***Official*** South Africa in England

[GIMH]

Yeah, was interesting stuff. Victor has a beautiful speaking voice, doesn't he? Gus looks about 50 now tho, mind you he always did look like he was knackered when he was playing & kept charging in.

Missed the first twenty minutes, but they all came down in favour of Mick for the Ashes, which was interesting.

Yeah he does & it's always interesting hearing these blokes you read week after week speaking

 

[Scaly piscine]

Pitches can, in general, start to take spin on the fourth and fifth days, even if they started as seaming wickets and in such a scenario, Monty could be crucial to pushing for a result in the final innings or in the third innings.

If it's a seaming wicket it wouldn't last 5 days. Panesar has shown time and again he's not an attacking option, without bad batting he'll take the best part of 50 overs to take a 5-fer even on a turning pitch. So after you've conceded a first innings lead he's busy letting the game get even further away even if the pitch actually offers him anything.

 

[Manee]

If it's a seaming wicket it wouldn't last 5 days. Panesar has shown time and again he's not an attacking option, without bad batting he'll take the best part of 50 overs to take a 5-fer even on a turning pitch. So after you've conceded a first innings lead he's busy letting the game get even further away even if the pitch actually offers him anything.

Imo, it is by no means a clear cut decision with Harmison being the possible replacement for Monty. However, I think that it must be considered, that although it has not revealed itself in the series so far, South Africa have a greater tendancy to get out or 'get themselves out' against spin bowling than seam bowling and although this is something which may be unquantifyable due to the lack of many quality spinners in the world as of late, it was evident in the India series where Harbhajan Singh was the top wicket taker. The variety in the attack provided by a spin option can also be important in the event of a long South African partnership in which the bowlers are all bowling 85mph and not finding any swing. You are entitled to your opinion though and I must confess that my main reasoning for including Monty can only be classified as 'gut instinct' but it is one which I am firm to and similarly you are firm to your belief that Monty is pretty useless at prizing (sp?) out wickets that are not gifted to him and I respect that.

EDIT: Seaming does not necessarily mean one in which teams get skittled out but merely one that assists the seamers, you still have to bowl well to take wickets on a seaming wicket and with England, and a Steyn-less South Africa, this is by no means a given.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Sorry but Panesar is fairly useless at breaking big partnerships - so many times games have just drifted away from England because of it. The supposed variety of a finger spinner is largely useless when he fails to break partnerships and doesn't capitalise when he's got footmarks to utilise (because he's poor against left handers). Harmison's 90mph steepling bounce gives you as much variety as Panesar does, especially since it's a genuine threat and his bowling gets into the heads of batsmen. With SA half the battle is getting on top of them because of their mentality (they're a bullying side basically), with 4 seamers I think England can do that and without a benign pitch they're not going to be able to just survive for two days.

 

[Manee]

Harmison's 90mph steepling bounce gives you as much variety as Panesar does, especially since it's a genuine threat and his bowling gets into the heads of batsmen.

But will it add variety when South Africa have notched up 400/5 and Harmison is both physically and mentally drained and so unable to run in and bowl 90mph.

With SA half the battle is getting on top of them because of their mentality (they're a bullying side basically), with 4 seamers I think England can do that and without a benign pitch they're not going to be able to just survive for two days.

I don't think that four seamers alone will be enough to mentally get on top of South Africa - but can't really expand since it is an opinion.

 

[Richard]

Harmison's 90mph steepling bounce gives you as much variety as Panesar does, especially since it's a genuine threat and his bowling gets into the heads of batsmen.

Whether that does or not is debateable - it really works on a case-by-case basis - but even if it has, it hasn't seemed to make much of a difference to his hauls most of the time.

 

[Scaly piscine]

You're a lot more likely to have a first innings lead with 4 seamers than 3 seamers and Panesar, that is what puts you on top. Flintoff & Anderson were flogged into the ground in the last Test because England didn't have 4 quality seamers the lack of a breakthrough meant SA went from 130odd for 4 to well over 500.

 

[Uppercut]

Well on the other hand, if Panesar had not been in the team for the New Zealand test series, England almost certainly would not have won it.

 

[krishneelz]

You're a lot more likely to have a first innings lead with 4 seamers than 3 seamers and Panesar, that is what puts you on top. Flintoff & Anderson were flogged into the ground in the last Test because England didn't have 4 quality seamers the lack of a breakthrough meant SA went from 130odd for 4 to well over 500.

Well Harmison averages 36 bowling in the first or second innings and Monty averages 37 bowling in either these innings...So according to these stats you would not be more likely to gain a first innings lead with Harmison...

I would say the reason why Anderson and Flintoff were 'flogged' against South Africa was due to the dynamics within the pace bowling department rather than England not playing 4 seamers...The inclusion of Harmison will solve this problem but for who?

