South Africa in England July-Sept 2012

[puddleduck]

Don't get me wrong, Pakistan produced an excellent turning pitch in the UAE that gripped early, but also offered carry. A pitch can turn, but it should never see a new hard ball fail to reach the keeper off a genuine edge.

As you say, and I guess is my point, Indian pitches have been ridiculously low in recent times. Which is to say they don't turn, and even if they do, they do it so slowly as to make it mostly irrelevant. It's not like English pitches seam all over the place, they just offer a little bit of something to all bowlers depending on the match situation... as such, they also offer value for shots to batsman. Watching Sehwag plant himself on his front foot and swing through the line for a day isn't testing cricket, and it's disappointing that out of fear of dealing with anything bouncing over their waist, they continue to produce pitches that offer nothing to bowlers (and fans).

The reality is that it's actually the conditions that differ, and not the pitches these days. England no longer produces green tops, just as Australia doesn't produce quick bouncing tracks and India doesn't make raging turners. However, India do make dead tracks with nothing in them. However, in the India heat, a pitch is likely to fall apart and crumble, whilst in England the cloud and overhead is liable to induce some genuine swing.

 

[Owzat]

One thing England need to seriously consider going forward is having 5 bowlers. Chris Woakes and Bresnan being that option. But if KP never plays plays again i won't risk it.

One thing England need to seriously never consider or they will go backwards is having 5 bowlers.

We played five bowlers before, with Flintoff in the side, and since we dumped it we've been more successful than ever before. Our batting lets us down and all some people, TMS pundits included, is go backwards and play more bowlers.........................

It's funny how people pick up on where our bowling could have done better, but if our batsmen made less mistakes and played less silly shots we'd probably be celebrating a 1-1 series draw.

Bowlers need runs to bowl at, we'd have to play Prior at six and while he's a decent batsman, he's not really a solid enough option. Take his batting away from seven and you get a weak(er) 7-11. None of Broad, Swann and Bresnan is consistent enough to bat 7, we'd simply drop 20-30 runs per innings on top of what we already drop.

If only there were a "no thanks" to click alongside the "thanks" button

 

[puddleduck]

I'd suggest we've actually been just as successful seeing as that Flintoff side also enjoyed a 2 year winning streak that culminated in an Ashes win. Much like the current team did before going to Asia and getting spanked. The similarities are actually incredibly similar, with the only difference being Australia are now an easier team to beat and had given up the massive lead in ranking points they had back then.

 

[Owzat]

since the 2007 series against west indies the only teams they've beaten at home are bangladesh and sri lanka recently, and even the sri lanka series contained a hiccup. my feeling is that south africa look the best team on paper, and have for a while, but they've still to show they're more deserving no.1s than india or england.

They drew at home to England, Australia and India, their only home loss in said period to Australia 1-2.

England got "murdered" 1-1 in South Africa, holding on desperately in both the 1st and 3rd Test. You can praise England's rearguard as much as you like, won't change the fact the South Africans were better in 3 out of 4 Tests.

Australia won 2-1, all three tosses won by Australia and their two wins both batting first. South Africa managed to bowl them out cheaply in the 1st innings once the series was already lost and won by an innings.

India got a 1-1 draw thanks to two batting failures by South Africa, how often would you expect them to be bowled out for 131 and 215 in the same Test? Zahir and Harbhajan taking six wickets each

The more recent 1-1 draw against Australia was just two Tests, the 1st Test was just silly with Australia skittled for 47 and South Africa 96 before South Africa took control in their 2nd innings to score 236/2 to win. Australia won the 2nd Test, a tight encounter not entirely dissimilar to this Test just finished.


You want to look at England's home record, we've lost to South Africa at home twice and India once.

Home (2007-present)

South Africa P8 W4 D3 L1
England P12 W9 D0 L3

England get through about two series a summer, won 75% but three losses to 'rivals for the top spot'. Six of those nine wins were against West Indies, Bangladesh, New Zealand or Sri Lanka, three against West Indies - South Africa have won all four of their series played against the same group of sides. Against the rest England's record is won three, lost three


I'd say the key difference is length of series. England play the top sides in 3+ match series, South Africa have played just two four match series since 04/05, BOTH against England (won away, drew at home) England's three wins over better sides have come in 4-5 match series, as have their defeats. Conclusion? More wins come when playing 4+ match series, 2-3 match series are more vulnerable to be drawn.


