***Official*** South Africa in England

[open365]

I$C$C have no right, AFAIC, to warn anyone for preparing any sort of wicket. They have no control over what is produced - the home team has exclusive right of way there.

According to David Lloyd the England team have and never had any say in what pitch is prepared, though I think we're alone in that regard.

 

[Richard]

The weather's looking awful in the 2nd half of this week, so I don't know how much cricket we'll see at Lord's before Saturday.

The other thing that I've only just noticed is that the 3 test starts on a Wednesday. I don't remember that happening over here previously. afaics it's so that the the final (back-to-back) test can start on a Thursday and not eat up any vital odi time.

We had the Second Test of the NZ series starting on a Friday too.

 

[Richard]

According to David Lloyd the England team have and never had any say in what pitch is prepared, though I think we're alone in that regard.

That may be an oversimplification, but yes, there's a general trend in this country that the groundsman just prepares the sort of wicket the soil allows (it's not easy to manufacture certain types of pitches from certain soils) and the team has to lump it.

There's been more than one occasion during the time I've been watching that wickets have been played on which could not have suited whoever we were playing better.

 

[Uppercut]

That may be an oversimplification, but yes, there's a general trend in this country that the groundsman just prepares the sort of wicket the soil allows (it's not easy to manufacture certain types of pitches from certain soils) and the team has to lump it.

There's been more than one occasion during the time I've been watching that wickets have been played on which could not have suited whoever we were playing better.

Do you think English conditions will suit South Africa or England better?

 

[Richard]

If I knew what they'd be, then I might be able to answer that question.

Sadly, often the only predictable thing about cricket conditions (both pitch and weather) in this country is its unpredictability. Even with Test grounds, many turn-out different types of wickets year after year. The Oval is about the only one I can think of where there's been any real consistency in the last couple of decades.

 

[Uppercut]

If I knew what they'd be, then I might be able to answer that question.

Sadly, often the only predictable thing about cricket conditions (both pitch and weather) in this country is its unpredictability. Even with Test grounds, many turn-out different types of wickets year after year. The Oval is about the only one I can think of where there's been any real consistency in the last couple of decades.

I suppose, i just meant typically, the greater amount of swing available and such. Obviously turning wickets will favour England, very fast ones South Africa. But a lot of swing could go either way (no poor joke intended).

 

[Richard]

Good thing is that swing has nothing to do with the pitch. Steyn, provided the balls are of the expected quality, will be a threat whether the pitch is seaming or if it's not seaming and turning.

However, the likes of Ntini and Morkel do depend much more on the pitch.

As ever, though, the more bounce, the happier all bowlers will be. Obviously for MSP and Harris they'll hope for bounce and turn, and the seamers will hope for bounce and seam.

However, you'd have to say that much as Steyn > each one of the England swing-bowlers, the more swing, the more likely it is to favour England, as they have at least two swing-bowlers available to SA's one.

 

[Uppercut]

Good thing is that swing has nothing to do with the pitch. Steyn, provided the balls are of the expected quality, will be a threat whether the pitch is seaming or if it's not seaming and turning.

However, the likes of Ntini and Morkel do depend much more on the pitch.

As ever, though, the more bounce, the happier all bowlers will be. Obviously for MSP and Harris they'll hope for bounce and turn, and the seamers will hope for bounce and seam.

However, you'd have to say that much as Steyn > each one of the England swing-bowlers, the more swing, the more likely it is to favour England, as they have at least two swing-bowlers available to SA's one.

Indeed, that's why i asked about English conditions, not English pitches.

I'd probably rather have Ntini than Anderson even when the balls swinging. More pace, more accuracy, just enough movement to threaten. Anderson is liable spray the ball all over the show and hence go for runs and wilt under pressure. Really that's just my preference though, i'd rather have a fairly tight bowler who builds pressure on the batsmen than a more threatening but frustratingly inconsistent one.

