*Official* England in South Africa Thread

[marc71178]

Or rather it'll show-up their lack of empathy for one of the most poignant pieces of naming in cricket.

No, it will show how this series isn't known as that by any but a few people.

Whereas the Ashes is the Ashes because it has always been such.

 

[JASON]

Whoever renamed this should be ashamed of themselves.
The naming of The D'Oliveira Trophy is a credit to cricket and I don't doubt next summer's thread will be "*Official* Ashes Thread", so this really should have been named after the trophy, too.
At very least you could have a compromise - something like D'Olivera Trophy (SA-Eng) Thread.

I agree totally. In memory of a great cricketer who became an icon for various reasons !! Here's the tribute to him found on a link from cricinfo reproduced to remind us of this great cricketer !!

It was suggested to me that I write a few lines about D'Oliveira for those who do not know the story.

Basil D'Oliveira was a South African "coloured" who was an excellent cricketer, and achieved any number of incredible things in local cricket. At the time, it was impossible for a coloured player to play first class cricket in SA, except for a very occasional match against a touring team. A great talent was being wasted purely and simply by the racist policies of South African government and cricket officials of the late 50s.

John Arlott regularly received letters from Basil asking if there was any chance of getting a professional job in one of the English leagues (many overseas players played in the Lancashire league). Because he had never played against recognised teams, no club would take a chance when most wanted Test players. In 1960, such a player let a team down at the last minute, and they needed an urgent replacement.
Arlott wrote to D'Oliveira telling him he would almost certainly never get another chance to play professionally.
It was touch and go whether he would come: the first year's salary would pretty much just pay the air-fare. Largely thanks to a fund raising campaign in South Africa, enough money was put together to enable him to
come and play. D'Oliveira has written vividly of meeting the (white) club officials for the first time, and being amazed at getting into the same train compartment with them.
D'Oliveira took some time to get adjusted to English conditions, but ended his first season outperforming Gary Sobers, who was playing in the same league. Eventually D'Oliveira qualified to play for
Worcestershire in 1965. By the next year, with West Indies the visiting team, he was qualified to play for England, and he played in four of the five tests. John Arlott has written that one of the proudest moments of
his life was watching Dolly stand up against the West Indian fast bowlers, and Arlott also said in his autobiography that his part in helping to bring Dolly into cricket was one of the best things he ever
achieved.

D'Oliveira played for England until 1972, playing in 44 tests, scoring five centuries and finishing with an average of 40.06. He also took a number of test wickets and was often considered an all-rounder, though
now he would be classed with players like Gooch and Hick as a useful extra bowler rather than a Botham.
D'Oliveira's performance is all the more remarkable when you realise he was born in October 1931, so never played regular first class cricket until he was in his mid thirties. (His birth date has actually changed
over the years: early in his career he felt nobody would give him a job if they knew his true age, so his official year of birth has gradually retreated as this became less important.)

He continued to play for Worcestershire regularly well into his forties, which is when I remember seeing him play. He was a great entertainer (except as a fielder in those days!). As a batsman he was a big hitter, but a hitter not a slogger. We were quite happy to see him get out caught sometimes for all the sixes and fours he often hit. He was a very useful bowler at county level
(slow seamers and also off-spin) and with Gifford formed an effective slow attack for Worcester. After retiring from first class cricket, D'Oliveira
became coach at Worcestershire, a post he has recently retired from having seen Worcestershire win two championships and several one day competitions. Basil D'Oliveira's son Damian, born in South Africa but lived in England from the age of one (or even zero!) now plays for Worcestershire, but has never achieved greater heights than a useful county player.
Sadly, Basil D'Oliveira also had a played a more sombre role in cricket history. Having scored 158 and taken a crucial wicket to help win the last test v Australia in 1968, he was dropped for the touring team of South Africa, but reinstated when another player dropped out (these were selectorial shenanigans of the calibre of the recent Gower saga). The South African government refused him a visa, and as a consequence MCC cancelled
the tour. To this day England have not played a test match against South Africa (though happily they will be doing so soon following political change there). So D'Oliveira never played a test match on South African
soil. Throughout this saga, and since, Basil conducted himself with the greatest dignity.

posted by Ian Philip Gent (ipg@cs.cornell.edu) on r.s.c.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Can anyone tell me what happened to Gibbs?

Forgive me, but I am relatively ignorant to SA cricketing current affairs.

 

[wpdavid]

Can anyone tell me what happened to Gibbs?

