***Official*** South Africa in England

[Magrat Garlick]

Has Kabir Ali really improved that much? Because he always struck me as someone who wasn't accurate enough to be a Test success.

I don't know tbf, haven't seen much of his bowling. Last year he was the second-placed England-qualified bowler in division one though, and this year only Murtagh has more wickets. The case seems so amazingly analogous to Sidebottom (given one Test, reaps decent rewards, gets named rubbish by experts, sent back to county, leading wicket taker for county) he's imo worth giving another go, especially if Vaughan gets the captaincy axe soon.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I don't know tbf, haven't seen much of his bowling. Last year he was the second-placed England-qualified bowler in division one though, and this year only Murtagh has more wickets. The case seems so amazingly analogous to Sidebottom (given one Test, reaps decent rewards, gets named rubbish by experts, sent back to county, leading wicket taker for county) he's imo worth giving another go, especially if Vaughan gets the captaincy axe soon.

But worse bowlers than Kabir Ali have taken loads of wickets at domestic level. The difference between the Ali and Sidebottom situation from what I've seen is that Sidebottom went back to domestic cricket and took wickets, whilst bowling accurately. I don't see Kabir Ali as a good enough strike bowler to justify going at 3.50 per over. That said, I've seen precious little of him this season. Perhaps he's improved a lot.

 

[Prince EWS]

I dont think hes rated him, but unless Im mistaken Ive never heard him say drop Collingwood and get Shah in the side before this test.

He's said it ad nausium. He'd say it before every Test but for the repetitive nature of it. Richard to confirm, but if he was selecting the team for this Test, Shah would be in for Collingwood.

As I said though, I don't have problems with his stance on it, because he's never rated Collingwood and believed his run of "bad form" to be an accurate indication of his ability at Test level rather than a blip. I disagree with that assessment but I can respect it as a reason for wanting someone dropped.

There is no way of knowing how well someone like Shah or Key would do at the international level

Which is precisely why someone who has proven they can do it in the past should be persisted with through bad patches of form.

AFAIC if a team is not performing, and its safe to say that our batting has not been performing for a long time now, then changes have to be made. You cant keep going in with the same XI while taking beating after beating after beating, especially when there is no way of knowing if there is someone better in domestic cricket or not.

There's a difference between being in poor form and not being good enough, is my point. I just wanted the Collingwood criticisers to "man-up" if you will and say he's not good enough rather than hide behind "he's had a rough patch of form" or "we need to send him back to domestic cricket so he can regain his confidence" as the latter two are not grounds to drop someone AFAIC, regardless of how the team is performing as a unit. South Africa are a good team and should beat England regardless of what team England put out IMO - that should be remembered. If you believe in someone's ability (not form) at Test level, they should be persisted with through a rough patch as form is intrinsically cyclical. For mine, a proven Test batsman in dubious form is always going to have more chance of succeeding over five Test matches than an excellent-but-not-earthshattering domestic batsman in good form who is unproven at Test level. Unless the former shows evidence of true decline (which IMO Collingwood has not) he should not be dropped.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I'm not convinced that South Africa is as comfortably better than England as many seem to think. Especially without Steyn in the team. There are still questions over the bowling from where I sit. Granted, there are also questions over the England bowling (and batting) but I think the gap is closer to marginal than vast.

 

[grecian]

Well there's no real need to "man" up tbh, because all it is is a difference in opinion, on selectorial policy. I see nothing wrong with dropping someone back to first-class cricket, you do, Prince. Just the same as you have a difference opinion with others about quality of batsmanship.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well there's no real need to "man" up tbh, because all it is is a difference in opinion, on selectorial policy. I see nothing wrong with dropping someone back to first-class cricket, you do, Prince. Just the same as you have a difference opinion with others about quality of batsmanship.

Fair enough.

 

[grecian]

Fair enough.

Well, glad that's settled I can go to bed now before I get savaged for the finger-spinner thing......

 

[jammay123]

just got home to check the scores and am delighted for colly. if england can nick another hundred runs or so(extremly optomistic possibly because i am pissed) we can win

 

[Furball]

Does anyone think Flintoff will regain his position at no.6 ? I did but I'm now doubting that idea due to his batting performance today...?

Flintoff never was good enough to bat at 6 anyway.

 

[Uppercut]

Oh basically I just do think a finger-spinner that rips the ball can do significantly better then one's that don't put the revs on. Maybe not bowl out a side, but take 3-90 instead of 1-70. It's just the blanket assertion that any wicket on a non-conducive pitch by a finger-spinner is down to terrible batting, that annoys me.

EDIT: anyway wasn't really my point about Harris, Boyks was doing his normal "my granny could turn it more then him" and "he couldn't turn it on corrugated iron, him", and it seemed to be taking up on various messageboards and forums in parrot-style.

Can't stand Boycott, but he's right about Harris, if rather disrespectful. The guy played on a carefully laid minefield designed specifically to turn the ball square from day one against India in the third test earlier this year and failed to turn a single delivery that i can remember (and i watched the whole game). Virender Sehwag came on 20 or so overs later and took 3-12. That was when i realised that it wasn't the pitches that were preventing the ball from turning, it was Paul Harris.
This small fact seems to generate such contempt from batsmen (and commentators) that they believe they can play any shot at any time against him. Hence he picks up wickets of aggressive players such as Yuvraj, MS Dhoni and, today, KP. In essence, he's so bad it makes him good.

