***Official*** South Africa in England

[Aamir Alauddin]

Guys on the tracks like that i think just 2 batsmen are enough. play 8 bowlers in the side.

 

[Richard]

Because when the ball's not swinging Sidebottom looks ineffective and Anderson disappears into bouncer mode.

Flintoff's hardly stellar when it's not swinging either TBH. All right, he's got one or two more things he can do than Sidebottom, and he does it a bit quicker, but he's not massively more likely to be effective.

In any case, if the ball fails to swing at Headingley you'll be disappointed, very much.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He's actually pretty crap at it. He's even copying my overuse of the smilie which went out of use months ago. Oops there we go.

DWTA. He's obviously good at it, given how many people are responding to him seriously.

 

[jonny1408]

prior in for ambrose, flintoff for collingwood, jones for sidebottom

 

[wpdavid]

I'd go:
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Ambrose
Flintoff
Broad \ MSP (if MSP then he'd bat eleven)
Sidebottom
Anderson

Broad has zero case for selection now or ever; Collingwood at least has some element of past performance. MSP is highly unlikely to be any use at Headingley but I think we all know he'll almost certainly get picked due to the "you must have variation" crap.

MSP did OK there against Pakistan didn't he? Can't remember if we played a test there last year.

 

[Richard]

He did OK yeah... thanks to Inzamam falling on his stumps (which shouldn't even be the bowler's wicket IMO), two tail-enders gifting their wickets, then Inzamam getting stumped as the match came to its denounement.

Yes, all right, his deliveries to dismiss Taufeeq and, especially, Younis were brilliant bowling, but had he not bowled at the end of the innings and had Inzy not bellyflopped, his haul would have been they alone.

Last year when we played West Indies he bowled a whole 7 overs.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Because when the ball's not swinging Sidebottom looks ineffective and Anderson disappears into bouncer mode.

He can still be used effectively, given that, without spearheading the attack.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If anyone deserves an attempt at spear heading the attack it should be Simon Jones, with 29 wickets at 13.27 this season in First Class cricket.

When last did he make it through a season injury-free? Let's not rush the man, thanks.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Would pick Flintoff in place of Broad, personally. Flintoff's batting doesn't inspire me with enough confidence to bat him in the top six, and Broad has been largely poor with the ball. Keeping Broad in because he can bat would be a bit like keeping Giles in because he could bat in 06/07, and it's not like bringing Flintoff in for him would weaken the batting, anyway.

 

[Howzatone]

Well, in my opinion we're rushing Broad into the Test fold. Let him develop his game then come into the Test set-up when he's about 26-28, like many Australians have done. Jones shouldn't be punished for having a lot of injures in the past.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well, in my opinion we're rushing Broad into the Test fold. Let him develop his game then come into the Test set-up when he's about 26-28, like many Australians have done. Jones shouldn't be punished for having a lot of injures in the past.

Punished? No one is being punished. It's about waiting to see that Simon Jones is fully recovered from his injury to the extent that he can handle the strain of international cricket. It's called match fitness. We've all seen what's happened to Jones and Flintoff when they've been rushed back into competitive cricket.

Broad has no history of significant injuries, so I fail to see the relevance of your comparison.

 

[Richard]

Well, in my opinion we're rushing Broad into the Test fold. Let him develop his game then come into the Test set-up when he's about 26-28, like many Australians have done. Jones shouldn't be punished for having a lot of injures in the past.

But nor should Jones just leapfrog into the team.

I don't expect Anderson to be a Test-class bowler soon or later, but he bowled far better than most this just-concluded Test and took 9-98 in his 2nd-most-recent game. He does not deserve to be dropped currently and dropping him now for Jones would be the ultimate can'o'worms situation.

 

[Uppercut]

I do actually think the pitches at Lord's have been too flat in the past few years. Sure some of the draws were rain-affected, but the other grounds in England have to deal with poor weather a lot too and produce far more results.

Nevertheless, it was an entertaining test match up until the final day and the pitch should take nothing away from Neil McKenzie's awesome rearguard action. Looking forward to the next match now. Will Flintoff return, and if he does, will he perform as well as he can? Will the South African attack improve on its atrocious showing in the first test? Are the English bowlers going to be fully ready by Friday considering they just spent three and a bit straight days in the field? Feel free to make predictions for the next test, i wouldn't like to call it.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Jones figures are a little boosted by the fact he's cleaned up the tail on more than one occasion. Thats not to say he's not bowling brilliantly but you should take that into account.

Plus as mentioned, lets see if he can get through the season uninjured, if so then pick him for the winter Test series.

 

[BoyBrumby]

After we took only 3 of the SA wickets we needed to win the test I think it's obvious our bowling would be sharpened by Fred's presence. He's quicker than any of the three seamers on show and it probably more adept at bowling wicket-taking deliveries on dead-flat tracks like Lord's obviously was.

