*** Official*** South Africa in England 2017

[LegionOfBrad]

Incidentally, why are England persevering with Ballance? Averaged 60 after 8 tests & a paltry 29 since in 15. Has looked a walking wicket against top class bowling. He may have scored big domestic runs of late, but clearly struggles at the top level.

Root back to 3 imo, the position Smith & KW skipper their sides from.

Averaging 100+ in CC this year and also the captain's best mate.

 

[Zinzan]

Averaging 100+ in CC this year and also the captain's best mate.

Mathew Sinclair syndrome.(Apologies PEWS).

 

[SeamUp]

Some nice thoughts. OTT from Faf but certainly understand what he means. Public backing is no bad thing for Big Vern either.

South Africa captain Faf du Plessis said Vernon Philander was on the way to becoming the "new Jacques Kallis" after his man-of-the-match winning display in a crushing 340-run win over England in the second test at Trent Bridge.
Philander was in fine form with both bat and ball as South Africa won with more than a day to spare.

He made valuable scores of 54 and 42 at No 7 before taking three wickets for 24 in 10 overs as England, chasing a huge 474 for victory, collapsed to 133 all out in what was their heaviest test defeat, in terms of runs, at Trent Bridge.

Now retired South Africa great Kallis was an outstanding allrounder, scoring 45 test hundreds and averaging more than 55.

The lively paceman also took 292 wickets at 32.65, and held 200 catches as well.

Philander, primarily a fast-medium bowler with a priceless ability to move the ball late, is some way off matching those figures – his highest score in 45 tests is 74.

But 169 wickets at an average of 22.21 are proof of his potency as a bowler.

"He's becoming the new Jacques Kallis the way he's batting," said Du Plessis of Philander after the Proteas levelled this four-match series at 1-1.

"He's a fantastic cricketer. When there's something there (in the pitch), he's probably the best in the world at doing something with it."

South Africa altered the balance of their team after a 211-run defeat in the first test at Lord's, a match Du Plessis missed following the birth of his first child, and the returning skipper was delighted by how Philander had embraced his enhanced role in Nottingham.

'CRUCIAL RUNS'

"We left a batsman out to play two allrounders, with that comes extra responsibility," said the captain.

"With the promotion to No 7, I backed his technique and he responded by getting crucial runs in this game. He stepped up to the plate."

Philander and Chris Morris took two wickets apiece as they reduced an England top order featuring three left-handers to 72 for four before lunch on Monday's fourth day.

England had been set a target way in excess of the record test fourth innings winning score of 418 for seven by the West Indies against Australia at St John's in 2002/03.

But, even with a huge number of runs to play with, Philander gave little away.

'TEXTBOOK'

Former England captain Michael Atherton, writing in The Times, said "England lost four wickets to some of the best fast bowling you will see," adding: "Philander's opening spell from the Pavilion End should be commissioned as a textbook offering for any seamer of medium pace on how to put top order left-handers under pressure."

The 32-year-old Philander, explaining how he went about his work, said: "With the moving ball here it's difficult because you can't just leave me, with the odd one nipping back.

"I'm looking to attack off-stump consistently and that makes life difficult for those left-handers."

Fast bowler Morne Morkel was unlucky not to take a wicket Monday, as the recalled Morris made his presence felt.

"With the addition of Chris, our attack is even greater because we've got four seamers now," said Philander.

"It's exciting to be part of it and to lead an attack."

This match was also a triumph for Du Plessis, who took the bold decision to bat first and deployed precise field settings which helped account for Moeen Ali in both innings.

All this came against a backdrop of South Africa being without coach Russell Domingo following the death of his mother, while fast bowler Kagiso Rabada served a one-match ban as a result of swearing at Ben Stokes at Lord's.

"The calmness around him and his leadership, it's massive," said Philander of Du Plessis's captaincy. "There's no sense of panic when the team's backs are against the wall... It makes it so much easier.

 

[SeamUp]

Mathew Sinclair syndrome.(Apologies PEWS).

Jacques Rudolph/JP Duminy syndrome. The list can go on.

