***Official*** South Africa in England

[Richard]

You're absolutely right, but i just thought 'limited' was a bit of an unfair criticism of Smith.

I'm not likely to criticise Smith unfairly. He's one of my favourite batsmen of any of my time. His limitations are juuuuuuuuuust fine, if he plays within them, which for a long time he did. The problem comes when he tries to play outside them, play strokes which aren't in his repetoire (basically amounts to near enough any off-drives off anything but out-and-out Half-Volleys, and sometimes even cut-strokes) and that's why he's scored so un-prolifically in the last 2 years.

But it remains the case IMO that the strokes he can play without problems are the clip to leg (off any length), the pull and the dragged straight shot through mid-off. And the leave, most importantly of all. If he sticks to these, I'm completely confident he can once again be scoring double-centuries at will against lesser bowling-attacks.

On Duminy, what's his bowling like? I've heard its a pretty unusual action. If he could get it to the level of someone like Michael Clarke it might enable the selectors to go with the four-man pace attack more often in the future.

Not sure TBH. Think his bowling might have been too good at one point given he was batting below the likes of Boucher, Klusener and Pollock early in his ODI career. Just think he's a better batsmen than most in SA currently.

 

[tooextracool]

It's an interesting question.

Strauss, Cook, Vaughan, Pietersen, Bell, (Collingwood, Ambrose)
has easily as much class, and is far more proven, than
Smith, McKenzie, Amla, Kallis, Prince, de Villiers, Boucher

I'm absolutely certain six of England's top seven have the potential to be good Test batsmen, and Collingwood has certainly been perfectly decent for most of the last 2-and-a-half years.

AFAIC, Strauss is yet unproven, no matter how many runs he scored against NZ.
Cook has been extremely ordinary for a while now, and technically all over shop. Unless Cook sorts out his technique, I dont see him scoring runs against any attack in the world anytime soon. He has almost every technical fault possible at this point (falls over, plays away from his body, pokes at the ball etc)
Vaughan being Vaughan is inconsistent and likely to score 1 100 and a 50 in the whole series as he has done for donkeys years now (wouldn't be taken aback if that happened in the same test tbh)
Bell is yet unproven and IMO undeserving of his place in the test side.
Collingwood would struggle to score runs at the moment if he was holding an Iron shield.
Ambrose is also unproven.

Simple truth, though, is that SA's bowling-attack is far stronger than England's. And unless circumstances conspire against them, they should pose far more of a threat to England's potentially stronger batting-line-up than England's do to SA's more questionable one.

That is indeed the crux of the issue. Unfortunately, unless Jones or Flintoff play, I simply cannot see Broad, Sidebottom and Anderson taking 20 wickets consistently against any half-decent batting card in non-swing friendly conditions. Steyn is easily the best bowler on either side and I would venture the same for Ntini while even considering Morkel/Nel to be the equal of Anderson would still provide a pretty big gulf in the bowling between the 2 sides. I dont think Panesar to be any better than Harris despite how much any of his most devoted fans may rave about him.

 

[tooextracool]

Vaughan > Amla IMO, beyond doubt. What that means as to their performance in the upcoming series, though, remains to be seen.

Have you even watched Amla bat? Hes looked fairly decent every time Ive watched him over the last couple of years and has a technique not too dissimilar to MoYo. I really do like wristy players because IMO it allows them to work balls from off stump into areas on the leg side for singles and Vaughan can pretty much hold a candle to Amla to the way he has been batting over the last year or so.

 

[tooextracool]

It's struck me of late, though, that Strauss has done a far better job with the leave than Smith has. Smith's patience, once his greatest asset, has eroded in recent times and a good accurate bowling attack could potentially exploit that. Of course, England's isn't such a thing, and I'm still very hopeful Smith will punish it. But say Anderson and Broad exceed expectations - I reckon Strauss is likely to require actually getting out more than he is.

