Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

During the Ashes there was a lot of talk of England not being the better team than Australia, in regards to wickets taken and runs scored etc, and the same is now being said in relation to this series. I don't really understand the argument though. Sport has never been about proving who is better than who in regards to isolated skills. It's a case of who wins and who loses. A series of controlled laboratory experiments could tell you which team was actually the best at bowling, batting, fielding etc if you really wanted to know.

In test match cricket you are set an objective to win the game. If you can't complete that objective, you don't win.

I thoroughly enjoyed the series, and the Ashes, because it proved how multi-faceted and subtextual Test cricket really is. The pitch changes day to day, the weather hourly, the condition of the ball constantly and you have to deal with these factors in the context of the entire match/series to be successful.

South Africa could have won the series 3-1, but they didn't. Just like England could have scored 600 first innings runs in every game, but they didn't.

Certainly a test series to remember for both the right and wrong reasons.

The Cape Town fight back warmed the hearts of all those who love test cricket. That five days cricket can come down to one batsman (or No.11) facing the final ball of the match. I wanted to leave work early because of the snow - 1 1/2 later I struggled home cold but happy!

Thanks to the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ but one comment is that the web updates need to be quicker in these situations to save us all migrating to other cricket websites even if does add to the tension!

Certainly the referral system has the potential to improve the spectators viewing but all tests need all the tech. Something that it seems is beyond many test nations.

We look forward to the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ coverage from Bangladesh and at least more of a first string team than I expected...

Only a few tests ago, comments were flying about as to Cook's future in test cricket, let alone his potential as captain. The South African tour has proved nothing either way: a couple of good innings (we all know he has the ability for that), but again, failures each side of that - where's the consistency? If he has a poor series as a batsman against Bangladesh, what then?
As regards England, overall, their fighting spirit has improved over the last couple of years - thanks largely to Graeme Swann, Matt Prior and Stuart Broad in the lower middle order. Lack of potency with the seam bowlers is still an issue, and like others, I can't think that the 'resting' of Graham Onions at that particular point was a sensible thing. He should be persevered with for at least a full year: despite his lack of wickets, he never looked like an ineffectual bowler, and who knows how many of the wickets he contributed to through his pressurizing of the batsmen?

again, cannot put all information in this format. try this for source -

also what do people think of A. Flintoff talking about playing county cricket after retiring from Tests.?

I think the comment above that sport is not about winning on points (except boxing). I certainly don't think South Africa were the better team until this test. England were cruising to a draw before the blip at the end of the Cape Town test.

It is about time that people thought a little more carefully about averages. Over a long period of time they might show a person's ability or class but over the short term they are flawed. Look at Onion's average for this series - one cannot fault how he bowled. Often a good bowler will fail to get the wicket and a bad ball claims one because it is a release from pressure.

Likewise batting. Smith had a relatively poor time until he made hay on the 4th day at Cape Town. What about Prince and Duminy's abject performances? Steyn and Morkel didn't really turn up until late on.

During the Ashes much was made of not scoring centuries by England, yet the same thing happened for Australia when they beat WI in the winter.

Much has been dismissed about the reviews, but if SA had lost Smith they may have collapsed and the De Villiers incident was when England had them on the ropes.

Don't dismiss the mind games by SA either: Undermining Trott, the ball tampering issue - all carefully released just at the right time.

I'm glad you mentioned the weather. In the context of the game not enough importance was attached to it by England. I cannot believe former captains would have fallen into the trap of believing that a draw was not desirable at the Wanderers to win the Series. What has happened to tactics and strategy?
I'm afraid the gung-ho attitude of the coach, not any different from that advocated by Moores, has forfeited a win in the context that it is always more honourable to fight to win the game. Can you imagine SA taking that attitude if they had been in front? A different type of pitch would have been prepared for sure.
Instead we were outthought and outmanoeuvred to battle on a pitch not to our liking and not designed to suit our bowlers and batsmen. Instead Strauss picked up the gauntlet like some hubristic medieval knight or even some latter day colonel leading his troops into an honourable charge into the valley of destruction.
He chose to bat almost as a badge of honour. So it is not surprising that he was out first ball. Even to the last, after that near collapse in the first innings, and after SA had posted a substantial lead, the coach apparently was urging England to attack in order to overtake SA and put them in again. Did he not look to the heavens? He could have advised them to build instead a substantial innings, to take their time to defend and to score when needed.
We only have to look back to Lords in 2008 to see SA just do that in 2 days. We may not have lasted 2 days but we didn't need to.
SA were always trying to hurry us along. Attacking the ball on that wicket is only going to get you out unless you are very lucky like Paul Collingwood on 7.
Misled. But the coach and captain don't get the blame. It's the troops of course following orders.
The media have questioned the recklessness of the batting but were also sucked into the idea of winning the Test before the game even though we were warned that a 'result pitch' was ordered.
An absolutely basic military error. But will we learn from it? I think not. I can't imagine what Brearley would have thought of it.

Excellent series - and greatly enhanced by Vaughan's superb commentary. He certainly gave the impression that he was thoroughly enjoying himself .... long may he continue!

