***Official*** South Africa in England

[Uppercut]

He doesn't play for Sussex though, does he?

Gosh, I guess not...

Maybe captain of an unfashionable team isn't what the selectors are looking for.

 

[Richard]

He doesn't play for Sussex though, does he?

 

[Richard]

I think the problem with that line up is that really only Pietersen and Flintoff are have proven themselves capable of consistent big hitting against international opposition. I rate Bopara as a good batsman who will be a regular for England in all forms of the game in two years time or so, but batting him at no. 7 in an ODI is wasting his talent, he is not a slogger. The same with Patel, who I have not seen much of at all, but have heard he is a classy-type batsman like Shah who wants to construct an innings, not a big hitter that we need where he is slated to bat in the current side. Bell will never be any better than decent in ODIs purely because he can't hit anywhere over the top other than straight. Shah and Collingwood have had cameos of slogging but don't posses the power to do it consistently, nor the mentality to go after the bowling unless they get rank deliveries.

That said, I suppose Wright's role is to be the late order six hitter but he is complete poo so it's irrelevant anyway.

The excess of top-order batsmen (out of whatever, often few, batsmen that there are) and the lack of lower-order ones is something that has long bedevilled the English ODI game. Likewise that of those who can play both roles, a la Michael Bevan, Jacques Rudolph, etc.

 

[Richard]

If there's a flat pitch Ian Bell will ton up, and KP and Fred will have fun as well tttt

I'd not want to be as confident of that as you TBH. It'll happen of times, sure, but I don't think anywhere near as often as our attack would be belted for 350+.

 

[Uppercut]

The excess of top-order batsmen (out of whatever, often few, batsmen that there are) and the lack of lower-order ones is something that has long bedevilled the English ODI game. Likewise that of those who can play both roles, a la Michael Bevan, Jacques Rudolph, etc.

I've always just blamed that on selectors refusing to select sloggers, often sticking too closely to their test side. A technically excellent batsman isn't what you want at 6 or 7 in your ODI side. I'd even prefer a terrible batsman who can give it a whack to Bopara (haven't seen enough of Patel to say) coming in at 7, like Graham Napier, for example. The Boycott legacy prevents such things from happening.

 

[gettingbetter]

The excess of top-order batsmen (out of whatever, often few, batsmen that there are) and the lack of lower-order ones is something that has long bedevilled the English ODI game. Likewise that of those who can play both roles, a la Michael Bevan, Jacques Rudolph, etc.

Quite true. Other than Prior, the top 6-7 all seem to be no. 4 batsmen.

 

[Richard]

I've always just blamed that on selectors refusing to select sloggers, often sticking too closely to their test side. A technically excellent batsman isn't what you want at 6 or 7 in your ODI side. I'd even prefer a terrible batsman who can give it a whack to Bopara (haven't seen enough of Patel to say) coming in at 7, like Graham Napier, for example. The Boycott legacy prevents such things from happening.

TBH, I just think it's because such batsmen don't abound in this country. Being able to give it a whack isn't what you need - the class has to be there in addition to hitting skill. In the copious numbers of lower-order sloggers England have tried in the last decade, near enough none have possessed the class. A charge you certainly can't apply to the likes of Boucher, Klusener, Pollock; or Abdur\l Razzaq, Azhar Mahmood; or Martyn, Symonds, Clarke; or Yuvraj, Dhoni; or Carins, Parore, Harris.

If you picked Napiers and whoever the latest flavour of the month is, the chances are they'd just swing around straight balls or hit one up in the air after getting 9 from 6 balls in the vast majority of their innings, which is no use to anyone.

 

[Uppercut]

TBH, I just think it's because such batsmen don't abound in this country. Being able to give it a whack isn't what you need - the class has to be there in addition to hitting skill. In the copious numbers of lower-order sloggers England have tried in the last decade, near enough none have possessed the class. A charge you certainly can't apply to the likes of Boucher, Klusener, Pollock; or Abdur\l Razzaq, Azhar Mahmood; or Martyn, Symonds, Clarke; or Yuvraj, Dhoni; or Carins, Parore, Harris.

If you picked Napiers and whoever the latest flavour of the month is, the chances are they'd just swing around straight balls or hit one up in the air after getting 9 from 6 balls in the vast majority of their innings, which is no use to anyone.

Well how about uhm, Farveez Maharoof, maybe? Late order batsman with a ridiculously low amount of class that has final-over success. So it can happen.

