*** Official*** South Africa in England 2017

[marc71178]

Just like their Champions Trophy performance that you predicted correctly?

I didn't make any Chmapions Trophy prediction.

 

[S.Kennedy]

I didn't make any Chmapions Trophy prediction.

Not quite but from memory, you said it was understandable England were the favourites, and pointed to bookies' predictions, and I said that they were overhyped and overrated and that the English were getting into that strange disease we do when our awful football teams depart for major competitions.

England didn't even make the final, flopping out by 8 wickets and 77 balls remaining to Pakistan in the semis!

 

[Furball]

England were easily the most convincing side in the group stages, so their favourites tag was justified.

Once you hit the knockout stages of any competition in any sport, it just takes a bad spell to send you home.

It's nothing like the football side who get talked up every 2 years, spend the group stages flattering to deceive before being sent packing, normally on penalties, by the first good team they meet (granted, this would represent an improvement on England's last 2 tournaments)

 

[S.Kennedy]

England were easily the most convincing side in the group stages, so their favourites tag was justified.

Once you hit the knockout stages of any competition in any sport, it just takes a bad spell to send you home.

It's nothing like the football side who get talked up every 2 years, spend the group stages flattering to deceive before being sent packing, normally on penalties, by the first good team they meet (granted, this would represent an improvement on England's last 2 tournaments)

They were what, five or something in the ODI rankings and went out in the top four stage? Then the result (loosely) matched the ICC rankings. That seems about correct, and looked so before the thing had started. It is all fair enough mentioning the perils of knockout cricket, and indeed this is pertinent when applied to the endless bilaterals that are chucked onto test tours, but the stern stuff is being able to navigate these knockout stages, and England are simply not good enough at that level. It shouldn't come as a surprise that in ICC competitions you face knock-out matches. And to top it all off you had Morgan moaning about the wicket. Glad the Pakistanis won to be honest.

 

[Jarquis]

You do realise where Pakistan were ranked right?

 

[CricAddict]

They were what, five or something in the ODI rankings and went out in the top four stage? Then the result (loosely) matched the ICC rankings. That seems about correct, and looked so before the thing had started. It is all fair enough mentioning the perils of knockout cricket, and indeed this is pertinent when applied to the endless bilaterals that are chucked onto test tours, but the stern stuff is being able to navigate these knockout stages, and England are simply not good enough at that level. It shouldn't come as a surprise that in ICC competitions you face knock-out matches. And to top it all off you had Morgan moaning about the wicket. Glad the Pakistanis won to be honest.

Favourites tag is not just about the rankings. It also takes into account that England was playing at home and was having a good recent run, winning a strong SA easily. Hence, they were rightly tagged as favourites.

 

[Adders]

This whole argument and logic (if you can even call it that) from kennedy is just junk.

Playing the "I knew best" card because Eng lost in the semis to justify his pre tournament opinion that they were overated is one of the worst lines ever.

 

[Howsie]

Their were plenty of people who knew England wasn't going to win that tournament tbf.

 

[Adders]

Their were plenty of people who knew England wasn't going to win that tournament tbf.

Nostradamus and who were the others?

 

[Black_Warrior]

That is not the ideal though. Normally you'd want to stagger your stodgy players somewhat rather than overload them at the top of the order. The ideal is to have one quasi-attacking player (a Trescothick) as one of your openers alongside a Cook type stodgy player (a Strauss), and with your two most fluent bats at three and four. You want to remove the lacquer but ideally you want to take the sting out of the opening bowlers also, and take them on a bit (Stoneman is actually good at that). Ballance, if you insist on playing him, is a five or six - or a four (at best) if Root played at three, and Root seems better at playing four for whatever reason. But I suppose there is more than one way to skin a cat? The problem can occur in reverse, with an almighty batting collapse once the stodge is removed and nobody left to repair, where a Ballance might be valuable further up.

One thing is certain, you're not going to clear out many bars until Root arrives at the crease. Similarly Cook/Strauss/Trott.

Thats what you ideally want but sometimes you have to make do with what you have. That's just the reality. Most of the time you wont get the ideal resources to build the ideal team.

 

[Moonsorrow999]

England a few weeks before the tournament had lost their most recent series' vs India, Australia and S.A. Then S.A treated those matches before tournament really weirdly, but yeah, you're not favourites when you do that. England are barely better than they used to be but at least they aren't satisfied with 250 runs anymore, but they're still one dimensional and predictable as hell.

