# The Talk Classical Test Cricket thread



## TurnaboutVox

OK, there should be some affinity between lovers of Classical Music and those of Test Cricket. Both musical performances and Test cricket contests can be long and obscure, complicated and difficult to follow, possessed of arcane procedures and traditions, thrilling or mind-numbingly boring. difficult to penetrate and appreciate for newcomers, but hugely rewarding for aficionados.

The Test series between South Africa and England started today, which should be intriguing and keenly fought. I am too mean and too ideologically indisposed to pay for Rupert Murdoch's Sky TV coverage. I have been following today's action on the Guardian's 'over-by-over' web service, and the BBC commentary. What better complement to that than to discuss the series as it unfolds with like minded classical music enthusiasts.

We'll see if there are any, or if I am alone in my dual obsession!

I've been impressed by South Africa's fast bowler Dale Steyn today, and encouraged by the fightback, after early wickets fell, by two intriguing batsmen - Nottinghamshire's pint-sized James Taylor, who made 70, and who I think will do well at this level, and Middlesex's batsman Nicholas Richard Denis Compton, who will resume on 63* tomorrow. Both are having a second chance at an England career. Compton fascinates me, being (I think) a man of relatively limited talent but considerable grit and determination. He also had a very famous sporting grandfather, whose style was as different as can be imagined from Nick's patient endurance.

Anyway, join me if you have any interest in this or any other test match series going on.


----------



## sospiro

TurnaboutVox said:


> OK, there should be some affinity between lovers of Classical Music and those of Test Cricket. Both musical performances and Test cricket contests can be long and obscure, complicated and difficult to follow, possessed of arcane procedures and traditions, thrilling or mind-numbingly boring. difficult to penetrate and appreciate for newcomers, but hugely rewarding for aficionados.
> 
> The Test series between South Africa and England started today, which should be intriguing and keenly fought. I am too mean and too ideologically indisposed to pay for Rupert Murdoch's Sky TV coverage. I have been following today's action on the Guardian's 'over-by-over' web service, and the BBC commentary. What better complement to that than to discuss the series as it unfolds with like minded classical music enthusiasts.
> 
> We'll see if there are any, or if I am alone in my dual obsession!
> 
> I've been impressed by South Africa's fast bowler Dale Steyn today, and encouraged by the fightback, after early wickets fell, by two intriguing batsmen - Nottinghamshire's pint-sized James Taylor, who made 70, and who I think will do well at this level, and Middlesex's batsman Nicholas Richard Denis Compton, who will resume on 63* tomorrow. Both are having a second chance at an England career. Compton fascinates me, being (I think) a man of relatively limited talent but considerable grit and determination. He also had a very famous sporting grandfather, whose style was as different as can be imagined from Nick's patient endurance.
> 
> Anyway, join me if you have any interest in this or any other test match series going on.


I'm a fan of cricket. I enjoy 20/20 and ODIs but my biggest love is Test Cricket. I find the long game fascinating and satisfying and find defensive play for a draw, thrilling.



> I am too mean and too ideologically indisposed to pay for Rupert Murdoch's Sky TV coverage.


+1

I listen to TMS. Sir Geoffrey gets on my nerves but he always did! :lol:


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Welcome aboard. Let's see if anyone else joins us!

@sospiro - I am a fan of Boycs' shrewd but endearingly self-referential commentary too. My partner bought me a 'Boycott Bingo' T-shirt, knowing my wry fondness for the old curmudgeon.


----------



## Kivimees

Unfortunately, I don't understand cricket very well, even though I once had someone try (in vain) to explain it to me.

At the moment I fear I'm trying our friend Vaneyes' patience with my endless questions about American football. I dare not push my luck any more. :lol:


----------



## elgar's ghost

Geoff Boycott is far less uptight than he used to be. I think his brush with mortality has mellowed him out. Back in the 70s I managed to get his autograph when he was playing for Yorkshire and he unceremoniously signed over one I'd already got from one of his teammates. 

As regards the current England team the want of consistency with the top order batsmen remains a worry irrespective of how well they do in the series against South Africa.


----------



## Avey

...test cricket...





?????????????????????????????


----------



## sospiro

Avey said:


> ...test cricket...
> 
> ?????????????????????????????


:lol:

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. 
Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. 
When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. 
Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. 
There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. 
When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!


----------



## Kivimees

^^^

This sounds very much like the explanation I received.


----------



## Johann Sebastian Bach

Elgar's just scored a century (South Africa vs England Test match).


