***Official*** South Africa in England

[Uppercut]

Depends what you define as nice really though. You might like torrential rain!

True. Bloody weathermen hedging their bets...

 

[jammay123]

Weather forecasts are BS anyway. I woke up this morning in the middle of torrential rain to the news that "the weather will be particularly nice in Belfast today...".

that is nice weather for belfast

 

[tooextracool]

Interesting, I've never really studied his stats tbh, but watching Englands last 7-8 tests played, he definately struck me as being a step-up from Martin, I mean he didn't quite have the propensity to miss straight deliveries that martin has. But hey, I stand to be corrected, maybe he is currently the 2nd worst test batsmen.

Panesar has a decent technique for a tailender, hes definetly not the worst tailender going around. I dont think hes very good, but hes not bad for a number 11. Plays with a straight bat, stands upright, does not have a ridiculously high backlift, thats about as much as you can ask.

I've always believed that batting averages for tailenders dont mean squat, because their job at the crease is almost never to score runs but to bat time. Personally, I think using a statistic such as balls faced per innings is a more accurate indication of batting ability than batting averages. If people did that they would realize that players like Anderson (prior to this series) and Panesar are far better batters than their averages suggest. Certainly, I would always put Panesar in to bat ahead of Steve Harmison at the crease despite the descrepancy in their batting averages. However, the reason why people are only now actually starting to take note of Anderson's batting is because he scored runs despite the fact that his batting technique has changed little over the last few years (i.e hes just as likely to get out to a good ball now as he was before this series despite the improvement in his batting).

 

[Uppercut]

Panesar has a decent technique for a tailender, hes definetly not the worst tailender going around. I dont think hes very good, but hes not bad for a number 11. Plays with a straight bat, stands upright, does not have a ridiculously high backlift, thats about as much as you can ask.

I've always believed that batting averages for tailenders dont mean squat, because their job at the crease is almost never to score runs but to bat time. Personally, I think using a statistic such as balls faced per innings is a more accurate indication of batting ability than batting averages. If people did that they would realize that players like Anderson (prior to this series) and Panesar are far better batters than their averages suggest. Certainly, I would always put Panesar in to bat ahead of Steve Harmison at the crease despite the descrepancy in their batting averages. However, the reason why people are only now actually starting to take note of Anderson's batting is because he scored runs despite the fact that his batting technique has changed little over the last few years (i.e hes just as likely to get out to a good ball now as he was before this series despite the improvement in his batting).

There's truth in that, but its mainly for tail-enders batting with an established batsman. If there were two tail-enders, someone like Tim Southee who can slog the ball a long way would be preferably to someone with decent technique who can't score runs.

 

[tooextracool]

I can't help finding this selection a little baffling. What happened in the selection meeting?:

Vaughan - "Right boys, we havn't taken 20 wickets in a match yet this series. We obviously have sidebottom back so pattinson can go tile his roof again. What do we think?"

Giles - "We obviously lack in the bowling department, I have an idea. Call me crazy but what if we drop a bowler?"

All selectors - "Brilliant...."

Vaughan - "Pub anyone?"

I know the pitch ain't geared for pace bowlers but what is Collingwood actually going to do?

Considering that England lost the Headingly test not because of their bowling (which while not special was hardly poor) but because of their shocking batting in both innings, I dont see how picking Collingwood was a bad move. Whether Collingwood was the right batting option or not is debateable given his own batting form. But Id pick Collingwood over Bopara 10 out of 10 times a week.

 

[tooextracool]

There's truth in that, but its mainly for tail-enders batting with an established batsman. If there were two tail-enders, someone like Tim Southee who can slog the ball a long way would be preferably to someone with decent technique who can't score runs.

And Im fairly certain that Tim Southee would have a higher average BPI (balls per innings) than Panesar.

Anyways from what I have seen off Southee he looked more like a number 8 than a tailender. He already has a test match 50 and 2 FC 50s which would reconfirm that belief. I think the BPI would be a more accurate indication when used with number 10s and 11s and maybe number 9s. I say this because I dont think averaging 10 is considerably better than averaging 6.

 

[tooextracool]

Why??? Shah has been the best batsman in domestic cricket (First-Class format) for the last 8 seasons now. You can't ask for more than that.

Has he had any success on green tops? I was initially quite confident of Owais Shah but hes looked out of depth when playing on seamer friendly wickets in ODIs.

 

[tooextracool]

Well I obviously feel differently - but aside from that, it's so obscenely unfair to give chances to batsmen whose performances are inferior just because "he doesn't look like a Test batsman to me".

Thinking you know better than the game itself is a very, very dangerous game to play as a selector.

Isnt that the point of being a selector? I mean if we were to ignore qualities like 'talent' , 'temperament' and 'potential' then the selectors would be better off being replaced by a bunch of statisticians with little knowledge of cricket.

 

[tooextracool]

Oh, you know that do you? Can you also tell me when it's going to rain, got to take my 5-year old to the cinema on friday so would like it to coincide with any break in play.

He scored 17 and 38 in the last Test, not good, but hardly an absolute shocker. He may well have passed his peak as a batsman but to categorically state that it is unlikely he will ever score another century is foolish. You can categorically state Sidebottom, panesar won't ever score one but to rule Flintoff out is....well as I said, silly

Yeah applied himself fairly well when he was at the crease at Headingly in the 2nd dig. Probably played one of the better innings in the side until he threw it away. In a different situation, he might have got a hundred with that effort.

