*Official* England in South Africa Thread

[FaaipDeOiad]

"VERY POOR" South African side

Kallis - best batsman in the world
Pollock - a bit past it, but still one of the top 10 bowlers in the world, and a more than useful batsman
Ntini - would walk into any team in the world right now (except the Aussies)
Smith - having a poor series, but class is permanent, form is temporary
Gibbs - one of the best batsmen in the world
De Villiers - find of the series
Nel - definitely a Test class bowler, would make most Test teams in the world
Hall - if the Poms didn't have Freddy, they would kill to have someone as good as Hall
Boucher - after Gilchrist, best wicketkeeper/batsman in the world
Rudolph - like Smith, poor series, but he is class

Well, if that is a very poor SA side, I would hate to see what a VERY GOOD SA side is like

I wouldn't go so far as to call South Africa "very poor", but I think you are overrating them a touch here. Kallis is undoubtedly in the top 5 batsmen in the world, and while Pollock is a bit past it he and Ntini are very solid bowlers. I certainly wouldn't say that Ntini would walk into any test side in the world though. Nel is a good but not brilliant bowler, as is Boje. In terms of bowling, Hall, Kallis and Steyn are all fairly mediocre, bringing into question South Africa's bowling depth. In terms of the rest of the batting, De Villiers is certainly a talent but has yet to prove himself, and while Smith, Gibbs and Rudolph are good I wouldn't rate them among the best batsmen in the world.

South Africa are pretty much middle of the pack in terms of test cricket at the moment. I would say Australia, England and India are better sides. South Africa are in the Pakistan, Sri Lanka and New Zealand sort of range at the moment.

 

[Jono]

Wow, people are both underrating and overrating the SA team all in one thread.

The real problem with SA is, what if Ntini or Pollock get injured (or at worst, both) for a series or two. They don't have depth at all (although Langeveldt is alright). That would be my main worry if I was a SA fan.

 

[Jono]

I wouldn't go so far as to call South Africa "very poor", but I think you are overrating them a touch here. Kallis is undoubtedly in the top 5 batsmen in the world, and while Pollock is a bit past it he and Ntini are very solid bowlers. I certainly wouldn't say that Ntini would walk into any test side in the world though. Nel is a good but not brilliant bowler, as is Boje. In terms of bowling, Hall, Kallis and Steyn are all fairly mediocre, bringing into question South Africa's bowling depth. In terms of the rest of the batting, De Villiers is certainly a talent but has yet to prove himself, and while Smith, Gibbs and Rudolph are good I wouldn't rate them among the best batsmen in the world.

South Africa are pretty much middle of the pack in terms of test cricket at the moment. I would say Australia, England and India are better sides. South Africa are in the Pakistan, Sri Lanka and New Zealand sort of range at the moment.

Yeah I agree with a lot in that post. Although if Gibbs can lift his game to what he used to be a few years back, he very well may be back in the top 10 batsman of the world list.

 

[twctopcat]

You're absoloutely right. They know best. I'll never question anything a cricketer or coach does or says ever again. Nobody here should. Not you, not me, not anyone!

So... uh... how's about that weather, guys?



EDIT: That was in reply to twc. In reply to the post above, I definitely agree, but every little point should be looked into. Right now, they aren't the ones chasing the runs, so I'm sticking with the fact that I'm disappointed they didn't even try for the win at all. It's almost as if they lack the belief that they could win - something I admire in captains. They can push for the draw when they think that they can't win, in my opinion. A draw is something Bangladesh can strive for against SA. England is far, far above that and they should be able to at least give it a shot and then lose two wickets instead of losing wickets while blocking.

Good one. Like exaggerating people's points to the point of ridiculous eh? I was referring to the current situation. SA came out bowling well straight away so what is the point of intent if it means losing wickets against good bowling on an up and down wicket. If England would have then lost for trying would you have said "well at least they tried to win"? That would have been a fairly fruitless exercise.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Wow, people are both underrating and overrating the SA team all in one thread.