----------



## Wood

Somehow I've managed to lose a long rambling post about how Test Cricket is not as good as it used to be. We all know it was better in the days of John Edrich, Boycott, Lillee, Thomson, 'The batsman's Holding, the bowler's Willey' endless summer days at cricket festivals, dried up late summer outfields etc etc so I'll not bother to repeat my disgruntled observations here.

I also share the same ideological objections to Sky that TVox has, but my objections also extend to the vile BBC, so even if Test Cricket returns to terrestrial tele, I wouldn't get a license to watch it.

Having said that, I would like to get back into it some day, and it would be quite nice to hack into Sky's broadcast for free. Does anyone know a good way of doing this? The last time I tried, a couple of years ago, it didn't seem to work.


----------



## Wood

sospiro said:


> :lol:
> 
> You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.
> Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out.
> When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out.
> Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
> When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in.
> There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out.
> When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!


Amazingly, 40 years on it is still possible to buy the tea towel:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Ins-Outs-Cricket-Towel/dp/B004GHHDWG


----------



## Guest

sospiro said:


> :lol:
> 
> You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.
> Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out.
> When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out.
> Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
> When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in.
> There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out.
> When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!


I think I have that on a tea cloth. But what about the offside rule? And why isn't there an onside rule?


----------



## Guest

Gah! Just read Wood's post!!!!


----------



## Wood

elgars ghost said:


> Geoff Boycott is far less uptight than he used to be. I think his brush with mortality has mellowed him out. Back in the 70s I managed to get his autograph when he was playing for Yorkshire and he unceremoniously signed over one I'd already got from one of his teammates.


Despite his obnoxiousness, I always found him to be head and shoulders above the other pundits in terms of perception and insight. As a cricketer, back in the day, I always preferred John Edrich, a better team player and much better at punishing a bad ball, even if his statistics don't match up to Boycott.

At least he signed it. I recall Botham leaving the field at the end of a county match, roughly brushing off young children who were approaching him for an autograph. Not as bad as Jack Russell though. Once, in the members at Cheltenham, he walked past us. One of my group said 'Hello Jack!' to which he replied 'F### o##'.


----------



## Wood

Wood said:


> I also share the same ideological objections to Sky that TVox has, but my objections also extend to the vile BBC, so even if Test Cricket returns to terrestrial tele, I wouldn't get a license to watch it.
> 
> Having said that, I would like to get back into it some day, and it would be quite nice to hack into Sky's broadcast for free. Does anyone know a good way of doing this? The last time I tried, a couple of years ago, it didn't seem to work.


To answer my own question, a quick google of 'free streaming cricket' easily bought up live test coverage. SA all out for 214, lunch on day three, Elgar carried his bat.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Wood said:


> To answer my own question, a quick google of 'free streaming cricket' easily bought up live test coverage. *SA all out for 214, lunch on day three, Elgar carried his bat.*


Now that's what I call a service, cheers Wood!

I was listening to the BBC 5 Live Extra commentary earlier, but had to get up to see to breakfast and tidy up generally.

Nice one. Let's see how England bat second time around. I thought that Compton was excellent first time. I can't understand the disparaging 'glacial' comments - it's how the man bats, and it was exactly what was wanted.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

moderators - please remove


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Avey said:


> ...test cricket...
> 
> ?????????????????????????????


I sympathise, Avey. It's an odd obsession.

Test cricket is the longest form of the game, an international match over 5 days of 6 hours' play, with 2 complete innings for each batting team ('innings' at least will be a familiar concept in North America ). If played between two well matched teams, the twists and turns of dominance leading to victory, defeat or a tense draw / stalemate can be endlessly intriguing.


----------



## Haydn man

Wood said:


> Despite his obnoxiousness, I always found him to be head and shoulders above the other pundits in terms of perception and insight. As a cricketer, back in the day, I always preferred John Edrich, a better team player and much better at punishing a bad ball, even if his statistics don't match up to Boycott.
> 
> At least he signed it. I recall Botham leaving the field at the end of a county match, roughly brushing off young children who were approaching him for an autograph. Not as bad as Jack Russell though. Once, in the members at Cheltenham, he walked past us. One of my group said 'Hello Jack!' to which he replied 'F### o##'.


Good grief man, Edrich was not in Boycott's class.
A good player yes but Boyc's was better and the stats don't lie


----------



## Haydn man

TurnaboutVox said:


> Now that's what I call a service, cheers Wood!
> 
> I was listening to the BBC 5 Live Extra commentary earlier, but had to get up to see to breakfast and tidy up generally.
> 
> Nice one. Let's see how England bat second time around. I thought that Compton was excellent first time. I can't understand the disparaging 'glacial' comments - it's how the man bats, and it was exactly what was wanted.


