***Official*** South Africa in England

[tooextracool]

I firstly question whether Ambrose is worthy of batting above Flintoff.

At the moment, Flintoff's highest FC score in the last 1.5 years is what? 62? Averaging in the teens? Even in his short test career thus far, Ambrose has managed a 100 and done better thing than Flintoff in recent times. At the moment, I would have ambrose batting ahead of Flintoff. Once or if Flintoff bats like we know he can, I would consider him batting above Ambrose. That is not to say that I am convinced by Ambrose as a test player, far from it in fact, but I dont forsee Flintoff batting ahead of him until he starts scoring runs. Eventually though, I hope to see him bat at 6 with a 5 man bowling attack including Jones but at the moment given his form, he cant be batting above 7.

and secondly why you would leave out (and not even mention in your post) the bowler who has carried our attack for the last 12 months, Ryan Sidebottom btw. Why hanker after Harmison when it should be obvious to anyone with any semblence of logic that Sidebottom has been the ONLY consistent bowler in our side this last year. Of those that I can recall playing, him aside:

Plunkett - got one, maybe two, games under Moores and was piss-poor
Hoggard - a shadow of himself the whole time Sidebottom has been in the side, and a little bit before as well
Anderson - great at times, ****e at others
Panesar - bizarre, had some poor times then some big hauls, obviously still worth his place
Broad - would have been dropped after the NZ series but for his prowess with the bat
Harmison - with all his comebacks, his stint in SA cricket, watching Harmison this last year or so has been a bit like a Barry Manilow song, you keep waiting for something to happen before finally accepting that it won't

On the other hand, Sidebottom averages 25-26, plays with a lot of heart, keeps it tight (how often do we see him at >2.5??) and offers variation, which some are quite keen on in this game. To go into the 12 months ahead, barring injuries or the most extreme case of the yips would be somewhat farcical.

I think you misread my post. I was suggesting that we need a bowler of genuine pace in the side for the SA series, and the only 3 options to choose from were Jones, Flintoff and Harmison. Personally I would have picked Jones for the 2nd test, but Flintoff is still a better choice than Broad. Personally, I hope to see a 5 man bowling attack again in the distant future, something along the lines of Sidebottom, Anderson, Flintoff, Jones and Panesar. I do think though that Sid is overrated by many, especially on this forum. He has only taken wickets thus far in the most prosperous of swing friendly conditions so I dont exactly think hes anything other than unproven in my mind just yet.

 

[Burgey]

I'd say there were only three genuinely poor attacks, in unchallenging conditions, Flintoff faced between 2001/02 and 2006/07 myself. New Zealand in 2001/02, New Zealand in 2004, and West Indies in 2004.

India in 2001/02 was decent enough.
Sri Lanka in 2002 had Murali if no-one else.
India in 2002 weren't the best but he still managed to fail.
South Africa in 2003 were pretty good.
Sri Lanka in 2003/04 had Murali and that alone was enough of a Test, and Vaas bowled pretty well most of that series too.
West Indies in 2004 was actually reasonably challenging in the first three Tests because the pitches had a bit in them.
South Africa in 2004/05 were pretty good.
Australia in 2005 were pretty good even though there were times when it was a one-man Warne.
Pakistan in 2005/06 were pretty good.
India in 2005/06 were pretty good and the pitches in the last two Tests offered a bit to the bowlers.
Sri Lanka in 2006 had Murali, and again that's enough.
He didn't play against Pakistan in 2006, but with their third-string they were rubbish FTR.
Australia in 2006/07 were pretty damn good.

There's 11 series in there - Flintoff batted well in 3 of them. IMO he irrefutably failed in India in 2001/02, against SL and India in 2002, in SL and WI in 2003/04, in SA in 2004/05, in Pakistan in 2005/06, against SL in 2006 and in Aus in 2006/07. This isn't good enough for my money.

I know you're talking about his batting, but assuming he's fit (big assumption) - he's England's best bowler by miles, yeah? Play him as a bowler, bat him at 7 and treat him as a lower-middle order contributor. To win the series, you'll have to bowl SA out twice, probably in more than one test. Surely he enhances your chances of doing that? in the context of the series, don't look at him as a top 6 player. Anway, that's my tuppence worth.

 

[tooextracool]

Settling for Flintoff at 6 is just that- settling. I cannot see England beating Australia next year with Anderson and Broad as key components of the bowling attack.