 

[Furball]

Their were plenty of people who knew England wasn't going to win that tournament tbf.

Tell us more about England's poor bowling attack.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Nostradamus and who were the others?

Certainly nobody in the Sky ex-player fraternity who had them with one hand on the trophy before the thing had even began. The hyperbole from the likes of Vaughan and Hussain and Atherton was truly astonishing; as I said, I'd only seen this level of hype applied to England's footballing duds ahead of a FIFA competition.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Thats what you ideally want but sometimes you have to make do with what you have. That's just the reality. Most of the time you wont get the ideal resources to build the ideal team.

But you have choices here. You are placing the stodgiest player in English cricket, a player who has failed twice or thrice for England already and possess no footwork whatsoever, and who has completely been worked out by opposition batsmen, at three when there is a list of more fluent strokemakers: (loosely in order) Northeast, Stoneman, Westley, Borthwick, etc. I wouldn't disagree with Ballance's inclusion so much if he was coming in as a five or six.

 

[Howsie]

Tell us more about England's poor bowling attack.

1st Semi-final: England v Pakistan at Cardiff, Jun 14, 2017 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[marc71178]

FC strike rates (excluding Tests):
Ballance - 52.24
Stoneman - 58.65
Westley - 53.00
Borthwick - 54.54
Northeast - 56.01

FC averages (excluding Tests):
Ballance - 52.57
Stoneman - 34.63
Westley - 37.44
Borthwick - 36.77
Northeast - 39.14

That strike rate differential is surely massive, clearly shows how stodgy Ballance is compared to the others.

I guess it means the 13 or so runs per innings extra he makes take up a lot lot more time though doesn't it?

 

[S.Kennedy]

FC strike rates (excluding Tests):
Ballance - 52.24
Stoneman - 58.65
Westley - 53.00
Borthwick - 54.54
Northeast - 56.01

FC averages (excluding Tests):
Ballance - 52.57
Stoneman - 34.63
Westley - 37.44
Borthwick - 36.77
Northeast - 39.14

That strike rate differential is surely massive, clearly shows how stodgy Ballance is compared to the others.

I guess it means the 13 or so runs per innings extra he makes take up a lot lot more time though doesn't it?

And who is the only one who has been given multiple chances for England only to flop each time?

Stoneman by the way is an opener. 58.65 for an opener is a good lick. The majority of his runs were also at the thoroughly bat-unfriendly Chester-le. Since moving to the Oval he has shot up to 58.54 at a prodigious 66.75 strike! And Borthwick has been averaging in the forties for ages now - it is his nascent period that is still pulling his average back into the thirties, (all in England for Durham unless stated otherwise in brackets)

2013: 41.51
2013 - 4 (Sri lanka for Chilaw Marians): 40.75
2014: 43.96
2015: 44.83
2015-16 (New Zealand for Wellington): 48.36
2016: 40.14

Again, the majority of these were at Chester-le.

There was only one iffy season (2014-15) where he averaged 27 in Sri Lanka and this season for Surrey where he is only at 31 - as I said, I wouldn't have placed him higher than Stoneman or Northeast.

The move to The Oval doesn't seem to have worked out as well for Scott as it has for Rocky!

 

[ImpatientLime]

i thought chester le street was more batsman friendly now?

that's been the line of defence for rushworth.

 

[Bijed]

And who is the only one who has been given multiple chances for England only to flop each time?

That's not really the case though, is it. I know he ended up in quite the form slump at the end of his first run in the side, but when you form goes off a bit of a cliff and you end up averaging 47, you know you started off pretty bloody well so hardly a flop. You're not going to get any disagreement from me that he shouldn't have been given his second go and that he was dire during it, mind.

As I've said before, I think he's earned his chance this time and whilst his numbers from his one game don't look stunning on paper, his 2nd innings score was actually 3rd highest of what anyone scored in their second innings of that match.

I'm certainly not saying that he doesn't do much he should be kept in the team because he had a good start to his career, because that was a while ago now, but the way some people go on about him (certainly not just you tbf) you'd be forgiven for assuming he'd never hit a test 50, let alone 4 centuries.

 

[S.Kennedy]

i thought chester le street was more batsman friendly now?

that's been the line of defence for rushworth.

Might be better than it used to but you are always going to get the wind and unpredictable bounce. Usually the bowl swings around corners.