*Official* England in South Africa Thread

[Richard]

No, it was a warm up game.

It was a chance for 8 players who haven't played in about 3 months to get some match practice.

Which they could just as easily do by searching out a club who are short and offering to turn-out.
The game was not a proper one-day game, it was a charity game for the sole purpose of raising the curtain on a full tour.

 

[marc71178]

So how is a club match when they're all playing individually better practice than playing as a team?

 

[Richard]

It's "match practice" - ie time in the middle.
Of course, they could go out and arrange a game against a club side - reading several ex-players' autobiographies it seems that actually happens quite a bit.

 

[marc71178]

But why play a club side when they could play an opposition that actually provides a challenge?

 

[Richard]

Provides a challenge? Despite the fact the match means nothing, both in result and in individual figures?

 

[marc71178]

You're telling me any club opposition they faced would have had 5 Internationals in?

 

[wpdavid]

Err, eh?
Oh, and no, I'm not a South African supporter, or a South African national - but I have always liked South Africa second to England, and if they win this series I'll be least unhappy of any time England lose a series.

I wasn't being entirely serious, but as that's already got me in trouble elsewhere on this thread perhaps I need to preface some of my more blatant exaggerations with an explanation that that's what they are.

Anyway, back to the more important issues. It looks like the selectors have some serious thinking to do before the weekend's game against SA 'A' side, which is the only match practice the test XI will get. My guess is Butcher will play ahead of Key, and Jones ahead of Anderson, but it's a tough call.

 

[Richard]

You're telling me any club opposition they faced would have had 5 Internationals in?

No. Why did you think I said that?

 

[Richard]

I wasn't being entirely serious, but as that's already got me in trouble elsewhere on this thread perhaps I need to preface some of my more blatant exaggerations with an explanation that that's what they are.

Anyway, back to the more important issues. It looks like the selectors have some serious thinking to do before the weekend's game against SA 'A' side, which is the only match practice the test XI will get. My guess is Butcher will play ahead of Key, and Jones ahead of Anderson, but it's a tough call.

Butcher should certainly play ahead of Key IMO.
But the most recent Test should mean Anderson is ahead in the pecking-order.

 

[Steulen]

Butcher should certainly play ahead of Key IMO.
But the most recent Test should mean Anderson is ahead in the pecking-order.

Why should Anderson play? His showings in Zimbabwe were awful, and he hasn't done anything of note in Tests either. I would pick Jones.
Agreed on Butcher, though.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Jones has done even less in Tests. Anderson was looking a lot better in the Tests against WI than he had the previous 6 months or so. The whole point of Jones being picked initially (as in for his debut) was because of his pace but I haven't seen any of that pace since his injury in Australia.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Jones has done even less in Tests. Anderson was looking a lot better in the Tests against WI than he had the previous 6 months or so. The whole point of Jones being picked initially (as in for his debut) was because of his pace but I haven't seen any of that pace since his injury in Australia.

Be real. James Anderson only looked good in one innings against the West Indies. He may well be the better prospect of himself and Jones, but he still was far from impressive.

 

[marc71178]

No. Why did you think I said that?

The whole challenge thing?

Far better to be playing that side than a club game.

 

[Richard]

Even though all of them knew it was about as high in status as a club game?

 

[Richard]

Jones has done even less in Tests. Anderson was looking a lot better in the Tests against WI than he had the previous 6 months or so.

Or more accurately he looked a lot better in the final innings of that series than he did in the rest of his Test-career against up-to-standard sides.

 

[marc71178]

Even though all of them knew it was about as high in status as a club game?

Here you go again, deciding what they thought of it as.

Seeing as someone like Streak has just had to watch his nation being outplayed, do you really think he wasn't going to be fired up to play?

 

[Richard]

In a match where his contribution and the result meant nothing?
Sorry, I can't see him being too bothered.
I could be wrong, of course.

 

[wpdavid]

Or more accurately he (Anderson) looked a lot better in the final innings of that series than he did in the rest of his Test-career against up-to-standard sides.

Which then begs the question was that a genuine step-up similar to Harmison's 2nd innings 4-for at the Oval in 2003, or was it just a one-off? I think Anderson's worth perservering with, although I'll admit there isn't a lot at test level to back that up. IIRC he had been unlucky before that 2nd innings at the Oval with a number of dropped catches, which, if taken, would have helped his confidence as well as directly improving his figures.

 

[Richard]

And conversely, he was lucky in getting the last 2 wickets at Edgbaston.
It's swings-and-roundabouts. IMO his figures up to that final Oval innings were a pretty fair reflection of how he'd bowled in the series.

 

[Richard]

Which then begs the question was that a genuine step-up similar to Harmison's 2nd innings 4-for at the Oval in 2003, or was it just a one-off?

A question we'll know the answer to only when he plays again.
Until further evidence is seen, it can be treated as a one-off only.