***Official*** South Africa in England

[sledger]

but selection, it seems, was why the English lost this match.

Terrible selection, but it wasn't the reason the match was lost.

 

[Arjun]

Some commentators (possibly Botham) went on and on about selection. I wonder what selection that was. Then again, what else would you find wrong?

• Flintoff not ready?
• Broad struggling to get a wicket?
• Feeble first-innings batting?
• Collingwood's absence?

 

[pasag]

I'm a little late here, but what were the dumbest England selections according to you? I've read more than a few pages on who should replace Pattinson, but selection, it seems, was why the English lost this match.

It's easy to blame the loss on Pattinson, but England's batsmen lost it for them with their insipid showing in the first innings (second innings wasn't much better).

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's easy to blame the loss on Pattinson, but England's batsmen lost it for them with their insipid showing in the first innings (second innings wasn't much better).

Yeah, Pattinson actually went ok as far as it goes. He didn't get a lot of swing (a touch with the second new ball when he got one to leave Prince from around the wicket) but neither did Jimmy either. I don't agree with his selection, but no-one could really fault his efforts. Certainly more effective than Broad, who's gunbarrel straight & not quick enough to disquiet batsman with his pace.

 

[zaremba]

I agree that Pattinson's selection was by no means decisive - and he did indeed outbowl Broad.

 

[Manee]

Broad hasn't ever been a Test quality bowler. As long as he is batting lower than seven, he is a wasted, useless member of the team. His runs will often be wasted if they are scored at eight and nine because the tail will often crumble and leave him stranded.

 

[Langeveldt]

I'm a little late here, but what were the dumbest England selections according to you? I've read more than a few pages on who should replace Pattinson, but selection, it seems, was why the English lost this match.

No it wasn't.. England were outperformed in pretty much every department, and although Pattinson didn't cover himself in glory, he by no means bowled poorly..

 

[Athlai]

Broad > Panesar. Better at keeping it tight too IMO.

 

[Manee]

Broad > Panesar.

In Tests, that is a travesty of a joke of a statement.

 

[Richard]

It's easy to blame the loss on Pattinson, but England's batsmen lost it for them with their insipid showing in the first innings (second innings wasn't much better).

Far more insipid in the second- than first-innings TBH. SA actually bowled decently in some helpful conditions first time around. No such excuse second time around, and even though they were never remotely likely to win the game, they should really have done better than they ended-up doing.

 

[Richard]

Some commentators (possibly Botham) went on and on about selection. I wonder what selection that was. Then again, what else would you find wrong?

• Flintoff not ready?
• Broad struggling to get a wicket?
• Feeble first-innings batting?
• Collingwood's absence?

Flintoff I don't think was a problem, things just didn't go his way; Broad struggling to get wickets yes, though of course that's nothing new; feeble first-innings batting - as I say, it was far worse in the second-innings; and Collingwood's presence I rather doubt would have made any difference.

 

[Athlai]

In Tests, that is a travesty of a joke of a statement.

If the pitch isn't turning it's true though.

 

[Leslie1]

Flintoff I don't think was a problem, things just didn't go his way; Broad struggling to get wickets yes, though of course that's nothing new; feeble first-innings batting - as I say, it was far worse in the second-innings; and Collingwood's presence I rather doubt would have made any difference.

I'm a fan of Broad staying in the side regardless of his supposedly poor bowling form. It's not like he's playing poorly as a cricketer. IT's early, but he is your all rounder, and must be compared with Flintoff rather than your out and out bowler.

 

[pasag]

I'm a fan of Broad staying in the side regardless of his supposedly poor bowling form. It's not like he's playing poorly as a cricketer. IT's early, but he is your all rounder, and must be compared with Flintoff rather than your out and out bowler.

Hardly makes sense to bat him at eight then, though? He's not and shouldn't be picked for his batting, which whilst it has been nice isn't something that will necessarily continue as anything more than a nice occasional bonus. England need bowlers and if he can't get the job done in that department he should be replaced with someone who can.

 

[Burgey]

I'm a fan of Broad staying in the side regardless of his supposedly poor bowling form. It's not like he's playing poorly as a cricketer. IT's early, but he is your all rounder, and must be compared with Flintoff rather than your out and out bowler.

If Broad, at this stage of his career, is going to be picked as England's all rounder, they may as well hand the trophy to SA now, and not even think about next year's Ashes series either.

He's a good kid and has potential, but there's no way he's a six or seven yet imo (he may be in the future but not yet), while he's struggled with the ball in recent times as a lot of young kids do after they've been in the side for a little while (Johnson for Australia is another example).

 

[pasag]

England really missed out on getting a massive leg up from the 'First Test touring side underdone factor' for the second time in the past year. First was with India where they came so close but the weather robbed them (although if they had gone through their overs quicker...) and now with SA where they had a massive advantage in the first Test but were unable to bring it home. They lost the series against India and now they're up against it here.

 

[Steulen]

Flintoff and Broad are both all-rounders, with Flintoff struggling as a batsman and Broad struggling as a bowler. Drop the one struggling in the department you need to toughen up most.

Pattinson will go, and it's probably time for another episode of Wicky-go-round.

So there's three places in the side up for grabs: a seam bowler, a 'keeper, and depending which allrounder gets dropped another bowler or a batsman.

Assuming Sidebottom is fit again, I'd go for him, James Foster and either Owais Shah or Chris Tremlett.

 

[Goughy]

Flintoff and Broad are both all-rounders, with Flintoff struggling as a batsman and Broad struggling as a bowler. Drop the one struggling in the department you need to toughen up most.

In good conscience, I could not call Broad an allrounder at Test level given he has never scored a FC century.

A few cameos doesnt make him an allrounder IMO right now. Certainly looks capable with the bat though.

Id like to see him score a boat load of FC runs before Ill pay too much attention to it.

 

[Richard]

What surprises me is the fact he hasn't already.

Broad has looked a highly competant batsman in his recent Tests, and I cannot fathom why his First-Class record with the bat is so extremely moderate.

I'd say if Nico Boje and Andrew Flintoff can average in the 30s with the bat in First-Class cricket, so should he.

Perhaps if he played some more this season, he might get up towards such a thing.

 

[Richard]

England really missed out on getting a massive leg up from the 'First Test touring side underdone factor' for the second time in the past year.

The funny thing is, South Africa looked fairly un-underdone that Lord's Test by recent standards. All their batsmen have scored runs on this tour - some of them bagfuls - and the bowlers have been perfectly OK. All right, you'd generally say five days of cricket wasn't enough preparation for a four-Test series, but they used it well.

Only reason England got on top at Lord's was because of a session and a bit of exceptional bowling, early on the third day. That Lord's Test should always have been a foregone draw, and so it proved when England were unable to repeat their knocking-over of SA's top-order (though I say it again, you can never know how different things might have been had they appealed for that Smith caught-behind and had that McKenzie lbw been given).