*Official* England in South Africa Thread

[marc71178]

BTW am I alone in finding Jack Bannister almost criminally annoying today?

He's been annoying all series.

Worst commentator ever.

 

[marc71178]

Wharf should practise his six-hitting- that will make him very useful and back up Flintoff in ODI's.

What rubbish.

This constant harping on about 6-hitting is stupid.

 

[marc71178]

The only thing lacking in the South African team was a quality pacer.

I think they've lacked more than that.

A middle order perhaps?

 

[BoyBrumby]

personally i would put g.jones on that list too, both his decent innings have come when everything was rosy and he could play without a care in the world. not to mention of course those dropped catches.
anderson's failure was something that i was expecting.

Dunno, today's was valuable IMHO. If our last 4/5 wickets had gone down for next-to-nothing we could've been 50-60 behind tonight instead of ahead.

If Bell even bowls (unless in a disaster) then we've regressed to bits and pieces again.

You've probably seen a lot more of his bowling than me, but I reckon it has potential. Certainly at least as much as Collingwood's (although that's damning it with faint praise if ever there was).

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yeah, it has nothing at all to do with being outplayed.

We were outplayed in the NatWest because we were playing bits and pieces players like Blackwell, which suggests to me they weren't taking it seriously enough. Against India they learnt their lesson (selectors) and we won 2-1, and then went on to the final beating Australia in the ICC Trophy.

 

[Gangster]

I think they've lacked more than that.

A middle order perhaps?

They also seemed to lack knowledge of how to play cricket.

 

[tooextracool]

Dunno, today's was valuable IMHO. If our last 4/5 wickets had gone down for next-to-nothing we could've been 50-60 behind tonight instead of ahead.

how could we be behind? when jones came into bat we were already in the lead,250 odd for 5. i can assure you that any player would rather come into bat when his side is 250/5 and in the lead, rather than 114/4 when your team is 130 odd behind and in trouble. in both his successful innings flintoff and thorpe have ahd to grind it out to make it easier for players like him to come and score later on.

 

[tooextracool]

We were outplayed in the NatWest because we were playing bits and pieces players like Blackwell, which suggests to me they weren't taking it seriously enough. Against India they learnt their lesson (selectors) and we won 2-1, and then went on to the final beating Australia in the ICC Trophy.

personally without flintoff, i think our side goes from good to mediocre. we've had 1 other consistently performing bowler- harmison(and the way hes been bowling off late i would be too sure of that even) and we've had trescothick and possibly collingwood(off late) who've been somewhat reliable. the rest are really extremely inconsistent or poor players. of course with the likes of bell and pieterson in the side we might just see something different.

 

[Tom Halsey]

personally without flintoff, i think our side goes from good to mediocre. we've had 1 other consistently performing bowler- harmison(and the way hes been bowling off late i would be too sure of that even) and we've had trescothick and possibly collingwood(off late) who've been somewhat reliable. the rest are really extremely inconsistent or poor players. of course with the likes of bell and pieterson in the side we might just see something different.

Yep, and I doubt we'll do very well in the ODI series. I was merely pointing out our ODI side is better than people from overseas say it is.

 

[twctopcat]

personally without flintoff, i think our side goes from good to mediocre. we've had 1 other consistently performing bowler- harmison(and the way hes been bowling off late i would be too sure of that even) and we've had trescothick and possibly collingwood(off late) who've been somewhat reliable. the rest are really extremely inconsistent or poor players. of course with the likes of bell and pieterson in the side we might just see something different.

Assuming Vaughan stays in the ODI side, i would like to see bell and pietersen both come in which would leave us batting down to 8. 3 bowlers and freddy would bowl 40 overs with the other 10 being made up from pietersen(in time), collingwood and bell. Something like this:

Trescothick
Strauss
Bell
Vaughan
Flintoff
Collingwood
Pietersen
Jones
+3 bowlers.

That seems like quite a flexible and deep batting lineup IMO.

 

[superkingdave]

personally without flintoff, i think our side goes from good to mediocre. we've had 1 other consistently performing bowler- harmison(and the way hes been bowling off late i would be too sure of that even) and we've had trescothick and possibly collingwood(off late) who've been somewhat reliable. the rest are really extremely inconsistent or poor players. of course with the likes of bell and pieterson in the side we might just see something different.

Strauss has been at least as reliable as Collingwood IMO

 

[BoyBrumby]

how could we be behind? when jones came into bat we were already in the lead,250 odd for 5. i can assure you that any player would rather come into bat when his side is 250/5 and in the lead, rather than 114/4 when your team is 130 odd behind and in trouble. in both his successful innings flintoff and thorpe have ahd to grind it out to make it easier for players like him to come and score later on.

We're bowled out for 260-odd; SA are, say 140-3 at the close cos they've had longer to bat too, you do the maths!!

 

[SpeedKing]

From cricinfo - England did enough on the fourth day at Centurion to ensure that this match - and with it all hopes of squaring the series - is now beyond South Africa.

