2nd Test, South Africa vs England; Cape Town 2nd-6th January

First topic message reminder :

South Africa (from):
H Amla (c), Q De Kock (wkt), AB De Villiers (wkt), K Abbott, T Bavuma, JP Duminy, F Du Plessis, D Elgar, M Morkel, C Morris, D Piedt, Rabada, R Rossouw, S Van Zyl, H Viljoen.

England (from):
A Cook (c), A Hales, N Compton, J Root, J Taylor, B Stokes, J Bairstow (wkt), M Ali, C Woakes, S Broad, S Finn, J Anderson, S Patel, C Jordan, M Footitt, J Butler, G Ballance.


Umpires: A Dar (Pak), B Oxenford (Aus)

Third umpire: R Tucker (Aus)

Match referee: R Madugalle (Sri Lanka)

And cricket's stupid double standards again, people were knocking R Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja when they were bowling pretty well on lively tracks, but now people are finding all kinds of reasons to praise Hashim Amla's innings on this absolutely dreadful track that is made only for batsmen! As KPF mentioned above, Amla's innings was credit worthy for many reasons and it indeed was a good effort, but my point is a larger one, bowlers always get less credit in this game.......

A pitch that makes Bavuma, Morris and De Plessis look like competent test batsmen is beyond a joke, it puts into context the Stokes/Bairstow partnership really, it's significance is now zero.

It's a woefully placid deck and on decks like this takes a very special bowler to produce a result. Steyn is one such bowler but he's back in the hut getting fixed. Of the guys available Morkel is a good bowler but more of a supporting act. Rabada may possibly be that special but there's no way he's producing that type of performance at 20. That leaves Chris Morris. No. Just no.

Lots of dropped catches from England but I'm not sure how much that would have changed, with the possible exception of AB early on. And even that only because it might have exposed a soft underbelly. After that I don't thknk there was anything but a draw on. Faf comes on at 200-3 instead of 280-3. Temba comes on at 400-4 instead of 440-4. Rabada comes on at 500-7 instead of 620/7. Every batsman here has gotten at least a start except for Stiaan, Quinny and Taylor.

So looking ahead, Raf, do you think SA will at last cut their losses on Styan van Zyl and pick a regular opener instead?

It's harder to answer now than it was about a week ago. Last week when we couldn't bat it was a simple case of if van Zyl fails as an opener again he drops down to replace either Bavuma or Faf. Both Faf and
Temba scored runs today which means that can't happen.

There's two major issues I suppose
- South African team selection has a hierachy. The guy in the squad has dibs on a spot. The next bat in the squad is Rillee. Rilee isn't an opener. And further to this hasn't played an FC game in a while.

- van Zyl offers 10-12 disciplined overs a day. With only three seamers Stiaan's dozen or so overs of nothingness are a big help in terms of lightening the load. I suppose if he's doing bad it's not quite worth keeping him for, but then serious consideration has to be given regarding where the overs are coming from.

kingraf wrote:It's harder to answer now than it was about a week ago. Last week when we couldn't bat it was a simple case of if van Zyl fails as an opener again he drops down to replace either Bavuma or Faf. Both Faf and
Temba scored runs today which means that can't happen.

There's two major issues I suppose
- South African team selection has a hierachy. The guy in the squad has dibs on a spot. The next bat in the squad is Rillee. Rilee isn't an opener. And further to this hasn't played an FC game in a while.

- van Zyl offers 10-12 disciplined overs a day. With only three seamers Stiaan's dozen or so overs of nothingness are a big help in terms of lightening the load. I suppose if he's doing bad it's not quite worth keeping him for, but then serious consideration has to be given regarding where the overs are coming from.

Is there any truth in the rumour that Amla staunchly believes three seamers only is the way to go?

CI says: History Made

Twenty-four years after South Africa's readmission to international cricket following the dismantling of apartheid, Bavuma became the first black African to hit a Test hundred for South Africa. It was a momentous moment.

Ashwell Prince was Black in color, a black name and 11 hundreds......whats CI talking about ?

KP_fan wrote:CI says: History Made

Twenty-four years after South Africa's readmission to international cricket following the dismantling of apartheid, Bavuma became the first black African to hit a Test hundred for South Africa. It was a momentous moment.

Ashwell Prince was Black in color, a black name and 11 hundreds......whats CI talking about ?

I must be careful how I word this but Ashwell I'd say was not a native Africaan which is what CI is probably talking about. Ashwell is more half-caste (forgive me people I am not being racist).

