England ended the first day on 309 for 3 in the First Test at Lords, with Pietersen unbeaten on 104, Bell unbeaten on 75, Cook got 60, Strauss 44, and Vaughan an undistinguished 2.

Its a good job Vaughan is the captain because on current form he is not worth his place in the side as a batsman, but well done KP

The curse of the captain again. That little blip aside, that was a great performance from England.

I dont think we can heap too much criticism onto Vaughan after his dismissal, he's always had problems with balls of that length that swing, I'd put it down to a good ball more than anything.

Who do we think they'll drop for Flintoff, if ready, for the second test? I'd like to say a bowler as I dont feel that he can bat above 7 but its a difficult decision to make.

I dont think we can heap too much criticism onto Vaughan after his dismissal, he's always had problems with balls of that length that swing, I'd put it down to a good ball more than anything.


It didn't stop Boycott from criticising him for not moving his feet.

That was a really good days play, they need to push on and get at least 450. It seems like ages since we got over 400 in a first innings

England now 404 for 4. Pietersen out for 152, Bell 111 no.

Who's idea was it to let Mark Poogash commentate. I swear BBC radio commentary is getting as bad Talk Sport

England now 535 for 6 with Bell 171 no and Broad 54 no.

I note that despite our (seeming) utter dominance in this first innings, we STILL score at a miserably slow rate, not even four runs an over.

3.8 an over at the moment isn't bad and they are scoring around 100 runs a session. I'm happy with that for a test match against most teams but against SA it's pretty good.

How many sides generally score at 4 an over in Tests? They've scored at a perfectly good rate really, Heyesey. Shame about Bell in the end though, but it's still a strong position.

I'd like to see Monty bowling, as soon as the ball is right for him, from the Nursery End to the right-handers, especially as they only have three left hand batsmen in the team; Smith, Prince, and Morkel.

Smith gone. 13 for 1

Good start with the ball for England, but Prince and De Villiers are doing well for SA. Hopefully England will get one of them out before tea.

My money's on a draw. (Or it would have been if I'd betted on that an hour ago when the price was better.)

197 for 7 with two and a bit days left. I think England can win this. There is a new ball due in a few overs and Monty is turning out it of the rough and picking up wickets.

turned out to be a nice toss to lose...

Follow on enforced, and at the close England still lead by 333. Again, as soon as the ball is right I'd like to see Monty on. It was swinging a lot early on though today.

Nice to be in such a strong position.

Follow on enforced, and at the close England still lead by 333. Again, as soon as the ball is right I'd like to see Monty on. It was swinging a lot early on though today.

Nice to be in such a strong position.
as long as we don't get two solid days of rain.

as long as we don't get two solid days of rain.

Which would be about right ......

Worse case is that Smith & Kallis bat all day today & leave us to get 110-140 in 2 sessions tomorrow...

Its a bit harder for England this time round. South Africa 167-0.

The commenters on TMS seen to be enjoying themselves. I think somebody has slipped them hash cake again

Well that was a long day in the field.

So it all ends in a draw with South Africa on 393 for 3.

How many draws on the trot is that at Lords

Six or seven I think, now. This one I'll simply call payback for Stewart & Atherton/Russell, but even though I wanted Monty to be bowling, with hindsight, maybe he was overbowled.

That said, there were some very costly fielding errors too, but let's face it, the Proteas aren't exactly Bangladesh, are they?

At least there should be a positive result one way or another at Weeds.

Predictions for the Second Test? Not seen the final eleven, but as this will be a result pitch, and probably quite quick, no Monty?

Predictions for the Second Test? Not seen the final eleven, but as this will be a result pitch, and probably quite quick, no Monty?

Can't see that, knowing England they will still be reminiscing over the Ashes side so bring back Freddie for Broad or something stupid. Hopefully he's in for Collingwood who's been on pretty poor form.

I wouldn't have Flintoff as one of four bowlers, so if Sidebottom is injured then Tremlett should be in the side as well.

