***Official*** South Africa in England

[Scaly piscine]

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.

Given only KP averages much more than 40 (donkey bowling excluded) it will barely happen at all. You're more liable to be seeing 150-4 and then most of the time it's going to subside to 250-300 all out which just isn't good enough really.

Another problem for me is the two openers don't get really big scores and it's going to be tough for the other batsmen to get them when you're running out of batting faster.

 

[PavlovsDog]

Given only KP averages much more than 40 (donkey bowling excluded) it will barely happen at all. You're more liable to be seeing 150-4 and then most of the time it's going to subside to 250-300 all out which just isn't good enough really.

Another problem for me is the two openers don't get really big scores and it's going to be tough for the other batsmen to get them when you're running out of batting faster.

In which case the issue isn't a question of who bats at 6, but a question mark against the openers?

This is the point I'm trying, but failing, to get over.

 

[Woodster]

Just a shame the cricket he has been playing in four day cricket isn’t up to the highest standard.
Also, his bowling is rather irrelevant to his presence considering his replacing a batsman.

There's nothing Bopara can do about who he's playing against, so unfair to hold that aginst him. You can only score runs against the bowlers bowling at you.

As for his bowling being irrelevant, why is that so ? I was talking about Bopara as a cricketer, not solely as a batsman. People talk of Collingwood's handy medium pace bowling so why not Bopara, when after all that's what he contributes if required!!

 

[Scaly piscine]

In which case the issue isn't a question of who bats at 6, but a question mark against the openers?

This is the point I'm trying, but failing, to get over.

Nope, because you still need a good number 6, just even more so if your openers aren't that flash.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, wonder if Pietersen wanted Flintoff at 6 then. No doubt in my mind that's where Flintoff himself wants to be. FTR, I'd rank them Flintoff-Broad-Ambrose in terms of batting, maybe even Broad first, but ideally they would be my 7-8-9 as I've said before, that's if I would even pick Broad. He'll score more runs than Vaughan was doing but that's hardly the point...

 

[PavlovsDog]

Nope, because you still need a good number 6, just even more so if your openers aren't that flash.

That's just a backwards way around of looking at it, the justification for strengthening the lower order, is by pointing to the deficiency of the top order.

 

[GIMH]

I'm more concerned by wondering how we will take 20 wickets if Anderson doesn't bowl well. Flintoff you can usually rely on to bowl well, Anderson has had a good summer but trailed off in the last game after being very good, and unlucky, at Headingley, Broad is averaging less than 2 wickets a game, Harmison you never know what he will do, and Panesar...well.

Doesn't matter if we suddenly picked an English version of Bradman, a draw is the best we can hope for if the bowling doesn't fire

 

[silentstriker]

Based on the squad in the next Test, I'd have something like:

1. Cook
2. Strauss
3. Bell
4. KP
5. Collingwood
6. Bopara
7. Flintoff
8. Ambrose
9. Harmison
10. Anderson
11. Panesar

If the pitch isn't likely to offer turn, I'd replace Panesar with Sidebottom when he is fit. In the India-England series, I really liked the look of him. Also what happened to Tremmlet? He looked pretty good too, though not quite the finished product.

 

[Uppercut]

Another problem for me is the two openers don't get really big scores and it's going to be tough for the other batsmen to get them when you're running out of batting faster.

I don't think that should be the job of the openers. Alaistair Cook has been excellent this series at scoring 40 or 50 consistently and seeing off the new ball. That's more useful for the team than an opener who varies between 100 and 0, because that exposes the middle order early. The job of the openers is ideally to set the tone for the innings, see off the new ball, and regularly make a contribution. Getting big scores should be the responsibility of those batting at 3,4, 5 and 6.

Obviously, ideally an opener will be able to score 100 once he gets in. But i don't believe it's the main problem with this batting lineup, it's the responsibility of Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood to get the big scores and rack up a large total. An opener who scores 40 every time he plays would be more than acceptable for England.

 

[aussie]

Don't mind the XI for the final test, but its obvious the selectors nor our new skipper isn't sure what the best balanced ENG XI should be just yet.

 

[Uppercut]

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.

Their batsmen sure don't all average over 40 in the past couple of years. Also, you can say that about literally any bowling attack. It just isn't "their day" very often.

"Awful" was a bit harsh, but i've felt all summer that this England team is horribly overrated and easily a class below South Africa.

 

[gio]

Their batsmen sure don't all average over 40 in the past couple of years. Also, you can say that about literally any bowling attack. It just isn't "their day" very often.

"Awful" was a bit harsh, but i've felt all summer that this England team is horribly overrated and easily a class below South Africa.

I did have reservations about the 'on their day' comment... but it is an accurate and fair appraisal, and better than you suggest. Flintoff is the only WC bowler admitted, but the rest (with the exception of Broad who is yet to prove himself) have knocked over a line-up given the right conidtions, i.e. pace (SJH) or swing (JA). Anderson & Harmison can be wayward at times, but all the chat from the county season is that Harmison is bowling with excellent rythm, and it can be seen the improvements that Anderson is making with each test.

 

[Jamee999]

I think it's worth noting that 2 of the best sides in history (WIndies 70s-80s, Aussies 90s-) weren't about the stars, they had quality throughout their batting and bowling lineups - now, maybe this generation of England doesn't have the talent like that - but we shouldn't have to be in the position of pinning the hopes of our cricketing nation on two blokes.

