*Official* England in South Africa Thread

[Tom Halsey]

Hang on, you just pointed out he could defend.

 

[tooextracool]

yes i did, your point is?
you dont have to have the best of techniques to be able to defend though. perhaps more suitable would be that ntini could survive.

 

[Tom Halsey]

My point is that you completely contradicted youself.

 

[wpdavid]

I can see the point you're making & I will state now that I think the idea behind the quote-unquote quota of "previously disadvantaged" ethnic players is wholly admirable. It's a measure designed to help redress the balance after 40-odd years of apartheid & decades of unofficial SA policy before that.

As such it's hard to criticise it without seeming a bit of a racist buffoon, but looking at the form shown by Amla & Van Jaarsveld in the 2nd test objectively one has to conclude that VJ is more deserving of retention. Imagine the uproar if their form were reversed & Amla dropped?

I think cases of (what to call it?) "positive discrimination" (an oxymoron if ever there was) such as this only give more ammunition to the still extant darker forces in SA society.

But, for my tuppence worth, I'd pick Andrew Hall anyway!

Me too, with De Villiers batting at 6. As for the bigger issues, I think you're dead right, and I'll leave it there.

 

[marc71178]

as far as mcgrath being a better batsman is concerned, i seriously doubt hes good enough to score a 50, let alone survive 80 balls without a respectable batter at the other end.

Even though that's exactly what he did do?

 

[marc71178]

Which of them to pick for Cape Town seems to me to be a 50-50 call. On good cricketing grounds.

Didn't van Jaarsveld score runs and stay in for a fair while when they were looking to save the game?

 

[badgerhair]

i agree with the first part, not quite too sure about the 2nd. certain players might not quite be upto the mark when they are first picked despite good domestic averages, but they might just continue to improve at the domestic level and then step up to the level of test class. all im saying is that if england continued to ignore players who were performing consistently at the domestic level but failed miserably at the test level in their 5 tests, then they might just have not got flintoff.

What I said was "The subsequent ignoral of Adams sent the further message that if you do get a decent chance and you screw it up, you can just about forget about ever being called up again."

First, I said "just about" not "completely".

Second, I said "screw it up", which does not necessarily equate to "not score many runs (if a batsman)". It's perfectly possible to make 13 and 9 and look the goods although there's obviously a fair amount to be worked on, just as it's possible, though much less likely, to make 65 and look so awful that you never get picked again.

What matters in England's case is whether Fletcher and Miller think the player is good enough to play. The other point about keeping a guy in the side for a period is that you also get to work with him off the field, from which you can get a much more detailed idea about whether he is liable to be able to eradicate flaws you've spotted and end up making good on the promise you've identified. That experience as much as what goes on in actual Tests is what makes up the seelctors' minds.

They always knew that Flintoff was a potential winner, which is why they kept working with him for ages despite his relative lack of success on the field.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[badgerhair]

Which of them to pick for Cape Town seems to me to be a 50-50 call. On good cricketing grounds.

Didn't van Jaarsveld score runs and stay in for a fair while when they were looking to save the game?

Yes, he did, and that's a factor in vJ's favour. As his basically disappointing record in his Tests up to now are a point against him. He's done a few good things, but he has got out cheaply and stupidly in the past as well.

If you can assemble a very strong case that van Jaarsveld ought to have been retained ahead of Amla, I congratulate you, because I can't see it. Any marginal case you make can be equally countered by an argument for giving a player in hot domestic form a decent chance to show what he's made of.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Second, I said "screw it up", which does not necessarily equate to "not score many runs (if a batsman)". It's perfectly possible to make 13 and 9 and look the goods although there's obviously a fair amount to be worked on, just as it's possible, though much less likely, to make 65 and look so awful that you never get picked again.

Dwayne Smith's century in SA last winter springs to mind (tho he did get picked again)

 

[superkingdave]

damn Vaughan loses the toss again

Key in for Butcher

 

[Mr Casson]

OMG OMG OMG!!! Key's back!!

 

[superkingdave]

oh man apparently the pitch is a belter

why can't vaughan win the toss once in a while grrr. 5 in 22

 

[superkingdave]

Looks flat as already...

 

[redbaron]

chasing a target will be in englands favour as SA dont haf any quality spinner.

 

[Mr Casson]

Jesus, Mary and Joseph!! Why would you leave a ball that's going to uproot your off-pole?

 

[superkingdave]

Looks flat as already...

Hoggy Hoggy Hoggy!!!!

Thank you Herschelle

 

[Mr Casson]

Hoggy Hoggy Hoggy!!!!

Thank you Herschelle

That's what I said here in my armchair!! That was a bit of a gift.

Why not just stick your bat in the way? I don't understand.

I think Gibbs is going to have nightmares about this.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Vaughan must be due to win all of the tosses in the Ashes, as usual pure luck hands SA an advantage they don't deserve.

 

[S & G Jones Fan]

Go SIMON!!!

 

[S & G Jones Fan]

oh man apparently the pitch is a belter

why can't vaughan win the toss once in a while grrr. 5 in 22

that records funny!!!