*Official* England in South Africa Thread

[Gangster]

???? Surely you cant be saying India are second

In Tests yes! India's ODI team is bad.

 

[marc71178]

Once again Marc shows the Green eyed Monster when talking about Solanki.... Solanki should not be dropped at all.... if you score 50+ you should play the next match...

Funny how nobody grumbled when he didn't start the series.

 

[Blaze]

Maybe Gangster means ODIs? I think we're officially 5th tho, IIRC.

And thats where you probably deserve to be ranked..

 

[Zinzan]

???? Surely you cant be saying India are second

India are clearly the 2nd best test side around at the moment. They are the only team that seem to be able to compete with Aust.

If England can compete really well with Aussie in the up and coming Ashes, then they can be looked at in the top two. But IMO as it stands at the moment India are no.2

 

[Jono]

I won't call England the 2nd best team in the world until the Ashes. However at the moment they look a better outfit than India.

However India in the last 8 tests against Australia:
Won: 2
Drawn: 3
Lost: 3

That's at least reasonably competitive.

 

[tooextracool]

India are clearly the 2nd best test side around at the moment. They are the only team that seem to be able to compete with Aust.

If England can compete really well with Aussie in the up and coming Ashes, then they can be looked at in the top two. But IMO as it stands at the moment India are no.2

good joke....
according to you, the only way to be the number 2 team in the world is to compete against australia, so i guess beating the rest of the teams doesnt matter at all, so why the hell should we even play them?
if england get hammered by the aussies, maybe it suggests that the gap between no 1 and 2 is considerably big?

 

[tooextracool]

I won't call England the 2nd best team in the world until the Ashes. However at the moment they look a better outfit than India.

However India in the last 8 tests against Australia:
Won: 2
Drawn: 3
Lost: 3

That's at least reasonably competitive.

yes quite an achievement of boosting their record by playing against williams, lee, bracken and macgill.
no surprise either that they were destroyed when mcgrath, kaspa,warne and a fully fit gillespie were back in the side either. yes 2-1, thanks to their dead rubber win against a warneless attack.

 

[tooextracool]

In Tests yes! India's ODI team is bad.

because they;ve beaten SA and WI away from home

 

[tooextracool]

Well said.
You have to feel for Solanki. Gets 100 and is dropped. Then gets 66 and will be dropped again But for the balance of the team it has to be Solanki that has to go. What will be interesting is when Flintoff is fit again.

why? sure;y the batsman who hasnt gotten a decent chance to perform at the crease is the one who is making the side unbalanced?

 

[tooextracool]

Plus Goughie's quite competent, too

yes i was one of those people who was doubting whether gough was good enough anymore. but hes certainly gotten himself really fit over the winter and hes bowling as well as hes ever done.

 

[tooextracool]

Could someone explain to me why they kept bowling length balls (that generally got carted for 4)?

because the attack includes hoggard.

 

[tooextracool]

Bell's bowling is very very over-rated.

as opposed to trescos bowling, that isnt even rated.

 

[tooextracool]

Another thing is why the hell is virtually every pitch (outside of Australia) slow.

because it makes for better ODI cricket?

 

[tooextracool]

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.

the thing is that however you rate cronje and rhodes(both of whom by and large underperformed), they were still far better batters than hayden, elliott, blewett, taylor(at the time) and whoever it was that was in the aussie side.

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.

you seem to misunderstand, i havent said that australia werent the better side. ive said that SA underperformed. and please 2 or 3 world class players?
so tell me which side would players like kirsten, cullinan, rhodes, mcmillan, pollock,donald and klusener not make?

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.

so the SA side that beat india(before australia did) and put up a great effort in SL was to frail?

 

[tooextracool]

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

mcmillan and klusener in their primes were a lot better than 'very ordinary' i can assure you.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

because players like kirsten, cronje, rhodes, cullinan,kallis, richardson, pollock,donald, klusener and mcmillan werent talented

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

rubbish, the SA side fell to pieces against england, who were by and large one of the worst teams going around at the time. and no one would argue that SA were less talented than england. clearly it shows underperformance.

 

[Jono]

yes quite an achievement of boosting their record by playing against williams, lee, bracken and macgill.
no surprise either that they were destroyed when mcgrath, kaspa,warne and a fully fit gillespie were back in the side either. yes 2-1, thanks to their dead rubber win against a warneless attack.

Yeah and they got a draw against the McGrathm, Kaspa, Gillespie and Warne attack too. Did you watch that game?

They still had the same batting line-up as well. Or does that not matter anymore?

I never said they were better. I said they were competitive. But then again you'll repeat the same garbage over and over and over again.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah and they got a draw against the McGrathm, Kaspa, Gillespie and Warne attack too. Did you watch that game?

yes it rained, not exactly what i would call a well earnt draw. yes it could have gone either way, but it doesnt prove anything.

I never said they were better. I said they were competitive.

i was just pointing out that the stats you provided werent exactly conclusive.

 

[Jono]

yes it rained, not exactly what i would call a well earnt draw. yes it could have gone either way, but it doesnt prove anything.



i was just pointing out that the stats you provided werent exactly conclusive.

Not a well earnt draw? Oh so we should just throw that game away? They outplayed Australia for 3 of those days, not dominated but they were on top. They bowled out Australia for just over 200, and in the previous Australian series they bowled them out once for less than 200. This is what is considered a weak bowling line-up. The same great Australian batsman I might add, not 2nd or 3rd choice batsman. Now once again I'm not claiming that proves they're better than England, and obviously not better than Australia, but to dismiss them as far from #2 in the world is a joke. Especially considering their past few series (in what has been considered a very poor year) have been (ignoring the Bangladesh series)

Australia - Draw (Yes, without McGrath or Warne)
Pakistan - Win
Australia - Loss
South Africa - Win

Is it impressive? Far from it, but they still managed to play good cricket in some games, and are far from 'laughable' when considered to be challengers to England for 2nd place.

 

[Scaly piscine]

No he just can't realise that maybe the opposition played well. Or is that just impossible?

If England win, well they were awesome and smashed the opposition. If England lose, they just underperformed, the opposition had nothing to do with it.

What else can you call it when they drop a sitter and miss a simple run out to get rid of Smith when he was about 40ish, who then goes on to get a ton. Not to mention all the guys who got out for England after scoring 30s and didn't go on. Then you've got the completely abysmal and unambitious last 12 overs that went for 67. SA bowled well in the last 12 overs, but not *that* well