for someone to step in, they pick Carberry
>from outside the tour party to leapfrog Wright.
>
>IIRC, the same happened during the ODI series when Swann was uncertain
>to play. Rashid was actually in the squad, but Tredwell (was it?) was
>flown in as cover.
>
>I know they're all grown ups and all that, and so Wright can't play
>the "Hey, I was here first"-card, but still.
>
>> Key is a waste of an enormous amount of space.
>>
>
>Ah ah!
>
>Cheers,
>
>RtH
>
Carberry can bat better than Collingwood, and he can field,in or
outfield - outstanding (a man outstanding in his field;)
No bowling option.
I suppose simple is the way to go. Wright should play if Collingwood
is unfit, batting, bowling, fielding option. Cook done well last
match, less pressure on the batting option - on spec that suits
Wright. Carberry won't bowl, nore pressure on the bowling option.
Wright can bowl.
I'm prejudiced, at Belfast 09 one of the only England players to come
for a chat during the rain was Wright, Denly and Trott made a few
visits to the exec tent, but Wright and Broad were the heroes of the
Englanders for friendly and "nice" during the rain.
After witnessing Collingwood's behaviour at that game (he was
skipper), and his comments about the facilities,I was disgusted. It
wasn't that long ago that every county team in England didn't want to
play at Durham.......Upstart.