England need to learn how to 'turn the screw' on teams. They have the advantage now and need build a significant lead without trying to thrash the cover off the ball. Someone like Compton or Cook to anchor the innings and show patience.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Haydn man said:


> England need to learn how to 'turn the screw' on teams. They have the advantage now and need build a significant lead without trying to thrash the cover off the ball. *Someone like Compton or Cook to anchor the innings* and show patience.


Er, yes, Cook...no...Compton, Haydn Man


----------



## sospiro

I once spilt two pints of beer over Dennis Waterman at Trent Bridge...

It was 1977 when you could still sit on the grass. England were fielding and it was my turn to buy the beer which came in rather wide plastic glasses and difficult to hold (my excuse). Just as I was leaving the beer tent, England got a wicket and I swung round to see who it was and deposited most of the beer over Mr Waterman. He was so excited about the wicket, he hardly noticed he was drenched in beer and in response to my embarrassment, replaced our drinks out of his own pocket. Top bloke.

And yes I saw this


----------



## Wood

sospiro said:


> I once spilt two pints of beer over Dennis Waterman at Trent Bridge...
> 
> It was 1977 when you could still sit on the grass. England were fielding and it was my turn to buy the beer which came in rather wide plastic glasses and difficult to hold (my excuse). Just as I was leaving the beer tent, England got a wicket and I swung round to see who it was and deposited most of the beer over Mr Waterman. He was so excited about the wicket, he hardly noticed he was drenched in beer and in response to my embarrassment, replaced our drinks out of his own pocket. Top bloke.
> 
> And yes I saw this


Nice anecdote.

This still looks incredibly painful. Brian Close must have been the toughest ever.


----------



## Wood

Haydn man said:


> Good grief man, Edrich was not in Boycott's class.
> A good player yes but Boyc's was better and the stats don't lie


Nah. Edrich's team mates never had to run him out. Edrich for me. :devil:

And what a great opening partnership in county cricket, to have Edrich and Butcher together at Surrey (backed up by Geoff Howarth at 4). Perhaps rivalled only by Jameson and Amiss at Warks in that period.


----------



## Wood

England struggling, but 58 for 2 at tea, so building a good lead.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Bad luck Compo, a second 50 was there for the taking.
141/3 now.

Let's see what Root and Taylor can do.

172/3, 60* and 24* respectively at the close, so 261 runs on and 2 days to set a target and get 10 wickets. Or 12, depending on the 'spill' rate in the second innings.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Wood said:


> Nah. Edrich's team mates never had to run him out. Edrich for me. :devil:
> 
> And what a great opening partnership in county cricket, to have Edrich and Butcher together at Surrey (backed up by Geoff Howarth at 4). Perhaps rivalled only by Jameson and *Amiss* at Warks in that period.


My boyhood cricketing hero. I seem to be attracted to the flawed, not-quite-but-nearly-great in cricket as well as music!


----------



## elgar's ghost

Wood said:


> Nah. Edrich's team mates never had to run him out. Edrich for me. :devil:
> 
> And what a great opening partnership in county cricket, to have Edrich and Butcher together at Surrey (backed up by Geoff Howarth at 4). Perhaps rivalled only by Jameson and Amiss at Warks in that period.


I might have to add Hampshire's Greenidge and Richards here! And although being a Worcester man it grieves me to say it, Warwickshire had a fine batting line-up in the 70s - in addition to Jameson and Amiss there were at various times John Whitehouse, Alvin Kallicharran, Rohan Kanhai and Geoff Humpage.


----------



## Wood

elgars ghost said:


> I might have to add Hampshire's Greenidge and Richards here! And although being a Worcester man it grieves me to say it, Warwickshire had a fine batting line-up in the 70s - in addition to Jameson and Amiss there were at various times John Whitehouse, Alvin Kallicharran, Rohan Kanhai and Geoff Humpage.


Yes, quite a line up of batsmen at Edgbaston. The unfortunate Andy Lloyd was pretty good too.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I never got to see any of the South African innings - Elgar aside, did they bat carelessly or did England bowl well?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

I have seen only fuzzy, erm, "unofficial" footage "provided under fair use legislation"  but by all accounts yes, Broad was magnificent, Moeen bowled a good spell to Duminy and the tail this morning and Finn and Woakes bowled tightly (and I think both had catches dropped or good reviews turned down).

General opinion seems to be that SA batting, Elgar and de Villiers excepted, is out of form and very short of confidence.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Thanks, TV - hopefully England can show the necessary killer instinct when they bowl again. Strange about SA's batting form - not too long ago Amla and co looked as solid as ever.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Wood said:


> it would be quite nice to hack into Sky's broadcast for free. Does anyone know a good way of doing this? The last time I tried, a couple of years ago, it didn't seem to work.