CC - I've never actually seen a quote but Neil Manthorpe said on radio that Amla said he'll always pick a spinner in his Test side

KPF - AshyP is in South Africa racially classified "coloured" or mixed race.

kingraf wrote:CC - I've never actually seen a quote but Neil Manthorpe said on radio that Amla said he'll always pick a spinner in his Test side

It does seem odd as you seem to be blessed with better seamers than spinner. To me they'd be better served going with four seamers and spin of Dean Piedt rather than three seamers, Dean Piedt and very part-time back-up bowlers.

Basically- In South Africa racial classification is pretty fluid but easy to understand.

If you are not white, you are black. This is why Amla was revealed as the "first black captain". But when filing official paperwork which needs to be specified races break into

Asian (ie Subcontinental)
African (Ie Bantu African)
Oriental (Pretty clear. Not always listed though)
White
Coloured
Other (please specify)

kingraf wrote:Basically- In South Africa racial classification is pretty fluid but easy to understand.

If you are not white, you are black. This is why Amla was revealed as the "first black captain". But when filing official paperwork which needs to be specified races break into

Asian (ie Subcontinental)
African (Ie Bantu African)
Oriental (Pretty clear. Not always listed though)
White
Coloured
Other (please specify)

Yes kingraf. Prince would fall into the coloured category whilst Bavuma is African and native. I suspect one side of Prince's ancestors were of European in nature.

Really...that's quite a simple color categorization I must say

I don't think when picked the plan was for Stiaan to do much bowling. I mean he's medium pacers clearly haven't had a lifetime of effort put into them. But he was bowled vs the West Indies in a nothing period and took the wicket of a set Marlon Samuels. Then he was bowled again and didnt go for much. We go to Asia the same thing happens and suddenly we realised it wasn't just a one off. Stiaan really can be relied on to bowl a dozen odd good overs a day. You can understand why. He was a fast bowler back in the day and it shows. Good seam presentation. Gets good shape. Can reverse it. If he did everything he does about 15mph faster he'd be a genuine fourth bowler

KP_fan wrote:Really...that's quite a simple color categorization I must say

I think the real point is that Bavuma is a native African and for him to score a test century is ground-breaking as I do believe South Africa are desperate to encourage more native Africans to take up cricket and so widen the choices available to them. Prince was not a native African though was South African but I'd guess as I said earlier his ancestral roots go back to Europe.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Really...that's quite a simple color categorization I must say

I think the real point is that Bavuma is a native African and for him to score a test century is ground-breaking as I do believe South Africa are desperate to encourage more native Africans to take up cricket and so widen the choices available to them. Prince was not a native African though was South African but I'd guess as I said earlier his ancestral roots go back to Europe.

Every one in the South African team is native African. And Prince is black. He is just not black African.

Prince's ancestors are probably Khoi/San/some type of Qua (probably Outeniqua since he is from the Eastern Cape) - the original natives to South Africa, white and black. Coloured people isn't really of the same race, it is more a culture constructed out of the holes of Apartheid - people that didn't really fit the mould of the other racial classifications. Being classified Coloured as opposed to black had some benefits - better schooling, voting in the "driekamer" parliament along with Indians/Asians. That is probably why they still feel to make the distinction.

Don't downplay the Stokes/Bairstow partnership - the pitch couldn't have been that bad if so many catches were dropped.  And that is on both sides.  If everyone held on to there catches this game might have been finished already. But it is probably the heat affecting the players.

FerN wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Really...that's quite a simple color categorization I must say

I think the real point is that Bavuma is a native African and for him to score a test century is ground-breaking as I do believe South Africa are desperate to encourage more native Africans to take up cricket and so widen the choices available to them. Prince was not a native African though was South African but I'd guess as I said earlier his ancestral roots go back to Europe.

Every one in the South African team is native African.  And Prince is black.  He is just not black African.

Prince's ancestors are probably Khoi/San/some type of Qua (probably Outeniqua since he is from the Eastern Cape) - the original natives to South Africa, white and black.  Coloured people isn't really of the same race, it is more a culture constructed out of the holes of Apartheid - people that didn't really fit the mould of the other racial classifications.  Being classified Coloured as opposed to black had some benefits -  better schooling, voting in the "driekamer" parliament along with Indians/Asians.  That is probably why they still feel to make the distinction.

