***Official*** South Africa in England

[Langeveldt]

Yes they stated his inclusion was as they wanted a swing bowler.

Its the reason Sky Sports have been going on about al the different 'horses for courses' selections over the years.

Im amazed, the guy didnt deserve to be there, did nothing in the game of any note, his captain clearly doesnt rate him, its pissed off half the bowlers in the country, England get destroyed in the Test and yet people think its a good idea to keep him

Madness.

Just shows what a dearth of good seam bowlers there are below Hoggard and Harmison, who I would never have dropped in the first place.. I don't rate anyone below the top 4-5, so Pattinson was a meh one for me.. Picking someone mediocre over someone home grown and mediocre isn't a very exciting debate.. I'd have Pattinson over Mahmood every day of the week, and I'm not saying that just because I support SA

 

[NZTailender]

England missed Collingwood, for mine

 

[Uppercut]

Stupid decisions aside, i would like to say i consider South Africa to be a significantly better test side than England. England playing their most effective XI will give them their greatest chance of beating them, but it still won't be as good a lineup as South Africa's IMO. S Africa just have a particularly good generation of players at the moment.

In general there's a tendency in England to look too deep for reasons why they lose when they do. Launching an inquest into losing a series away to a legendary Australian team, for example. While pillocking the selectors is fair enough after a fiasco like this one, it should be remembered that usually when teams lose it's largely because the other team was better...

 

[tooextracool]

As I said, Goughy's points have a lot of force. All I'm saying is that this is not a straightforward situation and there are other factors to consider. And one of the things to consider is that it is not usually desirable - for a number of reasons - to pick someone for just one game and not to give them a fair run in the team. Particularly when he didn't look entirely out of his depth in the one game he played.

I am not sure I agree with this. At the end of the day, the job of any selector is to pick a side that would give England the best chance of winning the next test match. Its not supposed to be about whats fair and what isnt because thats just the way life is. Does Pattinson offer something that Sid or Anderson dont already offer to this England side? Probably not. Meanwhile the likes of Jones provides something different in the form of pace and reverse swing, both of which are invaluable assets to this England bowling attack at present.
I do hope that Pattinson's chances as a test match bowler arent just written off as a result of 1 inning. If he continues to pitch in strong domestic returns, I wouldnt mind if he were brought back to the fringes of international selection but ATM, hes simply not as good as certain other proven match winners around in FC cricket.

 

[Top_Cat]

With Goughy on this one. It's a bit pointless to argue that dropping Pattinson will send a poor message when picking him was much worse. It'd be looked upon more as correcting a mistake if he gets dropped or that he was picked specifically for that Test and that Test alone. It makes a mockery of the selection process and affects the morale of the other bowlers around the country when most of them have bowled quite well in CC games this season yet they get passed over for a bloke who's been in the country, what, one-and-a-half seasons?

If I was Jones/Tremlett/Harmison/Hoggard, I would have been wondering whose apples he polished to get the gig.

 

[tooextracool]

Stupid decisions aside, i would like to say i consider South Africa to be a significantly better test side than England. England playing their most effective XI will give them their greatest chance of beating them, but it still won't be as good a lineup as South Africa's IMO. S Africa just have a particularly good generation of players at the moment.

In general there's a tendency in England to look too deep for reasons why they lose when they do. Launching an inquest into losing a series away to a legendary Australian team, for example. While pillocking the selectors is fair enough after a fiasco like this one, it should be remembered that usually when teams lose it's largely because the other team was better...

Yeah, despite all the talk about the selections during this test match, one has to wonder whether an out of form Collingwood and Matthew Hoggard would really have made that much of a difference to a 10 wicket loss in this game. South Africa were better in both the batting and bowling department, and England were soundly beaten. Unfortunately, this was the result I was expecting at the start of the series and I honestly dont think it is likely to change unless Harmison and/or Jones play in the next few tests. The batting is probably in even worse shape because not only are there no real replacements, none of the batters actually have a case for being dropped at the moment despite the fact that the unit as a whole has been underperforming for the better part of 3 years. Not since we dropped Thorpe has our batting really been firing, and obviously Tresco's departure has only made things worse.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, despite all the talk about the selections during this test match, one has to wonder whether an out of form Collingwood and Matthew Hoggard would really have made that much of a difference to a 10 wicket loss in this game. South Africa were better in both the batting and bowling department, and England were soundly beaten. Unfortunately, this was the result I was expecting at the start of the series and I honestly dont think it is likely to change unless Harmison and/or Jones play in the next few tests. The batting is probably in even worse shape because not only are there no real replacements, none of the batters actually have a case for being dropped at the moment despite the fact that the unit as a whole has been underperforming for the better part of 3 years. Not since we dropped Thorpe has our batting really been firing, and obviously Tresco's departure has only made things worse.