It would be on at the Hermitage right now (quiet guests welcome) .... if we hadn't cleaned them up so quickly this morning


----------



## Wood

I'm glad TVox bought up this cricket thread, it has stoked my interest once more. 

My self-imposed news blockout on cricket has been such that the only England player I knew was Cook. The wicketkeeper seemed familiar though!


----------



## sospiro

Well done England and now on to Cape Town (and don't get complacent)


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Yes, HH, de Villiers and Bavuna were out before I could make a cup of tea and settle to the commentary on BBC R5Sports Live Extra. I caught the rest. Finn looked a handful on yesterday's fuzzy highlights and Moeen bowled better than he has for a while. I thought man of the match should have gone to Compton for his first innings knock, though.

I am already hearing some "This isn't much of an achievement: South Africa were terrible" style comments. I say - nonsense, a win against South Africa away is a solid win. On with the contest. It's for South Africa to sort out their captaincy, wicket-keeper, form and selection 'issues'!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I really couldn't predict how this thread would go (after 12 hours I thought, oh, no one's interested, I completely misjudged this on a CM forum, I hope this thread sinks so completely that most people don't even realise that it ever existed!), so I'm really glad there is a small group of interested TC members. In the past we've had members from other test cricketing nations (India, Australia, New Zealand come to mind) so there may be potential recruits from posters from those countries too (not to mention countries in which cricket is becoming more popular and there's a good national team just below the top level - Ireland, Holland, Denmark, for example).


Anyway I'll be here again on January 2nd for the 2nd test.


----------



## Wood

TurnaboutVox said:


> Yes, HH, de Villiers and Bavuna were out before I could make a cup of tea and settle to the commentary on BBC R5Sports Live Extra. I caught the rest. Finn looked a handful on yesterday's fuzzy highlights and Moeen bowled better than he has for a while. I thought man of the match should have gone to Compton for his first innings knock, though.
> 
> I am already hearing some "This isn't much of an achievement: South Africa were terrible" style comments. I say - nonsense, a win against South Africa away is a solid win. On with the contest. It's for South Africa to sort out their captaincy, wicket-keeper, form and selection 'issues'!
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> I really couldn't predict how this thread would go (after 12 hours I thought, oh, no one's interested, I completely misjudged this on a CM forum, I hope this thread sinks so completely that most people don't even realise that it ever existed!), so I'm really glad there is a small group of interested TC members. In the past we've had members from other test cricketing nations (India, Australia, New Zealand come to mind) so there may be potential recruits from posters from those countries too (not to mention countries in which cricket is becoming more popular and there's a good national team just below the top level - Ireland, Holland, Denmark, for example).
> 
> Anyway I'll be here again on January 2nd for the 2nd test.


Thats all fine, but please don't expect any updates on the Scotland cricket team from me! :lol:


----------



## Jos

I'd love to join in but the truth is that I know nothing about the game. Fascinating as it is. I witnessed a man watching a rerun of a cricketmatch on an aeroplane for 6 hours! It was a match from the seventies or so. It was on an Indian airline and he was realy enjoying it.
In my studentyears I had an English friend living in our house and he explained cricket to me, and snooker too to add to the confusion, to no avail. 
Oh well, I'll stick to the sporty equivalent of minimal music; 10.000 mtr speedskating.
Enjoy the game, gents!


----------



## Wood

Jos said:


> I'd love to join in but the truth is that I know nothing about the game. Fascinating as it is. I witnessed a man watching a rerun of a cricketmatch on an aeroplane for 6 hours! It was a match from the seventies or so. It was on an Indian airline and he was realy enjoying it.
> In my studentyears I had an English friend living in our house and he explained cricket to me, and snooker too to add to the confusion, to no avail.
> Oh well, I'll stick to the sporty equivalent of minimal music; 10.000 mtr speedskating.
> Enjoy the game, gents!


Start a thread on long track! I dare you!


----------



## elgar's ghost

Jos said:


> I'd love to join in but the truth is that I know nothing about the game. Fascinating as it is. I witnessed a man watching a rerun of a cricketmatch on an aeroplane for 6 hours! It was a match from the seventies or so. It was on an Indian airline and he was realy enjoying it.
> In my studentyears I had an English friend living in our house and he explained cricket to me, and snooker too to add to the confusion, to no avail.
> Oh well, I'll stick to the sporty equivalent of minimal music; 10.000 mtr speedskating.
> Enjoy the game, gents!