Of course Prince was South African by birth my point was that if you dig into his family tree his ancestors were probably European. Bavuma is African and his family tree would no doubt show his ancestors as African. South African cricket is striving to encourage more involvement from the native African population as it is vast and largely untapped.

Cloud cover this morning. Called it!

Pity we have no swing bowlers

CaledonianCraig wrote:

FerN wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Really...that's quite a simple color categorization I must say

I think the real point is that Bavuma is a native African and for him to score a test century is ground-breaking as I do believe South Africa are desperate to encourage more native Africans to take up cricket and so widen the choices available to them. Prince was not a native African though was South African but I'd guess as I said earlier his ancestral roots go back to Europe.

Every one in the South African team is native African.  And Prince is black.  He is just not black African.

Prince's ancestors are probably Khoi/San/some type of Qua (probably Outeniqua since he is from the Eastern Cape) - the original natives to South Africa, white and black.  Coloured people isn't really of the same race, it is more a culture constructed out of the holes of Apartheid - people that didn't really fit the mould of the other racial classifications.  Being classified Coloured as opposed to black had some benefits -  better schooling, voting in the "driekamer" parliament along with Indians/Asians.  That is probably why they still feel to make the distinction.

Of course Prince was South African by birth my point was that if you dig into his family tree his ancestors were probably European. Bavuma is African and his family tree would no doubt show his ancestors as African. South African cricket is striving to encourage more involvement from the native African population as it is vast and largely untapped.

I was just teasing, because in South Africa we have the "I am African", "what does black mean" discussions a lot. And it varies on when it is used.

But Prince's ancestors could be all native African too. His grouping wasn't exclusively for mixed race people. Griqua (if I remember correctly) (indigenous people of South Africa) decided to be classified Coloured and not black, because they were lighter skinned. Other indigenous groupings might as well have.

Even if we don't win the important thing was to keep Alastair Cook in the rut he's currently in. That has at least been achieved

kingraf wrote:Even if we don't win the important thing was to keep Alastair Cook in the rut he's currently in. That has at least been achieved

Yes for South Africa it is all about little pyschological victories such as avoiding the follow-on (ticked off), their batsmen rediscovering some form (ticked off) and keeping Cook down (ticked off). Of course any sort of miraculous collspse now and it would bring any redult into the equation. Stonewaller of a draw though.

OK...so Eng does create an exciting morning... in the first 15 minutes of the morning session
19-2
I am sure their batting until #10 can resist and hold on till tea time...and be ahead by 150 runs.......they they will be safe.
it would be hard for SA to chase down 150 in 30 overs of final session on a D5 pitch in fading light......should it go so far.....

We never do it the easy way! Its important that England score runs whilst they are in here. Bat for 60 more overs like that and the game should be safe

Root gone

No ball

Also it may be worth pointing out that if England collapse quickly it would surely mean the pitch is more of a devil to bat on and with England's more experienced and better attack then South Africa would hardly be odds on to win.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Also it may be worth pointing out that if England collapse quickly it would surely mean the pitch is more of a devil to bat on and with England's more experienced and better attack then South Africa would hardly be odds on to win.

That's very optimistic! Any England collapse will be in the mind not in the pitch. The question for SA is whether Morkel will get much back up - he can't bowl all day

Bloody nora, could've made a packet betting on South Africa to win this 48 hours ago!!

Always pleasing when replay shows up yet another no ball that wasn't called.

Indeed , England rarely do things "easily" for long...they like to keep supporters on the edge of their seats

Overdoing it this morning though. Panic time yet ? Joe Root has just had an extraordinary reprieve as Morkel oversteps ...

Not sure why they took so long to overturn that - was a pretty clear no ball on first viewing. Might be a significant moment in a match with a few of those.

This does seem to happen a lot these days. Guess the fact that umpires rarely bother calling tight no balls has bowlers cutting it fine more often than ever : wonder how many "ordinary" - ie , non- wicket taking oversteps go unpunished ?

Would be a big help if he can keep his leg behind though

That's the game sealed. Needed Absolutely everything to go to hand. And keep tge feet behind the line

Obviously, I am not English so am not getting the panic thing. Even if Root had gone I'd still say this is a cast iron draw.

Cracker jack of a delivery

kingraf wrote:Even if we don't win the important thing was to keep Alastair Cook in the rut he's currently in. That has at least been achieved

Is he in a rut? This winter hes played 13 innings ... scored a century, a double century and 3 halfs averaging over 54.
Hes not done a lot yet this series but hes had much worse and far longer runs of poor scores in his career. I dont think 4 innings constitutes a rut just yet.

