***Official*** South Africa in England

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well if someone is a swing bowler (no matter how substandard), it shouldnt exactly be a 'Look its the Pope' surprise that he managed to swing a ball at Headingly.

Brenton Parchment's a batsman, but I'm always surprised when he scores runs.




I know it's different and I get your point, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to state how poor Pretorius is. On the whole I think I was underwhelming in doing so.

 

[tooextracool]

Tbf I dont think he was quite that bad. Certainly not anywhere near close to as poor as Parchment is or even Clayton Lambert was as a batsman. Tbh I just couldnt watch Lambert when he scored that century against us in 97/98, not because he did it against England but because of the poor quality combination of his batting and England's bowling.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I always saw Clayton Lambert as an ugly but effective batsman. It never looked pretty but he often did get the job done. Of course my assessment is mainly pertaining to his domestic form. Philo Wallace is in the same boat.

 

[tooextracool]

Meh Lambert was a real slogger with absolutely no technique. It was ridiculous, like watching Steve Harmison come in at the top of the order and score a century. Thankfully Pollock and Donald put him in his place not long after.

I thought Robert Samuels was a fairly decent player with a relatively good technique when I saw him and on recently rewatching highlights of his 76 against Australia on Youtube, I have to wonder how unfortunate it must have been for him to have been dropped after scoring over 100 runs in his last test match.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I've seen Lambert a lot more than you have in domestic cricket, tbf. And he was an effective batsman who looked really ugly.

 

[tooextracool]

That is true and I am quite surprised that his domestic record is as good as it is. Nonetheless there isnt a doubt in my mind that he had no hope of succeeding at the international level with his technique.

 

[Briony]

Looks like South Africa's batsmen are struggling apart from Prince and Amla. Smith batted as horribly as ever.

 

[howardj]

Geez Im frothin for this series. There's no real favourite IMO.

I think it will come down to a clash of the Titans - KP v Jacquesy.

May the best man win.

 

[Richard]

Maybe he's on vacation outside of England. Maybe he's a good bowler who doesn't want a career in cricket. Maybe he's injured.

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.

 

[Richard]

Its just not about numbers and averages. Your theory behind doing well is essentially, oh he averaged 40+ in the series hence he did well. That is essentially the Mike Atherton way of looking at it, as he constantly suggests in his autobiography that hisown performance in certain series were good because he averaged 40 odd without analysing in depth into when and where his performances came in during the series. Even in his last series against NZ, Vaughan averaged 50 odd but what good is it if you average 50 odd by scoring a century and failing 3 times? scoring 30s and 40s are simply not good enough in test match cricket and nothing is going to change my view on that. Vaughan essentially has been doing this for not just the last year since his return, one can look back at his record all the way since he has taken over the captaincy and it has been exactly the same. Now i can understand if he had 1-2 series where he was prolific and then had series like these where he scored a century and did sod all for the rest of the series, but the fact is Vaughan hasnt had a consistent series since the Ashes 2002/03. Im not saying drop him because his captaincy is worth his place in the side, but one needs to look at his performances recently with an unbiased eye on statistics to realize that he hasnt been exactly doing particularly brilliantly.

See, I don't think you can say automatically that 30s and 40s are no use. Take, for instance, Vaughan's 48 in the Second Test against New Zealand. It was a vital component of the run-chase and if he'd got out for 3 then we'd have been in a far more parlous position than we were when he actually was dismissed.

Yes, there's been more than one occasion in the last year where Vaughan has failed to kick-on with a start when he should have done. I'm certainly not saying there isn't there.

However, I don't think you can suggest for a minute that his post-captaincy record at three\four is anywhere near as bad as his post-captaincy record opening. I know we've gone over Vaughan's 2004 and 2004/05 long before now and I've no real desire to do it again, but even that he's improved upon since his return from injury in 2007.

