*Official* South Africa in England Thread

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Zondeki - no FC half-century in his career, 50 on debut against England. This must be the most frustrating thing in cricket- when you've knocked over the batting part of the lineup and you just can't dislodge the tail. I remember this happening to the West Indies several times in recent years. The culprits which immediately spring to mind are Lee (twice) and Srinath.

 

[Rik]

I have said so many times (for the last 30 years at least) that you cannot EVER consider going into a test match without a strike bowler. The fact that I keep harping on about it doesn't necessarily make me right, but I just seem to keep getting proved correct time and time again.

Anderson, Kirtley, Ali and Bicknell not strike bowlers? Anderson isn't anything but...

 

[luckyeddie]

Anderson, Kirtley, Ali and Bicknell not strike bowlers? Anderson isn't anything but...

Anderson is a young man learning his craft with immense potential to become a strike bowler. He needs a break - something which is patently obvious.

Kirtley, Ali and Bicknell can never be construed as strike bowlers by any stretch of the imagination - they are what we have in abundance in this country - decent stock bowlers able to bowl line and length and exploit English conditions.

Flintoff in one two-over burst before and just after tea showed a little strike-bowler potential.

 

[Mr. P]

IMO anderson is certainly most likely to become your strike bowler. If he can fix up a few problems, i'm sure he will be englands best bowler. he certainly has the most potential.

 

[Tim]

If England let South Africa stumble to 300 then they can probably consider that they've let South Africa off the hook.

I can't believe Zondeki has scored a 50, it reminds me of the time Pakistan were last here when Saqlain scored a 100...that day luck just seemed to go his way & as hard as NZ tried they just couldn't remove him.

 

[luckyeddie]

If England let South Africa stumble to 300 then they can probably consider that they've let South Africa off the hook.

I can't believe Zondeki has scored a 50, it reminds me of the time Pakistan were last here when Saqlain scored a 100...that day luck just seemed to go his way & as hard as NZ tried they just couldn't remove him.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow. Reading up on his background, he deserves the kind of reverence we reserve for AA.

 

[marc71178]

Are you upset that Giles is not playing?

I'm surprised that we went in with 5 bowlers who are pretty much of a much-ness, but I don't think I'm alone in that view.

Since Giles was the only spinner in the party and I think that playing 5 seamers is excessive, I suppose in that to a point I am upset he's not playing, but that's because of the balance of the side being totally wrong.

The only bonus is that SA didn't pick Adams, no matter what Bumble thinks of him.

 

[Warriorzcc0]

I do hope England win. Good luck to them.

 

[Craig]

Well LE, what you call England's strike bowler? Certainly not Giles. He is anything but.

Kirsten and Rudolph batted well with a special mention to Zondeki. I wonder if he is eyeing up a 100 on Test debut? SA will miss Pollock.

Flintoff couldo f had a wicket of Kirsten but instead he overstepped and didnt get Kirsten. He of all people needs to start taking wickets and start replying the selectrs faith in him.

I still maintain that if your best bowlers are seamers going into a Test, then you should play a all seam line-up. This is Test cricket, you must play your best bowlers picked.

 

[luckyeddie]

Well LE, what you call England's strike bowler? Certainly not Giles. He is anything but.

I've been puzzling over this question for a few hours. What IS a 'strike bowler'?

I've always looked upon the term in the past as self-explanatory. Bob Willis, Devon Malcolm, Brett Lee, Shoaib Akhtar, Jeff Thomson, Charlie Griffith, Frank Tyson were all, to me, 'Strike bowlers' - out-and-out speedsters for whom raw pace was the main weapon.

I've seen Javagal Sninath, Darren Gough, even Shane Warne and Anil Kumble described as 'strike bowlers' recently because they take loads of wickets and it's this definition which seems to becoming more accepted by many nowadays - Craig and Rik both seem to subscribe to the latter definition.

For me, the term is synonymous with the 'strike' in tenpin - "knock the buggers over" - stumps, wickets, who cares?

