***Official*** South Africa in England

[Briony]

South Africa chokes when you think they are a chance in a series. Furthermore they haven't won in England since about the 1960's and have not done so since readmission. England rarely loses series at home and this SA team has a rather fragile looking batting line-up.

For example McKenzie is not a natural opener, Smith is always a 'walking' wicket and Kallis seems to have tapered off a bit this year. I think Duminy is a better player than Prince and despite the good form of both he and Amla, they're unproven on English soil. AB is talented but inconsistent, while Boucher's form has waned of late.

Their tail is much longer with the departure of Pollock and starts at #8. Their bowling could be threatening if it fires but all their frontliners have a propensity to be expensive and they have no spinner.

It's hard to see them having an answer to KP who will be doubly determined to make them pay for being disloyal to him and packing him off to the mother country. England's bowling is steady with the likes of Sidebottom and Broad and Panesar can exploit SA's lack of prowess against spin. Anderson can be unplayable when he fires. Strauss, Vaughan and Cook all look more accomplished than SA's highly vulnerable and unproven top order.

And one other thing - Aussies simply don't rate South Africa.

 

[Uppercut]

Briony probably isn't the best member to ask. This member has made 36 posts in three months and 21 of them have been critical of South Africa in general or particularly Graeme Smith.

Personally I expect a close series. England have their problems and they've been well publicised, but South Africa are hardly without fault either: their batting lineup is quite over-rated for mine and I think Steyn may struggle to control the bowl in English conditions. Add that to the fact that Ntini is a typically inconsistent bowler away from home and both Harris and Morkel are unproven at Test level and I don't think SA are quite as good as many want to believe. I've been guilty of over-rated South Africa in the past TBH and I generally support them when they play for reasons I'm not sure of, but I'm not about to mistake again here; they're a better team than England at the moment but not by a huge amount and England have the home advantage.

In the interests of consistency, i will continue to say South Africa are as good as they look because i know as soon as i stop they will start winning things (it just happened with Spain at euro 2008).

But seriously, what convinced me was their performance in India. On paper a much harder place to go to for this SA team than England, against a better team, and it took a doctored final test pitch to stop them from taking the series. Not that it'll be easy in England, but in my book they should be favourites.

 

[Athlai]

It really depends on what SA comes to the field, if they fire England doesn't stand a chance (KP brilliance withstanding). The English team are very consistent performers at a certain level, SA however just have (more) players that can perform to a higher level. Wouldn't be surprised if the series goes either way though, the first match and the first couple days should be crucial in the series result though.

 

[Uppercut]

South Africa chokes when you think they are a chance in a series. Furthermore they haven't won in England since about the 1960's and have not done so since readmission. England rarely loses series at home and this SA team has a rather fragile looking batting line-up.

I'm trying not to use the distant past to predict the future. This particular South Africa team has never toured England and this particular England team lost a home series just last summer.

For example McKenzie is not a natural opener, Smith is always a 'walking' wicket and Kallis seems to have tapered off a bit this year. I think Duminy is a better player than Prince and despite the good form of both he and Amla, they're unproven on English soil. AB is talented but inconsistent, while Boucher's form has waned of late.

They're good points, except the one about Smith, who still averages about 55 against England. That may be flattering because of his early big scores, but he's hardly a walking wicket. Amla and Prince have to prove themselves some time. For my money i expect Amla to do well and Prince to do less well and be replaced by Duminy after maybe two tests.

Their tail is much longer with the departure of Pollock and starts at #8. Their bowling could be threatening if it fires but all their frontliners have a propensity to be expensive and they have no spinner.

They all have a propensity to take a hell of a lot of wickets, mind. Ntini versus the two opening lefties should be a fascinating battle. Morne Morkel isn't a tail-ender so their tail doesnt start until 9.

It's hard to see them having an answer to KP who will be doubly determined to make them pay for being disloyal to him and packing him off to the mother country. England's bowling is steady with the likes of Sidebottom and Broad and Panesar can exploit SA's lack of prowess against spin. Anderson can be unplayable when he fires. Strauss, Vaughan and Cook all look more accomplished than SA's highly vulnerable and unproven top order.

Mahela Jawardene has already found an answer to KP for my money. But in any case, he won't carry the England team. He'll probably score one stylish century and a lot of frustrating starts. Sidebottom's a superb bowler, but Broad carries no threat, he's just potential. Panesar will only be a threat on the right pitch, and South Africa aren't as weak against spin as they once were. Demonstrated in India against two much better bowlers than Panesar, right up until the very last innings on that minefield. Anderson's a pie thrower. New Zealand flattered him.

And one other thing - Aussies simply don't rate South Africa.

Hehe, Irishmen simply don't rate England

 

[Langeveldt]

South Africa chokes when you think they are a chance in a series. Furthermore they haven't won in England since about the 1960's and have not done so since readmission. England rarely loses series at home and this SA team has a rather fragile looking batting line-up.

For example McKenzie is not a natural opener, Smith is always a 'walking' wicket and Kallis seems to have tapered off a bit this year. I think Duminy is a better player than Prince and despite the good form of both he and Amla, they're unproven on English soil. AB is talented but inconsistent, while Boucher's form has waned of late.

