*Official* England in South Africa

[BoyBrumby]

D'oh, Broady. Another gift to the hosts.

 

[Woodster]

Amla was put there specifically for that shot from Strauss, so you have to at least question the thought process IMHO.

Georgeous bit of bowling from Steyn to get Bell, classic swing. Outswinger, outswinger, inswinger.

Prince's non-catch was a shocker tho. I don't think anyone could seriously claim he didn't know he'd dropped that. Only thing in his favour is he was non-commital.

Amla was there for both openers probably due to the nature of the pitch rather than any deficiency seen in the skipper's technique. Yes I know what you're saying, the fielder was there, therefore avoid him, but I think credit to the fielder on this occasion rather than lay blame on Strauss.

Steyn's was a classic piece of swing bowling, too good for Bell on this occasion.

Yes I agree that Prince must have been fairly sure he'd dropped it.

 

[GIMH]

D'oh, Broady. Another gift to the hosts.

Yeah what was he thinking?!

 

[GIMH]

BTW, amidst all the no-ball talk it got overlooked, or maybe I imagined it, but was Cook's lbw decision a stinker considering it was referred? Or did I imagine that? Am sure cricinfo said it was dodgy, haven't seen it myself

 

[Woodster]

Never seen that before from Sidebottom hey.

He wasn't too far off his length, maybe half a yard, because of the new ball bounce on this pitch, any LBW shout was going over the top. Just needs to be a bit fuller and a bit tighter to off stump tomorrow, and then hopefully he'll reap the benefits.

 

[Goughy]

Just saw the Cook referral. Pains me to say it, but Howler got it right, just.

You think so?

What is the exact rule about pitching in line? Only a part of the ball needs to touch?

Looked a noball to me on first viewing as well

 

[Woodster]

BTW, amidst all the no-ball talk it got overlooked, or maybe I imagined it, but was Cook's lbw decision a stinker considering it was referred? Or did I imagine that? Am sure cricinfo said it was dodgy, haven't seen it myself

In real time it looked as though there would be enough doubt to overturn the decision, whether that was because it was too high, or it pitched outside leg. As the replays showed though, it was a very good decision by Tony Hill I think, pitched in line and would have cleanly struck the top of the stumps, also avoided any inside edge, but not by much.

 

[Woodster]

You think so?

What is the exact rule about pitching in line? Only a part of the ball needs to touch?

Looked a noball to me on first viewing as well

Doesn't it have to be the centre of the ball ? I thought it did pitch in line with leg stump. The no-ball was close, when it showed a replay from the other angle, you could only just detect there was about an inch of boot behind the line.

 

[BoyBrumby]

You think so?

What is the exact rule about pitching in line? Only a part of the ball needs to touch?

Looked a noball to me on first viewing as well

Was only talking about the no-ball, really, the pitch map looked to have ball pitching in line to me.

But, yeah it did look like an NB on first viewing, but reckon that was because the replay was frozen after Morkel's foot had slid forward a fraction. When planted there was a tiny, tiny fraction (raised) behind the line.

 

[TT Boy]

If it means anything, England staff admitted after play that the decision for Cook's dismissal was ok and they were wrong to get so animated. Well that is what Paul Newman from the Mail just said on Talk****e.

Apparently also Onions was dropped as they thought he was found out by the South Africans and looked tired in training. Moreover, Sidebottom was always pencilled in to play whenever he is fit as Flower wants a left arm 'quick' in the side for variety.

 

[TT Boy]

Yes I agree that Prince must have been fairly sure he'd dropped it.

Hence why he didn't claim the catch. Bit of a non-issue and the BBC going overtime on it doesn't help especially when they reported that the cheating South African was JP Duminy.

 

[Woodster]

If it means anything, England staff admitted after play that the decision for Cook's dismissal was ok and they were wrong to get so animated. Well that is what Paul Newman from the Mail just said on Talk****e.

Apparently also Onions was dropped as they thought he was found out by the South Africans and looked tired in training. Moreover, Sidebottom was always pencilled in to play whenever he is fit as Flower wants a left arm 'quick' in the side for variety.

It was a borderline decision but right not to be overturned, no reason for Cook or the management to dwell on it, it was out, move on.

The Onions decision is not so clear cut. I'm a fan of Siddy, think he does offer England a different angle with his left-armers, and had he been included in the opening Test there would have probably been less uproar about it. Onions has bowled very well at times here, yet has been very unlucky, and did not deserve to be dropped. I'd be surprised if he was fatigued, he seems as fit as they come and relishes bowling long spells.

Nor do I agree that the South Africans had found out Onions.

 

[GIMH]

I don't agree with Onions being dropped either but I am somewhat baffled by people saying he has been our best seamer on this tour, they have all been good in parts but Broad and Anderson have been much more impressive and effective. Of course I will get accused of being a fanboy of both for saying this, I make no bones about the fact that they are two of my favourite players but I genuinely believe this.

 

[Jarquis]

Well that was a little bit disappointing. Swanneh will take 8/2 tomorrow, all will work out well.

 

[Woodster]

Hence why he didn't claim the catch. Bit of a non-issue and the BBC going overtime on it doesn't help especially when they reported that the cheating South African was JP Duminy.

I wasn't implying he was deliberately cheating. However, he could have saved the time of going to a referral, but he was chancing his look on it not being picked up, so to speak, and did begin to celebrate. I don't think it is a big issue, with the cameras players know they're not likely to get away with such obvious drops, don't think he was cheating, just excited at the time as SA were on a roll.