It should be noted that if there is one thing Broad can do, it is bowl accurately. Problem is he does little else with the bell and offers very little penetration. Obviously work with Gibson might change that, but as of yet he simply doesnt have any variations in his bowling.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Cook has been extremely ordinary for a while now, and technically all over shop. Unless Cook sorts out his technique, I dont see him scoring runs against any attack in the world anytime soon. He has almost every technical fault possible at this point (falls over, plays away from his body, pokes at the ball etc)

Been thinking this for a while TBH, needs to get it sorted.

 

[tooextracool]

Should also add that he plays around his front pad and thats something that Saurav Ganguly of all bowlers exposed not too long ago.

 

[Uppercut]

AFAIC, Strauss is yet unproven, no matter how many runs he scored against NZ.
Cook has been extremely ordinary for a while now, and technically all over shop. Unless Cook sorts out his technique, I dont see him scoring runs against any attack in the world anytime soon. He has almost every technical fault possible at this point (falls over, plays away from his body, pokes at the ball etc)
Vaughan being Vaughan is inconsistent and likely to score 1 100 and a 50 in the whole series as he has done for donkeys years now (wouldn't be taken aback if that happened in the same test tbh)
Bell is yet unproven and IMO undeserving of his place in the test side.
Collingwood would struggle to score runs at the moment if he was holding an Iron shield.
Ambrose is also unproven.



That is indeed the crux of the issue. Unfortunately, unless Jones or Flintoff play, I simply cannot see Broad, Sidebottom and Anderson taking 20 wickets consistently against any half-decent batting card in non-swing friendly conditions. Steyn is easily the best bowler on either side and I would venture the same for Ntini while even considering Morkel/Nel to be the equal of Anderson would still provide a pretty big gulf in the bowling between the 2 sides. I dont think Panesar to be any better than Harris despite how much any of his most devoted fans may rave about him.

I agree with everything except the last two sentences. Nel is a significantly better bowler than Anderson unless theres extremely heavy swing, but i'm guessing you agree and were just trying to make a point
Panesar has better flight, pace and extracts much more turn than Harris. Harris is predominantly a defensive bowler, a bit like Ashley Giles. Panesar is a genuine matchwinner on the right pitch.

About Cook, he's probably my favourite batsman out of the England lineup but after such a promising start he was always going to have a dip in form at some point. I would keep him in the side on account of his potential and the lack of competition. The one i would most like to see dropped is Ian Bell. Time and again it's trotted out that he has an excellent technique and looks very good at the crease, but IMO good concentration skills and dealing well with pressure are much more important. That's why Strauss is of much more value to the team than Bell, despite Bell having more shots and looking so much more polished in general.

Having said that, i don't know who i would replace him with. I don't rate Shah or Bopara at all. Why not bring back Prior as a specialist batsman? He was excellent with the bat in Sri Lanka and is one of the leading run scorers in county cricket.

 

[Richard]

Panesar has better flight and much better turn than Harris. Harris is predominantly a defensive bowler, a bit like Ashley Giles. Panesar is a genuine matchwinner on the right pitch.

Giles proved to be a genuine matchwinner (insofar as that term can accurately be used) on the right pitch too, though. He just played a great deal of matches on pitches that made him useless. Harris has shown certain signs (ie, in Pakistan) that he can do the same.

Neither of them are much use (other than as defensive bowlers - something which is never exactly desireable in Test cricket) on non-turning wickets. But the same is also pretty much true of MSP. He's better than Giles or Harris on a non-turner, but I don't see him posing particularly large problems to any decent batsmen, and so far he hasn't.

About Cook, he's probably my favourite batsman out of the England lineup but after such a promising start he was always going to have a dip in form at some point. I would keep him in the side on account of his potential and the lack of competition.

I agree that he was always likely to have a dip and that he certainly shouldn't be dropped as things stand. But it'd be head-in-sand stuff, for mine, to deny that he's recently had plenty of technical failings. Everything tec said about the problems he's had of late are true. I don't doubt for a second he's good enough to sort this out, but until he does he's not going to start scoring very heavily again. And ever since the India series, he's failed to do so.

 

[Richard]

It should be noted that if there is one thing Broad can do, it is bowl accurately. Problem is he does little else with the bell and offers very little penetration. Obviously work with Gibson might change that, but as of yet he simply doesnt have any variations in his bowling.