And maybe the main conclusion is if South Africa stopped poncing about with short Test series they'd have been top of the pile a while back.

----------

I'd suggest we've actually been just as successful seeing as that Flintoff side also enjoyed a 2 year winning streak that culminated in an Ashes win. Much like the current team did before going to Asia and getting spanked. The similarities are actually incredibly similar, with the only difference being Australia are now an easier team to beat and had given up the massive lead in ranking points they had back then.

We had a purple patch with five bowlers against South Africa and Australia in 04-05 to 2005, mainly because Flintoff had two big series with bat and ball, and Jones did well with the ball, as did other quicks - Hoggard 26 wickets in South Africa. Those series aside we picked off weak sides and had an indifferent record. Even against the aussies we were far from convincing, wins by two runs and three wickets in a 2-1 series win. Without Giles we probably would still have won both series, maybe more convincingly.

Flintoff was very hit and miss, never enjoyed the same success as those two series ever again. Flintoff only ever took more than 14 wickets in a series in those two series, he enjoyed some good series with the bat

04/05 vs South Africa

Flintoff - 227 runs @ 28.38 & 23 wkts @ 24.96
Jones - 15 wkts @ 26.67

2005 vs Australia

Flintoff - 402 runs @ 40.20 & 24 wkts @ 27.29
Jones - 18 wkts @ 21.00

We also got THRASHED 0-5 down under in 06/07, you can cite all the rare examples in the world but for every example of a five bowler series win there's a loss. I've done the analysis, while we might have gotten away with it at home we've done far better overall and away with four bowlers.

Since 2000

Five bowlers : P82 W34 D22 L26 (Won 41.46%, Lost 31.71%) 20W = 47.56%
Four bowlers : P79 W39 D20 L20 (Won 49.37%, Lost 25.32%) 20W = 53.16%

Won more Tests in less played with one fewer bowler

Home

Five bowlers : P41 W24 D9 L8 (Won 58.54%, Lost 19.51%) 20W = 65.85%
Four bowlers : P48 W26 D12 L10 (Won 54.17%, Lost 20.83%) 20W = 54.17%

Won a slightly better percentage of games with five bowlers, but barely significantly.

Away

Five bowlers : P41 W10 D13 L18 (Won 24.39%, Lost 43.90%) 20W = 29.27%
Four bowlers : P31 W13 D8 L10 (Won 41.94%, Lost 32.26%) 20W = 51.61%

20W is how often we take 20 wickets, an obvious thing to analyse as some think playing five bowlers somehow increases your chances of winning and to win you usually need to take 20 wickets. If you get bowled out twice for lack of batting then your chances of bowling twice are reduced.

There is a clear case, if one were needed beyond theory, to play four bowlers. We don't have an all-rounder capable of batting 6/7 so the argument is rather lame for, I would despair if people seriously 'think' Bresnan, Broad and Swann could provide adequate compensation for a proper batsman. If we'd played five bowlers in the final Test we'd have probably lost much more quickly, for starters you'd have to find the runs Bairstow scored as he'd be the one left out - around 150.



EDIT : The major flaw with arguing five bowlers based on past success is of course we don't have Flintoff, part of whatever success we have had with five bowlers.

 

[angryangy]

It's all about balance. South Africa in the late 90s had the likes of Pollock, Klusener and Symcox in their tail, as well as McMillan, Cronje and Kallis for the middle order. So never mind five bowlers, sometimes they had 7, with a batting order that was strong down to 10.

 

[puddleduck]

Anyone who just judges Flintoff by numbers during that golden two year period obviously didn't actually watch any cricket then. To suggest he only had two good series with the ball is to ignore the many series he looked a constant threat and had batsman genuinely afraid to face him. I wasn't advocating 5 bowlers either, merely that both sides actually enjoyed relatively the same success.

