South Africa in England 2012 July 24, 2012

We will discuss failings - Bell

  shares 41

England have had an "honest" discussion about their failings during the first Test against South Africa, but Ian Bell insists the team can still lay claim to the No.1 Test ranking despite the innings margin of defeat and the fact they managed to take just two wickets at The Oval.

In the moments after the match finished on Monday Andrew Strauss said each player would be told to take a look at themselves after England suffered one of their most comprehensive losses of all time. That process began in The Oval changing rooms as South Africa headed back to their team hotel to celebrate a famous victory.

"We've had a chat. That's the one great thing about this team is we talk and there will be honesty," Bell said. "We're not going to say we were outplayed - we're going to discuss why. Andy Flower will want everyone to scratch their minds and work out how they can improve. That's why he is such a great coach."

The result meant England have now lost five of their nine Tests in 2012, starting with the whitewash against Pakistan in UAE before losing the opening Test against Sri Lanka in Galle. As is the case now, their No.1 ranking was on the line but they responded with an impressive victory in Colombo. The series win against West Indies was workmanlike rather than emphatic and this most recent outing has brought them crashing back down to earth.

A series win for South Africa will see them move to No.1, although a drawn series would allow England to cling to their ranking a little longer. "You don't just look at the last nine Test matches, you look over the last two or three years," Bell said. "That's why we're ranked No.1. The points are monitored over a long period of time. It's been a consistent effort over a long period but there's no doubt when you see how South Africa played we're going to have a real scrap on our hands."

"I wouldn't say that is a concern," he added about the Test side's inconsistent year. "But it proves to us that no matter where you are ranked you have to keep performing, training hard and doing the right things. Opposing teams see us a bit differently now. Maybe they turn up desperately wanting to beat us because we are ranked No.1 and we have to react to that. In a way, this match has forced our hand. In the next two Tests, we have to go out and fight for every single run and wicket and try to hold on to No.1."

There are a number of areas where England were exposed during the opening Test. The most notable from the scorecard was that South Africa compiled an astonishing 637 for 2 in 189 overs which finished with the partnership between Hashim Amla and Jacques Kallis unbroken on 377. It was a sobering experience for the England attack, which has remained a consistent part of their game even while the batting has faltered during the year.

"Our attack has been so good for so long and, even on flat wickets in the sub-continent, they normally excel and take 20 wickets," Bell said. "But for some reason it didn't quite work in this game. Maybe that is credit to South Africa who really made it count when they got in. That's again something we've normally done."

As Bell hinted, England's batsmen did not come close to matching the South Africans' longevity at the crease, even with Alastair Cook scoring an opening-day hundred. In both innings they carelessly lost wickets shortly before the second new ball was taken while the sweep shot came back to cost them dear as they tried to save the match.

"The ball did a bit on that second morning but we can't use that as an excuse," Bell said. "We should have been good enough to get through that period. Despite losing four wickets on the fourth evening, we still believed we could save it. Myself and Matt Prior were very positive at lunch, we've done it before and believed we could get to tea. The new ball would go soft again after that, but Dale Steyn led their attack brilliantly and showed why he is No.1 in the world. He put in a spell when it really mattered."

Andrew McGlashan is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY Hammond on | July 27, 2012, 14:09 GMT

    @Meety- have a schooner of 50/50 and a maggot bag with us one day mate. I don't have to wish that I am an Aussie my family has been here since 1788. I don't honestly care how cricinfo has just painted Englands defeat, in 100 years from now 7/903 declared playing 201 & 123 all out will remain in the record books the biggest test win of all time, and Australia the biggest loser of a test match (of all time).

  • POSTED BY Meety on | July 27, 2012, 13:13 GMT

    @OzzyHammond - I know you really WISH you were an Ozzy, but the fact is, as per the article on this site (linked to the 1 test scorecard with a title like Comprehensive victory) - the diffential on average runs per wicket has NEVER been bettered. That also includes Bangladesh games. @R_U_4_REAL_NICK - if 5wombats is correct, Strauss will be putting his hand up & saying "Doh - Imeant to say we'll bowl!"

  • POSTED BY raj_24 on | July 27, 2012, 9:11 GMT

    @Sivakumar

    Ref : Eng cannot take 20 wickets etc.

    Do some research or check the facts before posting

    He said Eng can take 20 wkts even on sub continental type wickets

    True. In UAE every time ENGLAND BOWLED Out the Pakis sometimes as low as 97 to max of 330.It was batting which was horrible.

    second SL series in SL in March again Eng bowled out SL in all four inn, and draw the series 1-1

    In all 5 games James Anderson Broad (played 4) Swann and Panesar bowled beautifully.

