***Official*** South Africa in England

[Steulen]

Ever heard of these things?

I'm not sure Collingwood has.

 

[Richard]

Well the side has a much better balance. Although it would be nice to see a good young county player getting a chance instead of Collingwood.

If anyone deserved a chance instead of Collingwood it wasn't a young player at all, it was Shah. Or Joyce. Both of whom are nearly 30 so should hopefully be hitting their peaks about now.

However, the fact that Collingwood's supporters (who number many, both on this board and off, and both Durham-biased types and non-Durham-biased types) still claimed he was hard-done-by when being dropped suggests that maybe he deserved one last chance. Maybe he'll play at The Oval too, depending on what happens.

If he fails in both games, he should never play Test cricket again.

 

[NZTailender]

If he fails in both games, he should never play Test cricket again.

Not even if he goes back to domestic cricket and scores heavily and England have an injury crisis or a lot of people woefully out of form?

 

[Uppercut]

England having no real all-rounder might hurt them. I'm thinking if SA can get through the initial burst of Sidey & Anderson/Flintoff, they'll have a bit of Colly's bobblers or Panesar on an unsuitable pitch to get into, whereas England would probably be facing Nel/Morkel & Kallis on first change. The hope is that Collingwood can be an effective bowler on this pitch, but i wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Uppercut]

If anyone deserved a chance instead of Collingwood it wasn't a young player at all, it was Shah. Or Joyce. Both of whom are nearly 30 so should hopefully be hitting their peaks about now.

Eww, anyone but Shah. Please.

 

[GIMH]

Whichever way round we bat Flintoff & Ambrose, it is a nice long batting line-up, the fact that noone calls Freddie an all-rounder anymore, I don't think we'll suffer for this. How many teams do have a "true" all-rounder in Tests? Kallis doesn't bowl a whole lot these days. Having Flintoff at 7 makes us well-balanced side IMO, the only reason it didn't last time out is because we stuck Ambroses at 6.

That being said, find it slightly odd that Ambrose is going to now drop behind Flintoff. Surely the normal process when bringing in an extra batsman would be to drop those below him down in order?

 

[Richard]

Not even if he goes back to domestic cricket and scores heavily and England have an injury crisis or a lot of people woefully out of form?

No. He's not getting any younger, he'll be 33 by next summer, and I'm not often in favour of recalls for such players who I've never thought anything particularly special ITFP.

BTW, "should never play <insert level of cricket> again" generally refers to "under normal circumstances" - ie not if 5 or 6 players go down injured.

 

[Uppercut]

Whichever way round we bat Flintoff & Ambrose, it is a nice long batting line-up, the fact that noone calls Freddie an all-rounder anymore, I don't think we'll suffer for this. How many teams do have a "true" all-rounder in Tests? Kallis doesn't bowl a whole lot these days. Having Flintoff at 7 makes us well-balanced side IMO, the only reason it didn't last time out is because we stuck Ambroses at 6.

That being said, find it slightly odd that Ambrose is going to now drop behind Flintoff. Surely the normal process when bringing in an extra batsman would be to drop those below him down in order?

Kallis only bowls sparsely in ODIs. In the last test he took the wickets of Cook, Pietersen and Bell- three of the top five opposition batsmen. England have no batsman-who-bowls who could dream of doing that. Nor, looking at their lineup, do they have a bowler who could score a century- Flintoff has the potential to obviously, but i doubt he will ever again.

The side does look fairly well-balanced indeed, but particularly considering Anderson's inconsistencies, the bowling could come up a bit short in the first innings. I'm not saying it'll be decisive, but comparing the teams, it's an area where SA have a pretty big advantage, don't you think?

 

[Richard]

Eww, anyone but Shah. Please.

Why??? Shah has been the best batsman in domestic cricket (First-Class format) for the last 8 seasons now. You can't ask for more than that.

 

[Uppercut]

Why??? Shah has been the best batsman in domestic cricket (First-Class format) for the last 8 seasons now. You can't ask for more than that.

I just don't rate him. I can't adequately explain why but i'm just incapable of seeing him as a test-class batsman.

 

[Speersy]

Disagree.

Sidebottom, Anderson, Flintoff & Panesar >>>>> Flintoff, Broad, Pattinson, Anderson & Panesar.

The first attack looks like 3 good bowlers from 4 (Sidebottom 1, Flintoff 1, Anderson and panesar 0.5 each) while the other looks like 2.25 from 5 (Flintoff 1, Broad 0.25, Pattinson 0, Anderson 0.5, Panesar 0.5).