SA were not the superior team in the last analysis because they couldn't close off matches which they really should have won. Most definitely their batting was a great deal better than England's, but the drawn series reflects that England were a bit more resilient than they'd been given credit for. It's a bit of a minor miracle to me that England could draw this series when most media pundits expected them to be totally blasted away. Hats off to Paul Collingwood in particular - he's worth his weight in gold.

That guy who was listening to TMS while he was meant to be invigilating should be sacked.

Why al the moaning ? England won the 1 day series ( ok rain affected) and shared the test series. I know they escaped but thats the stats. I am amused cause the type of reporting in the British press are laughable ( dont worry its the same if not worse here in SA) and some more balanced views should be published. Overall SA played good but not good enough to beat England . One day you praised the guys and the next day is the other way around. Why ? Its like here where they report that Morne Morkel is the new Joel Garner!!!!!!!!!!!!! And thats after 1 good performance

I agree completely, why don't they show the fans in the ground the same TV replays as we see at home and the third umpire is looking at? There are way too many empty seats at the vast majority of Test matches, they should be doing everything possible to encourage people to attend. Clouding the replays in mystery is a disservice to fans who make the effort to go to matches.

I do still think the umpires should have the say about when the referral system is used. As long as it isn't Darryl Harper, who in my view should have been involved in his last test match in Johannesburg. He seems the only umpire not to be able to get his head around the system.

Well done to TMS for some great coverage from South Africa, some really good lunch time features as well as the usual high quality commentary. Michael Vaughan is doing a fine job already. I think the England team can be pretty pleased as well. They are clearly a team in development, and to be getting some decent results whilst still developing as a team is a good sign for the future I think. They still need a good number 3 and a strike bowler, but the building blocks are there at the moment.

What about the Jo'Burg Test resorting to noisy Twenty20 and One Day music between overs and when every boundary was hit? I was sat in the stadium having to endure this rubbish for 4 days and I can tell you that if this intrusion to the game becomes more widespread I fear Test Cricket will lose more spectators. Not just older supporters like myself; one young Springbok fan summed it up admirably: "Too loud,too often, mindless". I am surprised that few ,if any, media commentators have remarked on this invasion of the game. Have they all become conditioned to this racket via 1 day games? Or are they wearing noise reduction earphones to drown out the din?

That's an interesting comment about the rain after the test washing out any possible play and it hardens my view of England's performance in the final test.

At the start of the game Andrew Strauss said that the team knew they could not save this test the way they had the last two and that a win was the only option. At the time I felt this was realistic if a bit negative, and that it was surprising for a Captain to rule out an option that would see his team claim a historic series win in SA.

In the light of Strauss's decision not to tour I am now wondering if this was indicative of a tired captain and a tired team that allowed their self belief to be undermined. Everyone wants their team to make an honest win rather than scraping a draw, but still a team should have enough fighting spirit to want to win by any legal means.

As I say the rain is new info to me, and possibly to lot of others. Do we need a poll? "Englands failed to hold on for the rain, did SA break England's fighting spirit?"

Helo one and all from here in Adelaide, South Australia (but originally from Walworth, SE London)..I have read many comments on the review system in South Afric,, and frankly I am not impressed.Our review system here in Oz, uses everything available, and I am stunned that SA did not use Hot Spot at least. If the tv companies think it is too expensive, then ban them from televising the Cricket is what I say. I believe if technology is available, it should be used and shown to the viewing public on telly. I am not sure if it is actuallyv shown at the match itself, but believe it is..it is fascinating sitting at home as they go through the 3 things to determine if the original decision is correct or not. However, I do have one criticism of hawkeye..I believe it should NOT be used in lbw's, as I believe it is flawed in those decisionas.That's me for the moment, hope I haven't bored too many with my contribution..Go, England, Go Go Go...

In terms of reflection, if you had given Strauss and Flower the opportunity to draw the test series and win the ODIs at the start of the tour, I think they would have definately taken it.

Overall the batting remains hugely inconsistent - if we lose a couple of quick wickets, especially early on in an innings we don't appear to be capable to bring it back - usually losing several more wickets in the process. And yes, the bowling does lack real pace.

But on the flip side, you feel that the batters are the best in England and have age on their side to get better. With the bowling, there are not many raw pace merchants around in test cricke these days - possibly due to the 'age of the bat' and excessive amounts of international cricket.

We are going in the right direction, but need to take another step up before Oz 2010.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Just a couple of observations. First, on referral, I don't like hawkeye as currently used. I'm a statistician and programmer and know how these things work. This is a prediction, with the error in the estimated track of the ball increasing with distance from the point of last impact. Yet, the error is never estimated, or shown. This uncertainty in the estimated track would often make the difference between a batsman being out and given the benefit of the doubt. Hotspot, on the other hand, is usually unequivocal evidence of where the ball struck and should be made compulsory in any referral system.

Finally, on Strauss being "jaded" and not going to Bangladesh. I'm with Warne on this one. This is insulting to Bangladesh. If Strauss isn't up to the rigours of captaincy, or playing for that matter, he should make way for someone who is. And why make Cook captain? Arguably, he shouldn't be in the side. Collingwood is a more reliable team man and has experience of captaincy.