Don't give up on it - it took less than one season for a Dutch bloke I know who lives in my town to grasp not just the fundamentals of Test Match Cricket but also understand the various one-day formats. Five or so years on and it's like he was weaned on the sport.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

sospiro said:


> I once spilt two pints of beer over Dennis Waterman at Trent Bridge...
> 
> It was 1977 when you could still sit on the grass. England were fielding and it was my turn to buy the beer which came in rather wide plastic glasses and difficult to hold (my excuse). Just as I was leaving the beer tent, England got a wicket and I swung round to see who it was and deposited most of the beer over Mr Waterman. He was so excited about the wicket, he hardly noticed he was drenched in beer and in response to my embarrassment, replaced our drinks out of his own pocket. Top bloke.
> 
> And yes I saw this


Ah those were the days with England dropping like bunny's. 
Randle should have known Boycs was gonna run no matter what, 
anything to get away from a thommo 160km/h thunder bolt.

We've got the Windy downunder, not much of a show about as one sided as it could get. The Windy could do worse than dust of Viv or Lara for a bit of fight.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> We've got the Windy downunder, not much of a show about as one sided as it could get. The Windy could do worse than dust of Viv or Lara for a bit of fight.


Yes. Aggers on TMS made a quip about Australia leading "by a thousand runs" at one point in the 2nd test, which got a big laugh. How the mighty are fallen. I have heard that for some years many of the top West Indies athletes have been going into the US Baseball leagues, which may explain something.


----------



## elgar's ghost

^
^

I'm not sure about West Indians joining the US baseball leagues, TV - I was under the impression that baseball players from the Caribbean came predominantly from the Spanish-speaking places. Basketball has become increasingly popular though, which may well have had a debilitating affect on the amount of West Indian raw material available at youth level. Perhaps the ascendancy of athletics (and the huge amount of money that can be made) is also contributing to this. 

I would have thought that cricket would need a massive amount of investment over there in order to help redress the balance - at this rate the West Indies may well produce one or two world class players per generation but the days when they could provide devastating fast bowlers and near-invincible batsmen on virtually a conveyor belt basis year after year are long gone - maybe forever.


----------



## Pugg

Other people use pills to sleep, I watch a cricket match.
The only thing I do like is the nice clothes they wearing, the white ones that is.
It's in the genes, we Dutch like skating and are good at it.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Here we are again with England 114-1 after lunch on the first day of the 2nd test, Alex Hales having made a maiden test 50 and Nick Compton back in the groove with 23*. Who is this Cook fellow who keeps failing at the top of the order, though? 

The Cape Town pitch is said to be a good one for batting on so England should really be looking to get 400+, especially as the South African bowling attack is missing Steyn and Philander.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Ha, this is a Brit thing, and a sport too!

I finally found something better than cyclopropane zzz...


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Ha, this is a Brit thing, and a sport too!
> 
> I finally found something better than cyclopropane zzz...


Enjoy your trip! :tiphat:


----------



## Johann Sebastian Bach

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Ha, this is a Brit thing, and a sport too!
> 
> I finally found something better than cyclopropane zzz...


Cricket is a cultural phenomenon. It has beauty, artistry, drama and history in equal measure. It is as old as Thomas Tallis and William Shakespeare and is as stunning as the former and has as many tales as the latter. Whilst it is romantically connected by the English to country villages with thatched cottages and cups of tea, the art-form that is cricket has branches across the globe, in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa to name but a few.

It is unusual for anyone to come to understand cricket in later life but, patronisingly, we Brits feel sorry for those who are immune to the intricacies of the form. We are only sorry that those of you in the USA came up with baseball (we call it "rounders") because it is a pale imitation of a game for bat and ball. 

[Dons safety helmet and runs for cover.]


----------



## elgar's ghost

_'We are only sorry that those of you in the USA came up with baseball (we call it "rounders") because it is a pale imitation of a game for bat and ball.' _

I like baseball almost as much as cricket so I'm certainly not getting involved in that one!


----------



## TurnaboutVox

A spirited defence, Herr Bach. No need to run for cover, all our baseball-bat wielding cousins can do is flame you back. I don't think they'll bother.

I'm contemplating an England innings where everyone seems to have agreed to get to 25 - 50 and then get out stupidly (Taylor excepted because he played a daft shot first ball!).


----------



## TxllxT

Tampering a cricket ball.... for me it's as exotic as darts legs


----------



## elgar's ghost

Not a bad effort overall today - that final session when Stokes let rip swung the day back in England's favour. As long as they don't cave in tomorrow morning hopefully they can get to 400 or thereabouts - South Africa will be under serious pressure to match that.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

TurnaboutVox said:


> I'm contemplating an England innings where everyone seems to have agreed to get to 25 - 50 and then get out stupidly


'tis a shame that yesterday's posts can't be binned

Play on, Stokes and Bairstow - 196 in a morning session! Unbelievable


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Headphone Hermit said:


> 'tis a shame that yesterday's posts can't be binned


I'm very happy to have been proved wrong!