The desire to get our star man back in the team has to be tempered with a dose of reality tho. Flintoff has had four (I think) ops on his ankle now and his delivery stride is such that he's always going to put a tremendous strain on that joint. He's now into his 30s too, so one must ask is it reasonable to expect him to shoulder the burden of being part of a four-man attack? If one concludes it isn't feasible it has to be a batter to make way, with Collingwood being the most vulnerable currently.

I know some might argue that if Fred's body can't handle the workload he shouldn't be picked at all, but if we want what he brings to the team we have to make concessions elsewhere.

 

[Uppercut]

I'd be shocked if Broad was dropped rather than Collingwood. Bowling aside, he's actually looked a much better batsman than Collingwood all summer. A spell in county cricket would benefit him for sure, and no, he should never have been picked in the first place. But now is not the time to drop him IMO.

 

[Richard]

I do actually think the pitches at Lord's have been too flat in the past few years. Sure some of the draws were rain-affected, but the other grounds in England have to deal with poor weather a lot too and produce far more results.

Without for a second disputing this was poor (and as I say - absolving anyone of any real blame as the preparatations were severely hampered)... let's look at matters game-by-game.

SL 2006: as I said, I actually think this was an excellent wicket, and England would have won easily if they'd held their catches.
Pak 2006: this wasn't a stupidly slow pitch like this one, and had Pakistan taken their catches they could easily have had England in a bit of trouble. As it was, Ian Bell's knock rammed home the advantage rather than recovered it. Then Pakistan and England batted well and Strauss captained cautiously which meant a result never looked terribly likely.
WI 2007: this could easily have been a fascinating game. England's bowling-attack was deplted with Hoggard injured, while West Indies' was plain woeful. Batting-line-ups were also strong. Conditions, both pitch and atmosphere, offered plenty to bowlers and had the attacks been stronger the match would almost certainly have reached a conclusion even with the last-day washout. Had England's depleted attack been able to bowl all the last day, they may or may not have knocked West Indies over. We'll never know.
India 2007: not even sure half the allotted 450 overs were bowled here. Though as said earlier, it's possible this contributed in some way to freshening-up the deck, because it certainly offered plenty off the seam, and the ball swung all match too.
New Zealand 2008: this was again IMO a good cricket pitch. Had all five days' worth of play been possible, I reckon it might just have been a really good Test.

 

[Richard]

I know some might argue that if Fred's body can't handle the workload he shouldn't be picked at all, but if we want what he brings to the team we have to make concessions elsewhere.

If that is 2-30 off 13 overs every day and the odd 40-ball 60 amid many 4s and 17s... then I think we don't want what he brings to the team. A front-line batsman or bowler would be infinitely preferable.

As long as that front-line batsman or bowler performs better than Collingwood and Broad.

 

[Uppercut]

Without for a second disputing this was poor (and as I say - absolving anyone of any real blame as the preparatations were severely hampered)... let's look at matters game-by-game.

SL 2006: as I said, I actually think this was an excellent wicket, and England would have won easily if they'd held their catches.
Pak 2006: this wasn't a stupidly slow pitch like this one, and had Pakistan taken their catches they could easily have had England in a bit of trouble. As it was, Ian Bell's knock rammed home the advantage rather than recovered it. Then Pakistan and England batted well and Strauss captained cautiously which meant a result never looked terribly likely.
WI 2007: this could easily have been a fascinating game. England's bowling-attack was deplted with Hoggard injured, while West Indies' was plain woeful. Batting-line-ups were also strong. Conditions, both pitch and atmosphere, offered plenty to bowlers and had the attacks been stronger the match would almost certainly have reached a conclusion even with the last-day washout. Had England's depleted attack been able to bowl all the last day, they may or may not have knocked West Indies over. We'll never know.
India 2007: not even sure half the allotted 450 overs were bowled here. Though as said earlier, it's possible this contributed in some way to freshening-up the deck, because it certainly offered plenty off the seam, and the ball swung all match too.
New Zealand 2008: this was again IMO a good cricket pitch. Had all five days' worth of play been possible, I reckon it might just have been a really good Test.

Mostly true to some extent, but when you look at Old Trafford tests in the same period, those pitches have produced far better matches and a lot more results, even when the matches were affected by rain. Those pitches usually had something for everyone, quicks, batsmen and spinners. And they have no tests for the foreseeable future, while Lord's gets two every year. That's what makes the series of pitches so unsatisfactory, even though some of them could maybe have led to a result in other circumstances.

But maybe i'm just bitter because i'm moving to Manchester in September at exactly the wrong time to see international cricket.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I'd be shocked if Broad was dropped rather than Collingwood. Bowling aside, he's actually looked a much better batsman than Collingwood all summer. A spell in county cricket would benefit him for sure, and no, he should never have been picked in the first place. But now is not the time to drop him IMO.

That does not make him a number six batsman though. It just means he's in better form than Collingwood. If Collingwood is dropped, it has to be for a batsman, or England is looking for trouble.