 

[Woodster]

I don't agree with Onions being dropped either but I am somewhat baffled by people saying he has been our best seamer on this tour, they have all been good in parts but Broad and Anderson have been much more impressive and effective. Of course I will get accused of being a fanboy of both for saying this, I make no bones about the fact that they are two of my favourite players but I genuinely believe this.

I think probably because they've got their rewards when they've bowled well, you can identify them as the better pace bowlers in the side this series, but I don't think there's been too much between the three of them. However, I'm still yet to be entirely convinced about Stuart Broad. I know he has a habit of picking up wickets, important ones, and can produce spells like we saw in the Ashes, and the one we saw at Durban, so there is definitely something about him, but perhaps the consistency or he's not sure what England want from him.

Certain areas he will get better with experience, knowing when to use his variations, and know when the time is right to concentrate on hitting top of off stump, and then proving he has the skills to do it consistently.

 

[aussie]

But that was his one good spell. Other than that, he was ineffectual. Compared to Flintoff, who showed what could be achieved by bowling fast and straight on that particular track.

Intially both Harmison & Flintoff where handled very well by Hayden & Langer. Harmo's spell to Langer in a way started AUS collapse before Flintoff IIRC.

Just like the Oval 08 test vs SA. He bowled better in the Oval 05 first innings than the figures suggested.

Looked that way because we didn't bowl as well as Pak did. Plus they probably batted better.

That Oval test conditons was very similar to recent AUS vs PAK test @ SCG IIRC again. Like SCG the other day the 1st day was by far the most bowler friendly of the test - but as the test progressed the pitch got much easier for batting. Which overall as i say on flat pitches, Harmo doesn't bowl well, so it was no surprise he struggled on that particular Oval test.

Sorry, but he wasn't very good in the 2nd innings at Lord's. 3 for 54 sounds fine, but he didn't take his 1st wicket until they had 255 on the board. After KP'd got us within touching distance of the Aus total, we needed Harmy to roar in and wrest the initiative back again, but he simply wasn't good enough.

I dont know. I'd say AUS batted very well intially in the second innings especially during that Martyn/Clarke partnership. Harmo was the still the best ENG bowler in that second innings IMO..

As for OT 06, his figures in the 2nd innings flattered him massively - cleaning up the tail after Panesar had removed the top order.

Thats a very harsh way of looking at it TBH. At least he ran throuhg the tail with intimidating bowling on a bouncy deck. If he where involved in this curren JO'Burg test & could do that to SA tail, that would be job done..

EDIT
The other thing I meant to say was about having him available for this sort of pitch actually wasn't an option after he declared that he only wanted to tour if he was an integral part of the side. Words to that effect, anyway. Sort of understandable after his experience in the Caribbean, but no good to coach & captain. He left them no choice really.

I sort of remember him pulling back on those words along with the reitrement rumours See here. He certainly IMO should have been on tour ahead of Plunkett. Plus they could have surely still called him up as cover to Anderson instead of Davies.

But as i said the selectors didn't want to go for him for this tour, since frustration had clearly caught up with them with regards to Harmo..

This Arthur comment before the series, although some may argue he was maybe playing pre-series mind games. Is true in many ways. See here

Harmison would have been crucial - Arthur
Cricinfo staff

October 24, 2009


South Africa coach Mickey Arthur believes England may rue their decision to keep fast bowler Steve Harmison out of the touring party to South Africa this winter. Harmison, 31, who plays for Durham in the county circuit, was overlooked for the Test series beginning at Centurion on December 16, despite playing in the final two Tests of the successful Ashes campaign.

Arthur said Harmison's high action and steepling bounce would have been perfectly suited to the quicker wickets in South Africa. "He was the one England bowler who could rough us up," Arthur told the Daily Mail. "If they're trying to build a team for the next Ashes and Harmison isn't going to be there, I can see why they've done it. But a few of our batters will have seen that tour party and been pretty happy he's not on the plane - especially with our wickets, which will have plenty of pace and bounce. He would have been a very awkward proposition."

South Africa lost their most recent Test series at home, 2-1 to Australia in February, when they failed to handle left-arm fast bowler Mitchell Johnson. Johnson may have struggled to impose himself on the slower wickets of England during the Ashes, but he was Australia's highest wicket-taker in South Africa, picking up 16 at an average of 25.00.

"We saw how dangerous Mitchell Johnson was against us on both Australian and South African wickets, because his stock ball - back of a length - was getting rib high on bouncy tracks and hitting batsmen under the heart," Arthur said. "In England, he wasn't helped by the slow pitches, but Harmison could have done the same thing as Johnson out here."

England's tour of South Africa comprises two Twenty20 internationals, five ODIs and four Tests, with a handful of warm-up games. The tour gets underway on November 6 with England XI taking on the South African Board President's XI.

 

[kingkallis]

There was an edge, why English players didnt go for a Review? Are they saving it for big players like Duminy and Boucher??? That was Greame Smith - bigger than the whole team on big occassions!

 

[NasserFan207]

They did review?

Anyway, Prince gone after that dreadful decision.

 

[kingkallis]

They did review?

Anyway, Prince gone after that dreadful decision.

Yes they did!

It seems absence of snicko or hot spot stopped Strauss from going upstairs...