Headphone Hermit said:


> Play on, Stokes and Bairstow - 196 in a morning session! Unbelievable


Amazing, I've never seen an England side go quite so much on the rampage. Let's hope Bairstow can get a well deserved first test century. How long can Ben Stokes go on batting like this, do we suppose?


----------



## elgar's ghost

I never expected this, to be honest - 2nd fastest test double century ever! Hope Stokes can get to 300. If so, then he'll be after Gooch's 333, no doubt. All sorts of records could be broken if him and Bairstow carry on like this. I don't usually regret not having satellite TV but this is one of those days I do. Well done, boys!


----------



## elgar's ghost

Me and my big mouth... Still, England had to declare sometime, I suppose. Happy for both batsmen, but especially Bairstow - that will do him an enormous amount of good.


----------



## Wood

Johann Sebastian Bach said:


> . We are only sorry that those of you in the USA came up with baseball (we call it "rounders") because it is a pale imitation of a game for bat and ball.


Sadly, cricket has gradually been turning into rounders in the last 45 years.

Anyone for 20/20?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Wood said:


> Sadly, cricket has gradually been turning into rounders in the last 45 years.
> 
> Anyone for 20/20?


No, thank-you very much!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, Amla and de Villiers are putting up some fighting resistance. Tomorrow should be interesting.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Wood said:


> Sadly, cricket has gradually been turning into rounders in the last 45 years.
> 
> Anyone for 20/20?


I like it! I like test matches, county games, limited overs and 20-20 - they are all different types of cricket and each has their appeal


----------



## TurnaboutVox

I like the ODI format well enough, and I enjoyed the JohnPlayer League on telly as a lad, but 20-20 I have found very hard to warm to. I took young Vox to some awful one-sided damp squibs of games at Old Trafford when he was young.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I'm not a fan of 20/20 at all (or any of the razzamatazz that is part and parcel of it) but as long as it gets non-believers interested in the sport to the degree that they will in time appreciate the longer game then fine. 

My only real worry in this country is if budding youngsters have more desire to specialise in 20/20 than any other format due to having their heads turned by the glamour and money aspects (some of the salaries for star players in the Indian Premier League are ridiculously high compared to those earned by their less-glamorous teammates) and what they may perceive as a fast-track way to gain prominence. 

Also, I'm not convinced that the Indian Premier League is ever going to be on the level bearing in mind that the Chennai and Rajasthan franchises were kicked out for two years due to their involvement in match-fixing - it was probably only going to be a matter of time before the IPL was brought into disrepute and I can't see it stopping there.


----------



## Wood

I'd quite like first class cricket to become a different sport to one day cricket. The blazerati would be tasked with filtering out any cricketers who have sullied themselves by performing in the vulgar commercial echelons of the game.

And then there would be many more great days of Test Cricket such as today's. It is a shame about the dropped catches early on.


----------



## Wood

Pretty good start for SA in the third Test today, A score of 300 on this wicket may be hard to match.


----------



## elgar's ghost

England will need to break that stand early but they'll be quite happy with how they chipped away at the top order today.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Wood said:


> I'd quite like first class cricket to become a different sport to one day cricket. The blazerati would be tasked with filtering out any cricketers who have sullied themselves by performing in the vulgar commercial echelons of the game.
> 
> And then there would be many more great days of Test Cricket such as today's.


Possibly.
Possibly it might 'preserve' the sanctity of 'proper' cricket and avoid slog-sweeps, brightly-coloured kit and working people from attending a game (all laudable intentions, we will all agree) ..... or the result may follow the West Indian example of talented youths leaving for other sports, leaving that once-fearsome team languishing at the foot of the ICC rankings (possibly!)


----------



## Wood

Root just got his century!


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Wood said:


> Root just got his century!


R - ooooooooooooooooooooooo -t!!!

Does the 'chant' qualify as music?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Root and Stokes are phenomenally talented, aren't they? It's just as well, with the captain struggling for runs, Hales a rookie at No. 2, and Compton and Taylor inexperienced at test level. Thank goodness also in this series for Jonny Bairstow's batting, though his glove-work is still a work in progress. Ah well, Rod Marsh was 'irongloves' at the beginning of his test career.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Oh wow, Stuart Broad has 5-14 already! South Africa 35-5. That was a bad time to go away and light the stove.

Edit: I didn't even manage to light the stove sucessfully...oh, I spoke too soon. It smouldered for 3 hours, then burst into life. Warmth at Turnabout towers after all.