See, even if Jones or Harmison play, England will need a lot to go their way to win the next match. This is a really really good South African team on top form. The only batsman in the top 6 not to get a century after two matches is the legendary one, and Prince has two. And at no stage have England bowled particularly badly. Their pace attack are extremely well-balanced, and capable of striking at any time against any batsman, and the token spinner is useless but they're carrying him fairly well. I don't believe England currently have a team as good as that, whoever they pick.

 

[Days of Grace]

The scary thing for England is that Kallis has not fired yet.

All is not lost for England, though. They need Sidebottom back, that's for sure.

Meanwhile, Jimmy seems to be showing more form with the bat then with the ball

 

[Top_Cat]

The scary thing for England is that Kallis has not fired yet.

All is not lost for England, though. They need Sidebottom back, that's for sure.

Meanwhile, Jimmy seems to be showing more form with the bat then with the ball

Surely you mean Broad. Jimmy Anderson has been extremely unlucky.

 

[tooextracool]

See, even if Jones or Harmison play, England will need a lot to go their way to win the next match. This is a really really good South African team on top form. The only batsman in the top 6 not to get a century after two matches is the legendary one, and Prince has two. And at no stage have England bowled particularly badly. Their pace attack are extremely well-balanced, and capable of striking at any time against any batsman, and the token spinner is useless but they're carrying him fairly well. I don't believe England currently have a team as good as that, whoever they pick.

I think you are exaggerating the quality of this SA batting card. No matter what way you look at it, there is no hiding from the fact that Devilliers and Prince scored the bulk of the runs with little to no contribution from everyone else. Admittedly Prince has been very impressive, I am surprised that someone with a fairly good technique and temperament has such a ordinary record tbh. However, if any of the next 2 pitches offer anything for the bowlers, past experience would suggest that Smith wont score a run against Anderson or Flintoff. McKenzie has done well but hes still unproven, Amla and Boucher have both looked unconvincing all series thus far and Kallis is struggling for form. I know it doesnt mean much now, but England should have had SA at 101/4 at the end of day 1 which was admirable given that they got the worst of the batting conditions.
SA have applied themselves fairly well with the bat thus far, but I am still far from convinced that if England manage to prepare a decent pitch or serve up swing friendly conditions that SA wont be put to the sword especially if England actually pick some of their good bowlers.

 

[Top_Cat]

I think you are exaggerating the quality of this SA batting card. No matter what way you look at it, there is no hiding from the fact that Devilliers and Prince scored the bulk of the runs with little to no contribution from everyone else. Admittedly Prince has been very impressive, I am surprised that someone with a fairly good technique and temperament has such a ordinary record tbh. However, if any of the next 2 pitches offer anything for the bowlers, past experience would suggest that Smith wont score a run against Anderson or Flintoff. McKenzie has done well but hes still unproven, Amla and Boucher have both looked unconvincing all series thus far and Kallis is struggling for form. I know it doesnt mean much now, but England should have had SA at 101/4 at the end of day 1 which was admirable given that they got the worst of the batting conditions.
SA have applied themselves fairly well with the bat thus far, but I am still far from convinced that if England manage to prepare a decent pitch or serve up swing friendly conditions that SA wont be put to the sword especially if England actually pick some of their good bowlers.

Personally, England are missing an enforcer. Prince and Devilliers have historically looked like deer in the headlights against the Aussies and part of that is the quality of the bowling but the other part is being able to take them away from their core grinding game and force them into shots they don't want to play. That's really been the strategy by which the Aussies have generally beaten South Africa since they were re-admitted. Somehow England need to find a way to at least make them feel under pressure to score.

I reckon the South Africans don't rate the England batting line-up. Guys like Amla, Prince, MacKenzie and Devilliers can grind out long innings comfortable in the knowledge that they won't be chasing a big score nor will the opposition be setting them a big one if it comes down to a 4th innings chase. Until this situation is rectified, England won't win a Test this series which would be a disaster and make a mockery of the pre-series hype.

 

[tooextracool]

Personally, England are missing an enforcer. Prince and Devilliers have historically looked like deer in the headlights against the Aussies and part of that is the quality of the bowling but the other part is being able to take them away from their core grinding game and force them into shots they don't want to play. That's really been the strategy by which the Aussies have generally beaten South Africa since they were re-admitted. Somehow England need to find a way to at least make them feel under pressure to score.

I reckon the South Africans don't rate the England batting line-up. Guys like Amla, Prince, MacKenzie and Devilliers can grind out long innings comfortable in the knowledge that they won't be chasing a big score nor will the opposition be setting them a big one if it comes down to a 4th innings chase. Until this situation is rectified, England won't win a Test this series which would be a disaster and make a mockery of the pre-series hype.

I thought both Prince and ABD had serious issues playing Warne rather than anything else in their last skirmish with Australia?
Anyways, On England's batting, I dont rate the batting at all, to the point that Ive lost hope in them. Most of them, including Pietersen, are living off past glories and questions must be asked about every one of them. However, I dont see any drastic changes being made to the batting at this point, the only one capable of adding brilliance and grinding out long innings (as you mentioned) is currently struggling to gather the nerve to score his 100th test hundred. That is why I think the improvement has got to come in the bowling department and if Jones, Flintoff, Anderson and Sid can outperform their South African counterparts it might just make up for any difference in their batting.