I know, I've said this ever since I first saw him. Trouble is, though, that (in Test matches at least) he's still lost his accuracy often enough - maybe simply through impatience.

I'd hope he'd pose Smith little problem personally - but it'd be likely to be simply a case of who kept patience longest. If Smith was prepared to leave outside off for longer than Broad was prepared to keep bowling there, Smith would triumph. If Broad kept bowling there for longer than Smith managed to leave, Broad would cause him plenty of problems.

 

[Richard]

Have you even watched Amla bat? Hes looked fairly decent every time Ive watched him over the last couple of years and has a technique not too dissimilar to MoYo. I really do like wristy players because IMO it allows them to work balls from off stump into areas on the leg side for singles and Vaughan can pretty much hold a candle to Amla to the way he has been batting over the last year or so.

Amla's certainly undoubtedly been better in recent times (I guess you can trace it back to that McCullum dropped catch) than he ever had been before, but he's still far from a proven Test batsman to me. Vaughan is, and since 2007 when not opening he's finally shown the sort of form I've always believed him capable.

Amla certainly has more potential than I'd thought he had up to the start of 2007/08, but I'm still 50\50 on whether he's going to end-up Test-class over a long period.

 

[Richard]

AFAIC, Strauss is yet unproven, no matter how many runs he scored against NZ.
Cook has been extremely ordinary for a while now, and technically all over shop. Unless Cook sorts out his technique, I dont see him scoring runs against any attack in the world anytime soon. He has almost every technical fault possible at this point (falls over, plays away from his body, pokes at the ball etc)
Vaughan being Vaughan is inconsistent and likely to score 1 100 and a 50 in the whole series as he has done for donkeys years now (wouldn't be taken aback if that happened in the same test tbh)
Bell is yet unproven and IMO undeserving of his place in the test side.
Collingwood would struggle to score runs at the moment if he was holding an Iron shield.
Ambrose is also unproven.

All that is true, and it was actually what I was trying to allude to - I didn't, perhaps, phrase the post as I meant.

All these batsmen are people who have in the past performed at Test level, and people who I don't doubt can do so again. But none of them (Pietersen is the closest, Strauss next) are batsmen I feel especially confident in at the current time.

However, all of this can change in little more than the blink of an eyelid, and given the regularity that England players have stepped-up their game against SA in the last couple of series, it wouldn't overtly surprise me if it happened now. Note: I'm not saying it will, just that it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

All that is true, and it was actually what I was trying to elude to - I didn't, perhaps, phrase the post as I meant.

* allude

 

[Uppercut]

Panesar has troubled quality batsmen at times, he has a five-for against one of the best Australia teams ever remember. But the reason i think he's better than Harris is the technical things, better pace, turn and flight. On a fifth-day pitch, I would much rather be facing Harris than Panesar.

As for Cook, i wouldn't deny his severe technical failings of late, and i expect him to struggle against Ntini in particular, with his great record against left-handers. But he's a quality batsman and i am 100% sure he will come good again at some point.

About Stuart Broad, I'm not sure he can hold a line and length at the level of someone like Stuart Clark just yet. Any thoughts?

 

[tooextracool]

I agree with everything except the last two sentences. Nel is a significantly better bowler than Anderson unless theres extremely heavy swing, but i'm guessing you agree and were just trying to make a point

Well i would think that if the ball is swinging I would want Anderson whereas for everything else I would prefer Nel. Its hard to pick between the 2 because they can both be earth shatteringly brilliant on their day in the right conditions and then be frustratingly poor on another.

Panesar has better flight, pace and extracts much more turn than Harris. Harris is predominantly a defensive bowler, a bit like Ashley Giles. Panesar is a genuine matchwinner on the right pitch.

Panesar has better flight? Come now, Panesar couldn't throw the ball up if it was made up of Helium. Panesar uses drift better than Harris or Giles for that matter ever did, but Panesar's problem is that he bowls too flat, does not vary his pace and it is essentially why he has been downright rubbish in the subcontinent. Panesar may be able to apply more revolutions on the ball, but that is essentially useless when you dont give the ball enough air. It helps him on pitches that offer a little bit of turn and bounce and then he becomes a genuine threat but that is essentially it.

