***Official*** South Africa in England

[Uppercut]

Again, how many of the batsmen in the England setup (even those on the fringes, like Shah, Key etc) would ever bat as low as 6 for their counties? It's not natural for them.

Either they come in at 450-4 and are under no real pressure to do more than get 'bonus' runs or else they come it at 100-4 and are then expected to turn the innings around, but are often forced to play an unnatural game, because they are thrust into partnersips with tailenders and often fail by trying to force the issue.

Indeed, 6 is often an awkward position to fill. AB de Villiers is superb at that position, because he can make a big contribution (Headingley) but also has an extra gear to move into when batting with the tail- a crucial attribute for a number 6, and a reason i am 100% opposed to the idea of some Indian fans to move Rahul Dravid there.

First and foremost, though, they need to be good at batting and capable of scoring a lot of runs, because the top 5 won't succeed all of the time. When De Villiers came to the crease at Headingley, SA were 130-odd for 4, and they ended up getting over 500. If Flintoff came to the crease with England on 130/4 in their first innings at the Oval, South Africa would be aiming to roll them over for less than 250.

 

[silentstriker]

Um, SS I don't think a long tail means what you think it means.

Ah, what a difference the words 'at batting' make. Oops.

 

[Goughy]

In theory, it should be irrelevant whether Fred bats 6,7,8 or even lower. Because, again in theory, the Top 5 should be performing to potential and should (once again, in theory) be getting 350/400 runs before the 4th wicket falls and the #6 is due in.

What theory says that?

Its the quickest way to losing games. In terms of theories it is up there with 'Flat Earth' and 'Creationism'

If you have 8 good batsmen you have 7 potential match changing partnerships between batsmen capable of scoring big.

If you have 5 good batsmen the number of potential big partnerships is down to 4.

If you lose quick wickets then there is no plan B.

There is no cricketing basis for playing 5 batsmen with any evidence or logic to back it.

 

[gio]

No, no we don't. He's proven he can be handy with the bat at times and is even prone to the odd "golden run" where he's excellent for a small period. However, he's simply not good enough to bat #6 at Test level and never has been.

I don't agree. Flintoff's poor averages are down to the early part of his career when he was young, and not the same player that he is now. Since 2003 v SA, generally considered to be his breakthrough, he averages just under 40 at a high strike rate. Add to that the runs of Ambrose and Broad, and I think the side has a good balance to it.

Basically this debate comes to the choice between a 4 or 5 man attack. England were at their best when they played Flintoff at 6, along with 4 other bowlers. I still believe that is where England will get their best results. And that, my friend Goughy, is based on reality.

 

[gio]

What theory says that?

Its the quickest way to losing games. In terms of theories it is up there with 'Flat Earth' and 'Creationism'

If you have 8 good batsmen you have 7 potential match changing partnerships between batsmen capable of scoring big.

If you have 5 good batsmen the number of potential big partnerships is down to 4.

If you lose quick wickets then there is no plan B.

There is no cricketing basis for playing 5 batsmen with any evidence or logic to back it.

If you have 8 good batsman, unless you're incredibly lucky, that means 4 good bowlers. Am I mistaken in thinking that you are one of the people who doesn't believe that a spinner should be played unless it is turning strip? If so, that means 4 fast bowlers who have to be continually rotated without the option of a spinner tie-ing up an end. Now there's a recipe for disaster.

 

[Goughy]

If you have 8 good batsman, unless you're incredibly lucky, that means 4 good bowlers. Am I mistaken in thinking that you are one of the people who doesn't believe that a spinner should be played unless it is turning strip? If so, that means 4 fast bowlers who have to be continually rotated without the option of a spinner tie-ing up an end. Now there's a recipe for disaster.

You keep saying stuff but all of it is false.

4 bowlers (seamers, spinners, I dont care) and a fill-in are plenty.

Playing a 5th crappy bowler ala Broad weakens both the batting and the bowling. He takes overs away from better bowlers (there are a finite number of 90 in a day) and takes the place of a batsman.

Simply, 5 batsmen give you no chance for recovery if you lose quick wickets. That can happen against a new ball or in a spell.

What happens with 5 bats is that you can get rolled over quickly and you in turn need to bowl the opposition out cheaply. If that is the case then there is not enough time for 5 bowlers to be utilised.

 

[PavlovsDog]

I just think it's a negative approach Goughy, we are essentially saying that the Top 5 will fail, therefore we must have an 'extra bat' to 'bail them out' You even used the term 'bail out' when citing Gilchrist as an example. You also used the term 'Plan B'.

To me it's negative thinking using terms like that, you are basically expecting and in some ways accepting that the Top 5 will fail to be good enough.

Fix the problems in the Top 5 (ie throwing away wickets a la Cook, KP and Bell at Edgbaston), maybe we won't need a Plan B or to be 'bailed out' quite so often as we are now.

 

[Goughy]

I just think it's a negative approach Goughy, we are essentially saying that the Top 5 will fail, therefore we must have an 'extra bat' to 'bail them out' You even used the term 'bail out' when citing Gilchrist as an example. You also used the term 'Plan B'.

To me it's negative thinking using terms like that, you are basically expecting and in some ways accepting that the Top 5 will fail to be good enough.

Fix the problems in the Top 5 (ie throwing away wickets a la Cook, KP and Bell at Edgbaston), maybe we won't need a Plan B or to be 'bailed out' quite so often as we are now.

I have not refered to Gilchrist here but I have used the term Plan B.

Quite simply, good bowlers will often take wickets. Losing 3 wickets early is a distinct possibility and can happen to any team. A Test lasts 5 days to get shafted with no depth on the morning of day 1 is crazy.

Also, what has 5 batsmen got to do with anything? Why is 5 seen as the unit? It makes no sense.