 

[Sureshot]

Bowlers need runs to bowl at, we'd have to play Prior at six and while he's a decent batsman, he's not really a solid enough option. Take his batting away from seven and you get a weak(er) 7-11. None of Broad, Swann and Bresnan is consistent enough to bat 7, we'd simply drop 20-30 runs per innings on top of what we already drop.

If only there were a "no thanks" to click alongside the "thanks" button

*Sussex fan steps in

Ah, but is he? His calendar year average for England is very consistent throughout the last few years. This year is quite low at 35, due to the UAE tour. But he was pretty consistent in this series.

Even though I think he can play 6 (#6 ave: 45.66 #7 ave: 45.47 #8 ave: 31.25*), he should be at 7, because we need 4 bowlers picked on bowling ability and nowt else. Right now, we should be playing 4 bowlers, different when Fred was in his prime.

I don't think anyone would seriously consider dropping Trott or Cook, even if Trott has dropped of late, he's one of the best in the country. Cook goes in and out of lean patches like any player, he's still one of the best openers in the world.

Where am I going with this? Strauss and Bell. Poor series (Bell's strike rate was about 25%!) again. We're on this old chestnut again, but England will continue to pave over it problem, because Strauss is captain and somehow that means it is okay for him to be a very weak link with the bat.

Time to be ruthless with the batsmen. Not all doom and gloom though. Bairstow was impressive and I like Taylor, even if he didn't produce much in his 4 innings.

*So much for the value of nightwatchman, huh?

 

[War]

Anyone who just judges Flintoff by numbers during that golden two year period obviously didn't actually watch any cricket then. To suggest he only had two good series with the ball is to ignore the many series he looked a constant threat and had batsman genuinely afraid to face him. I wasn't advocating 5 bowlers either, merely that both sides actually enjoyed relatively the same success.

Ye well said, stats certainly don't tell the truth about Flintoff one bit and he certainly never reached his true zentih as an all-rounder either.

What we saw of Flintoff in the 2005 Ashes and in India 2006 was the beginning of his "peak". His batting especially had another level to go, but consistent injuries messed him up.

Fact is if he were still fit and was playing today he would be the answer to our # 6 woes.

 

[cricket_icon]

I think England should only go with 5 bowlers if they have a genuine allrounder, which they don't. The current attack of Finn, Anderson, Broad and Swann is class. Swann has been slipping a bit over the last few months so the inclusion of Monty or Rashid in future squads could light a fire up Swanns arse!

In terms of the batting, Cook, Trott and especially Strauss have been disappointing. No one ever snatched the initiative, apart from KP and Bairstow (he was even better in the second innings I thought). Taylor...well it's hard for me to say atm, he came into the team in a very tough situation, he deserves a few more goes. Trott and Cook will be reliable again soon enough but at some point Strauss will become too much of a load on a team needed recovery. How long can his captaincy keep him in the team?

As for Prior, I don't have a bad word to say about him. Terrific guy.

 

[War]

It was just brought to my attention that according that disgrace of a ranking system that if somehow Australia defeats South Africa this winter, they could lose their # 1 ranking.

Really if the ICC is going to give out earns in lavish ceremony to teams he attain this ranking according their faulty system - it out to stop since its making a mockery of the world game.

 

[Collingwood50]

I know this is hardly the most pressing issues given the manner of England's demise, but this talk about 5th bowlers, and various ramblings about Trott got me thinking about what Henry Blofeld fantastically described as 'auxiliary seamers'.

I sort of agree that Trott is over used, though he does get it dibble from time to time. But why does Trott get the nod over Bell? I seem to remember him being (fairly) handy with the ball and his test wicket was memorable. I think he was a bit quicker as well.

Does Taylor turn his arm over?

 

[Owzat]

Anyone who just judges Flintoff by numbers during that golden two year period obviously didn't actually watch any cricket then. To suggest he only had two good series with the ball is to ignore the many series he looked a constant threat and had batsman genuinely afraid to face him. I wasn't advocating 5 bowlers either, merely that both sides actually enjoyed relatively the same success.

