you also have to give the bowlers a rest to actually have the energy to bowl them outBrocken Spectre wrote:Personally I would think it be better to force a follow. At least that way you have a right of reply if your opposition catches you.God is an Englishman wrote:The only time you would enforce a follow on is if you don't think you have enough time to bowl the side out. Aus can bat until tea today and still have 4 sessions (and a 400 lead) to bowl out SA.
I hate saying it but the whingeing pansy hypocrite got it spot on.
Saffers v Oz
Moderators: Randoman, Ernie Cooksey, Forum Admins
Re: Saffers v Oz
-
Brocken Spectre
- Boot Polisher
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:52 pm
Re: Saffers v Oz
End of the day - if we cant bowl them out in 1.5 days, we dont deserve to winBrocken Spectre wrote:Like Swannsong said they had a day of rest when it was washed out.
-
God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
Well that depends on when a team declares.Concentric Circles wrote:1·5 days will take you beyond the end of the day.
-
MegaBonus
- Team Manager
- Posts: 8856
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:43 pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
don't be daft...we cant be because Johnson cant bowl to the top order, Warner cant make runs in the first innings and Clarke cant captain.....
“Hence, we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks." Winston Churchill
-
Delete Your Account
- Club Captain
- Posts: 6246
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:47 pm
- Been thanked: 6 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
So, Australia has STILL never lost in South Africa, since their return from suspension.
-
Jim's Alteregos
- Apprentice
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:38 pm
Re: Saffers v Oz
When were Australia suspended?Bacon888 wrote:So, Australia has STILL never lost in South Africa, since their return from suspension.
Franchises available
-
God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
-
Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60406
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
Beat the best, yes! We'd have to beat India in India to claim best in the world for me though. On flat, spinning decks is where we may find it harder.
At least we're on the way up!
At least we're on the way up!
Ignore this signature
Re: Saffers v Oz
What is remarkable is that following an easy 5-0 win against a cowardly opposition they were able to step it up and win once against a formidable opponent, away from home.
Australia back at the top, and are now once again the hunted.
Order has been restored!
Thank You Boof!
Australia back at the top, and are now once again the hunted.
Order has been restored!
Thank You Boof!
-
God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
adam wrote:What is remarkable is that following an easy 5-0 win against a cowardly opposition they were able to step it up and win once against a formidable opponent, away from home.
Australia back at the top, and are now once again the hunted.
Order has been restored!
Thank You Boof!
Wouldn't the team at #1 be the team at the top?
-
adelaidebloke
- Star Player
- Posts: 2444
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:24 pm
-
Delete Your Account
- Club Captain
- Posts: 6246
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:47 pm
- Been thanked: 6 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
Australia points: 4946God is an Englishman wrote:adam wrote:What is remarkable is that following an easy 5-0 win against a cowardly opposition they were able to step it up and win once against a formidable opponent, away from home.
Australia back at the top, and are now once again the hunted.
Order has been restored!
Thank You Boof!
Wouldn't the team at #1 be the team at the top?
S Africa Points: 4332
-
God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
Bacon888 wrote:Australia points: 4946God is an Englishman wrote:adam wrote:What is remarkable is that following an easy 5-0 win against a cowardly opposition they were able to step it up and win once against a formidable opponent, away from home.
Australia back at the top, and are now once again the hunted.
Order has been restored!
Thank You Boof!
Wouldn't the team at #1 be the team at the top?
S Africa Points: 4332
What's the ratings?
Who is 31 in the rankings?
Re: Saffers v Oz
not when you lose a series at home to the "2nd" ranked team.God was an Englishman wrote: Wouldn't the team at #1 be the team at the top?
-
God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
So, number 2 is now the top team. Only in Australia.adam wrote:not when you lose a series at home to the "2nd" ranked team.God was an Englishman wrote: Wouldn't the team at #1 be the team at the top?
Re: Saffers v Oz
Arguing rankings is like arguing fifa's rankings. Australia won two series on the trot. That is all.
-
God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
Concentric Circles wrote:Arguing rankings is like arguing fifa's rankings. Australia won two series on the trot. That is all.
So if India beat Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in a row would that make them the top team?
-
Jim's Alteregos
- Apprentice
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:38 pm
-
God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
Yes, not the #1 side.Jim's Alteregos wrote:That will mean they won two series on the trot.
as have lost 1 series in 4 (?) years, that 's why they're number one.
Re: Saffers v Oz
correct!God is an Englishman wrote:So, number 2 is now the top team. Only in Australia.adam wrote:not when you lose a series at home to the "2nd" ranked team.God was an Englishman wrote: Wouldn't the team at #1 be the team at the top?