England tour of South Africa 09/10
- Thread starter Mike23
- Start date
D
Dutch
Guest
I agree. For me South Africa are still very much in the driving seat in this test and we will need to bowl them out relatively cheaply to have a chance. On the other hand we might regret leaving ourselves too much time to bat through!!!
Harishan
Club Cricketer
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Good partnership from Swann and Anderson in the end there. Swann played a good innings and he hit some fine switch hits. Right now a draw is on the cards but both sides have a chance of winning the match from here, if England can bowl well this innings and limit South Africa to around 250-300 but they'll have to bowl much better than they did in the first innings, Graeme Swann will be the key.
Yes and no, Smith can't bowl for our new ball bowlers, also the bowlers can tell him or suggest a field, the real issue is that we are a vary good old ball bowling side, cast your mind back to Chennai last year when Sehwag was running riot India were supposed to score 800+ and lead by more than 250 with the old ball and flat track the following morning we took 7-113 runs, that is just one example.
Should have kept the old ball, it may not bounce or move as much but it is a lot harder to freely strike around, which is why I say the new ball cost us at least 75 runs.
Today's modus opperandi is simple, Smith to establish himself and maybe play a Edgebaston or Perth knock, Harris needs to allow that to happen by sticking around maybe nurdling around another useful +25 score, then the batsmen, Amla, De Villiers have to do much better this time out.
sarinaide added 2 Minutes and 57 Seconds later...
Much like Mitchell Johnson, particularly his hundred at Cape Town. Bowling to a tail that gets runs, sort of like ours is really annoying, but really apart from us, everyone has a longer lineup with bowler'ish' batsmen rather than pure tail.
Line and length and pace were what needed to change, slower bowling and maybe a surprise quick ball would have worked a charm:doh
Cracking day's play, who needs totals of more than 500 and a five day Test for it to be a classic.
Great stuff all round, disappointing from England with so many getting in and not getting big (enough) scores. Swann and Anderson put them to shame, with Swann comfortably top scorer and deserving of a hundred for that. I just don't understand why England bat him so low, to me he's done more in his career to deserve a batting place above Broad.
GP Swann (13 Tests) - 15 inns, 439 runs @ 39.91 (4x 50, HS 85 vs SAF)
SCJ Broad (23 Tests) - 31 inns, 784 runs @ 30.15 (5x 50, HS 76 vs SAF)
Broad and Swann 50s - match context
WON - Broad 64 vs NZE : England made 364, Ambrose and Broad making 60s and taking England from 247/6 to 364. New Zealand were so poor they didn't make 250 in either innings.
DREW - Broad 76 vs SAF : England were 422/6 when Broad came to the crease, England bowled South Africa out for 247 but they made 393/3 2nd innings. Even had England not made much more than 450 they would have been able to enforce the follow-on and not won
LOST - Broad 67no vs SAF : England were out for 203, South Africa made a 519 run lead and Broad just about forced South Africa to bat again
WON - Swann 63no vs WIN : helped the tail add 102 runs for the last three wickets in the 1st innings, the West Indies didn't offer much batting and lost by 10 wickets with Swann taking three wickets in each innings to be MOTM
DREW - Broad 55 vs AUS - helped England establish a 100 run 1st innings lead from near enough equity at 257/6 - with support from GP Swann (24) Australia matched England's 1st innings total in their 2nd innings with five wickets left (375/5 vs 376)
LOST - Broad 61 vs AUS & LOST - Swann 62 vs AUS : they made 3 runs between them 1st innings when England were bowled out for 102, both made 60s 2nd innings but England lost by an innings and 80 runs
WON - Swann 63 vs AUS : in the crucial Test which England had to win to regain the Ashes, Swann took four wickets (and Broad five) to bowl the aussies out for 160. At 234/7 2nd innings England were probably far enough ahead (415 runs), but Swann made a fifty to be sure, adding 90 runs for the 8th wicket, before England went into overkill (wasting time) and added another 40 runs before declaring - and then winning by 197 runs
