***Official*** South Africa in England

[GIMH]

If there is any sense in the selection committee (!!!) then Colly will miss out again next week. However I believe it will be for Harmison, thus meaning 200 ao again

 

[Goughy]

If there is any sense in the selection committee (!!!) then Colly will miss out again next week. However I believe it will be for Harmison, thus meaning 200 ao again

Lets hope you speak too early and he plays a magnifient back-to-the-wall century in the second innings.

 

[GIMH]

Certainly. I like Colly, a lot and love seeing him do well. At the minute though it's hard to see him getting any runs. When he came out to bat at OT in the 4th innings chase earlire in the season I was ****ting bricks, and nothing has really changed since then

 

[unccricket]

what's wrong with bringing broad for collingwood? i realize that broad is touted mostly as a bowler who can bat a bit, but he's been batting really well recently - surely he'd be an upgrade from collingwood. He would also be a legitamite fifth bowler in the team. Would require flintoff or the WK to be promoted to 5 though, which i'm not sure would be a great idea.

what do you guys think?

 

[zaremba]

what's wrong with bringing broad for collingwood? i realize that broad is touted mostly as a bowler who can bat a bit, but he's been batting really well recently - surely he'd be an upgrade from collingwood. He would also be a legitamite fifth bowler in the team. Would require flintoff or the WK to be promoted to 5 though, which i'm not sure would be a great idea.

what do you guys think?

It would mean promoting Fred or Ambrose to 6, not 5.

I don't think they can pick Broad as a batting all-rounder just yet. Just possibly in a few years' time though. For now, he needs to work hard on becoming more penetrative with his bowling.

 

[Woodster]

Winning the toss was an absolutely huge piece of luck on this pitch. They've also had, without exception, overcast conditions to bowl in and sunny conditions to bat in. Also they were lucky not to lose any wickets to the bowling of Morkel which they all struggled against. So it's not that they've been especially unlucky, they just horribly failed to take advantage of the luck they did have.

I agree about the bowling though, and TBH it hasn't looked bad all series (apart from the sessions last night and this morning). A little ineffective at times, but never especially bad. SA's superior batting has been the difference between the sides thus far.

Tbf I'm not talking solely about this Test, I think if you remember conditions changed when SA batted in the last Test. It is just certain decisions are going with SA currently, that is what happens though when you are on top, things go for you. These are not excuses of why England are currently losing the series, as their cricket has not been anywhere near as good so far.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Im sure we all have a great deal of admiration for Flintoff the bowler.

Its just Im not sure Ive ever seen a bowler have to work so hard for his wickets. His wickets seem to come from massive effort and quality bowling and yet they seldom come in bunches like for others.

There must be a simple reason that even when bowling brilliantly, and looking like a world beater, that he cant run through sides.

Every dismissal seems to be a masterpiece and the result of a battle rather than batsmen rolling over and gifting their wickets.

Well I think partly it's because he's fairly poor at getting rid of tailenders. He also tends to beat players on the back foot rather than the front foot, which decreases the chances of getting the edge - particularly if it's a tailender as they'll generally get nowhere near the ball. Also with his back of a length bowling and the angle he bowls allied with the bounce he gets it is harder for him to get lbws, which again doesn't help him to remove tailenders.

He's probably one of those bowlers that if you bring up the beehive (I think that's what Sky calls it, the one that shows you where the balls would pass at the point of the stumps) that very few would hit the stumps, the ones that do would be generally be very full and Flintoff doesn't swing it much.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Haha, AWTA.

 

[unccricket]

my bad, i forgot about about a certain Mr. Bell. dropping colly for broad can work if the captain and others can get it together and actually get out of the single digits.

 

[GIMH]

You know it's amazing how many people I've spoken to who have actively suggested Broad should bat at six and/or have been disgusted that he was dropped.

 

[Uppercut]

Well I think partly it's because he's fairly poor at getting rid of tailenders. He also tends to beat players on the back foot rather than the front foot, which decreases the chances of getting the edge - particularly if it's a tailender as they'll generally get nowhere near the ball. Also with his back of a length bowling and the angle he bowls allied with the bounce he gets it is harder for him to get lbws, which again doesn't help him to remove tailenders.

