***Official*** South Africa in England

[Richard]

It's far from nailed-against certainly TBH. Things are looking pretty decent for us currently, there's a decent amount of stability, but as mentioned the same thing is currently true of SA.

I mean, even now you can be near enough certain of the teams that will stroll out on the opening morning (fitness permitting obviously):
Strauss, Cook, Vaughan, Pietersen, Bell, *, Ambrose, *, Sidebottom, Anderson, MSP.
Smith, McKenzie, Amla, Kallis, Prince, de Villiers, Boucher, Harris, *, Ntini, Steyn.

There's only one place in the SA team up for grabs, really, it's a question of Nel or Morkel. With England there's absolutely no guarantee of either Collingwood or, especially, Broad, being in the line-up.

Collingwood, of course, has never played a Test against South Africa - the only team he's not yet faced. And the team which has conquered him best in ODIs.

 

[Lord Flasheart]

The krauts will struggle away from home. Steyn is a matchwinner but the other 10 will more likely put you to sleep than win a test match. I am picking a series win to the barely passable poms.

 

[Richard]

This account truly does have uncanny similarities to SW\BLE. I'm pretty sure it's not, but it's odd.

 

[steds]

Still not lost the BLE obsession, hey. I haven't really missed much at all.

2-1 England, with the Headingley Test unfortunately cancelled because the players went on strike at the thought of being forced to spend yet another week in Yorkshire.

 

[Richard]

Still not lost the BLE obsession, hey. I haven't really missed much at all.

Can't lose something you never had ITFP.

 

[Craig]

Just a thought on the SA squad. The fact that the squad almost picks itself, and there aren't any controversies surrounding it, is probably a sign that SA cricket (at international level at least) is rather healthy.

And of the six non-whites in the squad, with the exception of Robin Peterson (why the f*** do the selectors persist with him?), they are all there on merit, in my opinion.

Wickets against Bangladesh. My answer is that he has incriminating photos in his possession.

 

[gettingbetter]

Collingwood, of course, has never played a Test against South Africa - the only team he's not yet faced. And the team which has conquered him best in ODIs.

Don't know why you put a question mark against his name. ATM he is better than Bell. Also, when was the last time he was dropped? I could be wrong, but he has had a pretty solid run in the team since the India series, while Bell has been the one who has constantly disappointed.

 

[superkingdave]

Can only see a comfortable win for the Saffies tbh, Broad and Anderson to get pelted in the first test, then we'll rotate through other options not finding any answers whilst Steyn and co run riot. Pietersen,Cook and Sidebottom to hold steady amongst the turd

 

[Salamuddin]

England at home are never easy to beat but I'd be quite disappointed if RSA don't at the bare minimum achieve a drawn series.

England are a reasonable team but I do think their abilities are overstated -
I can't see England genuinely challenging Australia for that world no.1 spot - England don't have the talent for that. And quite frankly I've never understood the view held by some on this forum that England are a great team in the making. They had some reasonable success against relatively weak opposition in 2004 and were in the right place at the right time against Australia in 2005. And they've been largely poor since.
They have a bunch of largely decent cricketers with 1-2 very good cricketers
- KP is probably the only one that could potentially be a genuine great and he's not even a product of the English system.

South Africa , on the other hand I think have the ability to be a real threat to Australia.

 

[Flem274*]

Think SA will win. England atm can't put an our inexperienced line up away (especially compared with what SA have been doing, not to mention what they did to us, though to clutch at straws we had Papps, Cumming and Vincent and a raw Taylor ). Apart from Sidebottom and occassionally Anderson they're a bit toothless unless Flintoff lasts longer than 5 minutes.

Will be supporting England however.

 

[GIMH]

This account truly does have uncanny similarities to SW\BLE. I'm pretty sure it's not, but it's odd.

LOL yes on both counts

In all seriousness, I expect a close series. They usually are between us.

 

[gettingbetter]

Will be good to see Smith v KP in the longer form.

 

[Richard]

Don't know why you put a question mark against his name. ATM he is better than Bell. Also, when was the last time he was dropped? I could be wrong, but he has had a pretty solid run in the team since the India series, while Bell has been the one who has constantly disappointed.

Indeed he is, but Bell is obviously a far better batsman than Collingwood and his recent form has been better. Collingwood despite being a fixture ever since the Third Test in Pakistan has always been playing for his place, always just a few failures away from the axe being over his head. Even he himself has admitted this.

 

[Manee]

I believe that the form of Cook and Strauss could be crucial to England's success against South Africa. From what I have noticed, Dale Steyn does not tend to get left handed batsmen out and so, the two openers should look to cash in on the bowler's weakness by getting England off to a good start. I also believe that Morne Morkel could be the dangerman for South Africa, he bowled very quickly against India and if he can pitch the ball on a good length, he could get the ball to seam and bounce sharply.

 

[wpdavid]

It's far from nailed-against certainly TBH. Things are looking pretty decent for us currently, there's a decent amount of stability, but as mentioned the same thing is currently true of SA.

I mean, even now you can be near enough certain of the teams that will stroll out on the opening morning (fitness permitting obviously):
Strauss, Cook, Vaughan, Pietersen, Bell, *, Ambrose, *, Sidebottom, Anderson, MSP.
Smith, McKenzie, Amla, Kallis, Prince, de Villiers, Boucher, Harris, *, Ntini, Steyn.

There's only one place in the SA team up for grabs, really, it's a question of Nel or Morkel. With England there's absolutely no guarantee of either Collingwood or, especially, Broad, being in the line-up.

Collingwood, of course, has never played a Test against South Africa - the only team he's not yet faced. And the team which has conquered him best in ODIs.

Not convinced that stability alone makes us a decent team. I know that's easy to write after this morning's debacle at OT, but it's been clear enough for a while anyway. SA should win the series by a mile. England's only hope is that was true for their previous 3 series over here, and they ballsed it up each time.

 

[TT Boy]

Just can’t see England winning the test series if they select the side which is currently playing against New Zealand.

 

[Richard]

Not convinced that stability alone makes us a decent team. I know that's easy to write after this morning's debacle at OT, but it's been clear enough for a while anyway. SA should win the series by a mile. England's only hope is that was true for their previous 3 series over here, and they ballsed it up each time.

Oh absolutely. But stability tends to suggest that players are performing well and earning their continued presence. If we don't have a stable side, we won't be a good one.

 

[Richard]

And quite frankly I've never understood the view held by some on this forum that England are a great team in the making.

Such as?

They had some reasonable success against relatively weak opposition in 2004 and were in the right place at the right time against Australia in 2005. And they've been largely poor since.

South Africa in 2004/05 were far from weak opposition, though one or two circumstances did conspire in their (England's) favour. And while there was indeed an element of right-place-at-right-time to 2005 (Gillespie's virtual on-the-spot decline, McGrath's injuries, to an extent the couple of bad decisions against Martyn) there was far more of overpowering players who had always been weak in the areas others aside from England were not good enough to exploit (Hayden, Gilchrist, Martyn) as well as making excellent players appear merely decent (Ponting) and good ones appear poor (Katich).

 

[steds]

I can't see England genuinely challenging Australia for that world no.1 spot - England don't have the talent for that.

That's obvious. No one has said otherwise in this thread and it has nothing to do with the series in question. So why bother bringing it up?

 

[steds]

But stability tends to suggest that players are performing well and earning their continued presence.

Much like James Anderson, who continues to get carted and is being persevered with through lack of a genuine pace option?