TBC - Swann 85 vs SAF : England were in deep trouble at 242/8 chasing a 1st innings total of 418 by South Africa. Swann top scored and, with support from Anderson, took England to within 62 runs of South Africa's total. They added 106 runs compared to the biggest partnership in the match of 124 between Kallis and Duminy
For me a clincher might have been Sophia Gardens, perhaps the crucial draw of the Ashes when Broad made just 19 & 14 while Swann helped save the day at nine with 47 and 31. England have only won one Test where Broad made a fifty, several have been made when the game was heading for a draw or defeat anyway, while Swann has already won two Tests where he scored fifties and his fifty yesterday may be in vain, but he rose to the occaision and deserves MOTM (so far) His bowling has been better so far in his career, averaging just under 30 while Broad averages in the mid 30s (36.37) Broad has been too hit and miss against the better sides - 30 vs AUS, 120 vs IND, 37 vs NZE, 52 vs SAF, 95 vs SRI and 29 vs WIN - only two of those are decent enough, 1/3 of his wickets coming against windies and keeping his average down.
I hope England can put pressure on today, if South Africa get to 100 with only 1-3 wickets down then England may as well pray for rain. If they get there with 4-6 wickets down then they will be about 160 ahead with 4-6 wickets in hand and game on. But unless Broad and Anderson pull their socks up, we've not got enough bowling to make most of the situation.
The ONLY reservation I had about picking just four bowlers is that both Anderson (35.15) and Broad (36.37) are weak links. Doesn't matter whether you pick four or five, it is QUALITY that matters not quantity. Anyone thinking Harmison would have provided the quality should think again, away from home he averages 36.61 against allcomers (including the windies when he demolished them), and last time in South Africa he averaged 73.22 with the ball
Harmison on tour
02/03 50.56 vs AUS
03/04 8.78 vs BAN
03/04 14.87 vs WIN
04/05 73.22 vs SAF
05/06 32.42 vs PAK
05/06 38.60 vs IND
07/08 35.83 vs SRI
07/08 121.00 vs NZE
08/09 90.00 vs IND
08/09 36.75 vs WIN
So FFS Harmison fans, give the "recall Harmison" line a rest forever. He may occaisionally do damage in England, but for his exceptional series against rubbish sides and the odd decent one against good sides, he wouldn't even get into the Bangladesh team. The only teams he averages less than 35 against are Bangladesh, New Zealand, West Indies, Zimbabwe and Pakistan.
Owzat added 8 Minutes and 30 Seconds later...
We can hope Broad suddenly decides to bowl a devastating spell, but based on the fact that neither Broad nor Anderson have yet to find consistency you are probably right.
Who would we pick ahead of Bell? Please don't say Wright or Robert "The Don" Key, I think people overestimate our batting strength in reserve. The problem is the selectors don't have a policy, say give each batsman 10 innings and they have to average 30+ in that to get the next 10 in which they have to sustain it around 35. Of course it all boils down to what should they be expecting to average, we dropped Hick a lot of times in the 90s but the bottom line is he averaged over 40 when he played for long spells and the rubbish we brought in didn't average the magical mystical mythical 40 that was the supposed benchmark. We have no consistency of policy, how long should batsmen get and are those coming in any more likely to score runs?!?!?
Doesn't help that Trescothick, Flintoff and Vaughan are no longer options, Key never was good enough and I've long maintained tours are not the place to give players debuts or blood inexperience players. Do you give out of form regulars a chance to find form in home series against sides like the kiwis and windies, or give chances to new players? I say the latter, the problem with playing Cook, Bell, Collingwood and such against weaker sides is they score easy runs and then when they face top sides they revert to (bad) form
Great stuff all round, disappointing from England with so many getting in and not getting big (enough) scores. Swann and Anderson put them to shame, with Swann comfortably top scorer and deserving of a hundred for that. I just don't understand why England bat him so low, to me he's done more in his career to deserve a batting place above Broad.