Forgive me, but I am relatively ignorant to SA cricketing current affairs.

He made himself unavailable for the tour of India as he was worried that the police would call him in regarding match fixing allegations.

 

[howardj]

This series will be a real grind- tough test cricket. On form, one would be inclined to tip England. However, since readmission to the Test Match arena, South Africa have never lost to anybody at home, bar Australia.

 

[twctopcat]

English confidence means that there is always a wicket round the corner which i like, we should be able to emulate the aussies and beat SA. If we can get a hold of Kallis and Smith then we should be ok.

 

[Richard]

Unless, of course, Dippenaar finally decides to translate his always-present potential into results - unless Van Jaarsveld does the same (assuming, of course, that both play) - unless Gibbs gets a recall and continues his recent devestating form - and remembering, of course, that getting a hold of Smith is not the easiest thing to do.

 

[Richard]

No, it will show how this series isn't known as that by any but a few people.

Whereas the Ashes is the Ashes because it has always been such.

If "always" means since 1882\83, then yes.
Before long, I can fairly confidently say that this equally aptly named trophy will be as such - especially if the series continue to be amongst the best Test-cricket throws-up.

 

[Richard]

This series will be a real grind- tough test cricket. On form, one would be inclined to tip England. However, since readmission to the Test Match arena, South Africa have never lost to anybody at home, bar Australia.

Indeed, before these recent subcontinent series, when was the last time they lost to anyone other than Australia?
When, indeed, was the last time they lost a home Test to anyone other than Australia?
Since 1998\99 (I don't really remember before then) South Africa have played 30 authentic home Tests (plus one that would have been a Test but for the Match-Referee being barred, plus 2 games against Bangladesh, which as we all know count for virtually nothing). They have won (including the "Unofficial Test - so out of 31) 22 of them, drawn 6 (all bar 1 [Kingsmead v England 1999\2000] of which they went pretty close to winning, losing-out thanks to rain on 2 occasions), and lost 3 (1 of which was a contrived finish so really counts for little. The other 2, of course, were against Australia, and 1 could easily have gone the other way).
That is not a bad record!
Of course, their relative ineptitude has really started since WC2003 (coinciding with their largely wretched ODI form), since when they've (well, beaten Bangladesh, which counts for virtually nothing) drawn a series they could quite easily have won 4-0 against England, lost in Pakistan, beaten West Indies at home (which really isn't much of an achievement these days), drawn in New Zealand, then of course lost twice, in Sri Lanka and India.
All depends on which way you look at it. Losing in the subcontinent is something many teams have done, and all right it was inept - with hindsight - to fail to beat New Zealand. But can't any team have 1 bad series? Failing to beat England, meanwhile, owed a lot to bad luck with the toss at Trent Bridge and an astonishing English comeback at The Oval. Yet the toss at Headingley was equally crucial, and this time their fortune was pulled level, and the Oval performance was really much more South African ineptitude than English brilliance.
See? There really is no way of telling just how good or poor this South African side really are, for certain. With England we can sum-up with a little less guesswork - they beat two poor New Zealand and West Indies sides, which was nonetheless a thoroughly professional achievement that few England sides have managed in the recent past. They also won 3-0 in the Caribbean, something no side has ever done before in 70 years.
It will be an intreguing series - it has all the makings of the sort of series where you'd say whoever gets on top first could shatter the opposition and make play-catch-up a neccessity, something we know too well is incredibly difficult in cricket. Yet so often between these sides we've seen series of twisting, turning cricket with momentum reduced to something close to fantasy. As soon as one side has appeared to be on top, things have changed dramatically.
This has all the makings of yet another South Africa-England classic. Yet (once again) we've seen series that have the makings of a classic turn-out woeful and one-sided before. We wait with intregue.

 

[The Baconator]

Although England played well in a couple of tests last year i think South Africa would have won the series easily if the middle order played better and didn't expect Smith's brilliance in the first 2 tests to continue

 

[Richard]

They'd have won the series beyond question if they'd just cashed-in on the beautiful Oval wicket better. 600 in the first-innings would have put a comeback well beyond anyone.

 

[twctopcat]

Unless, of course, Dippenaar finally decides to translate his always-present potential into results - unless Van Jaarsveld does the same (assuming, of course, that both play) - unless Gibbs gets a recall and continues his recent devestating form - and remembering, of course, that getting a hold of Smith is not the easiest thing to do.

