*Official* South Africa in England Thread

[Langeveldt]

I dont think getting rid of players here there and everywhere will solve Englands problems.. Remember Giles was an integral part of Englands success on the subcontinent, he is clearly a good spinner, although I myself begin to wonder if there is any point in playing him at home...

Had Hussain held onto that catch, SA could have been 200 all out... What goes around comes around, suddenly a few rash shots in the next test match could see SA 110-7 and Englands bowlers will take on a completley different complexion...

Much of this is not Englands fault, they have run into some sort of man mountain run machine, he is awesome, absolutely incredible, he certainly delivred in the end about the "mental scarring" If he could shut his mouth a bit more about some former goings on, he would be near enough perfect for SA cricket...

And Kallis is yet to make a run, Rudolph who I rave about hasnt batted much, and Kirsten is proven class along with Dippenaar who is very talented

Amazing to think that this is a bigger mauling than Bangladesh were handed out in Australia :rolleyes: Im yet to see the close series we were all predicting...

 

[Legglancer]

GOOD GRIEF !!!! LORD HAVE MERCY, MURDER SHE WROTE !

SOMEBODY PLEASE SHOOT THE ENGLAND TEAM AND SAVE THEM FROM UTTER MISERY OR GIVE MURALI A BRITISH PASSPORT AND BEG HIM TO RESCUE OL'BLIGHTY!

BRING BACK CADDICK IF HE IS NOT ON A WHEELCHAIR OR DEFREITAS

 

[Legglancer]

Sorry folks I just logged into "cricinfo" and had a "shock episode".

 

[Langeveldt]

Bring back Paul Jarvis!

And Gerrie Liebenberg!

 

[Rik]

and I think Flintoff should definitely stay

Despite the fact he is averaging 20 with the bat and hasn't taken a wicket yet, for about 150 runs this series...

 

[Rich2001]

Hey guys

Now let the English guy take a look at the positives....

Ok so there aren't many, oh hang on... we weren't as bad as Somerset!!!! (Did I do enough to change the convosation away from England :saint: )

 

[hourn]

I dont think getting rid of players here there and everywhere will solve Englands problems.. Remember Giles was an integral part of Englands success on the subcontinent, he is clearly a good spinner, although I myself begin to wonder if there is any point in playing him at home...

But Giles isn't good. He's not even decent. So he may have produced the bacon in one test series, but if you get enough chances your bound too. At the moment, he seems to be in the team because the Poms want to have a spinner in there - you might as well play 4 quicks if you don't have a spinner good enough. You don't just play your best (I'm sure there are actually better spinners in England anyway) spinner for the sake of it.

The players England have are not doing that job, and a lot of them are getting on in age a bit - Even Flintoff is now 25, being playing international cricket for 5 years, and done NOTHING in test cricket. McGrath getting picked for debut at 28 is redicolous, any of the above guys I mentioned would've been a better bet.

Had Hussain held onto that catch, SA could have been 200 all out... What goes around comes around, suddenly a few rash shots in the next test match could see SA 110-7 and Englands bowlers will take on a completley different complexion...

A lot of If's and whatever in there.........Had Hussain held onto the catch, Dippenear could've came in and blasted away even more so than what Smith and Kirsten have......

Much of this is not Englands fault, they have run into some sort of man mountain run machine, he is awesome, absolutely incredible, he certainly delivred in the end about the "mental scarring" If he could shut his mouth a bit more about some former goings on, he would be near enough perfect for SA cricket...

And Kallis is yet to make a run, Rudolph who I rave about hasnt batted much, and Kirsten is proven class along with Dippenaar who is very talented

Not playing this test won't help Kallis in that department

Amazing to think that this is a bigger mauling than Bangladesh were handed out in Australia :rolleyes: Im yet to see the close series we were all predicting...

I'm very interested into seeing the next time we meet South Africa now - should be a good challenge provided both teams keep it going.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I'm very interested into seeing the next time we meet South Africa now - should be a good challenge provided both teams keep it going.

Sounds familiar. Most people though the last series between the two teams would have been a challenge...

 

[hourn]

Sounds familiar. Most people though the last series between the two teams would have been a challenge...

yea but under Smith South Africa seem to have a bit of youthful enthuasiasm about them, and the Aussies are probably the weakest they've been for a while (which probably shows how strong they have been)......

But we don't play them for quite a while I don't think so by than a lot can change..

Can someone tell me anything about some of those guys I mentioned up top....

I fail to see that any of them could be worse options than McGrath - it's not as if he evens looks like a good batsmen, fairly ordinary technique, and he looks like an old man around the field.....he's 28 looking like he's 38.

While Giles is just not working, as I said, if there's no better spinners around, play 4 quicks.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If the quicks aren't any better than the spinner though....

 

[hourn]

If the quicks aren't any better than the spinner though....

yea thats a point but I'd suggest they are.

Anderson and Gough are definetaly guys to be in the team for now, whilst if Hoggard and Johnson were there, that is a reasonable four pronged pace attack.