GP Swann (13 Tests) - 15 inns, 439 runs @ 39.91 (4x 50, HS 85 vs SAF)
SCJ Broad (23 Tests) - 31 inns, 784 runs @ 30.15 (5x 50, HS 76 vs SAF)
Broad and Swann 50s - match context
WON - Broad 64 vs NZE : England made 364, Ambrose and Broad making 60s and taking England from 247/6 to 364. New Zealand were so poor they didn't make 250 in either innings.
DREW - Broad 76 vs SAF : England were 422/6 when Broad came to the crease, England bowled South Africa out for 247 but they made 393/3 2nd innings. Even had England not made much more than 450 they would have been able to enforce the follow-on and not won
LOST - Broad 67no vs SAF : England were out for 203, South Africa made a 519 run lead and Broad just about forced South Africa to bat again
WON - Swann 63no vs WIN : helped the tail add 102 runs for the last three wickets in the 1st innings, the West Indies didn't offer much batting and lost by 10 wickets with Swann taking three wickets in each innings to be MOTM
DREW - Broad 55 vs AUS - helped England establish a 100 run 1st innings lead from near enough equity at 257/6 - with support from GP Swann (24) Australia matched England's 1st innings total in their 2nd innings with five wickets left (375/5 vs 376)
LOST - Broad 61 vs AUS & LOST - Swann 62 vs AUS : they made 3 runs between them 1st innings when England were bowled out for 102, both made 60s 2nd innings but England lost by an innings and 80 runs
WON - Swann 63 vs AUS : in the crucial Test which England had to win to regain the Ashes, Swann took four wickets (and Broad five) to bowl the aussies out for 160. At 234/7 2nd innings England were probably far enough ahead (415 runs), but Swann made a fifty to be sure, adding 90 runs for the 8th wicket, before England went into overkill (wasting time) and added another 40 runs before declaring - and then winning by 197 runs
TBC - Swann 85 vs SAF : England were in deep trouble at 242/8 chasing a 1st innings total of 418 by South Africa. Swann top scored and, with support from Anderson, took England to within 62 runs of South Africa's total. They added 106 runs compared to the biggest partnership in the match of 124 between Kallis and Duminy
For me a clincher might have been Sophia Gardens, perhaps the crucial draw of the Ashes when Broad made just 19 & 14 while Swann helped save the day at nine with 47 and 31. England have only won one Test where Broad made a fifty, several have been made when the game was heading for a draw or defeat anyway, while Swann has already won two Tests where he scored fifties and his fifty yesterday may be in vain, but he rose to the occaision and deserves MOTM (so far) His bowling has been better so far in his career, averaging just under 30 while Broad averages in the mid 30s (36.37) Broad has been too hit and miss against the better sides - 30 vs AUS, 120 vs IND, 37 vs NZE, 52 vs SAF, 95 vs SRI and 29 vs WIN - only two of those are decent enough, 1/3 of his wickets coming against windies and keeping his average down.
I hope England can put pressure on today, if South Africa get to 100 with only 1-3 wickets down then England may as well pray for rain. If they get there with 4-6 wickets down then they will be about 160 ahead with 4-6 wickets in hand and game on. But unless Broad and Anderson pull their socks up, we've not got enough bowling to make most of the situation.