How about the batsmen, do you think the SA lineup has what it takes to combat good swing bowling? Their performances against Hoggard suggest otherwise...

 

[Richard]

Indeed, that's why i asked about English conditions, not English pitches.

Well conditions are largely irrelevant to swing-bowlers of the highest class - as long as the ball is in the right condition, it'll swing to some length. Obviously, though, the damper the atmosphere, the better. And the way this summer's gone so far (you know anyway) there's really no telling at all. It can change by the week. This is one of the most episodic summers I can remember.

I'd probably rather have Ntini than Anderson even when the balls swinging. More pace, more accuracy, just enough movement to threaten. Anderson is liable spray the ball all over the show and hence go for runs and wilt under pressure. Really that's just my preference though, i'd rather have a fairly tight bowler who builds pressure on the batsmen than a more threatening but frustratingly inconsistent one.

Yeah Ntini > Anderson under most circumstances. I dunno though... Ntini has been poor on non-seaming pitches so many times (isn't always capable of drying-up the runs either - he's gone around the park on not a few occasions, including quite a few in England) that I retain my doubts about him. And occasionally Anderson will be not just better, but many miles better. Only occasionally though.

How about the batsmen, do you think the SA lineup has what it takes to combat good swing bowling? Their performances against Hoggard suggest otherwise...

Most batsmen don't have the capability to combat good swing-bowling, especially these days, that's why it's such a potent weapon. From what I've seen of those likely to play, I'd back Smith to be capable of playing his way around it but not neccessarily doing so, McKenzie as an opener to struggle hugely, Amla to struggle, Kallis to combat it as well as anyone could hope to, Prince to do better than some but maybe not very well at all, de Villiers to struggle and Boucher to do better than some but still no more than a wicketkeeper-batsman's level.

 

[Uppercut]

The problem with Anderson is that the English attack isn't good enough to carry him when he plays poorly. South Africa can bring in Kallis to dry up the runs and provide some threat if one of their three pacemen misfires, England are stuck with only Sidebottom and Broad as far as pace goes.

That's a pretty fair assessment of the South African batting, but i think de Villiers has it in him to do okay against swing. How about England, anyone who stands out as a solid player of swing there?

As an aside, the best i have ever seen anyone combat swing bowling was Shiv Chanderpaul's remarkable run last summer. It's quite amazing how well he reacts to late movement, he showed similar capabilities against reverse swing in the series just past.

 

[Richard]

The problem with Anderson is that the English attack isn't good enough to carry him when he plays poorly. South Africa can bring in Kallis to dry up the runs and provide some threat if one of their three pacemen misfires, England are stuck with only Sidebottom and Broad as far as pace goes.

Yeah absolutely - as I say, only very rarely will Anderson be any real use, and he'll be a liability 6 or 7 times for every successs.

Trouble is that he's sometimes been so good that people hanker too hard after more, when more realistic would be to accept it won't come again for a long time.

That's a pretty fair assessment of the South African batting, but i think de Villiers has it in him to do okay against swing. How about England, anyone who stands out as a solid player of swing there?

Not really, no. All of them are quite capable of doing it but all have really, really struggled in recent times as soon as the ball's done much. A few examples are Mills in the First Test in NZ (second-innings), Vaas in the Third Test in SL (first-innings), and Zaheer Khan and Rudra Pratap Singh in the Second Test against India in 2007 (first-innings).

Strauss can play late and softly - but recently has pushed too hard at the ball.
Cook likewise - but he's played around his front pad and fished outside off lots of late.
Vaughan can have impeccable judgement but too often flashes at balls he should leave, and has always had vulnerability to some extent against the nip-backer.
Pietersen uses a stride better than almost anyone but is sometimes much too hard of hands.
Bell is a brilliant judge sometimes and a shocking one at others.
Collingwood, well, he's always had a big question-mark over his ability against good seam and good really slow spin, but he unquestionably has the tools - low backlift, ability to not be fazed by slow scoring-rate.
Ambrose is really too new to comment much, but he's had massive success in the last 2 seasons when the ball has swung loads, having struggled 2002-2006 when funnily enough it didn't do so much.