Actually, Anderson as part of a 5 man bowling attack would be something I would think he was born for. A 5 man bowling attack would essentially mask his inconsistencies and make him less of a liability to the side in that case. We saw how Hoggard and Harmison reaped the benefits from the 5-man bowling attack and bowled far less when the conditions didnt suit them in the Ashes. Similarly, if Anderson did the same it could be beneficial as we all know how great he can be on his day. Ideally, yes you'd want 4 bowlers that could bowl sides out in any conditions, but the flexibility of a 5-man bowling attack allows you this luxury of having bowlers for different seasons even if it weakens the batting a little bit. Furthermore, it might be the only way to accomodate both Jones and Flintoff in the same side as I cannot see the 2 of them being part of a 4 man bowling attack in the near future.

 

[NZTailender]

You would.

Collingwood's place must pretty soon become untenable. Whether that's now I'm not sure, but if he doesn't score in the Second Test it'll be time to say "he should be axed", and if he survives to the Third it's getting into the realms of "shocking selection".

The fact he got a bad decision in the First Test might, with some good reason, make the selectors reluctant to drop him this second.

The NZ series at home was the first time Collingwood has averaged under 30 in a test series since Sri Lanka 2006. He was England's best batsman in New Zealand before that series as well (consistency>>>one off centuries after a poor series).

He's not completely out of touch. I know you can't equate ODI form to tests but he didn't do horribly/badly against NZ in the ODI series and it suggests he is in some batting form (more than Flintoff or Fulton at least).

I'd give him the remaining 2 tests grace before deciding upon his test future. He's been more than a fine servant in the English middle order for sometime when the rest of the line up has gone AWOL, and certainly others somewhat getting a free ride (Bell, Strauss - even Vaughan and Pietersen).

Flintoff for Broad for mine. Send Broad back to counties ahead of the ODI series in preparation and to sharpen up his game in the longer form. Bout as threatening as a kitten atm.

 

[tooextracool]

Loving Neil McKenzie ATM. Was always a fan and I have wanted him to do well for his whole Test career and now he is finally going the right way, good for him.

For a middle order batsman, Mckenzie looks far more capable as an opener than most who make such a switch. He has the mindset and the technique to succeed at the top, not to mention a relatively good ability of knowing where his off stump is. Certainly looks to have more of the good than Katich ATM with regards to opening the batting.

 

[Top_Cat]

For a middle order batsman, Mckenzie looks far more capable as an opener than most who make such a switch. He has the mindset and the technique to succeed at the top, not to mention a relatively good ability of knowing where his off stump is. Certainly looks to have more of the good than Katich ATM with regards to opening the batting.

I've always thought he looked out of place down the order. Should have been opening years ago.

 

[tooextracool]

The NZ series at home was the first time Collingwood has averaged under 30 in a test series since Sri Lanka 2006. He was England's best batsman in New Zealand before that series as well (consistency>>>one off centuries after a poor series).

He's not completely out of touch. I know you can't equate ODI form to tests but he didn't do horribly/badly against NZ in the ODI series and it suggests he is in some batting form (more than Flintoff or Fulton at least).

I'd give him the remaining 2 tests grace before deciding upon his test future. He's been more than a fine servant in the English middle order for sometime when the rest of the line up has gone AWOL, and certainly others somewhat getting a free ride (Bell, Strauss - even Vaughan and Pietersen).

Flintoff for Broad for mine. Send Broad back to counties ahead of the ODI series in preparation and to sharpen up his game in the longer form. Bout as threatening as a kitten atm.

Yeah, cant see how Collingwood should be dropped on the basis of a 5 poor innings when pretty much everyone else in the batting order has had similar if not worse runs of failure and still been given rope.
The problem though, is that i also cant see the selectors dropping Broad because well, they are the England selectors and dont know any better. You only have to look at the entire skysports panel boasting about Broad's performance in the last test to realise the view that is often taken by some of our cherished experts.

 

[tooextracool]

I've always thought he looked out of place down the order. Should have been opening years ago.

Probably. Im a little surprised as few players make such a switch very easily and when I last saw him he was batting at 6 which is even rarer to go from lower middle order to top order so seemlessly IMO. Looks to have done decent thus far, but still got plenty to prove.

