***Official*** South Africa in England

[SJS]

I disagree with most of this.

I've seen Anderson, this season, bowl an entire over where each delivery was at 90mph and above.

And I don't agree that consistent pace is necessarily the key - if you're always bowling at top speed you lose the ability to change your pace up, and to slip in the quicker one.

Its amazing how often this is forgotten. Almost all the truly great fast bowlers, bowled just a bit below their top speeds most of the time that is why they surprised batsmen not just with beautifully disguised slower ones that arrived too late or a sudden thunderbolt that arrived too early.

We are so enamoured with speed (and "who-is-the-fastest) and speedometers that the subtlety and the nuances which make a great bowler is completely lost on us.

 

[Richard]

Just curious, who are you supporting this series?

With Nel not playing, I haven't really been too fussed - Smith and Kallis are about the only South Africans I particularly liked, whereas there are any number of England players I do (Vaughan, Strauss, Cook, Pietersen, Bell, Sidebottom, Ambrose). If Nel gets in the team, though, I'll probably be supporting South Africa. Smith and Nel have long been two of my favourite players currently, and that can just tip the balance I suppose.

I've said it all along - I'm never really sure with England-South Africa series'. Haven't been ever since 2003. I'd guess it'll depend on who's involved for the rest of my life.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Harmison back in 13 man squad

From cricinfo:

England squad: Michael Vaughan (capt), Tim Ambrose (wk), James Anderson, Ian Bell, Stuart Broad, Paul Collingwood, Alastair Cook, Andrew Flintoff, Steve Harmison, Monty Panesar, Kevin Pietersen, Ryan Sidebottom, Andrew Strauss.

Broad retained but Sir Les predictably gets the arse. Colly for Broad & Sid (if fit) for Pattinson for the XI for mine.

 

[GIMH]

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Ambrose
Flintoff
Sidebottom
Anderson
Panesar

Though I think Harmy might play actually

 

[Scaly piscine]

I've a very faint hope they'll bring Harmison in for Panesar because they want to force a result.

 

[stumpski]

Harmison for Anderson perhaps? I know Broad hasn't been getting many wickets, but it still seems hard to drop someone who's just made three 50s in consecutive Tests. Not many of the batters have managed that.

 

[tooextracool]

If the selectors drop Anderson for Harmison at this point it will probably be far worse than the selection of Pattinson in the last test. Seriously, I know Anderson has been frustrating at times but there is no grounds to drop him at the moment. He has put in a wholehearted effort this series and its been obvious not just with the ball, but with the bat and in the field.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Yeah if they drop Jimmy they'll be replying to a fair few more emails from me, that's for sure.

 

[PY]

Fair few 'emails'? You gone soft?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

By emails I obviously meant packages of anthrax.

 

[stumpski]

Oh dear - anyone seen the latest? Bangs A's 59-6 replying to 429-3. Not sure if Smith would even consider this worthwhile practice.

 

[Uppercut]

I've a very faint hope they'll bring Harmison in for Panesar because they want to force a result.

Isn't Edgebaston considerably more likely to turn than either Headingley or Lord's were though?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Isn't Edgebaston considerably more likely to turn than either Headingley or Lord's were though?

Yea later in the match it, but it won't do England much good if they concede 500+ in SA's first innings.

 

[Uppercut]

Yea later in the match it, but it won't do England much good if they concede 500+ in SA's first innings.

Hmm no... I still think Panesar's the option on this particular pitch. By no means should he be the automatic pick he currently is, but at Edgebaston, he has to play.

 

[Scaly piscine]

As I say he'll come into it later but the other bowlers will still be as much a factor and they'll be a factor the rest of the game too unlike Panesar.

If you look at previous years yes the real top spinners have done damage as the game went on, such as Warne and Murali, but Panesar isn't in the same league. England will need four genuine seamers for the first 2-3 days to do all the work.

This is all assuming of course that the pitch is similar to previous years.

 

[stumpski]

South Africa have a lead of 308, by no means guaranteed that they'll enforce the follow-on though.

 

[wpdavid]

As I say he'll come into it later but the other bowlers will still be as much a factor and they'll be a factor the rest of the game too unlike Panesar.

If you look at previous years yes the real top spinners have done damage as the game went on, such as Warne and Murali, but Panesar isn't in the same league. England will need four genuine seamers for the first 2-3 days to do all the work.

This is all assuming of course that the pitch is similar to previous years.

I'm trying to recall what happened in previous years. IIRC Giles had a couple of decent spells in 2005 but was hopeless on the final morning and most of the Aus wickets fell to the quicks anyway. In 2006 didn't our quicks see off SL? 2007 I don't really remember, but if it was against WI then I suppose it doesn't much matter who took the wickets.

If we play 5 bowlers again, then obv Panesar plays. If we play only 4, it's much more debateable afaics. Given how easily SA have played Panesar in their last 2 innings, I'd lean towards SB, Anderson, Fred and Harmison (although I never thought I'd say that). This is a must-win game, esp with Steyn out, and imo we can't afford to go in with only 2 regular wicket takers. Not that any of them have been that, I suppose, but Broad & Panesar have been even less threatening than the rest and Fred doesn't run through sides anyway.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Yea England didn't play a Test at Edgbaston in 2007. Basically in the 2000s Giles has had bits of success but it is his home ground and that was mostly against an awful West Indies side.

 

[Goughy]

Harmison for Anderson perhaps? I know Broad hasn't been getting many wickets, but it still seems hard to drop someone who's just made three 50s in consecutive Tests. Not many of the batters have managed that.

Its a very English logic.

Hard or not, the boy isnt ready to contribute with the ball at this level. Therefore he doesnt play.

50s dont mean anything

 

[GIMH]

By emails I obviously meant packages of anthrax.