The ONLY reservation I had about picking just four bowlers is that both Anderson (35.15) and Broad (36.37) are weak links. Doesn't matter whether you pick four or five, it is QUALITY that matters not quantity. Anyone thinking Harmison would have provided the quality should think again, away from home he averages 36.61 against allcomers (including the windies when he demolished them), and last time in South Africa he averaged 73.22 with the ball
Harmison on tour
02/03 50.56 vs AUS
03/04 8.78 vs BAN
03/04 14.87 vs WIN
04/05 73.22 vs SAF
05/06 32.42 vs PAK
05/06 38.60 vs IND
07/08 35.83 vs SRI
07/08 121.00 vs NZE
08/09 90.00 vs IND
08/09 36.75 vs WIN
So FFS Harmison fans, give the "recall Harmison" line a rest forever. He may occaisionally do damage in England, but for his exceptional series against rubbish sides and the odd decent one against good sides, he wouldn't even get into the Bangladesh team. The only teams he averages less than 35 against are Bangladesh, New Zealand, West Indies, Zimbabwe and Pakistan.
Owzat added 8 Minutes and 30 Seconds later...
We can hope Broad suddenly decides to bowl a devastating spell, but based on the fact that neither Broad nor Anderson have yet to find consistency you are probably right.
Who would we pick ahead of Bell? Please don't say Wright or Robert "The Don" Key, I think people overestimate our batting strength in reserve. The problem is the selectors don't have a policy, say give each batsman 10 innings and they have to average 30+ in that to get the next 10 in which they have to sustain it around 35. Of course it all boils down to what should they be expecting to average, we dropped Hick a lot of times in the 90s but the bottom line is he averaged over 40 when he played for long spells and the rubbish we brought in didn't average the magical mystical mythical 40 that was the supposed benchmark. We have no consistency of policy, how long should batsmen get and are those coming in any more likely to score runs?!?!?
Doesn't help that Trescothick, Flintoff and Vaughan are no longer options, Key never was good enough and I've long maintained tours are not the place to give players debuts or blood inexperience players. Do you give out of form regulars a chance to find form in home series against sides like the kiwis and windies, or give chances to new players? I say the latter, the problem with playing Cook, Bell, Collingwood and such against weaker sides is they score easy runs and then when they face top sides they revert to (bad) form
D
Dutch
Guest
Excellent start for England. Kallis is the danger-man and have to get him quick to stand a chance of chasing something reasonable down.
Yes, jinxed him. Gone!!!!!!! England well on top!!
Yes, jinxed him. Gone!!!!!!! England well on top!!
Last edited by a moderator:
I see captain obvious has returned.
Hopefully South Africa can pull an Australia and we will be in for a corking test match!
TumTum
International Cricketer
Have we become the new Pakistan?
Maxkarter
Battrick Tournament Host
I'm thinking a lead of around 300, maybe a bit more, should be defendable as well as chaseable from England's perspective. The only problem is that we're batting so slowly that it might take too long to get there, so as it stands the draw is the more likely result. The other big factor for me is how well we bowl, if everyone does their bit then 300 should be safe, but the bolwing in the first innings doesn't put me at ease at all...
The thing about our lineup is the specialists have to do what they are selected to do. AB did vary well to get us out of a tricky situation and Amla has looked to anchor the innings, I think 320+ would be a little more comfortable, but if by close we have a 350+ lead that is fine.
Hopefully the pitch breaks up even more, flattens out this afternoon, have no rollers on it before tomorrow and look to exploit that. Perhaps we can take the old ball from the start, we are way more effective with an older ball, and intelligent with it.:doh
Hopefully the pitch breaks up even more, flattens out this afternoon, have no rollers on it before tomorrow and look to exploit that. Perhaps we can take the old ball from the start, we are way more effective with an older ball, and intelligent with it.:doh
Maxkarter
Battrick Tournament Host
This pitch concerns me, once a batsmen gets in they seem to be able to manage it, look at how Amla and AB played until he got out. Duminy has come in and looks iffy. I don't think our bowlers will be able to strike consistently enough to make sure that there will never be two set English batsmen at the crease. I'd prefer a lead of 320 before the close of play and for Smith to get the lads out to bowl a few overs tonight. But Smith does stupid things ever so often so that probably won't happen and he'll want us to get bowled out first.
Similar threads
- Poll
