*Official* England in South Africa Thread

[tooextracool]

England just doesnt seem to realise the importance of the number three position. After Thorpe in his earlier "avatar' , they have never put their best batsman at number three and this is a suicidal poicy. They will always struggle except against very modest bowling attacks. They must send
Trescothick, Strauss, Vaughan, Thorpe as the first four in that order.

I still feel the day they find a good opener, they should move Strauss to three and move everyone one rung lower.

Only Strauss and Vaughan can fill this slot from the current side.

The next option would have been Thorpe but only in an emergency.

Sending the Keys or the Bells is just a case of the senior player's (in this case the skipper) shirking their responsibility.

except that the reasoning behind vaughan batting at 4 is to protect him from the new ball, especially considering how many times he was caught at slip while he was opening the batting. personallly all this best batsman must bat at no 3 at all times is all rubbish, why should he bat at 3? the best batsman bats anywhere he feels comfortable at. tendulkar was easily indias best batsman of the 90s,and even he bats at 4.

 

[tooextracool]

Kind of sad that England didn't go for the win. At least, from what I can see on Cricinfo, they didn't. It should have been easy for them.

and the point of the win would be what? add insult to injury?

 

[tooextracool]

Ntini - would walk into any team in the world right now (except the Aussies)

ntini walking into any team in the world is quite frankly the biggest joke ive ever heard. i mean after all he only averages around 30 in test match cricket and has rarely ever succeeded away from home.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

the problem with SA is that their bowling attack is extremely mediocre with or without pollock and ntini away from home. fortunately for them nel is starting to bowl somewhere near as well as he can bowl and he is really their best hope of a world class bowler to serve them for years to come.

 

[tooextracool]

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

these english commentators arent very good are they?

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.

it would take someone very brave to put jones above any keeper in the world, let alone boucher. what has jones done in this series with bat or glove that makes you believe that hes even close to bouchers class?

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.

has a clear weakness against the swinging ball, appears not to have learnt much since his last tour of england.

 

[tooextracool]

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.
.

err thorpe, flintoff(With bat) and jones all performed far below their best, although jones' failures seem to be due to stupidity rather than poor form.

 

[Marius]

has a clear weakness against the swinging ball, appears not to have learnt much since his last tour of england.

Rubbish. When SA was in NZ last year, and Chris Martin was swinging them in circles, Rudolph made 150* and 90*. Rudolph is class, he just a poor series.

And saying that Ntini would walk into any team in the world is a joke? The Sri Lankans would kill to have him, as would the Indians, as would the New Zealanders, as would the Pakistanis, as would the West Indians, as would the Bangladeshis, as would the Zimbabweans. And in this series he bowled a lot better than Harmison and Anderson, and was on par with Jones and Flintoff. The only Englishman who outbowled him was Hoggard.

And what is this rubbish that England could have won 3-0 or 4-0. England got out of jail in Durban (Thorpe was plumb LBW on one in Durban, he made 118*), we destroyed England in Cape Town, and has a bad afternoon in Joburg, and were outdone by the best display of swing bowling in years. 2-1 does not flatter South Africa, it is probably a fair result, but was by no means a foregone conclusion.

 

[Tim]

Sorry TEO but you seem to be almost as mis-informed as Richard can be at times. Rudolph batted exceptionally well in NZ, which is probably the final frontier for batsmen to score a big amount of runs these days.

Every quality batsman goes through a number of lean series..Lara has, Tendulkar has, Ponting has etc.

 

[shaka]

Ntini is an extremely good bowler, and useful batsman for the last few overs of an ODI match, almost every nation needs Ntini.

De Villiers is a very good prospect, and will tussle with Smith for the opening position in the South African order.

Thorpe played well in the final two tests of the series, which will help him for the Ashes series.

 

[Pratters]

Kallis apart, there is nobody in that middle order that scares you.

Rudoplh is a good batsman and DeVilliers is showing promise. Also, the South African batting is about depth and they do not rely on 2-3 stars. Always have had a long tail.

 

[chris.hinton]

I still don't get what you base that on?

Every time you're asked you ignore it!

I base this on that England have only played 60 % of there Ability against South Africa and Should have won 3-1 if it was not for the bad light in the Second test. South Africa rely on One Man Kallis without him they would be worse then the West Indies!!!!!!!, because of that 40% we made them look good. The Best Fast Bowler in the World had a Bad Series and we still won

 

[chris.hinton]

For the next test Series against Bangladesh i would rest a couple of players and give some young players a bit more of a go

Trescothick
Strauss
Key
Vaughan
Bell
G Jones
Collingwood
Batty
Hoggard
Anderson
Lewis

12th man Gidman

 

[Marius]

I base this on that England have only played 60 % of there Ability against South Africa and Should have won 3-1 if it was not for the bad light in the Second test. South Africa rely on One Man Kallis without him they would be worse then the West Indies!!!!!!!, because of that 40% we made them look good. The Best Fast Bowler in the World had a Bad Series and we still won

What a load of rubbish. Andrew Strauss and Marcus Trescothick played out of their socks, as did Matthew Hoggard, and Andrew Flintoff in the bowling department. One could say SA also played beneath their ability, Smith and Rudolph never came to the party with big scores, if they had the game could have been very different. England one the series when they had two brilliant sessions in Joburg, and that was also thanks to an iffy LBW against Gibbs. If Thorpe had not made that 118* (in a previous post I noted how he had been plumb LBW on 1), SA may well have won in Durban. It is clear that you are a biased fool, and cannot give credit where credit is due.