    Go check those records

  • POSTED BY on | July 27, 2012, 1:53 GMT

    "Our attack has been so good for so long and, even on flat wickets in the sub-continent, they normally excel and take 20 wickets," Bell said.

    what a joke! I reckon he has forgotten what happened in UAE against Pakistan last year. English are good at talking... SA gonna win the serious for sure with a big margin....

  • POSTED BY StatisticsRocks on | July 26, 2012, 15:39 GMT

    "Regression Towards the Mean". Every team eventually regressess as law of averages catches up with them. Eng are no different as they were having phenomomenal success for the last 2 or more years at home, it was bound to happen. IMO Eng did not fail but SA were so much better. @Siddarth: very well said, totally agree with you. Comment as a fan of the game and not post rubbish just for the sake of it. @5wombats: I am sure I have seen your posts or should I say negative posts on Indian threads as well. I can bet you that most negative posts are agnst us Indians including from many english fans and off course from our neighbors. By no means I am trying to justify the rubbish comments posted here by my fellow Indians here but just saying we forget that we all live in a glass house and yet derive pleasure in ridiculing others. Unfortunate reality of the 21st century.

    back to test cricket, cant wait for the start of the second test match.

  • POSTED BY R_U_4_REAL_NICK on | July 26, 2012, 15:20 GMT

    "We just got thrashed, but we will all sit around together with a nice cup of camomile tea and move on from there..." Boy, I'd love to listen in on THAT meeting...

  • POSTED BY pat_one_back on | July 26, 2012, 14:58 GMT

    @Hammond, not just a batsmen's game there's that other rule that you need twenty wickets to win a test as you're surely aware, has a test ever been one without losing a stick statisticians out there? That's as close too as I've ever seen.

  • POSTED BY thruthecovers on | July 26, 2012, 14:44 GMT

    I still maintain the difference between the sides is the stat of converting 50's into 100's. I think SA sits on 45% and ENG 31%. To me this was ENG's biggest 'failure'. All of them, even Cook because he could've scored a big one (and he usualy does) played to type. Granted SA went rediculously overboard but no doubt further improved on that stat whereas ENG conformed almost exactly to what history says their conversion rate is. I don't know if they can correct that in this series as I'll presume it would take a longterm solution because of it being a 'longterm' problem. Meaning if ENG were to come back in this series, it's the bowlers who will have to do it by restricting the SA batsmen under 50. They will not score enough runs ontherwise

  • POSTED BY i.love.ice.creams on | July 26, 2012, 13:38 GMT

    "We will discuss failings" = Because that's all you can do!!

  • POSTED BY Hammond on | July 26, 2012, 13:23 GMT

    @Meety- hey mate still inquiring after my nationality? And sorry buddy the records clearly all state that biggest win in the history of the game was by England versus Australia. By an innings and 579 runs. Ergo the biggest defeat in the history of the game was the loser of that match. There isn't really any other way to paint it. The team that wins is the team that makes the most runs, not the team that loses the fewest wickets. It's that simple.

  • POSTED BY Hammond on | July 27, 2012, 14:09 GMT

    @Meety- have a schooner of 50/50 and a maggot bag with us one day mate. I don't have to wish that I am an Aussie my family has been here since 1788. I don't honestly care how cricinfo has just painted Englands defeat, in 100 years from now 7/903 declared playing 201 & 123 all out will remain in the record books the biggest test win of all time, and Australia the biggest loser of a test match (of all time).

  • POSTED BY Meety on | July 27, 2012, 13:13 GMT

    @OzzyHammond - I know you really WISH you were an Ozzy, but the fact is, as per the article on this site (linked to the 1 test scorecard with a title like Comprehensive victory) - the diffential on average runs per wicket has NEVER been bettered. That also includes Bangladesh games. @R_U_4_REAL_NICK - if 5wombats is correct, Strauss will be putting his hand up & saying "Doh - Imeant to say we'll bowl!"

  • POSTED BY raj_24 on | July 27, 2012, 9:11 GMT

    @Sivakumar

    Ref : Eng cannot take 20 wickets etc.

    Do some research or check the facts before posting

    He said Eng can take 20 wkts even on sub continental type wickets

    True. In UAE every time ENGLAND BOWLED Out the Pakis sometimes as low as 97 to max of 330.It was batting which was horrible.

    second SL series in SL in March again Eng bowled out SL in all four inn, and draw the series 1-1

    In all 5 games James Anderson Broad (played 4) Swann and Panesar bowled beautifully.

