Explore the BBC
All well?Super Eights it is today, and I've got the happy task of doing the text commentary. New Zealand v Ireland first up at 1330 BST, followed by England v South Africa at 1730.Thoughts, predictions, rants and celebrations all welcome...
view all 599 comments
posted Jun 11, 2009
Another 25-30 runs by England would have put enormous pressure on SA. The pitch and the conditions also suited SA.I expect England to do much better in the remaining super eight matches.Collingwood is a tough character. Just as England fought back very well beating Pakistan after losing to Holland, the boys will bounce back.
add comment |
complain about this comment
dont see why people are saying the bowling was good? they won by 7 wickets. the reason it went so slow was because South Africa chose to bat at a leisurely pace. there was no urgency at all in their batting, and they still won comfortably. Comprehensive win that showed a glimpse in the gulf of class
At least South Africa didn §t trash you like the women team did to india.Wow none were ran out lol.http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/womens_cricket/8092874.stmlike 113 - 0 lol. No jokes. Thats the gulf between mens and women. The women should be promoted to the mens sport to cover england §s blushes.
@ SCIt may seem that 30 more runs would ahve been a competitive total.However,Saffers designed a professional and clinical win.They made sure Englands confidence is dented with such a loss.Only a target of 160 might have put some more pressure on this South Africna batting even though the pitch was a bit low.
Can someone explain how on sky sports they said the net run rate was +/- 0.62? I make it 0.67? ditto for how they got the NRR earlier from NZ/Ireland - +/- 3? should be more than 4?! I think England did well to get such a good NRR out of all that!
England batted poorly,period.Wishful thinking about scores they ought to have got won't help anybody's gieving.Its possible the Saffers would have been more attacking afterall if they had to go after plenty.The likes of Morkel may have come sooner,for example.infact they took their time and allowed us some entertainment.
+/- 0.67 is the right nrr. Sky Sports wrong - not for the first time.Strange thing is why SA didn't try and get there in,say, 15 overs to make sure of getting a superior nrr if 3 teams end on 4 points. That's how they lost out in 2007.
posted Jun 12, 2009
sa dont worry about net rr because they back themselves to be good enough to beat anyone they play. Worrying about net rr is a negative trail of thought
I dunno... we're saying "the defeat is not so bad, our run-rate isn't abysmal, so we can still go through" which is positiveWell... at least I'm saying that =P
Just be ironic if nrr came back to haunt SA as in 2007. They thought they were good enough to beat anyone then and fell well short against India. Could happen again! (It was SA,Eng,India and NZ in the group last time).
average rating:3.57 from 7 votes
Find the latest England cricket news on the BBC Sport website