----------



## elgar's ghost

All of a sudden it seems like a good toss to have lost.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

TurnaboutVox said:


> Oh wow, Stuart Broad has 5-14 already! South Africa 35-5. That was a bad time to go away and light the stove.


you'll feel the benefit when it gets cold tonight :tiphat:


----------



## TurnaboutVox

OK, 77-9. Let's hope England can make 68 or so in such bowler-friendly conditions :lol:


----------



## MagneticGhost

Stuart Broad is just unplayable when he has spells like this. Never expected us to win this series.


----------



## Guest

Boy I hate it when that happens...ironing in front of the TV this morning and nothing happens. I saw Broad and Bairstow batting - nothing happens. I step out and return to see we've lost our last wickets and SA batting; 16-0 at lunch. I go away for lunch and a walk, and 9 wickets fall??!!!

I daren't go to the TV now, else SA will pile on the runs, making a record stand for a 10th wicket partnership!

Grr!


----------



## MagneticGhost

MacLeod said:


> Boy I hate it when that happens...ironing in front of the TV this morning and nothing happens. I saw Broad and Bairstow batting - nothing happens. I step out and return to see we've lost our last wickets and SA batting; 16-0 at lunch. I go away for lunch and a walk, and 9 wickets fall??!!!
> 
> I daren't go to the TV now, else SA will pile on the runs, making a record stand for a 10th wicket partnership!
> 
> Grr!


Did the BBC just post your comment on their site? Or are you one of 2 people who went out for a walk at 16-0


----------



## Guest

MagneticGhost said:


> Did the BBC just post your comment on their site? Or are you one of 2 people who went out for a walk at 16-0


...er...no...did they?

I've just dared to switch the TV on and seen our progress and noted this comment on The Guardian coverage:



> *"You dont often get a chance to shoehorn in some Physics to sport," says Karl Massey. "But I honestly think this England performance has wandered into the realms of the Ontological Principle."*"Or put in laymans terms [_editor: yes please_] is the light still on in the fridge when you close the fridge door?
> "Are England only able to perform with Godlike determinism when nobody is watching? Is the very act of watching them preventing their success? If so, I'm never going to watch them on the telly ever again."


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Broad 12.1-6-17-6! What would South Africa have given to have Steyn and Philander fit and available?


----------



## Skilmarilion

TurnaboutVox said:


> What would South Africa have given to have Steyn and Philander fit and available?


Yep, and yet no batting either. In their last 6 tests they've been absolutely embarrassed by England and India, home and away, and don't seem up to it. Serves them right for doing that mega blockage thing that's Du Plessis and Amla's specialty, getting something like 6 off 500 balls and losing test matches anyway.


----------



## elgar's ghost

^
^

That said, SA are still ranked no.1, aren't they? Will they drop down now they've lost this series?


----------



## Skilmarilion

Regaring T20, Tests etc. that you guys'd been discussing ... I like T20 just fine. What I hate is how it's become so commercialised so quickly. The IPL and Big Bash are just big money events now, with players there only to pick up the pay cheques. It means that players like Brendon McCullum have an incentive to finish up their international careers earlier than they used to, play less games, avoid the pressure of international captaincy and make more money than they would playing for their country.

While I watch the odd county T20's (I usually go to a Surrey fixture at least once a summer), I've never willingly watched a ball of the IPL and all its bulls***.

What's worse - people are finding things to blame within Test cricket to explain its "demise". No, it's all about these outside influences, which also includes mega bucks TV deals that make the big international boards richer and makes all these franchise T20 leagues more and more lucrative. 

We definitely don't need day/night test cricket. I think's it's one of stupidest things ever. There are enough gimmicks in all the other forms of the game, and I thought that even if it's popularity globally begins to wane, at least test cricket as a product would endure. But no. Pink balls. Next we'll have flashing bails, pink helmets, Helmet Cam, 3 day tests and cheerleaders in jacuzzis*.

Anyway, thanks for reading this rant. :tiphat:

* note, I don't have a problem with this in other contexts.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

England making a bit of a mess of getting the last 10 runs! :lol: 
...but got there in the end. Well done, lads.