 

[Top_Cat]

Same, wouldn't be dropping Collingwood so early in the series. Sends the Saffies the wrong message, especially since the selectors don't know whether to replace him with a batting or bowling all-rounder.

As it stands, if I was in the South African camp, I'd be getting more confident. Even though England dominated the first Test for the first three days, the South African batting looks as if it's clicked. England fretting over their combination would be giving SA plenty of confidence, especially since SA aren't about to tinker with theirs. I mean Lords was a road and even in light of the fact Sidebottom was absent for much of the second dig (Australia's much-vaunted 4-man attack found it exponentially more difficult to bowl teams out when one of the bowlers was injured in some way) England are blaming their bowlers? I bet South Africa aren't, even if they're carrying Ntini a bit.

I believe the best thing to do would be to either name an unchanged side or only change in the event of an injury. Part of me agrees with TEC, that Simon Jones should be considered, but I wonder whether dropping Broad now would be too destabilising. They've picked him, now back him at least for the first couple of Tests.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah, it's true. He's showing some worryingly Jason Gillespie-esque signs of a top-notch Test bowler on the decline for inexplicable reasons. It'll probably take a big England team knock where he goes for 5-an-over for it to be really apparent.

I think hes lost a bit of pace tbh. Although his recent test match record is actually not quite that bad. I dont think he was very good ITFP, just one of the best of a very bad bunch going around and managed to hit a prime period where he was priceless. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see how he goes on a test class wicket.

 

[tooextracool]

Is Flintoff fit enough to spearhead a 4 pronged bowling attack?

The problem isnt whether he is fit enough. The question really should be, will he ever be fitter than this over the course of his career? Somehow I have my doubts about it. For me Flintoff (much like Atherton did) is always going to be playing every game in pain, its only really a question of how much.

 

[tooextracool]

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

The same can be said about Flintoff who, unless the selectors are really trying to set new records for picking the same XI for consecutive games, will play in the next test. Heck Flintoff didn't even make it through half of this season without getting injured.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Anderson was probably the pick of the bowlers on either side in the just concluded test match IMO. Im sure thats surprised a lot of people that he managed to be as accurate as he was throughout the test.

 

[Langeveldt]

I wouldn't change England's XI.. Still not convinced that Flintoff, with so many injury worries, would ever get back to his tubthumping Ashes best.. I'd bring Nel in for either Ntini or Harris so far as SA goes..

I wish Jean Symes could have been given more chance at Franchise level to shine.. Would love to put a guy like him in the SA team if McKenzie's groin strain turns out to be serious.. Is there any coincidence that his groin strain has co-insided with Miss McGregor being in town? I'd have no groin left if she rocked up at a game I was playing..

 

[tooextracool]

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.

I think its been the case mostly from 2006 onwards. The pitches have played fine prior to 2006 so hopefully they get back on track.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Its not just a case of black and white. Saying that 'had England taken their chances, they might have won' has no relevance to the pitch.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Old Trafford does routinely produce the best cricketing pitches around the world IMO. Theres always been something on offer whether it be for the spinners, fast bowlers or for the batsmen.

 

[tooextracool]

The statistics btw:

Jones first 14 Tests: 41 wickets @ 31.41
Jones 4 Ashes Tests: 18 wickets @ 21.00

It shows how much that one series improved his career figures. He bowled exceptionally in that series, but so did Flintoff. The important thing to remember is that Flintoff was bowling exceptionally before that series too.

I know it was only against Bangladesh, but Jones was bowling jaffas ball in and ball out at Lords. The signs were there before that Ashes series that he was going to be a huge threat.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Jones was a completely different bowler during the Ashes than he was at the start. They completely changed his run up / action. It wasnt just a fluke run of form. He was literally a different bowler.

 

[superkingdave]

Hmm, in 2003 South Africa put up a big first innings score but were then forced to settle for a draw. They then crushed England in the next test...

Still think they'll beat England by an innings this week. Kallis to ton up and Steyn to dominate with the ball

Incidentally, Lords was the 4th consecutive time SA have played the same team...if they were to keep the same team for Headingly and win then at Birmingham they could equal the England record (and possibly break it at the Oval) and that would be two instances in the same series (of teams playing 6 consecutive tests with the same team) when it has never happened before in the history of cricket.

Of course Mckenzie is looking doubtful, and SA will possibly change a bowler as well.