    Go check those records

  • POSTED BY on | July 27, 2012, 1:53 GMT

    "Our attack has been so good for so long and, even on flat wickets in the sub-continent, they normally excel and take 20 wickets," Bell said.

    what a joke! I reckon he has forgotten what happened in UAE against Pakistan last year. English are good at talking... SA gonna win the serious for sure with a big margin....

  • POSTED BY StatisticsRocks on | July 26, 2012, 15:39 GMT

    "Regression Towards the Mean". Every team eventually regressess as law of averages catches up with them. Eng are no different as they were having phenomomenal success for the last 2 or more years at home, it was bound to happen. IMO Eng did not fail but SA were so much better. @Siddarth: very well said, totally agree with you. Comment as a fan of the game and not post rubbish just for the sake of it. @5wombats: I am sure I have seen your posts or should I say negative posts on Indian threads as well. I can bet you that most negative posts are agnst us Indians including from many english fans and off course from our neighbors. By no means I am trying to justify the rubbish comments posted here by my fellow Indians here but just saying we forget that we all live in a glass house and yet derive pleasure in ridiculing others. Unfortunate reality of the 21st century.

    back to test cricket, cant wait for the start of the second test match.

  • POSTED BY R_U_4_REAL_NICK on | July 26, 2012, 15:20 GMT

    "We just got thrashed, but we will all sit around together with a nice cup of camomile tea and move on from there..." Boy, I'd love to listen in on THAT meeting...

  • POSTED BY pat_one_back on | July 26, 2012, 14:58 GMT

    @Hammond, not just a batsmen's game there's that other rule that you need twenty wickets to win a test as you're surely aware, has a test ever been one without losing a stick statisticians out there? That's as close too as I've ever seen.

  • POSTED BY thruthecovers on | July 26, 2012, 14:44 GMT

    I still maintain the difference between the sides is the stat of converting 50's into 100's. I think SA sits on 45% and ENG 31%. To me this was ENG's biggest 'failure'. All of them, even Cook because he could've scored a big one (and he usualy does) played to type. Granted SA went rediculously overboard but no doubt further improved on that stat whereas ENG conformed almost exactly to what history says their conversion rate is. I don't know if they can correct that in this series as I'll presume it would take a longterm solution because of it being a 'longterm' problem. Meaning if ENG were to come back in this series, it's the bowlers who will have to do it by restricting the SA batsmen under 50. They will not score enough runs ontherwise

  • POSTED BY i.love.ice.creams on | July 26, 2012, 13:38 GMT

    "We will discuss failings" = Because that's all you can do!!

  • POSTED BY Hammond on | July 26, 2012, 13:23 GMT

    @Meety- hey mate still inquiring after my nationality? And sorry buddy the records clearly all state that biggest win in the history of the game was by England versus Australia. By an innings and 579 runs. Ergo the biggest defeat in the history of the game was the loser of that match. There isn't really any other way to paint it. The team that wins is the team that makes the most runs, not the team that loses the fewest wickets. It's that simple.

  • POSTED BY Meety on | July 26, 2012, 11:56 GMT

    @Hammond- it is statistically the biggest defeat in the history of the game - not by margin. As per the article attached to the scorecard, this is only the 5th time in history - a side has been beaten by an innings while the victor only lost 2 wickets. If it were a timeless test - the very real probability is, that Kallis & Amla would still be batting!

  • POSTED BY Hammond on | July 26, 2012, 11:21 GMT

    @Chris_P no-one won that series mate. It was drawn.

  • POSTED BY pat_one_back on | July 26, 2012, 10:55 GMT

    Thump... Welcome back to reality English cricket, you couldn't be told could you... Well now you've been shown, weakest team to ever hold a theoretical rear vision No1 ranking.

  • POSTED BY satish619chandar on | July 26, 2012, 10:51 GMT

    @Preeteshd : Beware of big words mate.. If England comes to India and wins, you will have no place to hide.. Let us enjoy the game.. As simple as that..

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | July 26, 2012, 7:36 GMT

    Now guys, a good old thrashing is a thrashing any way you look at it. Your figures are correct Hammond, but which side won that particular series? I would suggest a cautiously optimistic approach to predictions, for I have clear memories of the '89 series where a similarly comprehensive defeat by the "worst Australian team to have toured England" resulted in wild predictions of 4-1 or 5-1reversal to England. We all recall only the rain saved the result being 6-0, instead of 5-0. If this was England's first defeat, perhaps a shrug of the shoulders saying "it happens in cricket", perhaps even twice, but come on guys, this is the 5th defeat in 9 tests this year. Something is amiss and needs to be corrected, big time! Let the real cricket roll on, I do enjoy watching tests.

