*Official* England in South Africa

[Briony]

wow england looks really good now. they just need one more quality pacie and they;ll have good shot at the wc.

They certainly looks a better balanced one day unit than SA.

 

[GIMH]

Been saying it for a few years now, we are not a bad ODI side when we get it right, just need a bit more consistency

 

[Prince EWS]

Been saying it for a few years now, we are not a bad ODI side when we get it right, just need a bit more consistency

Tbf though you could say that about every single one of the top eight teams. It's the nature of one day cricket. No team is just flat-out consistently bad in one day cricket because it's such a leveller.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, true, but whenever we do lose a game it's often made out round these parts that we are the worst ODI side of all-time or something, whereas we haven't been regularly bad since 2006

 

[Briony]

The results in ODIs in SA seem very dependent on the toss.

 

[Woodster]

I love the more positive nature of this England, we now have the players to carry out the 'No Fear Cricket' mantra. We look less frightened of getting out when we bat. The balance of the side is much better, and the players we are currently using are all being played in their correct roles.

 

[tooextracool]

I think one of the most interesting career revivals has been that of Paul Collingwood. His batting has displayed the sort of freedom that I have not seen from him since the start of his career. Obviously, hes been helped and perhaps even encouraged to take this approach with the new found support of Strauss, Trott and Morgan, but it has been refreshing to see the fearlessness with which he has been batting off late. It is perhaps a pity that he wasn't really able to express himself with the same freedom for most of his career having been deposited with the responsibility of being the bedrock of the England middle order.

 

[tooextracool]

Been saying it for a few years now, we are not a bad ODI side when we get it right, just need a bit more consistency

Err we have been a bad one day side until very recently and denying that would be rather foolhardy. I think, until we get our bowling sorted out, its still highly unlikely to see how we will get to the goal of being one of the best ODI sides going around.

The reason for the recent improvement (would say Champions Trophy onwards) has to do with the development of Strauss and to an extent Anderson as ODI players, the selection of Trott, the emergence of Morgan and a revived Collingwood. Considering that none of these were a feature of England 'over the last few years' its hard to see how we were ever a good side (in case thrashings at the hands of India and Australia didn't mean that much).

Furthermore, the constant selection of Prior is always likely to present a barrier to being a top class ODI side IMO.

 

[Uppercut]

England haven't been particularly bad since about 2006. Since then, they've won more than they've lost, but when they've lost it's been utter humiliation and embarrassment so it makes them seem worse than they are.

 

[tooextracool]

Strongly disagree with the above. Even if you want to look at their performances since 2007 they were embarassed in the lsat world cup failing to win a single game against a test class opposition with the exception of a meaningless game won essentially off the bat of Kevin Pietersen. In addition they suffered thrashings at the hands of India in India, by Australia at home and by NZ in NZ. Its hardly 'inconsistent' when you lose 5-6-7 games on a trot against the better teams out there.

Of course they had times when they performed by and large above themselves but the general theme was that they were a rubbish side who occasionally performed above themselves when certain aspects clicked.

 

[Uppercut]

They won loads of series though- against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka, the West Indies twice, Australia and NZ in the CBS, India, and they thrashed South Africa. They were violently mauled in India and then by Australia but that only proved my point about their inconsistency- sometimes it clicks for them, sometimes it doesn't. It clicks a lot more often than you think.

 

[GIMH]

Err we have been a bad one day side until very recently and denying that would be rather foolhardy. I think, until we get our bowling sorted out, its still highly unlikely to see how we will get to the goal of being one of the best ODI sides going around.

The reason for the recent improvement (would say Champions Trophy onwards) has to do with the development of Strauss and to an extent Anderson as ODI players, the selection of Trott, the emergence of Morgan and a revived Collingwood. Considering that none of these were a feature of England 'over the last few years' its hard to see how we were ever a good side (in case thrashings at the hands of India and Australia didn't mean that much).

Furthermore, the constant selection of Prior is always likely to present a barrier to being a top class ODI side IMO.

Errrrr we won in Australia & Sri Lanka, hammered Saffa at home and beat India at home. yes, we also lost comfortably to NZ, Australia and were destroyed in India - hence why I said we have been inconsistent.