I absolutely hate the "he averaged 40\50\whatever so he had a good series" mantra. It annoys the heck out of me. If someone scores 224* in the 1st innings of the series then fails to make a half-century for the rest of it but still averages 40, I'll say he had a poor series every time. I've said several times that Collingwood had a relatively poor Ashes 2006/07, as one for-instance.

But as I said - you simply cannot expect someone to score 70 and more every time they come to the crease.

 

[Richard]

Waqar Younis was hardly the best conventional swinger of the ball. Yes he did bowl outswingers occasionally, but he didnt do it with the consistency as his own bowling partner Wasim Akram.

Interesting, from what I saw Waqar was much the better conventional-swing bowler of the two. Wasim mostly pitched short with the new-ball in games I watched. This was mostly post-heyday though - I watched both of them in 1992, but not so that I'd remember what was conventional swing or anything along those lines, and the next time I saw either was 1996.

I dont know how fast Marshall bowled given that they were no real accurate speedometers at the time, and havent watched much of him except on highlight reels so Im not going to comment on him. For Lee read Waqar.

IMO its a lot harder to swing the ball conventionally at 90mph than it is to do so at 80 mph. Yes some bowlers have been able to do it at 90mph such as Allan Donald and Darren Gough occasionally but there is no coincidence that most bowlers bowl a yard or 2 slower when the ball is swinging and its not just to be more accurate. For example, at the Oval in 2005, Flintoff was consistently bowling in the low 80s to get as much conventional swing if not for anything else. I dont dispute that bowlers like Lee can swing the ball but the bottom line is they will never be able to swing the ball as consistently or as far as Bicknell and Sidebottom can in certain conditions.

I don't doubt that you see fewer bowlers of 90mph (or so) who swing the ball as you do those at 80mph (or so). However, there's two reasons for this: the most obvious one that 90mph bowlers are fairly rare; and also the simple fact that all too often bowlers who bowl at 90mph don't have the right mindset for swing. Too many are encouraged to bowl too short, and too many are encouraged to bowl with actions that don't enable the good seam position essential to get swing. I'd say there are a good few of the rare 90mph merchants I've seen who fit this description.

 

[Richard]

Wasnt/isnt Pretorious a swing bowler anyways?

He was - and so is James Kirtley. As Camps basically said, though, the point I was making was that even relatively poor-quality swingers like them got it to move and, on the rare occasion they hit good areas, looked dangerous. About the only bowlers I can recall not swinging it much that game were Flintoff and Ntini, who (as usual, at least at that time) bowled far too short.

I've seen both Kirtley and Pretorious struggle to get swing on a fair few occasions, including others that very series, but at Headingley that season for whatever reason the usual difficulties of swingers around that time were eschewed.

 

[Langeveldt]

Looks like South Africa's batsmen are struggling apart from Prince and Amla. Smith batted as horribly as ever.

He's all crap.. Don't know why we pick him really

 

[Richard]

Given the amount of rain we've had down here the last 18 hours or so, I'm seriously hoping it's better in Uxbridge, else SA aren't going to get much more warmup time.

BTW, don't think I've mentioned it yet but barring something extraordinary this is the XI I'm imagining is going to play the First Test.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Given the amount of rain we've had down here the last 18 hours or so, I'm seriously hoping it's better in Uxbridge, else SA aren't going to get much more warmup time.

There batsman dont really need much more warmup time really. I doubt many of them will go into a Test match in better form than they are at the moment. Thanks ECB!

 

[stumpski]

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.

After batting on rather pointlessly for 25 minutes this morning South Africa are giving Strauss an early look at their quicks, and he's doing alright - 52-0.

 

[stumpski]

Make that 52-1.

 

[Briony]

England will surely wallop SA.

 

[Uppercut]

Every Aussie i've spoken to has said that for some reason. What makes you think so?

 

[Prince EWS]

Every Aussie i've spoken to has said that for some reason. What makes you think so?

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. I think we have established a pattern of bias, perhaps even bordering on trollish behaviour.

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-rating 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.