***Official*** South Africa in England

[GIMH]

Yeah, and TBH, this Saffie bowling attack isn't much cop ( which is what made the first innings capitulation so infuriating really), if Colly and Ambrose apply themselves and the proteas do their dreaded "c" word I'll be calling for a knighthood for Moores.

The irony is that going into this series all the talk was about the Saffie bowling attack. It's their batting that has got them into the position they are in currently, the bowling has not been great, though good enough obviously to have dismissed us for under 300 twice.

 

[GIMH]

Well after the Ashes in 2005, we lost 0-2 to Pakistan (A series we really should have won), drew 1-1 in India(which was a good result given how many injuries our side had), drew SL 1-1(another series we should have won comfortably), beat a really poor Pakistan side 2-0 and lost the Ashes 0-5. Cant say those are particularly great results tbh.
England had a very good team before the Ashes in 2005, but full credit to Fletcher for instilling that ruthlessness that we lacked post 2005.

Aye, the India series was the only true high following the Ashes. I wonder if he regrets not going earlier. Got his autobiography upstairs, will get to grips with it in the near future, should be interesting.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Hey, I'm a britisher and I need a scapegoat, and I can't blame this on Gordon Brown or Phil Neville, so Moores will do for me

Steve McLaren's your man.

 

[tooextracool]

Aye, the India series was the only true high following the Ashes. I wonder if he regrets not going earlier. Got his autobiography upstairs, will get to grips with it in the near future, should be interesting.

I might be mistaken, but I remember hearing that he still felt that he was the best person to be coach of England even when he resigned during the World Cup in 2007.

 

[zaremba]

The thing is, Steve McLaren wasn't a disappointment and he didn't underperform. He was a mediocre football manager and was hired in the full knowledge of that fact, and he delivered precisely what was (or should have been) expected of him.

 

[headhunter]

Collingwood to ton up

Delighted for him too, my favourite English batsman.

 

[grecian]

The irony is that going into this series all the talk was about the Saffie bowling attack. It's their batting that has got them into the position they are in currently, the bowling has not been great, though good enough obviously to have dismissed us for under 300 twice.

Well Steyn was the new white hope. He's injured. Ntini is not the player he was, Morkels a work in progress. Seen a lot of criticism for Harris which has gone over the top I think, but he ain't no Murali I think it's safe to say. Nel is just above average as he has been for much of his career, but he's never been better then that, imo. Kallis has bowled quite well, tbf, almost the best performer in the three tests, certainly used the conditions best.

Their batsmen have shown us how to play, it's been proper test match batting and you have been forced to admire it through gritted teeth.

 

[GIMH]

Yes. As Brumby said yesterday, they have been disciplined, if 2.5 an over will do then it will do.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Seen a lot of criticism for Harris which has gone over the top I think, but he ain't no Murali I think it's safe to say.

I think most of the criticism is in the context of the conditions, which would never see a fingerspinner prosper.

 

[grecian]

I think most of the criticism is in the context of the conditions, which would never see a fingerspinner prosper.

Oh actually wasn't talking about here, it was badly phrased. Boycott and others have been vicious.

Actually I don't agree with the finger-spinner consensus around here, but it's an argument that's been done to death, so probably not best to get into it.......

 

[Prince EWS]

So gun for Collingwood to ton up. I've seen very little of this Test but I did see the pre-match discussion either yesterday or the day before and the commentators bagging the crap out of the Collingwood recall. Some were doing so here as well, all on the ridiculous basis of "you can't find your form in a Test match."

Now I think it's fair enough for Richard for example to call for Collingwood's head as he's never rated him and does not believe he has achieved a lot at Test level anyway (I disagree, but that's a fundamental difference of opinion), but poor form over a series or two should not bring someone's place under such scrutiny if they've done it in the past consistently which many (myself included) believe to be true of Collingwood. Few suggested he had actually declined; just that he was in "bad form". Bad form is something you see your established players through, not use as the first excuse to scapegoat them after a poor team performance.

 

[grecian]

Well the guy is 32, the bad form could of been terminal, players have gone at that age, and younger, before.

He had scored 95 first-class run all season, it's not unreasonable to ask for a player to go back to county cricket to get in some form, like Strauss was.

 

[tooextracool]

So gun for Collingwood to ton up. I've seen very little of this Test but I did see the pre-match discussion either yesterday or the day before and the commentators bagging the crap out of the Collingwood recall. Some were doing so here as well, all on the ridiculous basis of "you can't find your form in a Test match."

Now I think it's fair enough for Richard for example to call for Collingwood's head as he's never rated him and does not believe he has achieved a lot at Test level anyway (I disagree, but that's a fundamental difference of opinion), but poor form over a series or two should not bring someone's place under such scrutiny if they've done it in the past consistently which many (myself included) believe to be true of Collingwood. Few suggested he had actually declined; just that he was in "bad form". Bad form is something you see your established players through, not use as the first excuse to scapegoat them after a poor team performance.

