***Official*** South Africa in England

[Richard]

Nick Knight backed this up to a point on yesterday's Pro40 coverage, he said he had been picked as an 'extra' batsman at #6 and felt more pressure than normal because he felt his role was to 'save' the innings when the Top 5 failed and invariably that isn't his natural game, as he would open for Warwickshire.

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.

For me, this is partially a reason why the likes of Hick and Ramps never fulfilled their promise.

In spite of the fact they rarely fulfilled such a role?

Played precisely zero part AFAIC.

 

[PavlovsDog]

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.

You are missing the point. I think most people agree that based on ability/talent/potential, then the Top 5 playing tomorrow are probably the best available Top 5.


The issue is fulfilling that potential. Why are they underachieving? Poor coaching, poor concentration, mental lapses, not tough enough, poor motivation?

These are the issues that need to be addressed.

 

[Richard]

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.

So? He's had several spells of more than merely the odd game in domestic cricket and he's always done well enough. It doesn't matter whether someone's done well for 4 games or 9 - there's really no difference, it's still pretty decent, consistent performance. But it's never translated into Test cricket (except in the first 7 Tests of 2004).

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...

All been said before. Harmison is the Shoaib Akhtar of England cricket, for different reasons.

 

[Jamee999]

This is another issue, for mine - if Collingwood had got 6 in the 2nd innings in Birmingham, I'm not convinced that the next bloke (Bopara, I guess) would've been any better. We need to pick the best players, not just decide someone isn't playing well enough, so needs to be replaced, even if the next guy isn't better.

 

[Uppercut]

You are missing the point. I think most people agree that based on ability/talent/potential, then the Top 5 playing tomorrow are probably the best available Top 5.


The issue is fulfilling that potential. Why are they underachieving? Poor coaching, poor concentration, mental lapses, not tough enough, poor motivation?

These are the issues that need to be addressed.

I think they probably are fulfilling their potential. They are the best top 5 in England i believe, but they're nowhere near as good as the top 5 SA have. They should strive for success, obviously, but at the end of the day, England will not always have a world-class test team. The reason they are "underachieving" (playing badly) is because they're not good enough to consistently outscore another group of batsmen who are, in three words, better at cricket. That is not an issue that can be addressed.

 

[Richard]

You are missing the point. I think most people agree that based on ability/talent/potential, then the Top 5 playing tomorrow are probably the best available Top 5.


The issue is fulfilling that potential. Why are they underachieving? Poor coaching, poor concentration, mental lapses, not tough enough, poor motivation?

These are the issues that need to be addressed.

Perhaps they're simply not as good as they look? It's a conclusion I've avoided for ages, but am beginning to wonder about the possiblity of.

Perhaps we simply have to face the fact that the top five - and they are indeed almost certainly the best five in England (six if you add Vaughan) - are not as good as they'd need to be for England to be a top-of-the-tree side, and the pool of talent currently available is not really all that good.

In this eventuality, extra batting is the best option. To accept one's fallibilities and try to cover for them is far better than to attempt to stop them existing by acting as if they don't.

Of course, I hope that Strauss, Cook, Vaughan, Pietersen and Bell can do better than they have been for much of their careers. But I'm not foolish enough to assume that they can just because they all look fairly imperturbable when they're going well.

 

[gio]

Replace someone whose last innings yielded a century?

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.

Re: Shah for Collingwood... Collingwood still looks woefully out of touch for me. If it wasn't for SA bowling continually short, wide and on his pads, then he wouldn't have got near a hundred. He still battled away brilliantly, but I would still fear two failures at The Oval.

The Broad debate comes down to potential. I like to see young players given a decent run. Broad has shown, albeit not v SA, that he can bowl decent spells. In a dead rubber, I see no harm in playing him to see if it 'clicks' this time. If not, and he gets pelted round the park, then fair enough - he probably isn't ready. But the selection of Broad at The Oval is low risk, high reward for me.

 

[Richard]

On another note...

Where have you heard that? Quite content if that's the case as it's possibly what I'd have opted for:

Strauss
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Ambrose
Flintoff
Broad
Harmison
Anderson
Panesar

?

Strauss
Cook
Bell
Pietersen*
Collingwood
Flintoff
Ambrose+
Broad
Harmison
Anderson
Panesar

Lovely.

Truly amazed anyone can countenance the notion of Harmison batting ahead of Anderson.

 

[Uppercut]

The Broad debate comes down to potential. I like to see young players given a decent run. Broad has shown, albeit not v SA, that he can bowl decent spells. In a dead rubber, I see no harm in playing him to see if it 'clicks' this time. If not, and he gets pelted round the park, then fair enough - he probably isn't ready. But the selection of Broad at The Oval is low risk, high reward for me.

Not really, since there's bowlers who deserve the shot at test cricket more than Broad does. I agree that it's a good time to experiment with selection, but Broad isn't the one to experiment with. And he never was.