Of course, but one can live in hope.

 

[superkingdave]

I've a bad feeling about this series, I'm gonna go 3-1 to South Africa

 

[Nedved's Fan]

England Averages for the Saffers series

Batting

M. Trescothick 36.7 top score 91

A. Strauss 51.45 top score 144

R. Key 28.4 top score 83

M. Butcher 38.88 top score 79

M. Vaughan 67.56 top score 213*

G. Thorpe 41.82 top score 112

A. Flintoff 55.21 top score 136

G. Jones 36.17 top score 87

A. Giles 22.43 top score 56

M. Hoggard 13.42 top score 21*

S. Harmison 11.12 top score 24*

S. Jones 6.21 top score 12*

J. Anderson 5.39 top score 11

bowling:

S. Harmison 19.32 BBI 6-33

A. Flintoff 24.82 BBI 4-55

M. Hoggard 28.85 BBI 5-76

A. Giles 33.31 BBI 4-73

J. Anderson 34.41 BBI 3-67

S. Jones 47.43 BBI 4-95

 

[Richard]

Bit optimistic on Giles and Anderson IMO.

 

[Richard]

Of course, but one can live in hope.

Only a few for-instances.

 

[Richard]

Right, with the India and Zimbabwe tours totally out of the way, we can look at the likely First Test line-ups:
England are near enough certain barring injuries:
Trescothick
Strauss

Vaughan
Thorpe
Flintoff
G. Jones
Giles
Hoggard

Harmison
The only places that I think might depend on tour-match form is Butcher\Key (if they're both good then Butcher should play) and Anderson\Jones (if they're both good or poor I'd say Anderson is the likelier).
For South Africa it's a bit more complicated. (For all players you can add "barring injury")
Smith is obviously certain to face the 1st ball.
Hall will almost certainly open with him.
Rudolph will probably bat at three: his Test-average - even excluding Bangladesh games - at three is all but 50. Not really surprising given that he actually appears to be an opener. Further down, it's in the mid-teens.
Kallis will almost certainly bat at four - I'd prefer to see him at three, personally, but he's been at four for the last 3 years.
De Bruyn will certainly play, but I doubt he'll bat at five as IMO he should be doing.
The most likely thing is it'll be two from three from Dippenaar, Van Jaarsveld and Amla. Neither exactly distinguished themselves in the most recent Test. Never seen Amla bat, his First-Class average is very impressive and he's won glowing opinions from plenty of quarters. Dippenaar and Van Jaarsveld (to a slightly lesser extent) are two of the most inexplicable underperformers I've ever seen (Neil McKenzie is another), their potential is sky-high, but they just haven't managed to produce the goods. For Dippenaar, especially, time must be running-out. Sadly, McKenzie's might have run-out already.
It looks as if Boucher might get a recall in place of Tselokile - I certainly hope so. If not, I'd prefer to see Abraham De Villiers play. Though he is clearly an opener, and if he plays he'd have to open. I certainly hope that unless Tselokile makes serious improvements he never plays Test-cricket again.
Pollock is obviously a certain starter - exactly where he'll bat isn't totally certain.
Ntini is obviously also a certain starter - probably at eleven, mercifully.
Boje could well play - but I hope not unless the pitch is a turner (not exactly likely given past experience of St.George's Park).
Let us all hope that we do not see either of Peterson and Ontong playing any games. Seemingly Klusener is out of the running, still. Adams has been dropped from his domestic side recently. There are so many other seamers knocking around (Terbrugge, Ngam, Hayward, Langeveldt, Willoughby, Pretorius, to name a few) all with some reasons why they have serious potential and all with some reasons why they could be considered wholly average.
So, South Africa's side is not - presently - as secure as England's. There is still talk of Cullinan returning to the Test fold. While it would be great, I can't see it personally.

 

[Langeveldt]

Yeah, Im not sure on the position of Cullinan, but is he not a bit past it?? Id be wary of letting him walk back into the side, not aware of his domestic form though

 

[Richard]

Nothing special - but his First-Class average is only 44-45, though, isn't it?
Past his best? Yes, undoubtedly. Past it (not Test-class any more)? Not so sure. Someone as good as him can still be pretty darn useful even at 37.

 

[LittleMo]

With Omar Henry deposed, there's talk that Jennings favours the return of Andre Nel. Chance for me to ask again, i) what has his form been like in domestic cricket this season, ii) was injury the only reason he hasn't been in the South African team?