Their tail is much longer with the departure of Pollock and starts at #8. Their bowling could be threatening if it fires but all their frontliners have a propensity to be expensive and they have no spinner.

It's hard to see them having an answer to KP who will be doubly determined to make them pay for being disloyal to him and packing him off to the mother country. England's bowling is steady with the likes of Sidebottom and Broad and Panesar can exploit SA's lack of prowess against spin. Anderson can be unplayable when he fires. Strauss, Vaughan and Cook all look more accomplished than SA's highly vulnerable and unproven top order.

And one other thing - Aussies simply don't rate South Africa.

I know, with good reason. In return I just dislike Australia in general. "Smith is always a walking wicket". You know he scored two double hundreds on his last visit to England? "KP will want to make them pay for being disloyal to him".. What on earth?

I think SA's answer will be the same as it usually is in the ODI's.. Let Pietersen get 100 and concentrate on trying to get the English batsmen out..

 

[Speersy]

I think we all just really would like a competitive series.

I am looking forward to seeing how SA fair in England. (We'll be there soon)

Hoping for Cook to ton up, Pieterson to play a match winning 4th innings, Flintoff to return and hopefully some risky declarations.

 

[Briony]

I think we all just really would like a competitive series.

I am looking forward to seeing how SA fair in England. (We'll be there soon)

Hoping for Cook to ton up, Pieterson to play a match winning 4th innings, Flintoff to return and hopefully some risky decelerations.

Do you mean fare?

And do you mean declarations? Risky decelerations could make for boring cricket. In fact risky decleration is somewhat oxymoronic if one is to be technical.

 

[Briony]

I know, with good reason. In return I just dislike Australia in general. "Smith is always a walking wicket". You know he scored two double hundreds on his last visit to England? "KP will want to make them pay for being disloyal to him".. What on earth?

I think SA's answer will be the same as it usually is in the ODI's.. Let Pietersen get 100 and concentrate on trying to get the English batsmen out..

Of course I know fat Smith scored two double tons the last time he toured England. His current form is pox though and he was appalling during his last series against the poms. They understand his technical weaknesses and duly exploit them.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Although i dont want to take away from Smiths unbelievable effort last time he was here, Englands bowling to him was utterly pathetic at times.

 

[Richard]

No worse than their bowling at countless hundreds of batsmen who've toured England TBH.

 

[Richard]

Two three-day matches is hardly excessive preparation for a side embarking on a major tour - more like the minimum. Last year West Indies had one - badly rain affected - game against Somerset prior to the first Test, and look what happened to them.

Indeed - and that three-day game wasn't even a proper one. And as you say - a whole 58 overs were bowled. The first time West Indies got in the field that tour was the opening session of the First Test.

I always like to see four-day games - maybe after a couple of three-dayers - as tour-games before a Test series, especially a major one.

After batting on rather pointlessly for 25 minutes this morning

Compulsory declaration at 100 overs in a three-day game apparently - don't know why Prince got out when he did. Might as well just have batted another 9 deliveries.

 

[Richard]

But seriously, what convinced me was their performance in India. On paper a much harder place to go to for this SA team than England, against a better team, and it took a doctored final test pitch to stop them from taking the series.

No, really, it didn't. No-one altered that pitch during the match, and no-one did any illegal action on it. It was simply prepared to suit India's strengths (as opposed to the Second Test which couldn't have been better suited to SA's strengths) and they duly exploited it.

 

[Richard]

Smith is always a 'walking' wicket

No, really, he isn't. If you can swing the ball back into him he's sometimes vulnerable, but even that hasn't really manifested itself in the last 30 months, other weaknesses have come to the fore, weaknesses of his own lack of patience rather than something a bowler can exploit.

Panesar can exploit SA's lack of prowess against spin.

Not unless he gets a turning pitch he can't - he's a fingerspinner.

Anderson can be unplayable when he fires.

Which isn't very often.

Strauss, Vaughan and Cook all look more accomplished than SA's highly vulnerable and unproven top order.

Cook has never looked less accomplished than he has for the last 12 months.

 

[Prince EWS]

No, really, he isn't. If you can swing the ball back into him he's sometimes vulnerable, but even that hasn't really manifested itself in the last 30 months, other weaknesses have come to the fore, weaknesses of his own lack of patience rather than something a bowler can exploit.

Not unless he gets a turning pitch he can't - he's a fingerspinner.

Which isn't very often.

Cook has never looked less accomplished than he has for the last 12 months.

 

[Richard]

 

[Prince EWS]

You're the fourth person to take the Briony bait today.

 

[Richard]

Nah, wasn't taking the bait TBH, was just doing what I always do.

I realised what you said earlier long ago FWIW. Possibly before you realised it yourself. I can always pick a SAffie-hater.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well I hope it's not the lattermost. If it's either of the former, he doesn't deserve a season's average of 9.75 IMO.

Of course he deserves it, if he bowled well.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I think SA's answer will be the same as it usually is in the ODI's.. Let Pietersen get 100 and concentrate on trying to get the English batsmen out..

Pietersen unlikely to let them let him get 100.

 

[Richard]

Of course he deserves it, if he bowled well.

But no-one should have their season's work done on a single game.

At least, not if that single game was a good performance.