***Official*** South Africa in England

[zaremba]

I cant argue with the logic there. They are not quite the bowlers Id choose but there are good justifications for the selections you suggest.

However, Id be worried with only 5 specialist batsmen and Hoggard batting at 8. Doesnt matter how many bowlers you have if you are defending small totals.

I agree.

Dropping Broad - which I'm afraid should happen - will lengthen the tail still further and leave the team woefully unbalanced.

Now at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, this will provide further reason for the selectors to recall Prior in place of the struggling Ambrose. Having a long tail is that much less problematic if you've got a Test number 6 batting at number 6.

 

[a massive zebra]

Doesnt matter how many bowlers you have if you are defending small totals.

It also doesn't matter how many runs you make if you cannot bowl sides out. Personally I would rather forgo a few extra runs in order to give the side a chance to win a few games. IMO any advantage gained from Broad's admittedly useful batting is more than offset by his substandard bowling capabilities.

 

[opener]

I agree.

Dropping Broad - which I'm afraid should happen - will lengthen the tail still further and leave the team woefully unbalanced.

Now at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, this will provide further reason for the selectors to recall Prior in place of the struggling Ambrose. Having a long tail is that much less problematic if you've got a Test number 6 batting at number 6.

Well then when you think of one, let us know.

 

[Goughy]

It also doesn't matter how many runs you make if you cannot bowl sides out. Personally I would rather forgo a few extra runs in order to give the side a chance to win a few games. IMO any advantage gained from Broad's admittedly useful batting is more than offset by his substandard bowling capabilities.

But it doesnt work that way.

If you have small totals and you want to win then you have to bowl the opposition out cheaply. In those cases there are not enough overs to be bowled to justify 5 bowlers. Someone will always be left twiddling their thumbs.

4 bowlers can do the job just as well.

 

[zaremba]

Well then when you think of one, let us know.

I think I detect sarcasm? How clever.

 

[tooextracool]

How on Earth can you tell me that that ball didn't move away? Lots.

were you even watching? If so, It really shows that your mind can manufacture many things when you have an inclination towards a particular batsman. It was a delivery from wide off the crease that was angled in to Vaughan. It did virtually nothing of the pitch and Vaughan had been struggled with the angle generated by Steyn all game. It was a poor shot to an ordinary delivery. It was a good delivery to expose Vaughan's weakness in the circumstance, but the delivery on its own was nothing special.

 

[Manee]

I do agree that dropping Broad would throw the team structure into chaos, but unfortunately, many changes may have to be made and I believe it a better move than allowing Broad to continue as a Test bowler - the record he has is becoming embarassing.

 

[Richard]

were you even watching? If so, It really shows that your mind can manufacture many things when you have an inclination towards a particular batsman. It was a delivery from wide off the crease that was angled in to Vaughan. It did virtually nothing of the pitch and Vaughan had been struggled with the angle generated by Steyn all game. It was a poor shot to an ordinary delivery. It was a good delivery to expose Vaughan's weakness in the circumstance, but the delivery on its own was nothing special.

No, I don't think batsman on strike nor bowler delivering affects my ability to view a delivery. I don't really even have inclinations towards certain batsmen or bowlers - I'm quite happy to say a batsman I rate highly played a shocking shot, and I'm quite happy to acknowledge a rare occasion a bowler I don't rate gets a wicket with a decent delivery.

I'll check that Ntini ball again on the highlights in a bit, or maybe tomorrow, but to outside-edge a ball angled that acutely into you will almost always take quite some away movement.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I do agree that dropping Broad would throw the team structure into chaos, but unfortunately, many changes may have to be made and I believe it a better move than allowing Broad to continue as a Test bowler - the record he has is becoming embarassing.

In any case, Flintoff has bowled 40 overs in this match so far. If he's capable of that kind of workload it does suggest we don't need five bowlers and can drop Pattinson or Broad for a batsman.

 

[Goughy]

I'll check that Ntini ball again on the highlights in a bit, or maybe tomorrow, but to outside-edge a ball angled that acutely into you will almost always take quite some away movement.

Why would it?

FTR I have not seen the ball and have no opinion on it

 

[Richard]

In any case, Flintoff has bowled 40 overs in this match so far. If he's capable of that kind of workload it does suggest we don't need five bowlers and can drop Pattinson or Broad for a batsman.

Ideally drop both for a batsman and a bowler. Preferably a fit-again Sidebottom and Owais Shah.

 

[Richard]

Why would it?

FTR I have not seen the ball and have no opinion on it

Because it's incredibly difficult to play inside the line of a ball that angles so far into you.

Seriously, you can easily envisage Ntini's normal angle of delivery, you've seen him bowl plenty. This was one of those where he takes it to extreme - almost cuts the return crease. Goes as wide as it's possible to go. And Vaughan got an outside-edge.

 

[Manee]

In any case, Flintoff has bowled 40 overs in this match so far. If he's capable of that kind of workload it does suggest we don't need five bowlers and can drop Pattinson or Broad for a batsman.