 

[Jakester1288]

Flintoff is one of the best allrounders in world cricket. He is everything England need at the moment. There wicketkeeper doesn't need to bat, because he can occupie the number 7 position, where a wicketkeeper usually bats. This allows the side to fit in an extra batsmen, instead of 6 and a keeper, they can get 7 and a keeper. Then they can still name 3 bowlers and he can be the fourth, with hlp from Pietersen or Vaughan if needed. The England squad is developing nicely, and will be a better side when the bowlers gain some more experience for the 2009 Ashes. In my opinion Australia have a tough series ahead of them.

 

[Zinzan]

When Bell plays good shots, there's no-one better.

.

there's few better would be the accurate description, but yes he is an attractive stroke player.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Flintoff is one of the best allrounders in world cricket.

Needs to improve his batting first.

There wicketkeeper doesn't need to bat, because he can occupie the number 7 position, where a wicketkeeper usually bats.

Haha. When did batting stop being a pre-requisite for a Test number 7? This isn't a number 7 after an Australian top 6. This is England we're talking about.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

This is what test cricket should be about. Fighting tooth and nail for every inch. Loved watching Colly last night and how much it meant to him, just like watching Flintoff bring England back into the game the evening before. Absolutely top notch test cricket all around. Love it.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That fighting spirit was epitomized in a pretty reserved celebration of his hundred. He didn't even smile. Not when initially raising his bat, at least.

 

[Zinzan]

Fantastic effort by Collingwood. Delighted for the lad.

However, whilst Pietersen was clearly an idiot for getting out how he did, no-one is criticising Collingwood for doing the exact same thing, because it worked. Whoever that moron was on the TMS forum clamouring for Pietersen to be dropped has clearly not been watching England recently. Regardless of how stupidly he might have gotten out today, Pietersen is still quite clearly head and shoulders above all our other batsmen in terms of dependability. He's been our best batsman for a long time now, and dropping him for one badly-timed shot would be sheer insanity.

Totally agree

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

That fighting spirit was epitomized in a pretty reserved celebration of his hundred. He didn't even smile. Not when initially raising his bat, at least.

Yeah I really liked seeing that. He was so immersed in the job that was still ahead of him that the personal milestone almost didn't phase him. He almost had a "stick that up you, you ****s." look about him, and good on him, because he's a bloody fighter and test cricket needs more of them.

 

[Zinzan]

1 game (in which he took 8 wickets and deserved 0).

And I've also noted the fairly large number of times he's had 2-70 or something and taken a late wicket or two and ended-up with 3-70 or 4-80.

Ummm, I think you'll find most bowling figures of 3-70 & 4-80 include one or two lower order wickets.

 

[tooextracool]

Flintoff never was good enough to bat at 6 anyway.

Thats very much debatable. Flintoff's problem has always been that hes very poor against spin when he first comes in. Sometimes, I feel that its better to even bowl a part time spinner against him first up than a pace bowler. He plays with very hard hands and its led to his downfall many many times.

 

[tooextracool]

Which is precisely why someone who has proven they can do it in the past should be persisted with through bad patches of form.



There's a difference between being in poor form and not being good enough, is my point. I just wanted the Collingwood criticisers to "man-up" if you will and say he's not good enough rather than hide behind "he's had a rough patch of form" or "we need to send him back to domestic cricket so he can regain his confidence" as the latter two are not grounds to drop someone AFAIC, regardless of how the team is performing as a unit. South Africa are a good team and should beat England regardless of what team England put out IMO - that should be remembered. If you believe in someone's ability (not form) at Test level, they should be persisted with through a rough patch as form is intrinsically cyclical. For mine, a proven Test batsman in dubious form is always going to have more chance of succeeding over five Test matches than an excellent-but-not-earthshattering domestic batsman in good form who is unproven at Test level. Unless the former shows evidence of true decline (which IMO Collingwood has not) he should not be dropped.

Look, Im a fairly big Collingwood fan and I dont think Ive ever suggested dropping him since he first settled into the side, but I feel that after already dropping Collingwood the English selectors had no way out here, but to drop him if he failed.

However, I dont agree with your logic of, persisting with players because they are 'proven'. Players dont always stay proven you know. To stick with players no matter what is likely to allow any batsman to settle into a comfort zone, and not try to improve because he is in a flexible coccoon by being guaranteed a place in the side irrespective of performance. There are a number of cases of players, particularly batters, that have scored runs against bowling attacks around the world and then just lost it thereafter. Michael Vaughan is a classic example (how many would have called him unproven in 2002/03?). Average players do have primes that inflate their ability, before they go back to being mediocre thereafter. I guess now we can finally understand exactly why Vaughan has such a ordinary FC record, its because he wasnt very good ITFP. His test batting average is slowly regressing to parity with his FC average and hes a classic example of a player who had an extended peak run of form before returning to the mediocrity that best defines the majority of his career.

Ntini is another example. Very mediocre bowler for the most part of his career and couldnt take a wicket away from home. Even he managed to have a period where he went from being ordinary to world class and has now returned to his original level of mediocrity.