 

[theegyptian]

The thing is, the players England have selected lately to be solid, obdurate and have the "right temperament" have looked kind of ****, with their lack of ability being mistaken for grittiness. Cricket is at heart a game of skill; you gotta pick guys who actually look like they can bat at Test level at some point even if they irritate you from time to time. And it's worth noting that Moeen, who is probably the flightiest of all the English batsmen, initially really made his name with a superb rearguard at Headingley against SL. Players shouldn't be pigeonholed just because they have more than three shots.

Not sure this rings true. Who are these players? I can't think of anyone England have really plucked from county cricket to be solid, right temperement. A load of guys like Ballance, Lyth, Compton, Jennings scored a **** load of runs to get selected.

Someone like James Vince is the opposite. Hadn't scored a whole lot of runs in div 1 but they punted on him because he was a nice strokemaker. Hales too. Duckett too. None of them worked out too.

Neither way has really worked for England recently and England have tried both approaches imo. Maybe the talent just isn't there in general.

 

[Spark]

Not sure this rings true. Who are these players? I can't think of anyone England have really plucked from county cricket to be solid, right temperement. A load of guys like Ballance, Lyth, Compton, Jennings scored a **** load of runs to get selected.

Someone like James Vince is the opposite. Hadn't scored a whole lot of runs in div 1 but they punted on him because he was a nice strokemaker. Hales too. Duckett too. None of them worked out too.

Neither way has really worked for England recently and England have tried both approaches imo. Maybe the talent just isn't there in general.

Didn't Duckett and Hales have really strong county seasons before they were picked? I reckon any number of good observers could have pointed to technical flaws in the latter's game at least. But maybe the bolded is correct, as depressing as it sounds.

 

[JRC67]

Not sure about that. They haven't had a decent test opener since Strauss left in 2012 summer. Their top order is in shambles other than Root and Cook. If anything, their strong lower order of Bairstow, Ali, Stokes have managed to hide a lot of the issues at the top of the order. Don't forget, even at Lords they were 80/4 at Lunch.

They probably have the weakest batting line up among the top 6 teams

Our top order is shambollic. Our seamers are being out classed. Poor as Dawson has been he's 3rd in the averages and 3rd leading wicket taker for England, which says very little for the seamers. Not sure if there is much point bringing in extra sub standard batsmen just because they are specialists. Batting Ali at 8 is a waste because we will probably bring in a less competent batsman to bat higher. I'd put Ali to 5 and put Bairstow back to 7 where he did well. Maybe Rashid for Dawson, although I suspect South Africa's top order will take a liking to him. TRJ for Wood and drop one of Ballance and Jennings.

 

[Dan]

It's awesome of you to stake out some of the good passages so the rest of us don't have to do the dirty work of reading his articles.

Seriously, what the **** does everyone have against Dobell all of a sudden?

 

[Pothas]

Didn't Duckett and Hales have really strong county seasons before they were picked? I reckon any number of good observers could have pointed to technical flaws in the latter's game at least. But maybe the bolded is correct, as depressing as it sounds.

Yeah Duckett got loads of runs last year but he was a talent pick as well. As I said before a lot of those picked on runs scored had only really done it for one season, most of them would never have been talked as potential Test players back when we actually had a functioning top order.

It probably is just a lack of talent really but you would hope that a couple could at least be competent for a while. Lots of promising young players around but we know that is not guarantee at all, realistically most of them drop off.

 

[MW1304]

Duckett was also considered a good player of spin, specifically for that tour, which was hilarious when we actually saw him against spin and he played inside the line of every ball.

 

[theegyptian]

Didn't Duckett and Hales have really strong county seasons before they were picked? I reckon any number of good observers could have pointed to technical flaws in the latter's game at least. But maybe the bolded is correct, as depressing as it sounds.

Duckett in div 2 yes. Hales had one decent (but not outstanding) season iirc.

I don't think there's being a specific policy by the selectors to pick any specific type of batsman. If anything they've given more leeway to the aggresive type strokemakers. They've had plenty of failures in both attacking and defensive bats.

Picking Stoneman would be another punt on an attacking opening bat (who has had a middling-to-good county career to this point) that will probably fail.