  • POSTED BY jmcilhinney on | July 26, 2012, 6:09 GMT

    I have no doubt that England can perform better than they did is game 1 and I expect that they will do so in game 2. That said, whether that improvement, should it materialise, will be enough to force a win is another matter. Even if they manage that though, it doesn't mean that the first game didn't happen. I, for one, have never claimed that this England team is great so I do expect them to lose games along the way, but I do believe that they are good enough to beat any team and stay at or near the top of the rankings. There are still plenty of things to work on but there's no indication from the team that they are not working on them and trying to improve all the time. Even if they do come back to draw or win the series here though, their lacklustre performance at the Oval doesn't bode all that well for the upcoming series in India, where I have lost a little confidence in their ability to be genuinely competitive.

  • POSTED BY Hammond on | July 26, 2012, 2:18 GMT

    @Harry_Kool- they must have revised something in the rules mate, I thought the team that scored the most runs won a test match. Ergo Australia losing by an innings and 500 odd runs would be a much bigger defeat than the one England just endured. But the rules must have changed.

  • POSTED BY 5wombats on | July 25, 2012, 21:42 GMT

    @pheonixsteve. Hey mate! Long time no chat! Totally agree about irrelevance of #1 ranking. Who needs it? I will watch and support my team wherever and whatever win or lose. If England win - great, if England lose its because the better team beat them. Simples! Tricky this. Bresnan has not done much wrong. They would bring in Finn only if they thought he could get a run in the team. Question is; is Broads performance/ fitness bad enough to get him dropped? He was MoS v India remember and was pretty decent over the winter tours. I don't think England did that much wrong in 1st Test - they just got beat by the better side. Strauss didn't help by electing to bat in bowlers weather and bowl in batsmens weather. I thought Finn should have played at Oval. Now I think Finn for Broad. Something tells me they will go unchanged though.

  • POSTED BY Harry_Kool on | July 25, 2012, 20:43 GMT

    @Hammond. Better revise that, lad. Runs per wicket has England losing this by the BIGGEST thrashing in test history. You want stats? Sth Africa 318.5/wicket, England 31.25/wicket, a difference of 287.25 PER WICKET!! Now if that isn't comprehensive, not too sure what is.

  • POSTED BY 5wombats on | July 25, 2012, 18:56 GMT

    @Uppercut07 - well in that case yours is a very odd post. Why prey tell would a Sri Lankan fan have any cause to say that England were "overrated"? Just getting pretty tired of constantly being on the receiving end of garbage posts from indians. You got caught in some collateral damage - so please accept my apologies. I actually love Sri Lanka and the way they play their cricket - I have said so many times on cricinfo forums. @Siddarth_VS - brilliant post and a breath of fresh air; THANK YOU!

  • POSTED BY phoenixsteve on | July 25, 2012, 17:51 GMT

    I have said repeatedly that the number one ranking is meaningless? Just forget about it and play the best you can & if you're beaten by a better team .... well that's cricket! The title is for bragging rights alone and the true cricket fan does not need to be told that any team is "Number 1". Besides this, it changes so quickly - almost by the day? After the 1st day at the Oval England looked like the top team. Not so from lunchtime on Friday though! It was a very poor performance especially by the batsmen who have been getting away with substandard displays for a couple of years - only to be bailed out by the bowling. England became complacent & thought they could field a weakened bowling attack & still win? Against true classy opposition (with several of the worlds top ranked players) England can't afford the likes of Bresnan & maybe Broad & Pietersen are out of their depth at this level? Some changes are needed and Finn should come in and maybe some new young talent given a try?

  • POSTED BY subbass on | July 25, 2012, 14:50 GMT

    Siddarth_VS - well said mate. It is silly to have all the childish trash talking, but at the end of the day many people are desperate for England to lose this series and the funny thing is they are not even SA fans !! Anyway there is a fair chance England can bounce back in the next Test, you do not become a poor team after one bad game where the opposition played very well..And if England can win the next Test they will take all the momentum into the final game.

    But fair play to SA they were superb.