Though I think England will win if the weather holds, they will be able to utilise the swing more with Anderson. The Saffers don't look too competent playing against the swinging ball.

Darren Pattinson, who? Should have brought Simon Jones back

Not going too well. 125 for 5

It certainly isn't going well at 181 for 8, unless you're a South African. And Vaughan flopped again, this time bagging a duck.

Darren Pattinson, who is he, seriously.
This is his 12th first class game

Darren Pattinson, who is he, seriously.
This is his 12th first class game

He's an English born Aussie. I wondered as well about Jones, as he's been bowling well enough for Worcestershire, but maybe 'the powers that be' have decided that he's just not ready enough.

If so, then why is he in the Champions Trophy squad of 30?

Anyway, we can only watch what's put in front of us, and an entertaining day's play, if not the best so far for England. I think both referral decisions were right as well. Strauss was definitely dropped in the slips, and (even though I thought Amla wasn't out anyway) the replay wasn't conclusive about Vaughan's catch, so the benefit (at least) has to be given to the batsman.

No females around tomorrow for most of the day, so I'll actually be able to get away with going to the pub to watch it ......

He's an English born Aussie. I wondered as well about Jones, as he's been bowling well enough for Worcestershire, but maybe 'the powers that be' have decided that he's just not ready enough.

If so, then why is he in the Champions Trophy squad of 30?

Anyway, we can only watch what's put in front of us, and an entertaining day's play, if not the best so far for England. I think both referral decisions were right as well. Strauss was definitely dropped in the slips, and (even though I thought Amla wasn't out anyway) the replay wasn't conclusive about Vaughan's catch, so the benefit (at least) has to be given to the batsman.

No females around tomorrow for most of the day, so I'll actually be able to get away with going to the pub to watch it ......
And how did your viewing go on down at the pub? Still, it seems like our bowlers bowled like a bunch of girls.

South Africa all out for 522, England 50 for 2 at close, still 269 behind.

And how did your viewing go on down at the pub? Still, it seems like our bowlers bowled like a bunch of girls.

It didn't in the end, due to a number of factors, including a sore head, a complete lack of organisation, and a still relatively full fridge.

This is going to be tough to save now, especially two down. Bit of a nothing waft for Vaughan's wicket too. a really strong morning session is vital now (yes, I have a degree in stating the bleeding obvious), but I can honestly see this being an innings defeat.

England now 152 for 6 in their second innings. Cook out for 60, Pietersen out for 13, Bell out for 4.

It seems the only batsmen who come out with credit are Cook, and Anderson for his 34.

:rant::rant:

TMS have been at the doobies again. Blowers seems to be convinced that Botham is at the crease ..... Flintoff and Ambrose have been uber-grinding before tea, but with the new ball about to be taken, there could be trouble ahead ......

To be fair, De Villiers is meant to have taken an amazing catch to get rid of Bell, but all in all, it's not been good.

A fourth-innings target of nine runs may be a new all-time low in Test cricket .. does anyone know?

I remember a few years back setting the Afrikaners about 12 to win, which they knocked off in less than one over - very probably the highest run-rate ever recorded in a Test innings :hihi:

A fourth-innings target of nine runs may be a new all-time low in Test cricket .. does anyone know?

I remember a few years back setting the Afrikaners about 12 to win, which they knocked off in less than one over - very probably the highest run-rate ever recorded in a Test innings :hihi:
I do recall England setting Pakistan a massive target of two runs in the fourth innings back in the late 1980s.

I do recall England setting Pakistan a massive target of two runs in the fourth innings back in the late 1980s.

Oh, cool ... who did we send on to bowl? The wicket-keeper?

It amazes me that when you're defending something utterly stupid - as today - that the fielding team still sets out as if it were actually taking part in a game. What exactly is the point? Did we think there was some hope of bowling them all out for eight? Stick Flintoff behind the stumps, place nine slips and have Cook bowling or someone. It's not like it will make any difference, and we might raise a giggle out of someone.