I'd have Mascarenhas over Bopara as a number 7 regardless of his bowling, but it won't happen, because Bopara's a much better batsman on the whole. That's the bias towards good FC or test players i was referring to.

 

[Richard]

I actually think Faraveez Maharoof is a decent batsman - just his bowling that he lacks in. Always thought he had potential as a lower-order hitter TBH. And that's something rare for a Lankan - they've always had much more success with top-order hitters.

As regards Mascarenhas - however useful his hitting, he too has to play principally as a bowler. And currently he's not bowling well enough to do that. When he is, I'd pick him if his batting was Chris Martin-esque.

 

[Uppercut]

I actually think Faraveez Maharoof is a decent batsman - just his bowling that he lacks in. Always thought he had potential as a lower-order hitter TBH. And that's something rare for a Lankan - they've always had much more success with top-order hitters.

As regards Mascarenhas - however useful his hitting, he too has to play principally as a bowler. And currently he's not bowling well enough to do that. When he is, I'd pick him if his batting was Chris Martin-esque.

I think the presence of Flintoff means the ODI side can afford a bits-and-pieces man. Just as the presence of Kallis in the SA ODI side affords them the presence of Albie Morkel, who surely wouldn't get in the side for either of his two skills, but thoroughly deserves his place as an all-rounder IMO.

Also, I rate Maharoof quite highly as a limited-overs bowler. I'd have him in the SL team for that alone, in fact.

 

[Richard]

I'm very much yet to be convinced of Albie Morkel - a poor man's Klusener in every way. Klusener's probably still a better batsman than him even at 37 or however old he is now, and though Klusener's bowling isn't up to that much any more, I don't think there's much between them.

I'd much prefer SA had a better player in there, and I'm not convinced there aren't better all-rounders to boot.

 

[Athlai]

He's great at the death though.

 

[GIMH]

Peter Moores Sussex = the implication

 

[gettingbetter]

I'm very much yet to be convinced of Albie Morkel - a poor man's Klusener in every way. Klusener's probably still a better batsman than him even at 37 or however old he is now, and though Klusener's bowling isn't up to that much any more, I don't think there's much between them.

I'd much prefer SA had a better player in there, and I'm not convinced there aren't better all-rounders to boot.

South Africa don't seem to have that deep a talent pool. I don't think there are many better all-rounders than Morkel in South Africa ATM, but he isn't a bad option at the bottom of the order to score quick runs. The other current option looks like Philander who shouldn't be in the team yet.

 

[Richard]

Peter Moores Sussex = the implication

Oh yeah, of course. Duh. Well TBH I think that's overplayed. The Prior case there's never been anything to suggest it wasn't Moores' fault, but apart from him I can't think of very many other Sussex players who were around when Moores was coaching them who've wrongly appeared in the England team.

 

[Richard]

South Africa don't seem to have that deep a talent pool. I don't think there are many better all-rounders than Morkel in South Africa ATM, but he isn't a bad option at the bottom of the order to score quick runs. The other current option looks like Philander who shouldn't be in the team yet.

Well Philander's just a much better First-Class than one-day player. Not sure he'll ever be ODI material.

I guess when you've had Kallis, Cronje, Boucher, Klusener, Pollock, Boje and others for years you maybe start to expect such riches all the time and every time. But I don't really ever see Albie being ODI-class.

 

[Athlai]

TBH Prior was by no means the worst choice ever, certainly the best batsman out of the keepers. It was just unfortunate that the keeping was so poor, though at times he did appear serviceable, just after he made a mistake they tended to come in bucket loads from that point on.

 

[Richard]

Prior kept perfectly acceptably in 8 out of his 10 Tests. But in the other 2 he was sufficiently woeful to be a liability. And having a wicketkeeper who is going to drop virtually everything 1 in 5 games is unacceptable and if he is ever to be a Test wicketkeeper he must improve.

That aside, as I've always said, from the fact I don't rate his batting anywhere near as highly as some do.

 

[Athlai]

Wouldn't let him in the team on batting alone, yet wouldn't be adverse to him at 6 with Flintoff at 7. Certainly more imposing with the bat than Ambrose IMO.

How's this series been going anyway? I've been under a rock these last two weeks.

 

[Richard]

England won the dead Fourth Test. And would I prefer Prior or Ambrose as batsmen? Well I've always thought Ambrose the more skilled, and yet Prior so far remains with a better record at all levels. However, neither are going to play as specialist batsmen, and so therefore how good their batting is is irrelevant if they can't keep wicket to an acceptable standard. To date, Ambrose has. To date, Prior has not.