 

[Prince EWS]

They won loads of series though- against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka, the West Indies twice, Australia and NZ in the CBS, India, and they thrashed South Africa. They were violently mauled in India and then by Australia but that only proved my point about their inconsistency- sometimes it clicks for them, sometimes it doesn't. It clicks a lot more often than you think.

Errrrr we won in Australia & Sri Lanka, hammered Saffa at home and beat India at home. yes, we also lost comfortably to NZ, Australia and were destroyed in India - hence why I said we have been inconsistent.

I'm seeing double.

 

[GIMH]

Haha, should read on before replying, nevermind

 

[Woodster]

I think one of the most interesting career revivals has been that of Paul Collingwood. His batting has displayed the sort of freedom that I have not seen from him since the start of his career. Obviously, hes been helped and perhaps even encouraged to take this approach with the new found support of Strauss, Trott and Morgan, but it has been refreshing to see the fearlessness with which he has been batting off late. It is perhaps a pity that he wasn't really able to express himself with the same freedom for most of his career having been deposited with the responsibility of being the bedrock of the England middle order.

Yes he is playing in a refreshing style at the moment, and he looks an exceptionally good player in doing so. He has probably felt the pressure of having to carry the side to a degree, but now he has the players around him that will hopefully perform on a more consistent basis.

 

[tooextracool]

They won loads of series though- against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka, the West Indies twice, Australia and NZ in the CBS, India, and they thrashed South Africa. They were violently mauled in India and then by Australia but that only proved my point about their inconsistency- sometimes it clicks for them, sometimes it doesn't. It clicks a lot more often than you think.

Did you watch the CBS? They were borderline laughable until PD Collingwood pulled out of his bag a set of performances of a lifetime. That was hardly a 'good team', it was a very poor team that won on the back of one player who scored most of the runs, took some blinding catches and even ended up taking wickets.

On the WI series, the one away from home was a victory only on face value because the entire series was a joke. England won 2 games directly due to duckworth lewis rather than due to their own abilities.

The SA series was the only series where they actually performed well IMO, the India series at home and the SL series without Murali were cases of opposing teams underperforming rather than England outperforming. When teams played well, as NZ, Australia and India (in India) they were not even in the same ball park. As I said, its not inconsistent when you are losing series 6-0, 5-1 etc, its called being rubbish.

 

[GIMH]

LOL, the India series was a great series (the 4-3) one and we fully deserved the victory. And wo what if Sri Lanka didn't have Murali? We've had to make do without one of the very best ODI players in the world on and off for four years now (Flintoff) and can barely remember a time we have fielded a full-strength XI.

Again, not saying we have been great, but we have been getting results on and off for a few years now, just that when we have been bad we've been woeful.

 

[aussie]

The CB series win is comparable to ENG win in Sharjah 97. An absolute fluke.

 

[aussie]

LOL, the India series was a great series (the 4-3) one and we fully deserved the victory. And wo what if Sri Lanka didn't have Murali? We've had to make do without one of the very best ODI players in the world on and off for four years now (Flintoff) and can barely remember a time we have fielded a full-strength XI.

Exactly we didn't have Freddie & they didn't have Murali. ENG outplayed SRI then, that was a deserved ODI series win.

 

[jboss]

I would like some more opinion on if others think that JJ Smuts should fill in for Kallis at least in the ODI or even test team if Kallis is not fit? Also Omar has joined the voice of many asking if Boucher has had his day so surely Khun could make his debut or even a shared responsibilty between Smith and AB allowing Smith to bowl while AB keeps and otherwise Smith keeps. This way we have 2 good fielder + 2 batsman + an extra bowler. I been looking at some stats too and I think Parnell is tad to inexperienced to share the new ball with steyn(in tests) but Philander looks the part and has a healthy batting average too. Elgar should def make a debut too with LOTS of others fighting to be in the test team. A list of all batsman that could jump into our top 6:
Smith, Elgar, Rossouw, Kallis, Smuts, Khun, Khan, Amla, AB, JP, Prince, Peterson