It is fair to say England will win the series now barring some thing drastic happening. It isnt over till the last bowl is bowled but I would leave the improbable out and congratlate England on this series.

Well played England. They were the better team over the series and rightly deserve this series victory. I have had my apprehensions over the evaluation of the two teams. I felt the Enlgish team was being over estimated and the South African team under estmated.

I had every right to feel this. Before the current series, England had done a tremendous job winning the series they did, but the Windies were a weak side. New Zealand were struggling to put eleven men on the field. You can only play the opposition you are faced with but a victory against a side of strength was required to prove to me the real quality of the English side.

And South Africa has not been as weak at home before this. Ntini has had a much better average in home compared to away and Pollock, though he has lost his pace, is pretty good still. The ridicule I received for my belief at the beginning of the series from some members of the forum was quite immature.


The only thing lacking in the South African team was a quality pacer. Langeveldt proved what a difference one bowler could make by a good performance in an inning. South Africa couldn't put pressure from both ends for a lot of the time which makes it a weak attack. Also, taking nothing away from England, the captaincy shown by Smith on occasions was weak. On the last morning of the 4th test, no one can decipher why he set a defensive field. It almost seemed he was playing for a draw at the beginning of the day. Even though he has done all the talk of how South Africa would do its best to win, the captaincy doesn't suggest the same at times.

Andrew Strauss was a significant reason for England winning the series vs the Kiwis. He played a key role in this series as well. Two words for him - pure class.

Having seen South Africa since 1991, they have always posed a touh challenge at home. They did in this series too for a lot of the time. I never thought the English side was poor. But did not believe they had it in them to win a series in South Africa at the moment against a side which always ives a fight at home. Only Australia in recent memory had manaed a series win.

South Africa learned a lot from the series, specially their inexperienced batsmen. England learned a lot as well. They can evaluate their strengths and weakness better after this series.

It is by far the best English team I have seen in the 13 years of watching cricket. It pains me to say this is the weakest South African side since their return.

And yes, my prediction/estimation of who would win went wrong. So slay me. Thank you

Congratulatios Pratyush top post.

 

[SpeedKing]

Wharf should practise his six-hitting- that will make him very useful and back up Flintoff in ODI's. He has shown a glimpse of his hitting ability in the third Natwest Challenge ODI.QUOTE]

i have been pretty dissappointed by Wharf's batting and i was even praying that Harmison goes in before him when we needed quick runs in that final. I mean, we need quick runs and he walks in and starts blocking. i personally think that his batting is non-existent.

 

[tooextracool]

We're bowled out for 260-odd; SA are, say 140-3 at the close cos they've had longer to bat too, you do the maths!!

so your saying we could have lost 6 wickets for 5 runs then?
fact is that geraint jones could play his natural game( and face it he did nothing different to whats hes been doing in the innings hes been failing in, still playing his shots too early), knowing that even if england collapsed they would still be ahead of SA.

 

[superkingdave]

Gotta say the 2 sixes Jones hit today were sumptious, that one over long off was gorgeous

 

[BoyBrumby]

so your saying we could have lost 6 wickets for 5 runs then?
fact is that geraint jones could play his natural game( and face it he did nothing different to whats hes been doing in the innings hes been failing in, still playing his shots too early), knowing that even if england collapsed they would still be ahead of SA.

Fair enough, but if we'd gone for 260 or even 300 SA could've put us under a bit of pressure in the last session and a half tomorrow.

A useful little knock for me.

 

[Neil Pickup]

so your saying we could have lost 6 wickets for 5 runs then?
fact is that geraint jones could play his natural game( and face it he did nothing different to whats hes been doing in the innings hes been failing in, still playing his shots too early), knowing that even if england collapsed they would still be ahead of SA.

Lead overall...

 

[Pratters]

I think they've lacked more than that.

A middle order perhaps?

Stats of the middle order players in the series (after 4 tests):-

http://ind.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004-05/ENG_IN_RSA/STATS/ENG_IN_RSA_DEC2004-FEB2005_TEST_AVS.html

S. Africa

Kallis - Avg of 60
Dipenaar - 34.5
Rudolph - 33.6

Jaarsveld and Devilliers have been failures.

England -
Key - 35.75
Thorpe - 32
Vaughan - 31
Butcher/Jones didnt fair well
Flintoff did in only this match.

So South africa has had 3 players averaging above 30 out of 4 possible middle order batsmen and England 3.

The difference is on one quality bowler more than any thing else as I pointed out.

 

[Pratters]

IIRC all strauss did against NZ was score runs at lords. england winning against NZ and the WI had all to do with teamwork, everyone in the side contributed in one way or another, something that has continued here, bar the occasional player- harmison

Yes England has played well as a team. I was pointing out how Strauss played a 'key' role in the series while mentioning abou this class. That century at Lords was a very sinificant and key inning in my opinion for the whole series.