Swervy said:
neutrals point of view coming up:
I think it was obvious that England didnt play to full potential.I do actually think that SA played about as well as I expected them to. I dont think SA are a particularly strong side at the moment, but they certainly arent anywhere near the weakest.
In the end I think (and this is just an opinion) a 2-1 England win flatters SA just a tiny bit.The true sign of class isnt how a team plays when things are easy, but how they play when things are looking ropey.England got THEMSELVES into a bit of trouble the odd occassion,but SA rarely went for the kill,and England fought out of trouble..this is something that the England team of pre-2004 wouldnt have done so effectively.
This was the series that everyone thought would confirm Englands credentials.Everyone knew that SA werent as strong as they have been,and yet I think we all recognise that they are still tough cookies to break at home.England have gone beyond most peoples expectations.....whilst not being as consistant as a team as many would like...but England are now full of game breakers and game winners..more so than any country in the world other than Australia.
Forget umpiring decisions etc, they tend to even out,and I dont think one team got that much more benefit from them than the other team.England were plain and simple the superior team,a team that has much more talent than the SA team
Think that's pretty much spot on there, mate.
When Hussian's England won in Sri Lanka & Pakistan you could see it was a team playing at the very limit of its potential; playing ugly, attritional cricket. With the 04/05 team they've played pretty averagely on the whole & have still won against a decent-ish SA team.
As no-one else has done it yet, here's my composite team for the series:
1) AJ Strauss (657 runs @ 72.88)
2) ME Trescothick (448 runs @ 44.80)
3) JH Kallis (625 runs @ 69.44; 4 wickets @ 75.75)
4)* MP Vaughan (246 runs @ 30.75; 1 wicket @ 29.00)
5) GP Thorpe (287 runs @ 35.87)
6) A Flintoff (227 runs @ 28.37; 23 wickets @ 24.95)
7)+ AB de Villiers (362 runs @ 40.22; 13 catches, 1 stumping)
8) SM Pollock (120 runs @ 15.00; 21 wickets @ 23.95)
9) AF Giles (188 runs @ 26.85; 11 wickets @ 40.81)
10) MJ Hoggard (26 wickets @ 25.50)
11) M Ntini (25 wickets @ 25.08)
Twelfth Man: HH Gibbs (356 runs @ 44.50)
Aside from the no-brainers (Strauss, Kallis, Flintoff, Pollock, Hoggard & Ntini) I guess I better try to justify my choices:
Trescothick- just, just edges out Gibbs; Two centuries in pressure situations.
Vaughan- only two players have captained in the series, Vaughan has clearly out-captained & out-batted Smith.
Thorpe- default choice. The middle-order of both teams has been pretty average. De Villiers could have been no. 5 for his batting, but he’s been the best keeper in the series too; Gibbs has been a better batter, but only played as opener where Tres has just edged him.
De Villiers- see above. Jones has been mostly average with bat & worse with gloves, Boucher poor with bat (apart from 1st innings back) & no better than De Villiers with the gloves.
Giles- out-bowled & out-batted the only other specialist spinner used in the series; generally underbowled tho.
Oh, and I’ve promoted Kallis to 3 because of the general ar$e-ness of anyone who’s had a go there in the series!