  • POSTED BY Uppercut07 on | July 25, 2012, 13:42 GMT

    @5wombats, looks like u got fired up!!!!. Well how abt England 5-1 vs(Pakistan & SL). Btw I'm from SRI LANKA, so u shud say, 1-0, due to one bad session for SL in cardiff,. If we refer to Indians as 'Flat Track Bullies' (fair enough),, then shudnt we label the English as the 'Green Track Bullies'???????????? since u only ve won in Australia, England ans SA??

  • POSTED BY Essex_Express on | July 25, 2012, 12:38 GMT

    RandyOZ - If Bell is a bunny with a test average of 47, he must be the best bunny in the world!!

  • POSTED BY unregisteredalien on | July 25, 2012, 12:35 GMT

    @Highflyer_GP, my point exactly.

  • POSTED BY MrMankad on | July 25, 2012, 11:58 GMT

    @davidc1984 - Yes they might do better; who can tell the future. But there was nothing in the recent 4 consecutive losses in the UAE/SriLanka that makes me support this conclusion. If only the English press removed its rose-tinted glasses, they'd see that this English side is not a great side. Good? Sometimes. Great? You're crazy.

  • POSTED BY Hammond on | July 25, 2012, 11:48 GMT

    @randyoz- if a test match batting average of 47 means you are a failure then I would love to be a loser like Ian bell. Seriously mate why do you fling this stuff?

  • POSTED BY Hammond on | July 25, 2012, 11:44 GMT

    @disco_bob sorry mate you don't know your cricket. England once beat Australia by an innings and 579 runs, with a first innings English total of 7/903. England will bounce back from this big ko. Just watch the next two rounds.

  • POSTED BY Meety on | July 25, 2012, 11:42 GMT

    It's funny, Bell mentions #1 4 times & the article total #1 mentions total 7. A Quack would have something to say about that!!

  • POSTED BY Siddarth_VS on | July 25, 2012, 11:18 GMT

    I really dont understand this trash talk by my fellow indians here or in any english threads. The fact is england came to the No 1 rank by the same way India had come to that position. And then we disastrously gave it up by getting thrashed by both england and australia. So for now we have to accept the fact that england is still no 1 as per the rankings! What we can do is argue when england claims to be a great team , which i think is yet to be proven.

  • POSTED BY davidc1984 on | July 25, 2012, 10:45 GMT

    Preeteshd - It seems unlikely that England will do as badly this winter as India did in England last year.

  • POSTED BY RandyOZ on | July 25, 2012, 10:34 GMT

    Well Bell knows alot about failing, so he is an expert on the topic. He's been failing ever since Warney showed him up as a bunny back in 2005

  • POSTED BY Highflyer_GP on | July 25, 2012, 10:15 GMT

    Teams who constantly mention the #1 ranking are not cut out for it. If you play like a #1 team, everyone will know it without having to look at the ranking, even though the ranking will reflect it. In this match, SA played like a #1 team, yet the English team are the ones who keep harping on about the rankings.

  • POSTED BY 5wombats on | July 25, 2012, 10:12 GMT

    @Preeteshd. Since arriving in England in 2011 india only keep discussing failures. For india GOOD TIMES ARE OVER!!! Your words, not ours. @Uppercut07 England "OVERRATED", eh? 4-0 whitewash in England, 4-0 whitewash in Tests in Australia. Now, @Uppercut07 - what were you saying about overrated? What is your problem -? Memory loss? You guys shovel it out - we will shovel it back. No good crying foul. When you come here posting trash gloating comments on England threads - we reserve the right to defend ourselves. BTW - Do you know what vultures are? They are creatures that evolved from reptiles.

  • POSTED BY on | July 25, 2012, 9:24 GMT

    How many times have South Africa whitewashed a team? They didn't do it against AUS, SL or NZ, they only won 4 out of 8 with two losses and two draws. Maybe in the next two tests SA would come crashing back down to Earth.

  • POSTED BY Preeteshd on | July 25, 2012, 6:25 GMT

    I think from now on, England would be only keep discussing failures. They will come to subcontinent and again fail badly. GOOD TIMES ARE OVER!!!

  • POSTED BY Uppercut07 on | July 25, 2012, 5:35 GMT

    the The first step of the discussion shud be the admittance dat England cricketers are OVERRATED(from their premier spinner to toprder). Second step wud b their coaching staff(david saker) needs to stop comparing the 'decent' England bowling attack(Anderson & Swann) to once 'great' bowling attack of Australia(McGrath & Warne). That will be a start……….