 

[Neil Pickup]

The Bangladesh series will not be used for rotation, as it's the only Tests between now and the Ashes. The only selection questions are whether Bell, Key or Butcher take the final position in the batting lineup and to a lesser extent, Jones against Anderson.

 

[Neil Pickup]

What a load of rubbish. Andrew Strauss and Marcus Trescothick played out of their socks, as did Matthew Hoggard, and Andrew Flintoff in the bowling department. One could say SA also played beneath their ability, Smith and Rudolph never came to the party with big scores, if they had the game could have been very different. England one the series when they had two brilliant sessions in Joburg, and that was also thanks to an iffy LBW against Gibbs. If Thorpe had not made that 118* (in a previous post I noted how he had been plumb LBW on 1), SA may well have won in Durban. It is clear that you are a biased fool, and cannot give credit where credit is due.

Don't rise to Hinton. He rates Kadeer Ali.

 

[Jono]

except that the reasoning behind vaughan batting at 4 is to protect him from the new ball, especially considering how many times he was caught at slip while he was opening the batting.

So Vaughan hides from the new ball, its great tactics and fine. If Smith goes lower in the order to hide from the new ball, it's a ***** tactic.

Interesting.

 

[Marius]

So Vaughan hides from the new ball, its great tactics and fine. If Smith goes lower in the order to hide from the new ball, it's a ***** tactic.

Interesting.

Well said

 

[chris.hinton]

Marius

Stop living in the Past South Africa are a Poor Side who where NEVER going to win the Series against England. You need to sack your Captain... Pollock should be you Skipper!!!


Vaughan DID NOT HIDE!!! he went to number 4 to lets Andrew Struass open the batting (Remind me who is the man of the Series) Vaughan is an Outstading Captain i wish these South Africans stop Ribbing him.

Smith However is a Whip to go in at Number 4 is just stupid he is afraid of Hoggard!!!!


Neil why Bring up Kadeer Ali? you get no Basis on this so stop bringing up the past!!!

 

[Scaly piscine]

What a load of rubbish. Andrew Strauss and Marcus Trescothick played out of their socks, as did Matthew Hoggard, and Andrew Flintoff in the bowling department. One could say SA also played beneath their ability, Smith and Rudolph never came to the party with big scores, if they had the game could have been very different. England one the series when they had two brilliant sessions in Joburg, and that was also thanks to an iffy LBW against Gibbs. If Thorpe had not made that 118* (in a previous post I noted how he had been plumb LBW on 1), SA may well have won in Durban. It is clear that you are a biased fool, and cannot give credit where credit is due.

You must be one of the few in the World who seriously believes England played anywhere near their best. As for Gibbs and an 'iffy LBW' he was plumb lbw when he was on 34 in that innings.

 

[tooextracool]

Rubbish. When SA was in NZ last year, and Chris Martin was swinging them in circles, Rudolph made 150* and 90*. Rudolph is class, he just a poor series.

so someone who averages 34 when you discount the series against b'desh is class isnt he? like it or not, rudolph is a man with potential, but hes barely even proven let alone class. yes he did do well against NZ, but looking at his performances this series, it looks like his weakness has showed up again.

And saying that Ntini would walk into any team in the world is a joke? The Sri Lankans would kill to have him, as would the Indians, as would the New Zealanders, as would the Pakistanis, as would the West Indians, as would the Bangladeshis, as would the Zimbabweans. And in this series he bowled a lot better than Harmison and Anderson, and was on par with Jones and Flintoff. The only Englishman who outbowled him was Hoggard.

pakistan would have him wouldnt they? because of what? his oh so brilliant average of 55 in pakistan, 70 odd in SL and 32 in india, especially considering that he'll play more than half his tests in the sub continent were he to play for pakistan. not to mention of course that he has an average of 23 at home and 42 away, which clearly shows how rubbish he bowls away from home.
and yes he bowled well this series, why am i not surprised, considering hes bowled well in ever home series for god knows how long before bowling the most atrocious piece of short pitch bowling away from home. and to compare how well he bowled to anderson is really quite a ludicrous statment, given that anderson probably wouldnt make any test side in the world.

And what is this rubbish that England could have won 3-0 or 4-0. England got out of jail in Durban (Thorpe was plumb LBW on one in Durban, he made 118*), we destroyed England in Cape Town, and has a bad afternoon in Joburg, and were outdone by the best display of swing bowling in years. 2-1 does not flatter South Africa, it is probably a fair result, but was by no means a foregone conclusion.

im assuming this is directed at someone else?