It's not like England has a great record in general in producing test quality cricketers. Plenty of the better players in recent times have been coached overseas earlier in their career. And now the greater emphasis on white ball cricket will probably mean less test standard talent is brought through (although this is likely to be the same with other countries - meaning a general lessening in the standard of test cricket across the board.)

 

[ImpatientLime]

Duckett in div 2 yes. Hales had one decent (but not outstanding) season iirc.

I don't think there's being a specific policy by the selectors to pick any specific type of batsman. If anything they've given more leeway to the aggresive type strokemakers. They've had plenty of failures in both attacking and defensive bats.

Picking Stoneman would be another punt on an attacking opening bat (who has had a middling-to-good county career to this point) that will probably fail.

It's not like England has a great record in general in producing test quality cricketers. Plenty of the better players in recent times have been coached overseas earlier in their career. And now the greater emphasis on white ball cricket will probably mean less test standard talent is brought through (although this is likely to be the same with other countries - meaning a general lessening in the standard of test cricket across the board.)

probably the key point.

england haven't produced a legit great in test match cricket since botham.

 

[Spark]

Yeah I feel with English selection of late, a lot of batsmen who are actually pretty limited technically in terms of skill and craft are being talked up as talented simply because they're powerful (sixes!!!) and can play unusual strokes. It'd be like calling Ben Dunk or Yusuf Pathan "talented" in a Test match context.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Seriously, what the **** does everyone have against Dobell all of a sudden?

It's not all of a sudden is it? People haven't liked him for whatever reason, for ages.

 

[Spark]

It's not all of a sudden is it? People haven't liked him for whatever reason, for ages.

I think part of it is related to the conversation we're having here; he's consistent in bigging up players just because they're obdurate and "knuckle down", even when it's obvious to everyone else that they simply aren't that good.

 

[Jarquis]

Would England rather have Shaun Marsh or Gary Ballance?

 

[Black_Warrior]

A lot of the post match analysis focuses on England's white ball focus. While Dobell raises some points about changes in the domestic scene, not sure how much bearing that has on the current scenario. England's problem is top order batting, and their top 3 don't play white ball cricket.
Cook
Jennings
Ballance

So the idea that they're failing to grind it out because they are playing too many LO games doesn't work here. Sure you can say that about the likes of Root, Bairstow, Ali, but they are also the 3 most successful test performers for England over the past year, and have been batting under tremendous pressure for most part because of the failure at the top.

England's peak as a test team was when they had Strauss, Cook and Trott as top 3. Since then, Cook is not the same player from 2013 onwards and England have had no replacement for Strauss or Trott. Strauss retired in August 2012, and Trott left in November 2013. This is long before England's white ball revolution. So to blame white ball cricket for not having an opener and a number 3 in 2017 is just plain stupid.

 

[Spark]

A lot of the post match analysis focuses on England's white ball focus. While Dobell raises some points about changes in the domestic scene, not sure how much bearing that has on the current scenario. England's problem is top order batting, and their top 3 don't play white ball cricket.
Cook
Jennings
Ballance

So the idea that they're failing to grind it out because they are playing too many LO games doesn't work here. Sure you can say that about the likes of Root, Bairstow, Ali, but they are also the 3 most successful test performers for England over the past year, and have been batting under tremendous pressure for most part because of the failure at the top.

England's peak as a test team was when they had Strauss, Cook and Trott as top 3. Since then, Cook is not the same player from 2013 onwards and England have had no replacement for Strauss or Trott. Strauss retired in August 2012, and Trott left in November 2013. This is long before England's white ball revolution. So to blame white ball cricket for not having an opener and a number 3 in 2017 is just plain stupid.

Right, this is why people dislike Dobell. He just seems to have a grudge against attacking/LO batting for some unknown reason and uses it as a prefabricated answer to everything regarding England's batting woes.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Not just Dobell though

England are not good enough to think that attack is always the best policy

 

[Spark]

I can sort of understand it in response to yesterday, but it isn't a thesis which explains why England are so consistently 3/50 and relying on Root/Bairstow to climb out of a hole.