The real problem with SA is, what if Ntini or Pollock get injured (or at worst, both) for a series or two. They don't have depth at all (although Langeveldt is alright). That would be my main worry if I was a SA fan.

Penis tho he is, Nel bowled pretty well when he got his chance too.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hey, I made a joking bet before this innings that Ntini would take 9/21 and win South Africa the game. He's keeping my dream alive.

 

[twctopcat]

Now come on freddy.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I dunno about you, but I'd prefer 0* (35b) from Flintoff atm...

 

[twctopcat]

I dunno about you, but I'd prefer 0* (35b) from Flintoff atm...

Yes i would have to agree with you there.

 

[Loony BoB]

Good one. Like exaggerating people's points to the point of ridiculous eh? I was referring to the current situation. SA came out bowling well straight away so what is the point of intent if it means losing wickets against good bowling on an up and down wicket. If England would have then lost for trying would you have said "well at least they tried to win"? That would have been a fairly fruitless exercise.

Like I said earlier - if they had lost two wickets (which they did anyway) while trying to score runs to get to a win, then I'd not complain if they blocked for the rest of the day. But to block without even giving the pitch a shot - the same pitch that two players have already scored centuries on today - then I think you're a little pessimistic about your side's ability. I think that England could easily have won the game if it was their day, but we'll never know now, even though there was a chance.

I think Vaughan underrated his side. No harm in opening with Flintoff, even, if they had to.

Continuing with the overrating/underrating...

Kallis - best batsman in the world - agreed
Pollock - a bit past it, but still one of the top 10 bowlers in the world, and a more than useful batsman - agreed, and at least twice I've heard English commentators say he's arguably the best bowler in the world
Ntini - would walk into any team in the world right now (except the Aussies) - agreed
Smith - having a poor series, but class is permanent, form is temporary - agreed, although he's not done completely bad
Gibbs - one of the best batsmen in the world - agreed, I'd put him in the top 20 at least
De Villiers - find of the series - agreed
Nel - definitely a Test class bowler, would make most Test teams in the world - not sure on this one, haven't seen enough of him really
Hall - if the Poms didn't have Freddy, they would kill to have someone as good as Hall - agreed
Boucher - after Gilchrist, best wicketkeeper/batsman in the world - disagreed - Sangakarra alone dominates Boucher, and I'd give many other wickeys a good chance ahead of him too, such as McCullum and Jones for example.
Rudolph - like Smith, poor series, but he is class - He's good, I'll give him that, but I don't know exactly how good yet, so I'll abstain on that one.

They are individually brilliant, and I agree with MOST of what you said, however I would only rate them "around England" - not above or below in particular but "around". Either of them can win over each other on their day.

Interesting to see Flintoff come in. I'd have thought they'd put Hoggard in right now, he's a brilliant blocker.

 

[Barney Rubble]

I dunno about you, but I'd prefer 0* (35b) from Flintoff atm...

Nah, ten overs left, Freddie faces 45 balls - 128*, 12x4, 10x6. Job done!

 

[Scaly piscine]

They are individually brilliant, and I agree with MOST of what you said, however I would only rate them "around England" - not above or below in particular but "around". Either of them can win over each other on their day.

No way are they "around England", England are clearly the better side - in no way have England played their best in this series, but they're still winning 2-1 IN South Africa and only bad light saved them from being 3-1.

 

[SJS]

Actually, Vaughan dropping to 4 was to allow Strauss and Butcher/key to bat in or close to their preferred positions. Don't forget that Key opens for his county and doesn't enjoy batting down the order, .

Sehwag bats in the middle order for Delhi and has repeatedly expressed a desire to bat lower down. But he has to open for the team's sake.

Dravid never wanted to keep wickets but bkept for more than a hundred matches because the teams balance required it.

Ganguly prefers to open in ODI's but cant because others are considered better options.

What kind of logic is this ?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

That's it. Bad light called, 2-1 England win.