In the only test Pattinson has played he got the same number of wickets (2) as Flintoff and Broad put together, don't see how you can give him 0.

 

[Uppercut]

In the only test Pattinson has played he got the same number of wickets (2) as Flintoff and Broad put together, don't see how you can give him 0.

A full toss given lbw going a mile down the leg side should not count as a wicket for the purposes of rating a bowler.

 

[GIMH]

Kallis only bowls sparsely in ODIs. In the last test he took the wickets of Cook, Pietersen and Bell- three of the top five opposition batsmen. England have no batsman-who-bowls who could dream of doing that. Nor, looking at their lineup, do they have a bowler who could score a century- Flintoff has the potential to obviously, but i doubt he will ever again.

The side does look fairly well-balanced indeed, but particularly considering Anderson's inconsistencies, the bowling could come up a bit short in the first innings. I'm not saying it'll be decisive, but comparing the teams, it's an area where SA have a pretty big advantage, don't you think?

See that annoys me, Flintoff has five Test match centuries, to say he will never score another is foolish, based on what, exactly?

 

[Uppercut]

See that annoys me, Flintoff has five Test match centuries, to say he will never score another is foolish, based on what, exactly?

His batting. Over the past, well, ages. Maybe he'll improve, he might well do, i'm not sure he will, but he could. But he won't score a century in this match, and that's all that i was referring to. If he does, i'll set my avatar to a picture of Elmo.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Shah seems mentally fragile to me, every now and then he does something that makes you question him. In his last Test in what should have been a prime help yourself situation he looked like he was a rabbit caught in headlights.

In this match:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/258475.html?innings=2;view=commentary

He came in with the required run rate at 6.5 on a nice batting track, scored 15 off 36 balls and so England then needed 8.6 an over from the last 19.

Considering his ability his ODI record is piss poor. Personally I wouldn't go for what would be a marginal selection at best when they have issues like that.

 

[Richard]

Most players have the odd bad game. And ODIs are entirely irrelevant to Tests.

 

[Richard]

I just don't rate him. I can't adequately explain why but i'm just incapable of seeing him as a test-class batsman.

Well I obviously feel differently - but aside from that, it's so obscenely unfair to give chances to batsmen whose performances are inferior just because "he doesn't look like a Test batsman to me".

Thinking you know better than the game itself is a very, very dangerous game to play as a selector.

 

[Uppercut]

Well I obviously feel differently - but aside from that, it's so obscenely unfair to give chances to batsmen whose performances are inferior just because "he doesn't look like a Test batsman to me".

Thinking you know better than the game itself is a very, very dangerous game to play as a selector.

He probably should get a chance in all fairness. But i don't want it to happen, and if it did i'd expect him to fail every time, against my better judgement.


The second part is an interesting point, because in most other jobs you would be forced to take the decision most logical based on the information provided.

For example, if i worked for a trading company and decided to invest heavily in the flashy wildcard business Pattison Inc., who had just been set up by an unknown Australia consortium, instead of the tried-and-trusted Hoggard & Sons Ltd. whom we controversially withdrew funds from earlier that year, i'd fully expect to be fired. Selectors, it seems, can get away with it.

 

[GIMH]

His batting. Over the past, well, ages. Maybe he'll improve, he might well do, i'm not sure he will, but he could. But he won't score a century in this match, and that's all that i was referring to. If he does, i'll set my avatar to a picture of Elmo.

Oh, you know that do you? Can you also tell me when it's going to rain, got to take my 5-year old to the cinema on friday so would like it to coincide with any break in play.

He scored 17 and 38 in the last Test, not good, but hardly an absolute shocker. He may well have passed his peak as a batsman but to categorically state that it is unlikely he will ever score another century is foolish. You can categorically state Sidebottom, panesar won't ever score one but to rule Flintoff out is....well as I said, silly

 

[Uppercut]

Oh, you know that do you? Can you also tell me when it's going to rain, got to take my 5-year old to the cinema on friday so would like it to coincide with any break in play.

He scored 17 and 38 in the last Test, not good, but hardly an absolute shocker. He may well have passed his peak as a batsman but to categorically state that it is unlikely he will ever score another century is foolish. You can categorically state Sidebottom, panesar won't ever score one but to rule Flintoff out is....well as I said, silly

Okay. If he does (in this match) i'll be very embarrassed and you may tear into me all you like.