----------



## Wood

Skilmarilion said:


> Regaring T20, Tests etc. that you guys'd been discussing ... I like T20 just fine. What I hate is how it's become so commercialised so quickly. The IPL and Big Bash are just big money events now, with players there only to pick up the pay cheques. It means that players like Brendon McCullum have an incentive to finish up their international careers earlier than they used to, play less games, avoid the pressure of international captaincy and make more money than they would playing for their country.
> 
> While I watch the odd county T20's (I usually go to a Surrey fixture at least once a summer), I've never willingly watched a ball of the IPL and all its bulls***.
> 
> What's worse - people are finding things to blame within Test cricket to explain its "demise". No, it's all about these outside influences, which also includes mega bucks TV deals that make the big international boards richer and makes all these franchise T20 leagues more and more lucrative.
> 
> We definitely don't need day/night test cricket. I think's it's one of stupidest things ever. There are enough gimmicks in all the other forms of the game, and I thought that even if it's popularity globally begins to wane, at least test cricket as a product would endure. But no. Pink balls. Next we'll have flashing bails, pink helmets, Helmet Cam, 3 day tests and cheerleaders in jacuzzis*.
> 
> Anyway, thanks for reading this rant. :tiphat:
> 
> * note, I don't have a problem with this in other contexts.


I find the shots of people in the crowd wearing fancy dress very distracting, and the advert in the pitch at The Wanderers should have no place in Test Cricket. The wicket wasn't good enough for Test Cricket either. As well as Broad bowled, he got more help than he should have done from the pitch.

That said, it was a good Test Match, and a great series win for England.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Wood said:


> The wicket wasn't good enough for Test Cricket either. As well as Broad bowled, he got more help than he should have done from the pitch.


I suspect that the Finance Director of the SACB will agree with you...


----------



## TurnaboutVox

^^^^^ However, South Africa did make 313 on it, and England 323, first time around, which suggests a reasonably fair contest between bat and ball. It's not as if the pitch disintegrated on the 3rd day, as far as I could tell on the on-line highlights. BBC commentators suggested that it was quick and bouncy, I think.


----------



## Wood

True, the first innings scores were reasonable, though not particularly high for a Test. I think the overcast conditions on day three made the ball swing more which exacerbated the difficulties for the batsmen.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Oh what I shame, the Black Caps have lost by an innings


----------



## TurnaboutVox

After a gap of a year-and-three-quarters, I thought I'd open up this dormant thread again for our anglophile and anglophobe cricket-loving members.

So, on the 5th day of the 2nd test, will England be able to take Root and score the 178 runs needed to win? Or (more likely, I think) is there a Starc shock Cummins tomorrow for England as Australia throw their left-handers to the Lyon?

(I can't do anything with Hazlewood, I'm afraid)


----------



## elgar's ghost

TurnaboutVox said:


> After a gap of a year-and-three-quarters, I thought I'd open up this dormant thread again for our anglophile and anglophobe cricket-loving members.
> 
> So, on the 5th day of the 2nd test, will England be able to take Root and score the 178 runs needed to win? Or (more likely, I think) is there a Starc shock Cummins tomorrow for England as Australia throw their left-handers to the Lyon?
> 
> (I can't do anything with Hazlewood, I'm afraid)


I can't see it. England have done well to give themselves an outside chance but the Aussie bowlers should be too savvy to blow this one. England should attack seeing there is little chance of batting all day for a draw and a draw won't be much better than a defeat anyway bearing in mind the next test is at the WACA where England's record is particularly wretched.

EDIT: Sorry, TV - I forgot to give you an Alpha minus for the puns!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi


----------



## Guest

elgars ghost said:


> I can't see it. England have done well to give themselves an outside chance but the Aussie bowlers should be too savvy to blow this one. England should attack seeing there is little chance of batting all day for a draw and a draw won't be much better than a defeat anyway bearing in mind the next test is at the WACA where England's record is particularly wretched.
> 
> EDIT: Sorry, TV - I forgot to give you an Alpha minus for the puns!


I think you're right. In any case, England will need to cook something up in the first two sessions as it is hard to see them winning under the lights.

Even though its a long shot, I think that it is worth getting up for, because it would be nice to be there if England do pull off such a historic victory.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

> ...but the Aussie bowlers should be too savvy to blow this one.


Australia do still have a Handscomb lead...



> EDIT: Sorry, TV - I forgot to give you an Alpha minus for the puns!


Thank-you, EG. The puns are just a bit of Joshing!

~~~~

As a former teenage off-spinner (at school 2nd XI level!) I'd love to be able to watch Nathan "Gary" Lyon at work. It sounds like he's become a reliable performer for Australia over the last few years.

A bit like a former Dean of Durham Cathedral I can't walk down a corridor (with him it was the cathedral aisle) without wondering if it would take spin...


----------



## Guest

Oh well... At least we won the sledging.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Now, how are England going to take a further 17 wickets on this pitch without the one bowler who seemed able to use it?

3-0, if I'm not very much mistaken.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Well. Today went as badly as could have been expected. :lol:


----------



## Oreb

Badly? I thought it went pretty well


----------

