***Official*** South Africa in England

[Goughy]

Agreed about SA's top order. Whether we're good enough to take advantage is another matter, but we really should be trying to get Kallis in asap.

Trouble is, I think our batting is even thinner and our bowling isn't as good as SA's.

I wouldnt agree with that. Obviously Kallis makes a big difference, but after that they are weaker than England, IMO. Outside of him I dont have anyone Id call a very good Test player (fingers crossed Smith is schooled )

Obviously form may be an issue for certain England players, but I dont think there is much to be scared of from the SA batting. The seam bowling maybe another story, as you suggest, but I have a strange faith.

 

[Richard]

It's an interesting question.

Strauss, Cook, Vaughan, Pietersen, Bell, (Collingwood, Ambrose)
has easily as much class, and is far more proven, than
Smith, McKenzie, Amla, Kallis, Prince, de Villiers, Boucher

I'm absolutely certain six of England's top seven have the potential to be good Test batsmen, and Collingwood has certainly been perfectly decent for most of the last 2-and-a-half years.

With SA, on the other hand, Smith has still to convincingly banish the common errors that have crept into his game since 2005/06, McKenzie isn't an opener and I still think failure is more likely than success for him there; Amla is still to convince me; Prince I've never rated as anything more than decent and he's certainly had his moments of insecurity; de Villiers is basically the inverse of McKenzie; and Boucher, though he's far more established than Ambrose, isn't and never has been an out-and-out top-order batsman.

On the other hand, if SA were to go in with:
Smith, de Villiers, McKenzie, Kallis, Duminy, Prince, Boucher
I'd feel their line-up was far, far stronger.

Simple truth, though, is that SA's bowling-attack is far stronger than England's. And unless circumstances conspire against them, they should pose far more of a threat to England's potentially stronger batting-line-up than England's do to SA's more questionable one.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think South is gonna win the Test Series. By seeing England's & South Africa's Test record, I think England's will win but It will be an evenly matched Test series.

You guys would have thought differently had England beaten NZ in One-Dayers.

England won Tests in South Africa last time and we've not disproved in Tests.

And, also Sidebottom is as good as Steyn in Test Cricket, but a different type of bowler.

England have lost 3 of their last 6 test series, South Africa have won 6 (and drawn one) of their last 7. But statistics aside, there's a lot more quality in the South African lineup than the English one, and the conditions should suit the pace-orientated South African attack. I don't think Sidebottom's as good a bowler as Steyn either. I really do rate Sidebottom highly, he's an excellent swing bowler who consistently performs, but I know who I'd rather face.

 

[Richard]

Steyn and Sidebottom are both excellent swing-bowlers, who have their strengths and weaknesses.

Steyn is short but quick, meaning he'll pose more threat while probably going for more runs, while Sidebottom is taller and slower, meaning (obviously) the inverse.

It'll be very interesting to see who goes best.

 

[Uppercut]

Has anyone noticed England's odd habit at the moment of always winning either the ODIs of a tour or the tests, but never both?

 

[wpdavid]

It's an interesting question.

Strauss, Cook, Vaughan, Pietersen, Bell, (Collingwood, Ambrose)
has easily as much class, and is far more proven, than
Smith, McKenzie, Amla, Kallis, Prince, de Villiers, Boucher

I'm absolutely certain six of England's top seven have the potential to be good Test batsmen, and Collingwood has certainly been perfectly decent for most of the last 2-and-a-half years.

With SA, on the other hand, Smith has still to convincingly banish the common errors that have crept into his game since 2005/06, McKenzie isn't an opener and I still think failure is more likely than success for him there; Amla is still to convince me; Prince I've never rated as anything more than decent and he's certainly had his moments of insecurity; de Villiers is basically the inverse of McKenzie; and Boucher, though he's far more established than Ambrose, isn't and never has been an out-and-out top-order batsman.

On the other hand, if SA were to go in with:
Smith, de Villiers, McKenzie, Kallis, Duminy, Prince, Boucher
I'd feel their line-up was far, far stronger.

Simple truth, though, is that SA's bowling-attack is far stronger than England's. And unless circumstances conspire against them, they should pose far more of a threat to England's potentially stronger batting-line-up than England's do to SA's more questionable one.

Certainly agree with your conclusion.

Gong back to the batting, if our top 6 were all in form, then you'd have more of a case.
As it is:
Smith > Strauss
McKenzie's not being an opener = Cook's lack of runs anyway recently
Amla = Vaughan
Kallis > KP
Prince & De Villers > Bell & Collingwood in current form

imo.

 

[wpdavid]

Has anyone noticed England's odd habit at the moment of always winning either the ODIs of a tour or the tests, but never both?

Can't say I had, but since you mention it, it has been a while since we have won or lost both the odis and tests in a series. Possibly Pakistan at the end of 2005?

 

[Richard]

Yep, that's the last one I can recall too.

Has anyone noticed England's odd habit at the moment of always winning either the ODIs of a tour or the tests, but never both?

Simple fact of the matter is that England aren't very good at ODIs and haven't been for 8 years. In the rare event that they win ODIs, it's happened to coincide with the fact they've lost Tests. England aren't a strong enough Test side to be beating all-comers (certainly merit victory in SL was always going to be very difficult) as well as losing several series they should have won (Pak '05/06, Ind '07 for instance) and this too has played a part.

 

[Richard]

Certainly agree with your conclusion.

Gong back to the batting, if our top 6 were all in form, then you'd have more of a case.
As it is:
Smith > Strauss
McKenzie's not being an opener = Cook's lack of runs anyway recently
Amla = Vaughan
Kallis > KP
Prince & De Villers > Bell & Collingwood in current form

imo.

