Ami i the only one who thinks Philander played Sensibly?

[Old guy]

You have to say Shami bombarded him with bouncers. India did not give total freebies.

True but there were many balls which could have been played without risk with just better mindset Anyway in the end draw was fair result and should satisfy both teams and also hurt both

[maniac]

Why even go there then ? Anything can happen but point is philander and steyn are good enough to play and get singles and they chose not to Had they played at even 2 rpo target would have been less than 10 which they got I think in last over :winky:

Steyn just came in...Philander was settled,so why would you expose him to Zaheer who is clearly India's best bowler and also has the reputauion? Also Agressive Cricket is not all Juzbaa Junoon...EVen if S.A were 100/2 after playing the entire 5th day to salvage a draw,that is still aggressive in my book

[zep1706]

Sydney Test 2008' date=' 3 wickets in one over.[/quote'] Yeah as if that was because of attacking play. Blocking it out has no less risk than trying to get a few risk free singles especially when the field is wide spread. They just needed to do that. They even refused to take a couple of them. If it was under 10 in the last over they could have gone for it in the last 3-4 balls. Piss poor tactic and wimpy attitude. There is no other way to describe it.

[maniac]

Why are we debating Steyn and Philander's batting ability....This is more to do with them logically being the last wicket...Even if it was AB and Kallis batting with Tahir and Morkel to follow,it would have been the sensible thing to do. Faf and Philander were relaxed because they were confident Steyn was accomplished enough to hold one end.

[Old guy]

Yeah as if that was because of attacking play. Blocking it out has no less rick than trying to get a few risk free singles especially when the field is wide spread. They just needed to do that. They even refused to take a couple of them. If it was under 10 in the last over they could have gone for it in the last 3-4 balls. Piss poor tactic and wimpy attitude. There is no other way to describe it.

Exactly There were so many easy runs to take And you can get out defending too if bowlers bowls that well that u can't even take single :giggle:

[JourneyMan]

I think people are underestmating the pressure a tailender would face in that exact situation. There was a lot to gain but also a lot to lose out there. At 0-0, the test is still open for anyone.

[maniac]

I think people are underestmating the pressure a tailender would face in that exact situation. There was a lot to gain but also a lot to lose out there. At 0-0' date=' the test is still open for anyone.[/quote'] This.....16 runs of 18 balls with 2 wickets in hand is different ball game in a test.....This is not a ODI

[Clarke]

I would have agreed with you since I generally go with the bird in hand rather than 2 in the bush. In this case though, it was the biggest effin bird on the planet, and that's worth the risk.

[maniac]

I would have agreed with you since I generally go with the bird in hand rather than 2 in the bush. In this case though' date=' it was the biggest effin bird on the planet, and that's worth the risk.[/quote'] I Totally get where you are coming from but if it was Aus or Eng attempting that and winning/losing they would have been praised to death about how aggressive they are or Eng media would have jizzed themselves. But onr must remember S.A will be ridiculed further as chokers rather than the brave attempt they made....Might be a lame reason but the Chokers tag has a bigger impact on the average South African player than we think

[vvvslaxman]

Clarke would declare at 304/6 lol don't think others can do.

[maniac]

Clarke would declare at 304/6 lol don't think others can do.

Thats another extreme...His ott agressiveness has come back to bite him in the *** many times...

[zep1706]

I think people who are supporting SA on this are missing one important point which is they didn't have to score 25-30 off 3 overs and they were not 8-9 down. They had to score 16 off 3 overs with 3 wickets in hand. They only needed 6-7 runs in 2 overs and then 9-10 off the last over would have been a realistic target. They could have done it without taking any risk. The fact that they refused to take a few easy singles is simply disgusting. They showed no intent to win that is the real problem.

[Old guy]

I think people who are supporting SA on this are missing one important point which is they didn't have to score 25-30 off 3 overs and they were not 8-9 down. They had to score 16 off 3 overs with 3 wickets in hand. They only needed 6-7 runs in 2 overs and then 9-10 off the last over would have been a realistic target. They could have done it without taking any risk. The fact that they refused to take a few easy singles is simply disgusting. They showed no intent to win that is the real problem.

Exactly And worst part is they did score 10 odd runs in last over so even a little intent by picking 2 runs each over would have done the job

[vvvslaxman]

I think people who are supporting SA on this are missing one important point which is they didn't have to score 25-30 off 3 overs and they were not 8-9 down. They had to score 16 off 3 overs with 3 wickets in hand. They only needed 6-7 runs in 2 overs and then 9-10 off the last over would have been a realistic target. They could have done it without taking any risk. The fact that they refused to take a few easy singles is simply disgusting. They showed no intent to win that is the real problem.

You know how many teams have messed up in such a scenario even in one dayers? Most recently Amla faced 49th over from Ajmal they still could not win the game. When a top order batsman can get into such sitaution imagine a lower order batsman. Mathematics is fine. everyone knows They also know.. run a ball would get them. How do you take run a ball against bouncers without taking chances?

[zep1706]

You know how many teams have messed up in such a scenario even in one dayers? Most recently Amla faced 49th over from Ajmal they still could not win the game. When a top order batsman can get into such sitaution imagine a lower order batsman. Mathematics is fine. everyone knows They also know.. run a ball would get them. How do you take run a ball against bouncers without taking chances?

In one day cricket there is no draw, you have to go for it. But in test cricket they were NOT required to get those 16 runs. Try to get them without taking any risk until the last few balls when you are completely out of danger. Had they tried to do that and failed to get those runs no one would have blamed that. The issue here is the wimpy attitude and not the fact that they drew the match.

[zep1706]

It's similar to India not trying to get those 85 runs against West Indies in 2011.

[vvvslaxman]

In one day cricket there is no draw' date=' you have to go for it. But in test cricket they were NOT required to get those 16 runs. Try to get them without taking any risk until the last few balls when you are completely out of danger. Had they tried to do that and failed to get those runs no one would have blamed that. The issue here is the wimpy attitude and not the fact that they drew the match.[/quote'] Well in Test there is something called loss. SA was effectively 8 down. Even with so many overs and 1 day to go our tailenders folded like pack of cards in 1999 test. If that is wimpy India is even more wimpy for doing the same .

[vvvslaxman]

It's similar to India not trying to get those 85 runs against West Indies in 2011.

So basically we are wimpy as well. Atleast they have chased 414 in perth, saved a test in England, Adelaide now this.

[youngindia]

They have already won chasing 414. No team would risk losing especially SA who often tines used to play for. Draw from first day when they toured india

yes there are people and teams who would risk losing. if SA aspires to higher standards, they should have taken it. sorry that's life. investment especially heavy ones involves calculated risks.heavy returns are the price..the rich tycoons became rich because they took the risk. SA is poorer because they didn't go for higher returns and risk.as simple as that that's how it is in the real world.

n We just don't factor in things like nerves, pressure, fear of losing. Remember how India abandoned chase very early in windies.

nerves and pressure are daily aspects of life...its about how you handle them...fear of losing is loser's quality....I am not sympathetic one bit are you joking ? they are international sportsmen and grown up adults. you are supposed to overcome all obstacles and pressure to reach the finish line. that's a fundamental fact other scenarios you came up with are irrelevant to yesterday's scenario..

[zep1706]

Well in Test there is something called loss. SA was effectively 8 down. Even with so many overs and 1 day to go our tailenders folded like pack of cards in 1999 test. If that is wimpy India is even more wimpy for doing the same .

No they were 7 down. Morkel was ready to bat, he did not need to do any running, he was in ok condition to block a few balls. India were not wimps in 1999, they just lost it. They were wimps against WI in 2011.