Bowlers have a 'natural pace' - of the current England side, Bicknell is 75-77, Kirtley and Kabir around 80, Anderson and Flintoff around 85 (yes, I know that Flintoff bowled a couple around 91.5 yesterday) but it's all a bit 'samey' - there's not enough contrast.

Back to the 'strike bowler' nonsense. He's the guy the batsmen want to get away from for self-preservation. He doesn't necessarily take a lot of wickets, but he sure as hell softens the odd batsman up.

 

[Cloete]

Zondeki just got out. end of a great innings on debut for a so called number 11 :P

102.3 Anderson to Zondeki, OUT: finally the breakthrough! fuller length
delivery, pitched outside the off stump and swinging away, Zondeki
drives at it and gets a thick edge, Butcher takes a high sharp
catch at third slip, end of an excellent innings

South Africa 292/8, Partnership of 150
M Zondeki c Butcher b Anderson 59 (128b 10x4 0x6)
G Kirsten 122* (311b 17x4) JM Anderson 12.3-6-39-1

Kirsten still going strong. Ntini should be able to stick there. he aint too much of a bunny with the bat.

 

[Mr. P]

well done anderson for taking the wicket. Note that he hasn't done too badly. I hope Kirsten goes on with it.

 

[luckyeddie]

well done anderson for taking the wicket. Note that he hasn't done too badly. I hope Kirsten goes on with it.

Were you watching the game yesterday? Anderson was dead on his feet, consequently his bowling was tripe.

This morning, he came on and bowled two very impressive overs (within himself) and got the breakthrough. Straight afterwards, he's tried to pace it up - and it's terrible.

 

[luckyeddie]

I still maintain that if your best bowlers are seamers going into a Test, then you should play a all seam line-up. This is Test cricket, you must play your best bowlers picked.

That's fair comment to a certain extent - but where's the variation? Why go with 5 who are essentially all the same (with the exception of Flintoff who can 'dig it in' a little on occasion - and the only time he did, he picked up 2 in 2)? Do you honestly think that the fifth seamer did a job here?

And what happened from 142-7? You got people like Kabir Ali and James Kirtley trying to bowl short at the tail when they don't have the pace for it (that's no criticism of the bowlers concerned - just that they recognised the requirement for doing something different but didn't have the armoury to carry it out).

The silliest reason for playing 5 seamers given by the Channel 4 commentary team is 'James Anderson and Kirtley are tired after their exploits at Trent Bridge'.

The same criticism (regarding the shape of the attack) can equally be aimed at South Africa - their only variation is Ntini who can exploit a little additional bounce.

In my mind, the selectors are guilty of a lack of imagination.

 

[marc71178]

He of all people needs to start taking wickets and start replying the selectrs faith in him.

What more does he have to do to convince you?

He is bowling far better than his figures suggest (yet again) - and just because he isn't picking up lots of wickets you jump on him.

I still maintain that if your best bowlers are seamers going into a Test, then you should play a all seam line-up. This is Test cricket, you must play your best bowlers picked.

Yes, and look how well that is working.

5 bowlers all right arm ranging from about 80mph to about 90mph is not a balanced attack, and if 4 aren't going to the job, the 5th best one is not likely to is he?

 

[marc71178]

Back to the 'strike bowler' nonsense. He's the guy the batsmen want to get away from for self-preservation. He doesn't necessarily take a lot of wickets, but he sure as hell softens the odd batsman up.

So in England we have 2 then, both injured!

 

[marc71178]

The silliest reason for playing 5 seamers given by the Channel 4 commentary team is 'James Anderson and Kirtley are tired after their exploits at Trent Bridge'.

Did you expect them to suddenly start speaking sense?!

If they're that tired, why were they picked?

Especially when the one bowler from Trent Bridge who probably wasn't tired was dropped!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Vaughan gone...

 

[luckyeddie]

Done by pace. Came down late on the ball, played on.

 

[marc71178]

Extreme bad luck IMO!