*Official* England in South Africa Thread

[tooextracool]

you cant measure 'talent', one can say that ramprakash and hick are more talented than a lot of other players in the english side ATM, but just because their talent didnt convert into results it doesnt mean that they werent 'talented'.
IMO, i dont see how the likes of bevan, elliott etc were as talented as the SA batsmen, especially considering that SA had about 10 batsmen as opposed to australias 7.

 

[Swervy]

you cant measure 'talent', one can say that ramprakash and hick are more talented than a lot of other players in the english side ATM, but just because their talent didnt convert into results it doesnt mean that they werent 'talented'.
IMO, i dont see how the likes of bevan, elliott etc were as talented as the SA batsmen, especially considering that SA had about 10 batsmen as opposed to australias 7.

so really its not even worth talking about then ...give me 11 untalented players who win over 11 talented ones who dont.

 

[tooextracool]

yes i havent disputed that australia were the better side in the 90s, who(bar richard) would? im simply saying that had the SA players played to their potential at the right time they would easily have been the best team in the world. and theres hardly any doubts as to their being the best ODI team in the world at the time either.

 

[wpdavid]

you cant measure 'talent', one can say that ramprakash and hick are more talented than a lot of other players in the english side ATM, but just because their talent didnt convert into results it doesnt mean that they werent 'talented'.
IMO, i dont see how the likes of bevan, elliott etc were as talented as the SA batsmen, especially considering that SA had about 10 batsmen as opposed to australias 7.

It depends which SA batsmen you mean. I'll buy your earlier point about Cullinan being on a par with Mark Waugh, and I can accept Kirsten a sort of not quite so rich man's Steve Waugh, but beyond that you're struggling, I think. Over a lengthy period of time, averages don't lie, and the figures for Cronje and Rhodes support what I've always felt about them. They were good, competitive, and in many ways admirable cricketers, but not quite in the top drawer as test batsmen.

And I know they're inconvenient, but results over a period of time don't lie either. Don't get me wrong, I really rated the 1990's SA side and I wished England would learn from them. I saw them as having 2 or 3 world class players and 8 or 9 very solid pros who absolutely made the most of the talent they had. They also had a very settled lineup, which made a huge difference.

No, there's not too many of the present side who I'd pick ahead of the 90's lineup. Obviously the current version of Kallis is better. And either Gibbs or Smith could open with Kirsten instead of Hudson, Leibenberg or whoever. But that simply reflects the frailties of the current players, IMHO.

 

[social]

yea so 4 of them played in the same side. seriously, how bad is a bowling attack of donald, pollock, mcmillan,klusener(in prime),kallis(in prime) and symcox?

2 exceptional bowlers, 4 very ordinary - not very bad but extremely mediocre.

 

[social]

thank you for stating the obvious.

Well, I personally dont see the reason for debate.

SA werent a particularly talented side - their attitude saw them achieve better results than they otherwise might have.

Unfortunately for them, when they came up against a side with the same attitude and more talent (Aus), they invariably fell to pieces.

p.s. I dont care what a series scoreline says (whether it be 1-1, 2-1, 5-0), there has not been a single series since their admission where SA have remotely threathened Aus.

 

[Langeveldt]

2 exceptional bowlers, 4 very ordinary - not very bad but extremely mediocre.

Kallis is hardly mediocre when he is on song.. Anyway, I agree with your point about SA not threatening Aus since re-admission..

Right now, we would have trouble threatening a turnip..

 

[marc71178]

Kallis is hardly mediocre when he is on song.

I think you mean was rather than is.

 

[marc71178]

So Game 3 and it's rumoured that Ali is going to be out for Harmison.

* crosses fingers that rumour is true *

 

[wpdavid]

So Game 3 and it's rumoured that Ali is going to be out for Harmison.

* crosses fingers that rumour is true *

Depends which version of Harmy turns up.

Mind you, I was astounded to read about how poor Kabir's fielding was. I can forgive him taking a while to get used to bowling at this level, but there really is no excuse for not being able to do a decent job in the field. And we have seen quite a bit of this over the years - what ever happens at county level?

 

[marc71178]

I can't see either Harmy going at 8 an over!

 

[wpdavid]

I can't see either Harmy going at 8 an over!

Including wides? You're probably right though.

All I would say about Kabir is that it's crazy to write a guy off after one poor game, especially as he did well enough in the first ODI. He also showed a fair bit of bottle to come back after the start of that final over, although admittedly it would have been helpful if hadn't made a rod for his own back with the first ball of it. But if Harmy's fit and got his radar sorted, then fine. He was our best bowler in 2004, and, on that form, I'm happy to see him in the side.

 

[chris.hinton]

Oh yes, starting with a full toss that was a no ball and smashed for 4 then following it with another full toss - that was excellent when trying to defend 8 runs!



8-0-56-3 doesn't suggest it.

He took 3 wickets 2 at the death..... he deseves to play today

 

[Neil Pickup]

Let's break down Kabir's wickets:

1) AB de Villiers = short ball of little threat hit to Solanki
2) Mark Boucher = holed out on the boundary, wholly inappropriate shot
3) Andy Hall = he wouldn't have been out of his ground in any other situation

Contrast that to the four over-stepping no balls and generally short and wide bowling where he was comfortably the weakest link in the attack. Yes, he did well at the end, but it's pretty much his doing (plus his fielding was horrific) that it was 8 runs needed and not 20+.

 

[Jono]

The way I interpret Kabir Ali's performance, its like him dropping and breaking expensive an vase, and then gluing it back together in the end. Its nice that there's still a vase, but he shouldn't have dropped it in the first place.

 

[sledger]

The way I interpret Kabir Ali's performance, its like him dropping and breaking expensive an vase, and then gluing it back together in the end. Its nice that there's still a vase, but he shouldn't have dropped it in the first place.

hmmmm we shall see how things go today, the kid has talent imo but if anderson can recover his real form then i doubt he will keep his place, and then of course there is the matter of harmison returning soon....

 

[wpdavid]

hmmmm we shall see how things go today, the kid has talent imo but if anderson can recover his real form then i doubt he will keep his place, and then of course there is the matter of harmison returning soon....

As you say, Ali's still in the side. But Vaughan isn't - Solanki's replaced him. Tresco's won the toss and we're batting.

 

[twctopcat]

Interesting stuff, Vaughan out replaced by solanki and kabir keeps his spot ahead of harmy. England batting first as can be expected(sorry for regurgitating wpdavid!).

 

[marc71178]

He took 3 wickets 2 at the death..... he deseves to play today

He went at 7 an over - that was almost critical.

 

[marc71178]

But Vaughan isn't - Solanki's replaced him.

And that for me shows why England are still a way off the top in ODI.

We have no back-up whatsoever!