 

[Loony BoB]

No way are they "around England", England are clearly the better side - in no way have England played their best in this series, but they're still winning 2-1 IN South Africa and only bad light saved them from being 3-1.

In no way have England played their best? What about SA? Have they? But let's look at this closer... Harmison hasn't been at his best. Who else? Butcher, you could say, but it's been a while since he was at his best, so you can't use that argument. Tresco and Strauss have been fine, Flintoff and Hoggard have been brilliant with the ball - not to mention Jones. Giles has had just as much as Boje to work with, so no point in arguing those two, they've done equally average. Hell, Boje has been worse than Giles, in terms of average at least.

So Harmison hasn't done well.

Well, Nel and Langaveldt lead the averages for SA, and they've only played one game each due to injuries. Surely one would argue they could have boosted SA no end. Smith and Rudolph have been considered to be out of form, as has Pollock with the bat. Hall has suffered with the bat just as much as Flintoff has, we know both are far better than they've shown themselves to be this series. Vaughan's only as good as he's ever been since taking captaincy, Thorpe got a century and a 50.

Both teams can argue they weren't full strength. Both teams can argue that they should play better than they have this series. Both teams had successes, too. Aside from Harmison being dull, England's bowling has been fine. So has SA's. Your batting has done well on occasions and sometimes it hasn't. Same again for SA.

I'll accept that SA have lost the series but I still rate them "around" England. Like I said, I don't rate SA above England, but around. There's a big difference. It means that either can win on their day. That's been shown already this series. SA could have won this game, so could have England. SA could have evened the series on this game. There's nothing to say that SA couldn't have done a miracle and won the other game, either, although even I doubt it would have ever happened. But a 3-2 win is just one game away from a 3-3 draw. I rate them around each other.

England have performed well lately, and they have risen from the dust that they were once in. They beat the Windies, they beat an NZ side (and we all know NZ aren't the top of the test rankings and anyone who keeps up with cricket will know that NZ was a 50% 1st team, 50% 2nd team side at the time) and they beat SA now. It would be rude to say that they'll have to beat Aussie to be considered the best, but they haven't made any massive one-innings wins over SA right now - SA have always been there for the most of the game. Even NZ were generally in it for most of the game when up against England. Aussie are the kind of team that do make wins by an innings on a regular basis. That's when I say "a team above the opposition, definitely". For SA, as they've been in it through the series and the matches have never been a walk in the park for England, I'll say SA and England are "around" each other.

If both teams were playing to full potential, this series would have been even more thrilling than it already was. But neither team did. You can't argue not being at prime of potential as neither team was.

If you disagree, I don't mind, as my opinion is my opinion. Your opinion is yours. It's cool. I just feel like typing out a lot right now for some reason. Okay, okay, I'll finish the post...

EDIT: Okay, I hit edit and I don't remember why. Dammit. I hate it when that happens.

 

[twctopcat]

Congrats england,well deserved series victory. I predicted right at 2-1!There's a first!

 

[Scaly piscine]

Only the openers have batted well for England, after that Thorpe has been below his best despite digging in, Vaughan has been mostly terrible with some good innings mixed in, but still overall he's been well below par. Flintoff, G Jones have also been below par with the bat with some horrible dismissals thrown in. G Jones probably dropped far more catches in this series than he did last summer. Butcher & Key were both far more useless than normal with again plenty of horrible dismissals thrown in. The bowlers performed as expected apart from Harmison and Anderson.

SA in comparison didn't throw anywhere near as many wickets away with horrible shots, Ntini performed better than usual and Pollock was as you'd expect - their others bowlers simply weren't good enough and in the long run if Nel & Langeveldt had played more they'd have been put away eventually. Kallis played above himself with the bat and Gibbs did well despite coming in late and might have done better on another day with some previous form, but the other batsmen were found out rather than playing below their usual standards.

 

[wpdavid]

Sehwag bats in the middle order for Delhi and has repeatedly expressed a desire to bat lower down. But he has to open for the team's sake.

Dravid never wanted to keep wickets but bkept for more than a hundred matches because the teams balance required it.