I don't think Gough will ever get back to his best, so I don't think he'll be around next season, which is where one other guy comes in.

And without having seen them, it does make it hard, but unlike a lot of other sports, stats tell more of a story in cricket than most others. But I'd suggest Kirby and Keegan are reasonable bowlers, and are 26 years old (Kirby has only played 2 or 3 seasons of country cricket) so maybe it's time to see if they can step it up to another level. Take a punt, because it's better to take an uknown factor where there could be some chance for success than sticking with someone who you know just isn't good enough.

Even in the county comp this year, Giles is averaging above 40.....

What other spinners are around, because that would be your first preference, but if there's no good enough there's no point, and I just don't think Giles is good enough..

 

[hourn]

and whats happened to Blackwell - at least he can spin the ball which is always a good sign....

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

What other spinners are around, because that would be your first preference, but if there's no good enough there's no point, and I just don't think Giles is good enough..

Brown and Batty seem decent spinners, but Brown is not exactly capable with the bat (6.78 avge) and he's also approaching 29. Batty is decent with the bat (19odd avge).

I suggest that if England decide to drop Flintoff, they go with a more unorthodox approach and pick Batty in his place. The problem with Flintoff in Tests is that he doesn't score runs or take wickets. Batty can't do worse than Giles and Flintoff with the ball and he is capable with the bat. That way, England could play four quicks and still have a good spinner at their disposal. Yes, it does seem to weaken the batting, but I think that the bowling is the bigger problem currently... especially if Thorpe and Smith come into the side. Here is Mr Mxyzptlk's Unorthodox XI -

M Vaughan
M Trescothick
M Butcher
G Thorpe
A Stewart
E Smith
G Batty - perhaps a place too high...
1/
2/
D Gough
J Anderson

1/ and 2/ will be the two seamers. This is under the suggestion that there are four fit seamers in England who are better than England's resident spinner - Giles. I cannot name the other two, because my knowledge of County Cricket is limited. I wouldn't play Kirtley in the XI though, because it would be too unorthodox. Indeed, England's tail would resemble Ryan Sidebottom's hair - way too long for its own good.

 

[hourn]

I wouldn't drop Hussain though..........maybe. i'm not sure - he's a bit of an anchor in the middle order at the moment, and he's batting better than he ever has in recent years (averaging 45 in the last two years), but as mentioned above in that period he has only scored three tons, two of them coming in the same series.

Thorpe coming in is definetaly an option, but it does seem as if it would be the same old tune - England picking in old guys, who have had plenty of chances, i.e. Mark Ramprakash, although Thorpe is many classes above MR.

Bowling at the moment is definetaly the weak spot, but i think in five years time it will be their strength (especially quicks)........ they've got Hoggard, Anderson, Jones, Kirby and Keegan are two guy in their mid 20's performing well at county cricket, while Harmison isn't a bad back up, but definetaly not a permenant test player. James Kirtley is definetaly a no-goer, unless it goes EXTREMELY desperate.

5 batsmen could be the go, playing Batty at number 7, especially if Stewart is still there at the moment, is virtually playing 6 batsmen, while Batty assumes the role of a keeper (at least in batting terms anyway).......

To partner Gough and Anderson at the moment, seems as if Keegan and Kirby are the best options from the county system, but like you my knowledge is limited, but you gotta reward guys for performances, and they are perfoming pretty well.

 

[hourn]

Andrew Flintoff and Shane Watson have a lot of simlar qualities - big solid guys, who hit hard and bowl with abit of pace but ordinary actions. Seemed to got through their junior years with such a great reputation on the basis that they were a lot stronger than other guys.

When Watson gets his first test, which he will within the next 2 seasons for sure, I can GARUNATEE you the selectors will not give him the same leniancy that Flintoff's been given. That seems to be the difference between England and Australia.

Flintoff needs to get a big kick up the ass, because it seems as if the England selectors are hell bent on having an all rounder at any cost, and with his reptuation through the young ranks, they seem to be letting him get away with doing absolutely nothing. And he isn't an all rounder, he's an all-nothing. Can't bat and Can't bowl, so whats the point of him being in there.....??

At the moment, Australia are ruthless in their selections. Reputation as a junior, or in state level means nothing, if you don't perform at test level, your out, simple as that. Just ask Greg Blewett, Michael Slater, Matthew Nicholson, Scott Muller and about a dozen other cricketers over the past decade or so......

BTW, Ed Smith has just notched up his sixth ton of the season in the most recent match pushing him over 1000 runs and his career FC average above 40, so that can't be ignored for too long.

 

[Mr. P]

i can say to you right now; shanw watson will NEVER play test cricket for australia

 

[Tim]

I thought while Richard Dawson didn't really show many qualities as a bowler in Australia..he did show that he could handle a bat quite well & if he can work on his spin he might be an option for England.

 

[Mr. P]

if you want a batsman play smith, not dawson

 

[Tim]

Are you talking about Graeme Smith?
why? Dawson is English.

 

[Mr. P]

ed smith