 

[GIMH]

Sorry I'm reading "selectors" and "little knowledge of cricket" and suddenly life makes sense

 

[tooextracool]

well I mean if we were to ignore our national selectors.

 

[Richard]

Isnt that the point of being a selector? I mean if we were to ignore qualities like 'talent' , 'temperament' and 'potential' then the selectors would be better off being replaced by a bunch of statisticians with little knowledge of cricket.

The point is that success > failure. If you start picking moderate successes (if even successes at all) instead of proven successes, you're on very dodgy ground indeed.

Selectors' most important role is deciding when and if to drop, rather than who to pick to replace. The former is far more difficult. If you've got a surfeit of successful domestic players, that's when the ability to discern certain qualities that don't always present themselves in on-field success becomes important.

 

[Richard]

Has he had any success on green tops? I was initially quite confident of Owais Shah but hes looked out of depth when playing on seamer friendly wickets in ODIs.

I haven't seen enough of him batting in domestic cricket to know that for certain, but I find it almost inconceivable that with his average of the past 8 seasons (even given that this has been a time when run-scoring in England in general has gotten far easier - and the timing was exact) he hasn't scored some runs on green wickets.

Closest thing to a reliable way to discern that would be to use CricketArchive PlayerOracle, take all his scores of say 60+ since 2001 and see how many came in low-scoring games where seamers were successful.

 

[tooextracool]

The point is that success > failure. If you start picking moderate successes (if even successes at all) instead of proven successes, you're on very dodgy ground indeed.

Selectors' most important role is deciding when and if to drop, rather than who to pick to replace. The former is far more difficult. If you've got a surfeit of successful domestic players, that's when the ability to discern certain qualities that don't always present themselves in on-field success becomes important.

Im not sure if I agree with that. If you have a player thats been averaging 50 odd over the last 8 seasons and you've got someone whos been averaging 50 odd over the last 2 seasons, you dont necessarily always go in with the more consistent player. If we were to go solely upon that, Mark Ealham should be ahead in the reckoning than someone like Chris Tremlett or Simon Jones. Consistency is great, but there are times when you can quite clearly tell that certain players are simply not upto the mark even without having to go through the entire process of test and move on.

 

[mczu]

England 1 Alastair Cook, 2 Andrew Strauss, 3 Michael Vaughan (capt), 4 Kevin Pietersen, 5 Ian Bell, 6 Paul Collingwood, 7 Andrew Flintoff, 8 Tim Ambrose (wk), 9 Ryan Sidebottom, 10 Monty Panesar, 11 James Anderson


South Africa 1 Graeme Smith/JP Duminy, 2 Neil McKenzie, 3 Hashim Amla, 4 Jacques Kallis, 5 Ashwell Prince, 6 AB de Villiers, 7 Mark Boucher (wk), 8 Morne Morkel, 9 Paul Harris, 10 Andre Nel, 11 Makhaya Ntini.

 

[Top_Cat]

Im not sure if I agree with that. If you have a player thats been averaging 50 odd over the last 8 seasons and you've got someone whos been averaging 50 odd over the last 2 seasons, you dont necessarily always go in with the more consistent player. If we were to go solely upon that, Mark Ealham should be ahead in the reckoning than someone like Chris Tremlett or Simon Jones. Consistency is great, but there are times when you can quite clearly tell that certain players are simply not upto the mark even without having to go through the entire process of test and move on.

Yes.

There are also issues like team balance to worry about.

 

[superkingdave]

Will probably go watch at least a session if the weather holds

 

[Richard]

England 1 Alastair Cook, 2 Andrew Strauss, 3 Michael Vaughan (capt), 4 Kevin Pietersen, 5 Ian Bell, 6 Paul Collingwood, 7 Andrew Flintoff, 8 Tim Ambrose (wk), 9 Ryan Sidebottom, 10 Monty Panesar, 11 James Anderson


South Africa 1 Graeme Smith/JP Duminy, 2 Neil McKenzie, 3 Hashim Amla, 4 Jacques Kallis, 5 Ashwell Prince, 6 AB de Villiers, 7 Mark Boucher (wk), 8 Morne Morkel, 9 Paul Harris, 10 Andre Nel, 11 Makhaya Ntini.

Cook and Strauss will bat the other way around, but apart from that, yep. Wonder what the weather is like.

EDIT: having looked on the Birmingham webcams, doesn't look especially great. Certainly no sign of sun anywhere. Whether it's raining it's impossible to tell really though, so hopefully it might not be.

 

[Richard]

Im not sure if I agree with that. If you have a player thats been averaging 50 odd over the last 8 seasons and you've got someone whos been averaging 50 odd over the last 2 seasons, you dont necessarily always go in with the more consistent player. If we were to go solely upon that, Mark Ealham should be ahead in the reckoning than someone like Chris Tremlett or Simon Jones. Consistency is great, but there are times when you can quite clearly tell that certain players are simply not upto the mark even without having to go through the entire process of test and move on.

True. More often than not, though, there'll not be enough between them for it to be cancelled-out. That was essentially what the selectors did, erroneously, last winter with Shah and Bopara, though Bopara had even less of a case than 2 good seasons - he'd just had 1 at that stage.

As I say, also - you're on slightly dangerous ground if you simply assume. Yes, it'd be fairly logical to assume that Chris Tremlett would make a better Test bowler than Mark Ealham, but things aren't always as simple as they seem. Sometimes, despite not looking the part anywhere near the way another does, a player can do a job.

 

[GIMH]

Has it been confirmed that Ambrose will bat at 8?