Ganguly prefers to open in ODI's but cant because others are considered better options.

What kind of logic is this ?

Your comment earlier that was that senior players (presumably Vaughan) were shirking their duty by batting down the order and having Key bat at 3. I was only explaining that Vaughan's decison to bat at 4 was nothing to do with shirking his responsibility. If anything, he was being selfless about where he batted, and trying to do what was best for the side. Don't forget that when he initially dropped down the order, Butcher was at 3, who had just played a crucial role in that position in the Caribbean series. Whilst I agree that there is a perfectly valid argument that Vaughan should bat at 3 against Aus, your criticism of his reasons for batting at 4 were, I think, unjustified.

Peace mate!

 

[Loony BoB]

Only the openers have batted well for England, after that Thorpe has been below his best despite digging in, Vaughan has been mostly terrible with some good innings mixed in, but still overall he's been well below par. Flintoff, G Jones have also been below par with the bat with some horrible dismissals thrown in. G Jones probably dropped far more catches in this series than he did last summer. Butcher & Key were both far more useless than normal with again plenty of horrible dismissals thrown in. The bowlers performed as expected apart from Harmison and Anderson.

SA in comparison didn't throw anywhere near as many wickets away with horrible shots, Ntini performed better than usual and Pollock was as you'd expect - their others bowlers simply weren't good enough and in the long run if Nel & Langeveldt had played more they'd have been put away eventually. Kallis played above himself with the bat and Gibbs did well despite coming in late and might have done better on another day with some previous form, but the other batsmen were found out rather than playing below their usual standards.

"SA in comparison didn't throw anywhere near as many wickets away with horrible shots" - so what you're saying is, they were outdone by sheer quality fielding or bowling? So you're saying England were performing very well in the field?

"Ntini performed better than usual" - as did Hoggard.

"Pollock was as you'd expect" - as was Flintoff.

"their others bowlers simply weren't good enough" - Boje? Giles. Harmo? Steyn.

"in the long run if Nel & Langeveldt had played more they'd have been put away eventually" - Assumption, nothing more. Who are you to say who does well when and where?

"Kallis played above himself with the bat" - as did Strauss (you can argue Strauss is always like that, I can argue that Kallis has been better than Strauss has been since Strauss started test cricket, despite the fact that Strauss is possibly my favourite batsman in the world right now)

"Gibbs did well despite coming in late and might have done better on another day with some previous form" - Ha, assumption again! So you say that Gibbs "might do better" but Nel and Langaveldt "would have been put away eventually"... nice to make assumptions always work in favour of your argument, eh?

"but the other batsmen were found out rather than playing below their usual standards" - Same with England. As you pointed out. Although to be fair, you said that Thorpe has been below his best, I can say Smith has been below his best. You can say Vaughan has been terrible, I can say he's been terrible a hell of a lot longer than just this series, and that Rudolph has been terrible (Rudolph averages 40, Vaughan averages 45, both averaged 30 this series). Flintoff and Jones below par? Hall and Boucher below par even more than Flintoff and Jones! Butcher and Key both useless? Butcher only played two matches and, to quote you, "might have done better on another day with some previous form". de Bruyn was also useless.

Like I said. Teams on par with each other as far as meeting potential goes. They were equally prepared, equally not up to potential, but overall equally had chances to win the series that England took advantage of more often than SA did. However, I still rate them "around" each other as neither team has in this series stood out to me as an obvious better side.

I loved the series, as a neutral. Two very good sides on similar levels of skill with similar quality of play and similar chances of winning each game until the fifth day, where one side or the other would become victor (sometimes being the light).

 

[djwolf]

Well done England for winning this series. Both sides have been unwilling to lie down all through. It's true some players were not at their best but there are a lot of positives to take i.e Strauss and Key's batting and Flintoff and Hoggard's bowling. Another underrated player in this series is Giles who, although didn't take that many wickets, batted very well and added vital runs when needed. Sometimes you just have to battle through and that's what we've done well in this series, good job done !