Morris ensures Morkel's no ball didn't prove too costly...
not watching.....but it does appear....Eng are panicking ?

He is in a rut in South Africa. 60-odd runs over four innings says so. Hes done worse but only times he's done worse has been when he's been in a rut

Need three more wickets before lunch for this to become a full grown collapse which can end in a result

And England continue to play as only they can...contriving to turn a winning situation into a losing one...

Just when you think it might be the dawn of a new era, they revert to type, seemingly determined to leave their fans' nerves in shreds.

Farcical fielding the previous day then walking into the firing line, just as SA get the first helpful bowling conditions of the match.

Stop trying to be positive please England. What we need right now is a Hashim Amla type innings...or two...

Show SA that they're not the only ones who can play boring cricket.

Vast over-reaction from posters here. It is cloudy overhead, the pitch is evidently doing something and some snorters have been bowled. Still a cast iron draw.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Also it may be worth pointing out that if England collapse quickly it would surely mean the pitch is more of a devil to bat on and with England's more experienced and better attack then South Africa would hardly be odds on to win.

Normally that would be the case over the latter part of a match ; hence why batting last is generally considered a risk. But on a pitch which has yielded 13 wickets in four days , even a bit of a change in conditions is unlikely to produce 20 wickets in a day !
Getting ten seems a stretch , in truth : but with three gone in an hour ( more good bowling with a new ball than pitch demons , I think ) there is now a real chance for nerves to undo England .

Test Cricket ,eh ? One day all snoozing in deck chairs ; next biting ones fingers...wonder what we are going to see from here : Adelaide 2006 or The Oval 2005 ?

These are the last two "Time" batsman. The next bunch are pretty hit and miss. Either wicket will be very good.

kingraf wrote:He is in a rut in South Africa. 60-odd runs over four innings says so. Hes done worse but only times he's done worse has been when he's been in a rut

I wouldn't call it a rut yet. Actually looked pretty good on day one here before falling to a blinder of a catch. And he's been dismissed in different ways - may just be one of those things. But he'd want some runs next match or you'd think the mental pressure will become something of a factor.
SA opening bowlers aren't too bad , you know. Opening against them is not the easiest proposition.

Nail-biting? Jeez people must be of a highly nervous state if they are biting nails with three wickets down on the final day with a lead of 65 and just over two sessions to play.

If you further need your nerves calming look at the last time a team scored so big in first innings and lost - 1894. This Saffer attack is hardly the bedt either (sorry kingraf but being honest).

He fell to a blinder of a catch because he edged it though. It's not like he drew straws and had to leave.
I'm not saying he's in bad form, but Chris Morris has more runs than him in this series. He's in a bit of hole. I thought it was important to keep him there.

Craig - your optimism is keeping me going. I suppose logically we have to think its about 40 overs more batting now to save the game, and England are quite often not many for 3 in any circumstance!

Hoping for a partnership lasting about 20 overs to calm the nerves a bit though!

CaledonianCraig wrote:Nail-biting? Jeez people must be of a highly nervous state if they are biting nails with three wickets down on the final day with a lead of 65 and just over two sessions to play.

If you further need your nerves calming look at the last time a team scored so big in first innings and lost - 1894. This Saffer attack is hardly the bedt either (sorry kingraf but being honest).

England supporters are always two wickets away from chewing nails , Craig

I agree the draw remains strong favourite ; but I don't think you can call it "cast iron" any more. A few careless shots could see SA putting serious pressure on the later order - arguably they would be in with a shout if they could dismiss England any time up to tea.
Which , indeed , remains unlikely.

Need a couple of sturdy , nerveless , Scots to steady the ship , perhaps ? That or a dash of your most famous National Product for the watchers

Morning folks and evening Alfie and others in your own time zones ,

I know many here don't but I like Michael Holding's analysis and punditry. I don't always agree with him but I feel he often brings a rather old fashioned view to the table which is worth listening to (in contrast to Botham, another of his generation, who regularly comes across to me as lazy and ill informed).

Anyway, Holding has been going on for a lot of this Test that the pitch has more in it for the bowlers than has generally been said. I thought he made a good defence of his view by referring to England a short while ago being 55/3 second dig, 223/5 in their first innings and dropping 10 catches (I assume he's right there) in South Africa's innings. As Mikey said, you don't get those amount of wickets and chances on a road.