About Cook, he's probably my favourite batsman out of the England lineup but after such a promising start he was always going to have a dip in form at some point. I would keep him in the side on account of his potential and the lack of competition. The one i would most like to see dropped is Ian Bell. Time and again it's trotted out that he has an excellent technique and looks very good at the crease, but IMO good concentration skills and dealing well with pressure are much more important. That's why Strauss is of much more value to the team than Bell, despite Bell having more shots and looking so much more polished in general.

I wouldnt drop Cook either, not having invested so much time with him. I think he has the ability to sort out his technique at the international level and he easily has the best temperament in the England side at the present moment. Embarrassing for the rest considering he is only 23. Agreed on Bell though and my sentiments are exactly the same.

Having said that, i don't know who i would replace him with. I don't rate Shah or Bopara at all. Why not bring back Prior as a specialist batsman? He was excellent with the bat in Sri Lanka and is one of the leading run scorers in county cricket.

The question is, is Prior good enough to play for England as a specialist bat? I have no doubt that as a keeper he would be a more than adequate bat as he is an excellent player of spin and seems to be good enough under pressure but I am uncertain whether his footwork is good enough to succeed consistently at the test match level against good quality pace bowling.

 

[tooextracool]

I know, I've said this ever since I first saw him. Trouble is, though, that (in Test matches at least) he's still lost his accuracy often enough - maybe simply through impatience.

I'd hope he'd pose Smith little problem personally - but it'd be likely to be simply a case of who kept patience longest. If Smith was prepared to leave outside off for longer than Broad was prepared to keep bowling there, Smith would triumph. If Broad kept bowling there for longer than Smith managed to leave, Broad would cause him plenty of problems.

If Anderson manages to bowl outswingers somewhat frequently into Smith's pads, I dont see him scoring any runs this series. However accurately Broad bowls thereafter should be irrelevant.

 

[Richard]

* allude

Indeed. How silly of me.

 

[tooextracool]

Amla's certainly undoubtedly been better in recent times (I guess you can trace it back to that McCullum dropped catch) than he ever had been before, but he's still far from a proven Test batsman to me. Vaughan is, and since 2007 when not opening he's finally shown the sort of form I've always believed him capable.

Personally I think Vaughan, while not unproven, is still not doing enough to assure himself a place in the side on his batting alone. His averages maybe fine, but he hasnt had a consistently good series since 2002/03. Like i said earlier, 1 good score in a 3 match series is simply not good enough.

 

[Uppercut]

Panesar has better flight? Come now, Panesar couldn't throw the ball up if it was made up of Helium.

Classic that
Panesar does occasionally beat batsmen in the flight, more often than i have seen Harris do so anyway. Harris in India appeared unable to turn a ball at all, even on the third-test pitch doctored to precisely that ends.

The question is, is Prior good enough to play for England as a specialist bat? I have no doubt that as a keeper he would be a more than adequate bat as he is an excellent player of spin and seems to be good enough under pressure but I am uncertain whether his footwork is good enough to succeed consistently at the test match level against good quality pace bowling.

It's a perfectly viable question, all I was saying is that he might deserve a chance considering how well he's performed with the bat over the past year. The batting lineup needs a shakeup of sorts, and unlike many of the other potential solutions, he has test match experience and has done rather well. It would be utterly ridiculous to recall Bopara in his place given their respective performances in Sri Lanka. Were you to drop Bell, who would you pick instead?

 

[tooextracool]

About Stuart Broad, I'm not sure he can hold a line and length at the level of someone like Stuart Clark just yet. Any thoughts?

No he does not, but for someone who is 11 years younger, he does a pretty decent job of maintaining a decent line and length throughout. Yes hes not close to Clark yet, but there are few bowlers his age capable of bowling with the kind of accuracy that he is bowling at the moment. He is probably playing test match cricket well before he is ready, but there is obvious potential for the future.

 

[open365]

England won Tests in South Africa last time and we've not disproved in Tests.

England then /= England now