I have always been a fan of 4 bowlers 1 allrounder 5 batsmen and a wicki...Play Harmison, Monty, Anderson and Sidebottom as bowlers...Freddy as your allrounder....Ambrose wicki...Strauss, Vaughn, Kevin, Bell and Cook as your batsmen......Broad hasnt been bowling well so he will not take the bowling spot and I dont rate him yet as a batsmen although he has performed well with the bat recently....And I would find it hard to leave freddy out

 

[Scaly piscine]

Well on the other hand, if Panesar had not been in the team for the New Zealand test series, England almost certainly would not have won it.

Bulldust. Panesar was largely useless against NZ. Even when he was gifted a 6-fer he got smashed in the first innings. Replace him with a good seamer and they've bowled more effectively, batted more effectively and fielded more effectively.

 

[Rebecca]

Has there ever been a time that England didn't use a spinner and, if so, was it successful?

 

[fredfertang]

They didn't play one in the 2nd test of the bodyline series and lost that game - but that was 76 years ago - I am sure Headingley tests more recently than that have seen an all seam attack but can't find an example at the moment

 

[Rebecca]

Thank you.

 

[Rebecca]

I've discovered it was Headingley vs the Saffies in 2003 - picked 5 right arm seamers - Flintoff, Anderson, Kirtley, Bicknell and Kabir Ali.

We lost.

 

[Goughy]

Just a few without a spinner we won. For a long time it seemed it was more common than not

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63651.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63578.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63557.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63526.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63817.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63864.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63889.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63892.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63932.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63939.html

Whether you class Willey as a specialist spinner
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63291.html

Whether you class Miller as a specialist spinner
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63221.html

Schofield picked but didnt bowl a ball
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63883.html

I personally like this line-up that beat a decent WI team.

MA Atherton
ME Trescothick
N Hussain
GP Thorpe
AJ Stewart
MP Vaughan
GA Hick
C White
DG Cork
AR Caddick
D Gough

3 good quicks with a fast White in support (shock bowler). Hick at 7 and Cork at 9. Very nice batting lineup and if the worst happens then Hick and Vaughan could bowl overs.

 

[wpdavid]

Just a few without a spinner we won. For a long time it seemed it was more common than not

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63651.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63578.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63557.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63526.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63817.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63864.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63889.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63892.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63932.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63939.html

Whether you class Willey as a specialist spinner
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63291.html

Whether you class Miller as a specialist spinner
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63221.html

Schofield picked but didnt bowl a ball
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63883.html

I personally like this line-up that beat a decent WI team.

MA Atherton
ME Trescothick
N Hussain
GP Thorpe
AJ Stewart
MP Vaughan
GA Hick
C White
DG Cork
AR Caddick
D Gough

3 good quicks with a fast White in support (shock bowler). Hick at 7 and Cork at 9. Very nice batting lineup and if the worst happens then Hick and Vaughan could bowl overs.

It was a fair England side. Looking at that list, it was surprising to see 2 games at the Oval and one game in Aus (I'm ignoring Miller's game against Aus reserves). Obv the games at Leeds, Lord's in May and the WI were less of a surprise.

The other example for me in the very strong SA side in the mid90's who regularly went in with 4 seamers plus Cronje.

 

[Rebecca]

A lot more common than I realised.

 

[wpdavid]

A lot more common than I realised.

Maybe, but still mighty rare as a percentage of the number of games that England have played. I think the only occasion that Goughy missed out (and forgive me if it was there) was the Leeds test against WI in 2000. But looking through the records from the 1970's to date, there weren't any other occasions that I spotted. Before then it strikes me as hugely unlikely anyway.

Which isn't to say that we shouldn't do it at Edgbaston. I think there's a certain amount of mythology about SA being weak against spin. Just because Warne enjoyed playing them doesn't mean regular finger spinners will do the same. Every time we've beaten them, it's been down to our quicks, fwiw.

 

[wpdavid]

Has there ever been a time that England didn't use a spinner and, if so, was it successful?

To take a slightly different slant on your question, the only period of more than a single test was against WI in 2000. And yes, it worked, not that WI were great away from home even then.

 

[Goughy]

Maybe, but still mighty rare as a percentage of the number of games that England have played. I think the only occasion that Goughy missed out (and forgive me if it was there) was the Leeds test against WI in 2000. But looking through the records from the 1970's to date, there weren't any other occasions that I spotted. Before then it strikes me as hugely unlikely anyway.

Which isn't to say that we shouldn't do it at Edgbaston. I think there's a certain amount of mythology about SA being weak against spin. Just because Warne enjoyed playing them doesn't mean regular finger spinners will do the same. Every time we've beaten them, it's been down to our quicks, fwiw.

I only looked at wins. Im sure there were plenty of other occasions in losses and draws.

I wouldnt be supised if in the mid-late 90s England went with no spinner more often than not.

Now if Ive listed most of them and they happen to be mainly wins, then maybe there is a lesson there.