 

[NUFAN]

One of the most exciting things about this series is whether AB de Villiers breaks the all time Test record or not.

 

[Prince EWS]

One of the most exciting things about this series is whether AB de Villiers breaks the all time Test record or not.

He will Agarkar-up the series IMO. Six ducks, at least.

(NOTE: I'm stirring NUFAN up here; this is in no way a prediction)

 

[wpdavid]

We had the First Test of the NZ series starting on a Friday too.

The 2nd test did, but that's happened previously for the 2nd of back-to-back tests. The first test started on a Thursday, didn't it?

The Wed start for the 3rd test is a new one to me in this country.

 

[Richard]

That's true, it was the Second.

Either way, you'll forgive me for not being terribly bothered about the start day of a Test TBH. Yeah, it'd be nice if they could all start on Thursday, but I barely even notice if they don't these days.

 

[FBU]

How the bowlers get their wickets

Bowled 07.9% caught 63.2% caught behind 05.3% lbw 07.9% - Harris
Bowled 15.8% caught 43.6% caught behind 08.9% lbw 26.7% - Panesar
Bowled 17.6% caught 47.1% caught behind 17.6% lbw 17.6% - Morkel
Bowled 14.3% caught 50.0% caught behind 28.6% lbw 07.1% - Broad
Bowled 19.5% caught 52.0% caught behind 21.8% lbw 06.7% - Ntini
Bowled 17.1% caught 40.0% caught behind 17.1% lbw 25.7% - Sidebottom
Bowled 22.5% caught 38.3% caught behind 19.2% lbw 20.0% - Steyn
Bowled 32.6% caught 38.2% caught behind 22.5% lbw 07.1% - Anderson

 

[steds]

I notice that list is sorted in order of "highest percentage of bowled, descending".

That wouldn't be because Anderson's percentage is highest there, would it?

How the bowlers get their wickets

Bowled 07.9% caught 63.2% caught behind 05.3% lbw 07.9% - Harris
Bowled 15.8% caught 43.6% caught behind 08.9% lbw 26.7% - Panesar
Bowled 17.6% caught 47.1% caught behind 17.6% lbw 17.6% - Morkel
Bowled 14.3% caught 50.0% caught behind 28.6% lbw 07.1% - Broad
Bowled 19.5% caught 52.0% caught behind 21.8% lbw 06.7% - Ntini
Bowled 17.1% caught 40.0% caught behind 17.1% lbw 25.7% - Sidebottom
Bowled 22.5% caught 38.3% caught behind 19.2% lbw 20.0% - Steyn
Bowled 32.6% caught 38.2% caught behind 22.5% lbw 07.1% - Anderson

Interesting understanding of how numbers descend, Richard.

 

[Richard]

Haha, that'll teach me to look only at the end two values when looking at the sorting of a list.

 

[wpdavid]

That's true, it was the Second.

Either way, you'll forgive me for not being terribly bothered about the start day of a Test TBH. Yeah, it'd be nice if they could all start on Thursday, but I barely even notice if they don't these days.

Sure, it's hardly life & death. But starting on a Wednesday is a minor historial first, I suspect, fwiw.

 

[GIMH]

That's true, it was the Second.

Either way, you'll forgive me for not being terribly bothered about the start day of a Test TBH. Yeah, it'd be nice if they could all start on Thursday, but I barely even notice if they don't these days.

Sure, it's hardly life & death. But starting on a Wednesday is a minor historial first, I suspect, fwiw.

Starting on a Wednesday is dire, it means there is a real chance of just one day's play at the weekend. Games should start on a Thursday, so to maximise the weekend viewing, Friday is acceptable too. Wednesday though, abysmal.