***Official*** South Africa in England

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yeah, but he can't always bat against Bang, Pakistan 2nd's or WI: which, for mine, is where his test match comfort zone appears to lie.

The point is that he needs a consistent run in one position against the better teams to prove his worth. If he's always shuffled up and down the order, his chances of success against anyone are diminished, and it would only be the weaker attacks that he scores against.

 

[wpdavid]

The point is that he needs a consistent run in one position against the better teams to prove his worth. If he's always shuffled up and down the order, his chances of success against anyone are diminished, and it would only be the weaker attacks that he scores against.

Sure - I wouldn't disagree with that at all, hence my earlier comments about him being disadvantaged by spending a year and a half switching between 3 & 6. But, beyond that, there's something about him that just doesn't convince. Probably the lack of runs, I suppose.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Sure - I wouldn't disagree with that at all, hence my earlier comments about him being disadvantaged by spending a year and a half switching between 3 & 6. But, beyond that, there's something about him that just doesn't convince. Probably the lack of runs, I suppose.

Probably because he looks like a scared bunny most of the time. A boy against men.

 

[wpdavid]

Probably because he looks like a scared bunny most of the time. A boy against men.

That as well. Chicken & egg time, I suppose.

 

[Richard]

Sure - I wouldn't disagree with that at all, hence my earlier comments about him being disadvantaged by spending a year and a half switching between 3 & 6.

As I said then - it's so much more than that. He's done nothing but that all his career.

 

[wpdavid]

As I said then - it's so much more than that. He's done nothing but that all his career.

I know you did, but that was the extreme that made life significantly harder in tests. Whereas switching from 4 to 3, or 6 to 5 is obv much less of a deal.

 

[Richard]

I know - the point I made is that, counting three\four and five\six as the same position, Bell has never had more than 8 consecutive months and never more than 7 consecutive Tests in the same position.

 

[wpdavid]

I know - the point I made is that, counting three\four and five\six as the same position, Bell has never had more than 8 consecutive months and never more than 7 consecutive Tests in the same position.

That surprises me. Forgive me for being too lazy to look it up, but I thought he batted at 4 against Bang & Aus in 2005 (six tests). Was KP promoted above him in Pakistan?

EDIT
Make that 7 tests against Bang & Aus. Then you've got 3 tests in Pakistan batting at 3 or 4 and the first 2 in India, before he had to open in the 3rd. That's 12 tests isn't it?

 

[steds]

I know - the point I made is that, counting three\four and five\six as the same position, Bell has never had more than 8 consecutive months and never more than 7 consecutive Tests in the same position.

Not true. Bar the second innings at Edgbaston in 05, where Hoggard was nightwatchman at 3, He played 12 Tests, from Bangladesh at Lords to India at Mohali, at 3 and 4. Even if you count dropping down the order for a nightwatchman as moving position, Old Trafford to Mohali is 8 consecutive Tests.

 

[aussie]

SA favorites but they have underperformed here on previous tours that i remember. In 98 (a series almost as good as IND vs AUS 01) when Donald was at his ruthless best SA really should have smashed ENG but they didn't & in 03 with a seriously average England bowling attack in a summer of the flattest wickets in this country that i've seen ENG managed a to level up.

This time around SA come with a strong pace attack lead by an excting Steyn but their batting outside Kallis doesn't impress me that much especially if Sidebottom/Hoggard/Flintoff are the bowlers chosen.

Should be an interesiting series as England continue their rebuilding for the 2009 Ashes.

 

[steds]

Should be an interesiting series as England continue their rebuilding for the 2009 Ashes.

Is that what you call it?

 

[Richard]

That surprises me. Forgive me for being too lazy to look it up, but I thought he batted at 4 against Bang & Aus in 2005 (six tests). Was KP promoted above him in Pakistan?

EDIT
Make that 7 tests against Bang & Aus. Then you've got 3 tests in Pakistan batting at 3 or 4 and the first 2 in India, before he had to open in the 3rd. That's 12 tests isn't it?

Not true. Bar the second innings at Edgbaston in 05, where Hoggard was nightwatchman at 3, He played 12 Tests, from Bangladesh at Lords to India at Mohali, at 3 and 4. Even if you count dropping down the order for a nightwatchman as moving position, Old Trafford to Mohali is 8 consecutive Tests.

I count Bangladesh as nothing, you both know that. TBH I was actually excluding the Pakistan tour from the reckoning, on the basis that he was originally slated to have been dropped for that. If you include it, it does indeed make 10 Tests in a row at three\four. He was damn poor in most of those though. Since first truly establishing his credentials, in 2006, he's done nothing but be tossed up and down.

 

[steds]

I count Bangladesh as nothing, you both know that.

Whether Bangladesh counts as nothing or not, surely you cannot deny that it happened? This has nothing to do with the standard of the teams he's batted in a position against. It is about the number of times he has done it and, regardless of the quality of the opposition and whether they should have Test status, there were two England games before the Ashes in 2005 in which he batted at four.

 

[Richard]

I'm about as bothered whether he batted three\four in those games as I am about where he batted for England A or in a tour-game.

 

[steds]

Fussy git.

 

[Langeveldt]

Fussy git.

I doubt Bangladesh even exist..

Nah in all seriousness, agree with Richard here.. You can't go factoring teams like Bangladesh into the equation.. That makes Jason Gillespie have a higher top score than Michael Vaughan, and AFAIK Jacques Kallis..

 

[Flem274*]

Ian Bell at 6 IMO. Protect him a bit (this is assuming he holds his spot). Collingwood at five in decent nick adds some guts to the fragile top order. Tbh if they keep ****ing around being bunnies in the headlights if Shah and Joyce are in decent nick they would well be worth a try. Both have shown enough to me that they are test class.

EDIT:

Anyway my England team would be:

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
KP
Collingwood/Joyce
Bell/Shah
Ambrose
Flintoff
Broad
Sidebottom
Hoggard

Panesar in for Broad on a turner or if Flintoff drops dead again. That team is unlikely though. No doubt Anderson will be persisted with and even though he has ability he just plain sucks atm.

 

[Marius]

Likely SA side:

Smith
McKenzie
Amla
Kallis
Prince
De Villiers
Boucher
Harris
Steyn
Nel
Ntini

Zondeki might come in for Nel, but Nel has more experience of English wickets, and Zondeki underperformed when he played for Warwickshire. Also a longish tail. Smith, McKenzie and Kallis are dependable, and if Prince and De Villiers can fire, then I give SA the series win, 2-1.

 

[Richard]

Zondeki was shocking earlier this season. Hope to God he doesn't play.

And Phlegm - apart from Strauss and Cook being the wrong way around, that'd be my guess at the England XI as well. MSP will play all the games (fitness permitting) mind, I can be almost certain of that.

It'll be interesting to see which of he and Harris is more ineffective presuming none of the pitches turn.

 

[sanga1337]

South Africa should win here. That said they seem to underperform sometimes despite having arguably the best pace attack and some solid top order batsman.