I can't be too specific about exact selection as I am positively stumped myself, but playing an extra batsmen would not account for the bowling deficiencies which have allowed South Africa to amass 522.

 

[a massive zebra]

But it doesnt work that way.

If you have small totals and you want to win then you have to bowl the opposition out cheaply. In those cases there are not enough overs to be bowled to justify 5 bowlers. Someone will always be left twiddling their thumbs.

4 bowlers can do the job just as well.

Few test teams have all their frontline batsmen averaging over 40, and Flintoff is at least as good as most Test number sevens. With one batsman averaging over 50, four more over 40, and two more around 30, I confident that England will still be able to put together a competitive total more often than not. These totals may be a little smaller than at present, but not necessarily small enough to necessitate the bowling out of opposition sides in to short a period to justify the selection of five bowlers.

In today's match, England almost had five bowlers sending down 30 overs each in one innings. If a side needs to bowl that amount of overs to dismiss the opposition, they will never win any matches, irrespective of batting ability.

 

[Goughy]

Because it's incredibly difficult to play inside the line of a ball that angles so far into you.

Seriously, you can easily envisage Ntini's normal angle of delivery, you've seen him bowl plenty. This was one of those where he takes it to extreme - almost cuts the return crease. Goes as wide as it's possible to go. And Vaughan got an outside-edge.

Yeah. Sounds like he played the wrong line and outside edged it.

Guys bowling wide of the crease get lots of outside edges (myself included)

It isnt unusual or rare.

 

[tooextracool]

I attended today's play and had a very enjoyable day.

England's attack looked rather toothless and I can't see them consistently taking 20 wickets against quality Test teams with the current lineup. Darren Pattinson seemed a rather bizarre selection - he has had a decent season but no more so than a number of other bowlers who have proved their worth for England in the past. Stuart Broad is in the selectors good books and may become a good bowler in the future but at present he simply does not have either the penetration or control required of a Test match bowler and his selection is costing England dear. James Anderson can run through any side on his day but these days come few and far between - more often than not he just serves up a load of pies.

To be fair to Anderson, he bowled decently today. Not brilliantly, but he was the pick of the England bowlers all day. He served up some bad balls but in general he was accurate and was unlucky to not have taken a few more wickets. Flintoff was ok and the rest of the attack was downright poor. I think they were unfortunate though given the conditions they were bowling in. However, it is true that England need someone like Jones or even Harmison to be a world class attack in any conditions.

 

[Richard]

I can't be too specific about exact selection as I am positively stumped myself, but playing an extra batsmen would not account for the bowling deficiencies which have allowed South Africa to amass 522.

No, it wouldn't. The sad truth of the matter is that England don't have enough bowling capability at the current time to bowl teams out cheaply in conditions such as they were, a little unfortunately, handed this match. You can pick 11 bowlers, it won't change this.

The best chance is to pick 8 batsmen (including Ambrose and Flintoff) and then you at least have more bases covered when trying to reply to situations such as this.

 

[tooextracool]

No, I don't think batsman on strike nor bowler delivering affects my ability to view a delivery. I don't really even have inclinations towards certain batsmen or bowlers - I'm quite happy to say a batsman I rate highly played a shocking shot, and I'm quite happy to acknowledge a rare occasion a bowler I don't rate gets a wicket with a decent delivery.

I'll check that Ntini ball again on the highlights in a bit, or maybe tomorrow, but to outside-edge a ball angled that acutely into you will almost always take quite some away movement.

Its happened before, all it takes is playing down the wrong line, which Vaughan categorically is a master of. That wicket was coming for quite a while, Vaughan was batting like a walking wicket out there and Steyn had him playing and missing at will to similar deliveries that were angled in to him although Steyn did actually manage to take them away. Nonetheless, Vaughan was playing at deliveries that he never really needed to be playing at ITFP, and it really does given an impression that he has no idea where his off stump is.

 

[Goughy]

In today's match, England almost had five bowlers sending down 30 overs each in one innings. If a side needs to bowl that amount of overs to dismiss the opposition, they will never win any matches, irrespective of batting ability.

Agreed. But they are now in the ****ter because they are light in the batting. They had no plan b after losing early wickets. Cricket is about partnerships. You only needs a couple in an innings to get a good total. Less batting massively reduces the chances of these vital partnerships between good batsmen.

This is just one case of many where 5 bowlers has not helped but only 5 batsmen has.

Its madness. It may make people happy but it costs cricket games.

 

[Richard]

Yeah. Sounds like he played the wrong line and outside edged it.

Guys bowling wide of the crease get lots of outside edges (myself included)

It isnt unusual or rare.

It's not unusual if the bowler moves the ball away from the bat, whether off the pitch or through the air (I do this myself, and deliberately bowl as wide as I can when the ball is really swinging lots).

But I hardly ever see it for a bowler who gets it through straight.