I dont think Collingwood should have been dropped after the first test. It made little sense especially since he had been sawn off in his last innings. As you already mentioned, he is the only one in the side who is genuininely out of form, the rest have been in form and struggled. And Tbf to Richard, I dont think he called for Collingwoods head either and I think both Richard and I were quite happy to see Collingwood in the side ahead of Broad and Harmison.

I think the selectors handled him poorly, and he would not have been in this situation had he just been played at Headingly, nonetheless it left them with little choice but to drop him if he didnt perform in this test. I am not saying drop him permanently but at least till he returned to form. You cannot go in with the exact same batting lineup that was struggling to score 300 runs in pristine batting conditions in 4 innings. Someone would have needed to shoulder the blame, and Cook, Strauss, Vaughan, Bell and Pietersen just so happened to have more credit in the bank than Collingwood.

 

[Prince EWS]

And Tbf to Richard, I dont think he called for Collingwoods head either

He's been calling for it for ages - he wanted Shah in the team ahead of him though, not a bowler.

You cannot go in with the exact same batting lineup that was struggling to score 300 runs in pristine batting conditions in 4 innings. Someone would have needed to shoulder the blame

That's a ridiculous attitude. You don't need to make changes just because you are going through a rough period. If the team on the park has the best chance of succeeding in the medium to long term, it should remain. It should only be changed for the sake of better, not for the sake of change.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well the guy is 32, the bad form could of been terminal, players have gone at that age, and younger, before.

He had scored 95 first-class run all season, it's not unreasonable to ask for a player to go back to county cricket to get in some form, like Strauss was.

TBH I think it is. If you think he isn't good enough, by all means call for him to be dropped. I don't believe in dropping players to allow them to regain form though. Selection shouldn't work like that.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

It was time for Fletcher to go. All good things must end and he went at the right time. In a way it's a shame the way his last couple of years went. The last true high was the win in Mumbai, and my favourite memory of Fletcher will always be him hugging Freddie after that game.

Agreed with this. He was just going mental at the end with some selections and some of the things he's writing in the Guardian just now is archetypal bitchy nonsense. Rather happy to have Sidebottom in the side rather than Mahmood. (Even though I wish they'd stick to that method of selection, thus ditch Panesar or Colly and play Kabir).

*disclaimer: post written under influence of four pints*

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Actually I don't agree with the finger-spinner consensus around here, but it's an argument that's been done to death, so probably not best to get into it.......

Interesting. I'd be interested to hear your views on it, at least a summary. But as you say, it probably has been overdone.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Agreed with this. He was just going mental at the end with some selections and some of the things he's writing in the Guardian just now is archetypal bitchy nonsense. Rather happy to have Sidebottom in the side rather than Mahmood. (Even though I wish they'd stick to that method of selection, thus ditch Panesar or Colly and play Kabir).

*disclaimer: post written under influence of four pints*

Has Kabir Ali really improved that much? Because he always struck me as someone who wasn't accurate enough to be a Test success.

 

[grecian]

Interesting. I'd be interested to hear your views on it, at least a summary. But as you say, it probably has been overdone.

Oh basically I just do think a finger-spinner that rips the ball can do significantly better then one's that don't put the revs on. Maybe not bowl out a side, but take 3-90 instead of 1-70. It's just the blanket assertion that any wicket on a non-conducive pitch by a finger-spinner is down to terrible batting, that annoys me.

EDIT: anyway wasn't really my point about Harris, Boyks was doing his normal "my granny could turn it more then him" and "he couldn't turn it on corrugated iron, him", and it seemed to be taking up on various messageboards and forums in parrot-style.

 

[tooextracool]

He's been calling for it for ages - he wanted Shah in the team ahead of him though, not a bowler.

I dont think hes rated him, but unless Im mistaken Ive never heard him say drop Collingwood and get Shah in the side before this test.

That's a ridiculous attitude. You don't need to make changes just because you are going through a rough period. If the team on the park has the best chance of succeeding in the medium to long term, it should remain. It should only be changed for the sake of better, not for the sake of change.

There is no way of knowing how well someone like Shah or Key would do at the international level, so its hard to say that this team has the best chance of succeeding. Collingwood is 32 now, so he cant afford a long run of poor form, simply because he isnt very much a long term prospect anyways. AFAIC if a team is not performing, and its safe to say that our batting has not been performing for a long time now, then changes have to be made. You cant keep going in with the same XI while taking beating after beating after beating, especially when there is no way of knowing if there is someone better in domestic cricket or not.