I didn't say he only had two good series with the ball, I said he only took more than 14 wickets twice. You're read between lines and drawn a conclusion. You mentioned two years in particular, I pointed out that Flintoff had two extremely good series with the ball, and better than he achieved in any other series. I nearly extended that to about a two year period, our use of five bowlers and the success didn't just 'coincide' with his good form, they were quite a bit depending on his form, and that of other bowlers. When he reverted to less consistent form, and we lost Jones, five bowler theory fell apart. He was for a short-ish spell a batsman and frontline bowler rolled into one. Other times he was a liability with the bat and didn't take the wickets he should have.

As for the constant threat, he pitched too short a lot of the time and that is what Broad did as well. To beat the bat doesn't make it a great delivery, it just means the batsman couldn't touch it. If he pitched it up more his figures would have been much better, he might have enjoyed a longer career too.

Flintoff was, for want of a better term, massively over-rated. That isn't to say he wasn't a good all-rounder, but his stats don't like and anyone who buys into the "bad luck" and "early career" theory really wants shooting. All bowlers have "luck", good and bad, all bowlers carry their early career in their figures, yet somehow those wishing to make something out to be better than it is rely on immeasurables like "beating the bat", "constant threat" and the most laughable of the lot, "creating wickets for the bowler at the other end"

Oh and p-l-e-a-s-e don't turn this into a deluded Flintoff spunkfest :no: , at least pull down the poster off the wall and do it over him in private. It's like fans of Westlife and all the other godawful abominations trying to persuade people with brains and unafflicted that they were any good.


Taking out the windies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe the comparitive figures remain the same. Overall four bowlers won around 40% to around 33% with five, home series enjoyed more success with five but away from home we lost nearly three times as many Tests with five bowlers as we won while it was 10-10 with four.

----------

I think England should only go with 5 bowlers if they have a genuine allrounder, which they don't.

Exactly. Some are too easily lulled into thinking Prior can bat and has a good average, Broad, Bresnan and Swann can all chip in so that must make 2-25 batsmen. Doesn't work like that, Prior can be very good but he's no Stewart and none of the lower order batsmen that can score runs is consistent enough so the theory falls apart, even with an all-rounder it is not great - Flintoff would have been a better #7.

but at some point Strauss will become too much of a load on a team needed recovery. How long can his captaincy keep him in the team?

They could try relieving him of his captaincy to focus on his batting, but he is singled out when others throw their wickets away too often as well.

It was just brought to my attention that according that disgrace of a ranking system that if somehow Australia defeats South Africa this winter, they could lose their # 1 ranking.

Really if the ICC is going to give out earns in lavish ceremony to teams he attain this ranking according their faulty system - it out to stop since its making a mockery of the world game.

The ranking is a joke, attracts a bit of focus and gets laughably called a "championship", but to have it change as often as it is at the moment and arguably should, with no absolute beginning or end, is something that needs addressing.

TMS were saying a proper championship is in the pipeline, but sounded like it won't happen any time soon. Might be to do with s*y contracts I guess, or maybe the future tours already agreed, because there is no reason a structure couldn't be agreed fairly quickly and put in place within a year or two. I fear delaying over something that can be changed, or isn't that important, will delay it indefinitely, it needs changing and the sooner the better. Not just for the 10 Test nations and the overcrowded schedule, but for the nations that would aspire to join their ranks. There were too many when Bangladesh joined, there are too many now which might be why we've had such a significant gap - the last three were about 10 years apart, it's been what 12 years now with nothing but bleats for Ireland to be admitted?

----------

I know this is hardly the most pressing issues given the manner of England's demise, but this talk about 5th bowlers, and various ramblings about Trott got me thinking about what Henry Blofeld fantastically described as 'auxiliary seamers'.

I sort of agree that Trott is over used, though he does get it dibble from time to time. But why does Trott get the nod over Bell? I seem to remember him being (fairly) handy with the ball and his test wicket was memorable. I think he was a bit quicker as well.

Pietersen is probably the pick of our part-time options, but if he's bowling a lot then we should be playing 1-2 spinners. His success in the Test where we dropped Swann is one example where a spinner should have been played.

