*Official* England in South Africa 2019/20

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Also if you go back one extra year they lost the 2 test series Vs Sri Lanka

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Yeah, we routinely drop a test (at least) a series, so have a tendency to draw the 2-test series we play (NZ 2015, Pakistan 2018). I know that's only 2 drawn series in 5 summers, but we'd want to be winning those in order to be considered a dominant home team

I'm still not over NZ losing that Lords test in 2015. I know Cook and Stokes played well but we just gave it away. We should really have won that series 2-0.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Back to five seamers for the Bullring, then?

Harsh on Bess after the maiden Michelle, but if ever a deck where two genuine quicks are likely to prosper, it's Jo'burg.

Could swap Jofra for Curran too, I suppose, but that does leave us with a bit of a longer tail than I'd be happy with.

 

[wpdavid]

Back to five seamers for the Bullring, then?

Harsh on Bess after the maiden Michelle, but if ever a deck where two genuine quicks are likely to prosper, it's Jo'burg.

Could swap Jofra for Curran too, I suppose, but that does leave us with a bit of a longer tail than I'd be happy with.

Just a bit (re your last point), especially with Buttler in no sort of form.

Fitness will come into this. Is Wood OK for back-to-back tests? Is Stokes fit enough to be one of four quicks?
I don't usually like to go into a test without a proper spinner, but maybe this time and place is the exception.

 

[Gremlin]

I think the team announcement will be made based on fitness tomorrow, still, we are non the wiser as to whether a spinner will be included or will Root / Denly get 20 overs between them

 

[Howe_zat]

Five seamers is ****

 

[StephenZA]

Five seamers is ****

It is alright if one of them is Stokes, it is not alright if one of them is Pretorius.

 

[marc71178]

Five seamers is ****

Especially when the 5th seamer will be batting 8.

 

[wpdavid]

Especially when the 5th seamer will be batting 8.

Eh?

 

[wpdavid]

Five seamers is ****

That's usually my take on it. Who would you pick if they're all fit tomorrow?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Especially when the 5th seamer will be batting 8.

TBF I'd say Curran or Woakes are both well above par test #8s.

A 7-11 of

Buttler
Bess
Wood
Archer
Broad

wouldn't be guaranteed to add much in the way of runs though.

 

[wpdavid]

TBF I'd say Curran or Woakes are both well above par test #8s.

A 7-11 of

Buttler
Bess
Wood
Archer
Broad

wouldn't be guaranteed to add much in the way of runs though.

Nice understatement at the end there. Jack Leach would actually be batting at 8 ahead of any of those bowlers.

 

[Gremlin]

Surely bowlers are selected on the basis of being the best combination to take 20 wickets given the ground conditions?

I accept that the list above is a down turn on lower middle order for England over recent years but they're no Tufnell, Giddens Mullally and Malcolm!

 

[BoyBrumby]

I seemed to recall our home series against NZ in 99 was the real nadir of our lower order being gash and, yup, after a quick squint at cricinfo we had some real horror shows.

In the second test we had a 6-11 of Aftab Habib, Chris Read, Andy Caddick, Dean Headley, Alan Mullally and Tuffers; in the third a 7-11 of Headley (nightwatchman), Read, Caddick, Peter Such & Tufnell; and in the 4th the 7-11 was Ronnie "****ing" Irani, Caddick, Mullally, Tufnell and Ed Giddens.

Several nosebleeds there.

 

[Howe_zat]

That's usually my take on it. Who would you pick if they're all fit tomorrow?

Anderson, Broad, Archer, Bess.

I would think twice about Archer v Curran because of the tail issue but probably not three times.

As it is Anderson is home so I'm picking both.

 

[Howe_zat]

I seemed to recall our home series against NZ in 99 was the real nadir of our lower order being gash and, yup, after a quick squint at cricinfo we had some real horror shows.

In the second test we had a 6-11 of Aftab Habib, Chris Read, Andy Caddick, Dean Headley, Alan Mullally and Tuffers; in the third a 7-11 of Headley (nightwatchman), Read, Caddick, Peter Such & Tufnell; and in the 4th the 7-11 was Ronnie "****ing" Irani, Caddick, Mullally, Tufnell and Ed Giddens.

Several nosebleeds there.

Chris Read became a legit batsman in his later career, and the 2000s version was hard done to imo.

But yeah, not many county runs under his belt at the time. And the 9-10-jack combos there are 30 years behind the times.

 

[mr_mister]

Yeah my first memories of cricket include an MCG crowd cheering a Mullally 16 in the 1998 ashes like it was a 100 as I guess he was McGrath levels with the bat. Like every run he got got an ovation. So for him to be batting 9 a little later is dire

And Tufnell anywhere other than 11 raises eyebrows

How bad was Giddons lol

 

[Howe_zat]

Ed Giddins was such a lousy batsman his is rememebered more for that than his chucking or cocaine scandal

It's a real achievement

 

[fredfertang]

Chris Read became a legit batsman in his later career, and the 2000s version was hard done to imo.

But yeah, not many county runs under his belt at the time. And the 9-10-jack combos there are 30 years behind the times.

Had the displeasure of playing against Chris Read once which colours my view somewhat, but he was never going to be a Test batsman, in the same way James Foster (whose county batting record was not dissimilar) never was either - Foster should still have played more Tests though - he was a wonderful 'keeper, right up there with Alan Knott and Sarah Taylor

 

[Father Time]

I would go same top seven, with Curran, Bess, Wood, Archer. Broad to miss out as he’s played the first three. Think Bess is important to hold one end & allow the seamers to rotate. They might opt for the same side though.