  • POSTED BY unregisteredalien on | July 25, 2012, 0:17 GMT

    Gee, England really do talk a lot about being "number 1". I seem to recall the great Aussie team of the 90s-00s obsessed over winning, and the ranking was a seldom-mentioned side-effect of simply being the best. Granted, the ranking system was introduced partway through their reign, but I wonder if there is something in this. Gary Kirsten seems wholly focused on "the process" for SA and that seems a far more sensible way to approach it.

  • POSTED BY disco_bob on | July 24, 2012, 23:58 GMT

    "...England suffered one of their most comprehensive losses of all time." Correction: ...one of THE most..., further Correction: remove 'one of'.

  • POSTED BY 2.14istherunrate on | July 24, 2012, 23:21 GMT

    Well put, mate. You do not become a rubbish side overnight, and quite frankly Amla miight as well have been Bradman, the way he played. Good to know that you are interested in that No 1 spot because we are. Well played in 2nd knock. I think we'll be a lot better at headingley.

  • POSTED BY SurlyCynic on | July 24, 2012, 23:19 GMT

    I noticed Flower refused to speak to the media and went on holiday, and most of the players avoided it too, but they sent the Sherminator to front up. At least he had the cojones to and also batted ok in 2nd innings.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY SurlyCynic on | July 24, 2012, 23:19 GMT

    I noticed Flower refused to speak to the media and went on holiday, and most of the players avoided it too, but they sent the Sherminator to front up. At least he had the cojones to and also batted ok in 2nd innings.

  • POSTED BY 2.14istherunrate on | July 24, 2012, 23:21 GMT

    Well put, mate. You do not become a rubbish side overnight, and quite frankly Amla miight as well have been Bradman, the way he played. Good to know that you are interested in that No 1 spot because we are. Well played in 2nd knock. I think we'll be a lot better at headingley.

  • POSTED BY disco_bob on | July 24, 2012, 23:58 GMT

    "...England suffered one of their most comprehensive losses of all time." Correction: ...one of THE most..., further Correction: remove 'one of'.

  • POSTED BY unregisteredalien on | July 25, 2012, 0:17 GMT

    Gee, England really do talk a lot about being "number 1". I seem to recall the great Aussie team of the 90s-00s obsessed over winning, and the ranking was a seldom-mentioned side-effect of simply being the best. Granted, the ranking system was introduced partway through their reign, but I wonder if there is something in this. Gary Kirsten seems wholly focused on "the process" for SA and that seems a far more sensible way to approach it.

  • POSTED BY Uppercut07 on | July 25, 2012, 5:35 GMT

    the The first step of the discussion shud be the admittance dat England cricketers are OVERRATED(from their premier spinner to toprder). Second step wud b their coaching staff(david saker) needs to stop comparing the 'decent' England bowling attack(Anderson & Swann) to once 'great' bowling attack of Australia(McGrath & Warne). That will be a start……….

  • POSTED BY Preeteshd on | July 25, 2012, 6:25 GMT

    I think from now on, England would be only keep discussing failures. They will come to subcontinent and again fail badly. GOOD TIMES ARE OVER!!!

  • POSTED BY on | July 25, 2012, 9:24 GMT

    How many times have South Africa whitewashed a team? They didn't do it against AUS, SL or NZ, they only won 4 out of 8 with two losses and two draws. Maybe in the next two tests SA would come crashing back down to Earth.

  • POSTED BY 5wombats on | July 25, 2012, 10:12 GMT

    @Preeteshd. Since arriving in England in 2011 india only keep discussing failures. For india GOOD TIMES ARE OVER!!! Your words, not ours. @Uppercut07 England "OVERRATED", eh? 4-0 whitewash in England, 4-0 whitewash in Tests in Australia. Now, @Uppercut07 - what were you saying about overrated? What is your problem -? Memory loss? You guys shovel it out - we will shovel it back. No good crying foul. When you come here posting trash gloating comments on England threads - we reserve the right to defend ourselves. BTW - Do you know what vultures are? They are creatures that evolved from reptiles.

  • POSTED BY Highflyer_GP on | July 25, 2012, 10:15 GMT

    Teams who constantly mention the #1 ranking are not cut out for it. If you play like a #1 team, everyone will know it without having to look at the ranking, even though the ranking will reflect it. In this match, SA played like a #1 team, yet the English team are the ones who keep harping on about the rankings.

  • POSTED BY RandyOZ on | July 25, 2012, 10:34 GMT

    Well Bell knows alot about failing, so he is an expert on the topic. He's been failing ever since Warney showed him up as a bunny back in 2005