Trott is bowled too much, a trend of trying to hurry through the new ball which is ok when the opposition are say 300/2, but when you need wickets and the scores are tight, they can be 10-15 runs to their cause with minimal threat. Might be "economic", but it is about taking wickets not economy.

We could do with someone as handy as a Hick. If Strauss were a useful fifth bowler his average wouldn't be such an issue

Part-timers

Gooch 23 wkts @ 46.48 (SR 115.43)
Hick 23 wkts @ 56.78 (SR 132.91)
Collingwood 17 wkts @ 59.88 (SR 112.06)
Bell 1 wkt @ 76.00 (SR 108.00)
Pietersen 9 wkts @ 93.78 (SR 137.67)
Trott 3 wkts @ 113.00 (SR 192.00)

Of course back in the 80s and 90s an SR of 60 was considered the benchmark. Bit surprised Collingwood took less wickets than Hick and Gooch.

I'm not suggesting we pick batsmen on bowling ability, or vice versa, before anyone jumps to a conclusion (would be nothing new), but being able to bowl would give them an extra string to their bow and perhaps make them more likely to be given a run in the side.

Gooch, Hick and Collingwood's figures may look a bit weak, but considering they did the over before lunch and bowled when nothing was happening their figures are decent. Gooch wouldn't have got much of a bowl if the ball was doing much, Hick I think had a 5wi in ODIs.

 

[sifter132]

^Yeah the part timer is OK if he's not getting hammered. 5 overs for 15 runs a day is fine.

One thing England need to seriously never consider or they will go backwards is having 5 bowlers.

We played five bowlers before, with Flintoff in the side, and since we dumped it we've been more successful than ever before. Our batting lets us down and all some people, TMS pundits included, is go backwards and play more bowlers.........................

Yep quite right, it really depends who the 5 bowlers are Flintoff worked well, but if you wanted to be critical...he wasn't the best #6 batsman in world cricket either and it was more that England could blast teams out with Flintoff to make up for a merely average amount of runs. I always think the batting all-rounder is preferable in Test cricket. In ODIs you can play the bowling AR at #7 a bit more readily, but Tests you need a good top 7. Australia has been well served by Shane Watson as a 5th bowler recently - whoever the 5th guy is really needs to be able to bat quite well.

The other key thing about the 5 bowler argument is Swann. If Swann is bowling really well, then you need less overs from the rest of your attack as he could conceivably bowl 30 overs a day comfortably and 5 bowlers (or even 4.5 bowlers) would be a waste. If Swann isn't cutting the mustard then troubles begin, and if he's getting hammered, then you really DO need 5 bowlers so that your seamers aren't bowling 25 overs a day to make up for Swann's expensive overs.

 

[Sureshot]

Whilst Swann's average in this series was poor (at best), I don't think it is that indicative of how he bowled. SA played him very well and some chances went down off him. I know you've not talked about that, but I think in general we've bowled pretty well this series, fielding and batting cost us massively.

As for the future with a potential all-rounder. Woakes in First Class has done well of late with the bat. 2 centuries this season, averaging 80 odd with the bat (okay, inflated from 8 innings with 4 not outs) and his bowling has always been consistent.

However, with our depth of bowlers, would he get a game?

I'm really hoping he plays a part in this ODI series. Broad being rested (much needed by the looks of it), he's got some skills to show.

 

[Epic]

The reality is that it's actually the conditions that differ, and not the pitches these days. England no longer produces green tops, just as Australia doesn't produce quick bouncing tracks and India doesn't make raging turners. However, India do make dead tracks with nothing in them. However, in the India heat, a pitch is likely to fall apart and crumble, whilst in England the cloud and overhead is liable to induce some genuine swing.

4th Test: India v Australia at Mumbai, Nov 3-5, 2004 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

The last time India made a 'real' turner - 8 years ago, we had already lost the series, so it was just Ganguly's way of giving the Aussie's a good sendoff.

Ponting slams disappointing pitch | Australia Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo

And bitter Ponting was bitter.