 

[Richard]

Re: Shah for Collingwood... Collingwood still looks woefully out of touch for me. If it wasn't for SA bowling continually short, wide and on his pads, then he wouldn't have got near a hundred. He still battled away brilliantly, but I would still fear two failures at The Oval.

Maybe. If so you have to give him the chance to do so. If you score a chanceless century, you deserve to play the next game. No two ways about. You cannot go dropping someone who has a century against his name in the previous game - even if they've had 4 let-offs.

Collingwood could perfectly possibly score 56 and 82 at The Oval. And he's earnt the chance to try. If he scores 3 and 8, then we reassess again.

The Broad debate comes down to potential. I like to see young players given a decent run. Broad has shown, albeit not v SA, that he can bowl decent spells. In a dead rubber, I see no harm in playing him to see if it 'clicks' this time. If not, and he gets pelted round the park, then fair enough - he probably isn't ready. But the selection of Broad at The Oval is low risk, high reward for me.

Well anything, as you say, is low-risk in a dead game. There's never much to lose. But Broad has not shown he can bowl good Test spells - never once has he done so. He has been poor all Test career, and should never have played yet. His domestic-First-Class record is a good enough indicator of that. Broad does indeed have potential, but that's all he has. It should be pretty obvious to anyone that he's not good enough currently. And until someone strikes me as good enough at the current time, I don't want to see them given either a run or a one-off game.

 

[Jamee999]

Flintoff to go 6, Ambrose to go 7 and Broad 8, confirmed on SSN.

On another note...


Truly amazed anyone can countenance the notion of Harmison batting ahead of Anderson.

1. Harmison has had a good slog in Tests, was it 42 against the SAffies down there?
2. Does it really matter?

 

[Richard]

Harmison has had a good slog in Tests, was it 42 against the SAffies down there?

And Anderson's done so much more.

Does it really matter?

Yes, you always want your good tailenders in ahead of your poor tailenders.

 

[gio]

Not really, since there's bowlers who deserve the shot at test cricket more than Broad does. I agree that it's a good time to experiment with selection, but Broad isn't the one to experiment with. And he never was.

Test selection isn't always about who takes most wickets or scores most runs. Natural talent & potential has is a large factor in selection.

 

[Majin]

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.

A bit immature because my opinion is different than yours? Hahaha, no.

As someone already mentioned, Fred is a good #7 and a great #8. He is nowhere being a #6 and considering the form he's in I wouldn't call him a WC allrounder at the moment. Bowler maybe but not allrounder. On it's day means nothing because who can predict when that day is going to be? Broad is yet to impress and if they've picked him on batting merit they may as well have just played an extra batsman. Harmison has been appalling for England for however long you care to go back to find a good run of games. It is not a great side at all.

 

[Richard]

Test selection isn't always about who takes most wickets or scores most runs.

Yes it is. People are selected for Test cricket in the hope and expectation that they score runs and take wickets.

Therefore, those who do such a thing best at the next level down are usually the best bet.

 

[Uppercut]

Test selection isn't always about who takes most wickets or scores most runs. Natural talent & potential has is a large factor in selection.

What natural talent does Broad have as a bowler? Outstanding bounce? Express pace? Swing? He bowls line and length at 80mph, and doesn't even hold it particularly well. If you're going on potential, and i don't feel you should, someone like Graham Onions should play and be coached on improving his accuracy. You could teach him Broad's reasonable accuracy, but you couldn't teach Broad Onions's pace and bounce.

I should point out before anyone objects, i'm not advocating picking Onions for the next test. I was just using him as an example.

 

[Richard]

Graham Onions should play and be coached on improving his accuracy. You could teach him Broad's reasonable accuracy

Debateable TSTL.

If you could coach it, someone should (and probably would) have done it by now.

Accuracy isn't just something that can be taught. It requires a natural skill which some have and some do not. Or rather, to which some have to different levels than others.

 

[PavlovsDog]

In spite of the fact they rarely fulfilled such a role?

Played precisely zero part AFAIC.

Ramps in particular was never given an extended run in a key position and played a fair chunk of his test innings at 6 (or lower). In fact one of the better runs he had higher in the order was when he was thrust into an opening role, another unusual role for him.

Aside from the fact he was in and out of the side a fair bit in any case, when he was in he never had any real sort of run at #3 or #4, he'd get a couple of Tests there before they decided to push him back to 6 again.

 

[Uppercut]

Debateable TSTL.

If you could coach it, someone should (and probably would) have done it by now.

Accuracy isn't just something that can be taught. It requires a natural skill which some have and some do not. Or rather, to which some have to different levels than others.

Perhaps, depends on the player. But there's infinitely more chance of getting Onions to bowl straight than there is of getting Broad to extract as much bounce as Onions.

 

[Richard]

Haha, you know, I'd always thought Broad was taller than Onions.

TBF, there can't be that much difference, surely?