He's probably one of those bowlers that if you bring up the beehive (I think that's what Sky calls it, the one that shows you where the balls would pass at the point of the stumps) that very few would hit the stumps, the ones that do would be generally be very full and Flintoff doesn't swing it much.

All accurate criticisms i feel. This England side has more trouble with the tail than most, even when bowling well. Think Southee, Mills, Harris of late, the entire Australia lower order in the last Ashes. Limited lower-order men have a bit of success against England for one reason or another.

Looking at this particular attack, Anderson and Sidebottom lack the extreme pace to seriously trouble the tail, and neither is renowned for a good yorker. They tend to be bowling with an older ball so a full inswinger isn't always possible. If Flintoff were to use the bouncer-yorker mix successful against Kallis today, the tail would be in trouble every time, but as you say his natural length isn't ideal for dismissing limited batsman quickly. Panesar has looked the best at killing the tail in this particular series, but he's very one-paced and therefore easy to slog around unless the pitch is very much in his favour.

The best bowlers at the tail IMO are either extreme pacemen like Lee, Steyn, Malinga or spinners with variations too subtle for poor batsmen to pick, like Murali or MacGill. England don't have either.

 

[chalky]

Having a player (Broad) bat at 6 in a test match who has never made a 1st class 100 is huge risk for me if you are going to play 5 bowlers would prefer Flintoff to bat there.

 

[GIMH]

Yep. Totally think he belongs at seven but the risk of him batting at six is so so so much less than batting someone who has only ever been picked as a bowler there. If Broad improved his bowling I would be reasonably comfortable with him at seven.

 

[unccricket]

Yep. Totally think he belongs at seven but the risk of him batting at six is so so so much less than batting someone who has only ever been picked as a bowler there. If Broad improved his bowling I would be reasonably comfortable with him at seven.

but i'm pretty sure broad bowls better than collingwood does, and if colly isn't performing with the bat...well doesn't deserve a place in the team.

if the only change to the lineup is broad for colly, he (broad) could bat at 7 or 8 even.

 

[zaremba]

Bowl Bell. Drop Collingwood until he gets a bit of form.

 

[Scaly piscine]

All accurate criticisms i feel. This England side has more trouble with the tail than most, even when bowling well. Think Southee, Mills, Harris of late, the entire Australia lower order in the last Ashes. Limited lower-order men have a bit of success against England for one reason or another.

Looking at this particular attack, Anderson and Sidebottom lack the extreme pace to seriously trouble the tail, and neither is renowned for a good yorker. They tend to be bowling with an older ball so a full inswinger isn't always possible. If Flintoff were to use the bouncer-yorker mix successful against Kallis today, the tail would be in trouble every time, but as you say his natural length isn't ideal for dismissing limited batsman quickly. Panesar has looked the best at killing the tail in this particular series, but he's very one-paced and therefore easy to slog around unless the pitch is very much in his favour.

The best bowlers at the tail IMO are either extreme pacemen like Lee, Steyn, Malinga or spinners with variations too subtle for poor batsmen to pick, like Murali or MacGill. England don't have either.

Well Simon Jones can rip through tailenders, unfortunately he's doing it for Worcester instead of England. I don't think Lee is particularly good at removing tailenders or at least he wasn't in the 2005 Ashes, Warne on the other hand was an absolute master at it.

 

[silentstriker]

Flintoff is ****ing magnificent to watch when in full flow, isn't he? Great stuff.

 

[GIMH]

Yes, yes he is.

 

[zaremba]

Well Simon Jones can rip through tailenders, unfortunately he's doing it for Worcester instead of England. I don't think Lee is particularly good at removing tailenders or at least he wasn't in the 2005 Ashes, Warne on the other hand was an absolute master at it.

Well if you're looking for someone to pick up "cheap tailend wickets", MS Panesar is obviously your man, surely?

 

[Uppercut]

Well Simon Jones can rip through tailenders, unfortunately he's doing it for Worcester instead of England. I don't think Lee is particularly good at removing tailenders or at least he wasn't in the 2005 Ashes, Warne on the other hand was an absolute master at it.

Lee was a sad excuse for a bowler in 2005 compared to what he is now, though. See what his reverse swing did to the WI tail in Antigua not so long ago, for example.