 

[Top_Cat]

I thought both Prince and ABD had serious issues playing Warne rather than anything else in their last skirmish with Australia?

In the home series for sure but Lee was as good as Warne there and it was Lee and Clark who did the damage in the return series in SA. As I said, good bowling absolutely played its part but England didn't bowl poorly in this Test either.

The difference is, though, that guys like Prince would get beaten or play a false shot but then get back to what they were doing because they weren't put under any pressure to score by, say, a huge total. The Aussie batsmen did that job against SA so the Saffies knew that even though a few of them were batting quite well, the response was going to be strong so batting well wasn't just desirable, it was absolutely crucial. They knew they couldn't just play Warne/McGrath/Lee/Clark out and seemed to feel the pressure to go after them. The England batting line-up doesn't install the same sort of fear-of-failure in them that the Aussie bats do.

Anyways, On England's batting, I dont rate the batting at all, to the point that Ive lost hope in them. Most of them, including Pietersen, are living off past glories and questions must be asked about every one of them. However, I dont see any drastic changes being made to the batting at this point, the only one capable of adding brilliance and grinding out long innings (as you mentioned) is currently struggling to gather the nerve to score his 100th test hundred. That is why I think the improvement has got to come in the bowling department and if Jones, Flintoff, Anderson and Sid can outperform their South African counterparts it might just make up for any difference in their batting.

Who is this batting genius!? haha

More attacking bowlers would help, sure. I maintain, though, that without the scores to back up the bowling unit, the team will continue to struggle.

 

[Burgey]

Read the posts made after Pietersen's dismissal and am surprised more people weren't more damning, frankly. The bloke looked like he was in for a village green lark rather than trying to save a test.
One of those guys to whose ego you can bowl. Dire effort on his part imo.

 

[Leslie1]

KP's damnation (lack of) might be due to the fact that he wasn't slaying his bat at the ball that got him out. It was quite a good delivery and until that delivery, Kallis wasn't offering anything with the ball.

He would have been defensive and STILL would have gotten out to that ball.

My point is, point the finger at all the other batsman that barring Bell who can build a partnership with KP, the rest of the batting lineup need a shakeup. You cannot expect KP to carry the bulk of the batting while the rest of the side just rides his success at the crease when he comes off. Even more embarrassing to damn him considering he's not English.

 

[Top_Cat]

I reckon not batting a number 7 at 6 would help their batting problems no end. England need someone who bats ugly (but isn't out of form) at 6. Another stroke-player would be a mistake, in my view as they have KP, Vaughan and Bell before 6 and Ambrose or Flintoff after 6.

 

[howardj]

When in doubt, go back to the reliable formula of your six best bats; your four best leather-flingers, and a keeper.

For mine, that means:

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Flintoff
Ambrose
Anderson
Jones
Penesar

 

[Goughy]

My point is, it's not conclusive at this point what kind of job he is capable of doing in a Test match. Might as well give every bowler a chance if you're going to base it on one match.

I am not sure if he'll play next week but I do think he'll get a few more caps in his time

Its not conclusive because he has played hardly any first class cricket.

England needs to select their best side.

His inclusion is a farce. End of story, if they want to continue the farce and be supported for it then more power to them and the people that support them in that. I however, will hold a very low opinion of such terrible logic.

 

[Goughy]

Three questions need to be kept very separate:

1. What will the selectors do? I think the chances are that they will stick with him for the squad for the 3rd Test.

2. What should the selectors have done in the first place? Was it right to pick DP for this game? Well we've done that one I think and let's not revisit it here because it's history now.

3. What should the selectors do now - should they drop DP after one game? This is not that straightforward an issue. There is obviously force in what Goughy says. But on the other hand DP is part of the set-up now and it would be wrong to pretend that he isn't. Even though he leapfrogged others in the first place, selectors who want to send out a message of loyalty wouldn't be doing that by dumping him after one game when he didn't do any worse than the rest of the bowlers. He did not prove himself as a Test bowler, but at the same time he didn't prove that he wasn't up to it either. So there's something to be said for giving him a fair run, which means more than one innings of bowling in conditions which (for whatever reason) were neither conducive to swing nor seam bowling.

When you have made a mistake it needs to be rectified. The sooner the better. Being part of the setup means nothing when your position is almost untenable given the circumstances.

I agree that players should be given a run when selected. However, there must be exceptions for when a clear and obvious mistake has been made.

This is a mess and I have little faith that anything close to an intelligent solution will be made. If there was then there would be resignations already as they have shown they are incompetant.

 

[Flem274*]

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Collingwood
Ambrose
Flintoff
Sidebottom
Jones
Anderson