Vaughan > Amla IMO, beyond doubt. What that means as to their performance in the upcoming series, though, remains to be seen.

 

[wpdavid]

Vaughan > Amla IMO, beyond doubt. What that means as to their performance in the upcoming series, though, remains to be seen.

That still makes it 4-1 to SA, with one position drawn.
I rest my case, me lud.

 

[Uppercut]

It's an interesting question.
On the other hand, if SA were to go in with:
Smith, de Villiers, McKenzie, Kallis, Duminy, Prince, Boucher
I'd feel their line-up was far, far stronger.

I'm surprised you'd leave Amla out for Duminy, Amla has been excellent in the past two series and is an excellent player of spin, which gives the lineup a good balance. I may be proven horribly and dramatically wrong, but I think he's starting to peak after a very poor start to test cricket.
Prince on the other hand, has been out of sorts for a long time now, and if it weren't for his crucial innings against the West Indies he'd have been ditched instead of Herschelle for the purposes of entertainment. I haven't seen enough of Duminy to say whether he should replace either of them, but if he's as good as you seem to think I'd have him in instead of Prince, not Amla.

 

[Manee]

Steyn and Sidebottom are both excellent swing-bowlers, who have their strengths and weaknesses.

Steyn is short but quick, meaning he'll pose more threat while probably going for more runs, while Sidebottom is taller and slower, meaning (obviously) the inverse.

It'll be very interesting to see who goes best.

Going for runs has not hindered Steyn in his current Test form and there is no reason that it will in England.

 

[Richard]

That still makes it 4-1 to SA, with one position drawn.
I rest my case, me lud.

I also remain, TBH, to be convinced about Strauss and Smith. While there's no question in my mind Smith has by far the greater potential, as he's many times gone long, long periods barely playing a false stroke, Strauss in recent times has been far stronger in that department.

Both are very limited batsmen whose games are based around not giving their wicket away attempting strokes they are not capable of, and waiting until bowlers bowl at their strengths (short, and leg-side) which all but the most capable of bowlers are incapable of not doing eventually.

It's struck me of late, though, that Strauss has done a far better job with the leave than Smith has. Smith's patience, once his greatest asset, has eroded in recent times and a good accurate bowling attack could potentially exploit that. Of course, England's isn't such a thing, and I'm still very hopeful Smith will punish it. But say Anderson and Broad exceed expectations - I reckon Strauss is likely to require actually getting out more than he is.

Also, I'd not want to put money on Bell and Collingwood being lesser than Prince and de Villiers. If current form continues, they will indeed be, but we all know how quickly that can change. Maybe, with Bell, it just did with that double-ton.

 

[Richard]

I'm surprised you'd leave Amla out for Duminy, Amla has been excellent in the past two series and is an excellent player of spin, which gives the lineup a good balance. I may be proven horribly and dramatically wrong, but I think he's starting to peak after a very poor start to test cricket.
Prince on the other hand, has been out of sorts for a long time now, and if it weren't for his crucial innings against the West Indies he'd have been ditched instead of Herschelle for the purposes of entertainment. I haven't seen enough of Duminy to say whether he should replace either of them, but if he's as good as you seem to think I'd have him in instead of Prince, not Amla.

I'd not drop Amla, there is no case to drop Amla, and Amla won't be dropped, at this moment in time. That wasn't what I was suggesting.

I simply believe Duminy is a far, far more classy batsman than Amla. And if SA had the line-up I named (they don't, and won't) I think they'd be in better stead than they are currently.

Duminy, BTW, is someone I've long had a lot of time for, ever since the SA u19 tour of England in 2003. He and de Villiers both looked seriously impressive to me in those few games.

 

[Uppercut]

I think Smith's far superior form to Strauss in one-day and twenty20 cricket show Smith isn't as limited. Nevertheless, I'd probably rather have an on-form Strauss at the top of the order than Smith.

 

[Uppercut]

AB de villiers used to play for Carrickfergus here as a professional. A few ridiculously good innings later, they realised he was far too good and carted him off somewhere else. But he still has legendary status in Northern Ireland so we have a lot of time for him here too

 

[Richard]

I think Smith's far superior form to Strauss in one-day and twenty20 cricket show Smith isn't as limited. Nevertheless, I'd probably rather have an on-form Strauss at the top of the order than Smith.

Smith's infinitely better than Strauss at ODIs (couldn't care less about Twenty20s) but I was talking exclusively about Tests there TBH. You can and must play totally differently in ODIs to how you can and should in Tests. Smith takes far, far more risks in ODIs than Tests, and I don't want to see one smidgen of that impacting upon his Test play - else the double-centuries will be a thing of the past.

 

[Goughy]

Amla = Vaughan

and Im the guy that has defended Amla a far more than most on here.

 

[wpdavid]

and Im the guy that has defended Amla a far more than most on here.

I'm trying to work out which way around you rate them

But either way, if that's the only position you disagree with, surely the SA batting is still superior?

 

[Uppercut]

Smith's infinitely better than Strauss at ODIs (couldn't care less about Twenty20s) but I was talking exclusively about Tests there TBH. You can and must play totally differently in ODIs to how you can and should in Tests. Smith takes far, far more risks in ODIs than Tests, and I don't want to see one smidgen of that impacting upon his Test play - else the double-centuries will be a thing of the past.

You're absolutely right, but i just thought 'limited' was a bit of an unfair criticism of Smith.

On Duminy, what's his bowling like? I've heard its a pretty unusual action. If he could get it to the level of someone like Michael Clarke it might enable the selectors to go with the four-man pace attack more often in the future.