No team can rely on 5 batsmen in the long term.

Take some time to look through some scorecards and see how important a good player is at 6 and a decent player at 7 is. It makes a massive difference.

I cannot think of any greater cricketing folly than playing 5 batsmen. It is slightly dampened in this England side as Flintoff and Ambrose (and to a lesser extent Broad) can all contribute but it is never a good idea.

 

[gio]

You keep saying stuff but all of it is false.

4 bowlers (seamers, spinners, I dont care) and a fill-in are plenty.

Playing a 5th crappy bowler ala Broad weakens both the batting and the bowling. He takes overs away from better bowlers (there are a finite number of 90 in a day) and takes the place of a batsman.

Simply, 5 batsmen give you no chance for recovery if you lose quick wickets. That can happen against a new ball or in a spell.

What happens with 5 bats is that you can get rolled over quickly and you in turn need to bowl the opposition out cheaply. If that is the case then there is not enough time for 5 bowlers to be utilised.

But the 5th bowler (say Collingwood/Pietersen) can remove a hell of a lot of pressure built up by the other seamers, and it's not inconcievable that he could cost 40/50 more runs an innings without offering any wickets. Thus, unless the batsman scores 100+ in the match, then his place is pretty much useless. The problem at the moment is that Broad isn't bowling much better than a part-time bowler. However, the selectors have shown faith in him, and I'm happy to back him. He's not highly rated by ex-professionals and coaches alike for no reason.

 

[pasag]

Horrible side.

 

[Steulen]

Horrible side.

Haha...eloquent as ever.

AWTA, though.

 

[gio]

I'd like to hear the alternatives to the side given. The only change I'd make would be Shah in for Collingwood. I find the negativity wrt Broad a bit harsh, given he's only 22, and just come off a decent bowling spell for Notts v Durham.

 

[PavlovsDog]

I have not refered to Gilchrist here but I have used the term Plan B.

You referred to Gilchrist bailing Australia out from the #7 in an earlier post.

Quite simply, good bowlers will often take wickets. Losing 3 wickets early is a distinct possibility and can happen to any team. A Test lasts 5 days to get shafted with no depth on the morning of day 1 is crazy.

And equally, good batsmen will often score runs and not throw away their wicket. Teams scoring 200-1 is also a distinct possibility and can happen to any team. What is your point here?

Also, what has 5 batsmen got to do with anything? Why is 5 seen as the unit? It makes no sense.

Why in your view does 6 have to be the unit? Why does that make any more sense, especially if playing a 6th specialist bat means losing bowling depth.

See this is why you hate this, you have an issue with Broad being picked. Which is fair enough, I personally like the kid and feel he will only improve with experience.

No team can rely on 5 batsmen in the long term.

I'm not saying they can, as you say bowlers will often get the upper hand. But if at least 3 of the 5 can make solid contributions with at least 1 going on to a big score (150), then the notion that a team can be 350+ at the loss of the 4th wicket is not too farcical. Then we only need 'bonus runs' from any of the 6-9 slots. One of Flintoff, Broad and whichever scrub we decide to throw a pair of 'keepers gloves at should be capable of getting 30-40 every so often.

 

[NUFAN]

Haha.. Pavlovsdogs

4 wickets down and 350 runs is quite tough you know against a good bowling attack.

350/5 = 70, it's not that easy for each batsmen to average that high dude..

I don't like the balance of the side with Broad at all.

 

[Majin]

Haha awful side, England becoming more and more of a joke as the summer progresses. Don't say this often but I hope the Saffies give them the treatment they deserve.

 

[gio]

Haha awful side, England becoming more and more of a joke as the summer progresses. Don't say this often but I hope the Saffies give them the treatment they deserve.

That's a bit immature. I don't think that side is 'awful' at all. You have 5 batsman that average over 40 in tests, a genuine world class all-rounder, and a bowling attack that, on it's day, can role over any test line-up.

 

[PavlovsDog]

Haha.. Pavlovsdogs

4 wickets down and 350 runs is quite tough you know against a good bowling attack.

350/5 = 70, it's not that easy for each batsmen to average that high dude..

I don't like the balance of the side with Broad at all.

I know it is, but it just seems that by saying we need a specialist bat at 6 is saying that the Top 5 isn't capable of it ever. Obviously we are not suddenly going to go 350-4 every innings, but we need to have the belief that we can do it and put the faith in the Top 5 getting them, the 6-9 getting 110 or so and then having the depth of bowling to get sides out.

Look at Edgbaston, yeah great Colly got runs at 6, vital runs. But we couldn't bowl them out and in the end from a position where it looked like we should have wrapped it up, they won with relative ease with a day to spare. Credit to Smith, obviously, but we had victory in our sight and couldn't seal the deal.

Point I'm making, you simply have to take 20 wickets to run a game. You don't necessarily have to score 450 in an innings to win, but you can't win if you don't get wickets.

Plus quit misquoting me, if you read my posts properly, I never said players should average 70. I'm assuming by the law of averages that someone will fail and someone will go onto a big hundred. EG. 150, 80, 50, 40, 10. So it balances out over time. Of course it won't happen every time, but if we can get someone getting in they need to go the extra inch and make the big score, not just get 107 and get out.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

You referred to Gilchrist bailing Australia out from the #7 in an earlier post.

No he didn't. That was silentstriker.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I am really worried for Freddie, he is coming back from an injury and straight away England are loading with all the burden, they want him to bowl 80-90 overs in a test and then bat in the top six too.

Can't be bother to read if anyone responded to this, but you're 'avin a laff if you think that anyone is expected to bowl 80-90 overs per Test.

 

[PavlovsDog]

No he didn't. That was silentstriker.

Indeed he did. Many apologies.