I do recall England setting Pakistan a massive target of two runs in the fourth innings back in the late 1980s.

Early 90's actually, but I'm just nitpicking.

The first ball was a wide, and the first legitimate ball was struck for four.

Here (http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1193) is the scorecard.

Oh, cool ... who did we send on to bowl? The wicket-keeper?

It amazes me that when you're defending something utterly stupid - as today - that the fielding team still sets out as if it were actually taking part in a game. What exactly is the point? Did we think there was some hope of bowling them all out for eight? Stick Flintoff behind the stumps, place nine slips and have Cook bowling or someone. It's not like it will make any difference, and we might raise a giggle out of someone.

Well, obviously it's futile, but from one pedant to another, the players should have a chance to enhance their overall figures. It could even be argued that it would be against the Spirit Of The Game to hold it in such contempt.

Anyway, as for Cook, he's only ever conceded one run in his Test bowling career. The fact that he's only ever bowled one over might have something to do with it.

Here (http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1193) is the scorecard.


I'll take thirty runs per over as a fair claim for the all-time highest Test run-rate...

I'll take thirty runs per over as a fair claim for the all-time highest Test run-rate...

It certainly has to be up there, doesn't it :hihi:

It didn't in the end, due to a number of factors, including a sore head, a complete lack of organisation, and a still relatively full fridge.

This is going to be tough to save now, especially two down. Bit of a nothing waft for Vaughan's wicket too. a really strong morning session is vital now (yes, I have a degree in stating the bleeding obvious), but I can honestly see this being an innings defeat.
Was the sore head before or after the pub?

Was the sore head before or after the pub?

Take a wild guess :hihi:

England now 173 for 6. Bell out for 50, Cook 76, Strauss 20, Pietersen 4, Collingwood 4, and Vaughan a golden duck :mad::rant:

Well, there was a late wicket for England, but it wasn't the greatest performance when electing to bat. Pietersen was particularly unlucky, as at first glance, I also thought it it was bat then pad, but the replay proved otherwise. Mightily close, however.

I haven't made my mind up about the hit wicket, but I'm inded to say that it really was just one of those things, however the run outs were unforgivable on the first day of a Testr Match.

I can understand Freddie wanting to keep Monty away from strike, but the second run was foolhardy. He knows it too.

(I kept away from the commentary to watch the lowlights in peace, which didn't happen)

So we now have a rain delay with the Saffers on 205 for 4 - a mere 26 runs behind.

Well, I don't know what to make of the day's play. It's still reasonably balanced, but some of the umpiring leaves a lot to be desired. I thought Strauss had Mackenzie caught well, and as for Aleem Dar's decision on 'that' LBW from Freddie, well it was atrocious.

Freddie was quite correct to be livid.

If we can whip the tail away, then a win is still possible, but seeing as the nightwatchman hung around for 90 odd minutes, I'm not convinced.

Still, things look better for England after Collingwoods century and Pietersens near-century have given them a 214-run lead with four wickets left. At 104 for 4 it looked pretty dodgy.

It certainly did look dodgy. Let's hope they can stick around for a while in the morning, because there ain't a lot of batting left now.

Dont Atherton and co annoy you? They have a go at KP for going cheaply, you think he had a low score but no he was on 94, yet Atherton doesnt say anything about Vaughans contnued failings

Dont Atherton and co annoy you? They have a go at KP for going cheaply, you think he had a low score but no he was on 94, yet Atherton doesnt say anything about Vaughans contnued failings

Not convinced you're wrong mate. Pretty disappointing in the end, but the umpiring left a lot to besired, and as for the farce with the sightscreens, well, it's not in the spirit of the game really, is it?

Dont Atherton and co annoy you? They have a go at KP for going cheaply, you think he had a low score but no he was on 94, yet Atherton doesnt say anything about Vaughans contnued failings

Boycott certainly said plenty about Vaughan's continued failings, though.