That's our real problem - not if Pietersen can handle being captain, or anything like that. It's just how weak we are beyond those, right now. We can't have 3 of our top 5 (Strauss, Collingwood and Bell) just doing enough to stay in the side - because being good enough to play for England doesn't mean good enough to beat Australia. And don't even get me started on the bowling.

 

[gio]

"Awful" was a bit harsh, but i've felt all summer that this England team is horribly overrated and easily a class below South Africa.

I don't think the team is overrated necessarily, I am more of the opinion that they haven't performed anywhere to their abilities in the last 12-18months. I wish I could be a fly on the wall in that dressing room as something hasn't been right for a while.

 

[Richard]

Based on the squad in the next Test, I'd have something like:

1. Cook
2. Strauss
3. Bell
4. KP
5. Collingwood
6. Bopara
7. Flintoff
8. Ambrose
9. Harmison
10. Anderson
11. Panesar

If the pitch isn't likely to offer turn, I'd replace Panesar with Sidebottom when he is fit. In the India-England series, I really liked the look of him. Also what happened to Tremmlet? He looked pretty good too, though not quite the finished product.

Harmison ahead of Sidebottom - with the about-to-start Test not having even started yet?

Please tell me you're 'avin' a laff?

Also, what happened to Tremlett? He's been injured (as he often is) and hasn't bowled well at all this season, so has rightly dropped off the radar for now - one of the things the selectors have got right amongst the morass of idiocy of the last 14 months.

 

[Richard]

all the chat from the county season is that Harmison is bowling with excellent rythm, and it can be seen the improvements that Anderson is making with each test.

Haven't we seen this before?

Harmison has usually bowled well in domestic cricket since 2003 - but we've seen for almost all his Test career that whatever that is just doesn't work at international level (either that or his performances drop once he gets into the Test team) when batsmen bat well.

Of course, there's a perfect chance that SA will gift him a 9-for and all will supposedly be well again, but what has to be guessed to be more likely is he'll bowl quickly, waywardly and be smashed without offering any real threat.

 

[Richard]

In which case the issue isn't a question of who bats at 6, but a question mark against the openers?

This is the point I'm trying, but failing, to get over.

If the question-mark is about the openers, then there needs to be the suggestion that someone can do better.

And there isn't. Strauss and Cook are almost certainly the best two opening batsmen currently available to England.

 

[Richard]

I'd like to hear the alternatives to the side given. The only change I'd make would be Shah in for Collingwood.

Replace someone whose last innings yielded a century?

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.

This is the problem with Broad - far too many people find the "negativity" of saying "he isn't a very good Test bowler at the moment" intolerable. Broad is not very good. The fact he is 22 is no reason to continue to pick him. If he becomes good enough one day, he should play. Until that time, he should not.

 

[gio]

Haven't we seen this before?

Harmison has usually bowled well in domestic cricket since 2003 - but we've seen for almost all his Test career that whatever that is just doesn't work at international level (either that or his performances drop once he gets into the Test team) when batsmen bat well.

Of course, there's a perfect chance that SA will gift him a 9-for and all will supposedly be well again, but what has to be guessed to be more likely is he'll bowl quickly, waywardly and be smashed without offering any real threat.

Harmison has been in and around the test side for the majority of the last few county seasons. This is the longest spell he's gone without playing a test since 03, I would guess. However, I reckon that this is pretty much last chance saloon for Harmy. If he doesn't perform well against SAffies and then India/WI then it'll probably be the end of him as a test bowler. That's if he even chooses to tour, of course...

 

[Uppercut]

I did have reservations about the 'on their day' comment... but it is an accurate and fair appraisal, and better than you suggest. Flintoff is the only WC bowler admitted, but the rest (with the exception of Broad who is yet to prove himself) have knocked over a line-up given the right conidtions, i.e. pace (SJH) or swing (JA). Anderson & Harmison can be wayward at times, but all the chat from the county season is that Harmison is bowling with excellent rythm, and it can be seen the improvements that Anderson is making with each test.

I don't think it's ever fair to say a bowling attack is excellent "on their day". Anyone can bowl a very good spell, good bowlers are those who can do it more often than most.

Anderson has really improved over the past six months, and has impressed me this series by bowling well despite not being in top form - previously when he wasn't bowling spectacularly he went at over 5 an over. However, in many quarters he was expected to roll over South Africa based on what he did to a sub-standard New Zealand side.

Broad averages almost 50 with the ball. He's rated highly by commentators and pundits for reasons i can't fathom at all, other than pure pro-English bias on their part.

Harmison, too, has been extremely inconsistent throughout his career. Increasingly we've been relying on distant memories to tell us he's a good bowler. In 2005, '06 and '07, he averaged 34, 38 and 35 with the ball respectively- hardly the stuff world-class bowlers are made of, and being dropped was long overdue.

Panesar is another who is extremely overrated, particularly in England. He has zero variation, and his recent attempts to incorporate flight have led to length problems. Unless he's on a perfect pitch, and those pitches aren't exactly common (especially in England), he's ineffective. But in some quarters he was being compared to Vettori - which IMO is absolutely ridiculous.

Even Flintoff, as wonderful as he is, isn't capable of doing it all on his own. He's a partnership breaker, he bowls a tight and excellent line with very good pace and can totally shift the momentum of a match. But he doesn't run through sides, he can't do it all on his own. Sometimes i feel that England expect more than from Flintoff than is any human being is capable of.

I've left out Sidebottom, because i don't feel he's been blown out of proportion in the way the others have been. He really is a top class swing bowler. But the others aren't, IMO, as good as the UK press and many others seem to believe.