Early 90's actually, but I'm just nitpicking.

The first ball was a wide, and the first legitimate ball was struck for four.

Here (http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1193) is the scorecard.
Yep, and the usual batting collapses like losing the last seven wickets for 25 runs that we've had to get used to over the years. Hard to believe its 16 years ago.

What might have been had England won the last Test and squared the series? South Africa reduced to 172 for 9 after being 103 for 1 at one stage.

What might have been had England won the last Test and squared the series? South Africa reduced to 172 for 9 after being 103 for 1 at one stage.
Oops. Seems I spoke too soon. South Africa all out for 194, England 10 for 1.

Not a bad day's play, going by the lowlights. Harmy had an interesting first over back ........ ;)

Not a bad day's play, going by the lowlights. Harmy had an interesting first over back ........ ;)

Nice 5th delivery;):o:thumbsup:

What might have been had England won the last Test and squared the series?


South Africa might have been trying properly, for starters. How many times in a row did we get absolutely slaughtered in the Ashes series, and then convince ourselves that we weren't really all that bad because we beat the Aussies in a Test that meant nothing whatsoever?

South Africa might have been trying properly, for starters. How many times in a row did we get absolutely slaughtered in the Ashes series, and then convince ourselves that we weren't really all that bad because we beat the Aussies in a Test that meant nothing whatsoever?

Oh, lighten up Heyesey! We all know there's been a 'last Test' factor for ages, but let's try and look at something positively!

The normal collapse again, but this does seem a more tricky wicket than usual. I'd like to see a deep fielding competition between Ntini and Monty too :D

What's the correct term for being out for nought on your zeroth ball? A Platinum Duck?

Whatever it is, Monty has one. ;)

What's the correct term for being out for nought on your zeroth ball? A Platinum Duck?

Whatever it is, Monty has one. ;)

To be fair, Harmy (who has bowled very well in this Test) was desperate for his first ever first-class 50, and made a poor call. That wasn't Monty's fault. I also have to say that it was probably the angriest I've ever seen Monty leaving a pitch, having been given out ;)

Channel 5 did make a point of increasing the volume though, so we could hear it was Harmy calling.

To be fair, Harmy (who has bowled very well in this Test) was desperate for his first ever first-class 50, and made a poor call. That wasn't Monty's fault..

Oh, definitely not.


Still funny though. :hihi:

Oh, definitely not.

Still funny though. :hihi:

Monty's face was a picture though :hihi:

South Africa bowled out for 318 leaving England a victory target of 197.

Tougher than it seems at first glance.

Tougher than it seems at first glance.
Yep. It only takes a couple of early wickets to make 197 look like a big target.

I'm been here there and everywhere for the last few weeks so I've had to take the TMS option to keep in touch and I've got to say that Jonathon Agnew is one of the best journos in the country and he has been for a long time. You want the soft touch with somebody rabbiting about a new book no problem, you want hard hitting questions and arguments to tie somebody up in knots, he can do that as well. He's a bit like david frost in his heyday.
The biggest and best surprise for me was Shaun Pollock. A complete natural in the commentary box, sharp, incisive and took the **** out of Boycott, What more do you want or need

I'm been here there and everywhere for the last few weeks so I've had to take the TMS option to keep in touch and I've got to say that Jonathon Agnew is one of the best journos in the country and he has been for a long time. You want the soft touch with somebody rabbiting about a new book no problem, you want hard hitting questions and arguments to tie somebody up in knots, he can do that as well. He's a bit like david frost in his heyday.
The biggest and best surprise for me was Shaun Pollock. A complete natural in the commentary box, sharp, incisive and took the **** out of Boycott, What more do you want or need

Welcome back to the commentary box! The few bits I've heard of Pollock's commentary have been entertaining, I must say. I've always thought that Aggers was excellent with the mike, and he's also not afraid to have a pop at people too.