South Africa in England

[aussie_ben91]

I wonder if Pattinson will be allowed to play for Victoria next season? Probably not.

Pietersen doesn't do it under pressure? Pfft! I've never seen him make a 100 when England hasn't been in trouble.

 

[irottev]

Poor Chris Tremlett must be wondering how the hell he is going to get a game when someone like Pattinson gets picked ahead of him. No disrespect to Pattinson but he is not what England needs.

Exactly my thinking. Tremlett was in the squad from the start. Tremlett bowled once against us in an ODI I think and bowled really well from memory. It just makes no sense to me why they'd want someone like Pattinson in there. And it's not Pattinson's fault either. All he can do is try his best. He did quite well considering. It must be scary enough playing your first test without being thrust into it last minute and have to bowl at some of the best batsmen in the world.

I mean, Hoggard was dropped in the NZ series, but didn't he deserve a go? He has the experience and he still does get some swing. I can understand not using Harmison but there's Simon Jones who you keep hearing about. At least he's played before.

I also think Harris could be dropped for SA. His record is reasonable, but you don't get the same sense of excitement that you get from watching Vettori or Panesar. With those two you know something will happen. I'm not sure about Peterson either, the other spinner SA have. I don't know much about these two. I'd use Nel for sure. He's always aggressive, even though I really hate watching him sometimes because he acts like a git, he's pretty good. Ntini looked much better than the first test, but still, not a huge return with wickets. The SA top 6 looks incredibly strong. If you compare De Villiers at 6 with Ambrose there really is a huge difference. De Villiers has opened in tests on a number of occasions. You kinda feel that England are a batsman short.

 

[Valaskjalf]

I'll be honest, I wasn't that impressed with with SA's bowling attack. Sure they bowled decent lines but they rarely hit 90mph and for a bowling quartet or triplet being compared to the legendary Windies line-up, they didn't live up to the hype.

As the lone Saffers amongst you lot (as it seems) I must say Im very impressed with our bowling.

Agree with Will_NA though, not sure why everyone's going on about our bowling attack's pace, I think Flintoff at times bowled faster than any of our supposed super quick bowlers. If Steyn or Morkel were Brett Lee's pace, well thats another story but they're not. But what Im impressed with was how each bowler bowled to his strength, especially Steyn and Morkel...eventually Ntini as well when he went wide of the crease like in the old days and got rid of Strauss.

Hopefully we havent peaked too soon (aas someone mentioned) or maybe we did but they carry it through the series :P

About the English....well dont know your players too well, eventhough I have seen good things from Tremlett. Broad needs a rest, however 67 from 50 odd balls doesnt give you idea that he is fatigued.

Better go do some research on Edgebaston, cant remember how it plays there and what our record is but hopefully its a closer-fought match come the 3rd test

 

[karnog]

I tell you what. The biggest mistake was dropping Collingwood for Flintoff. England had some success with the balanced side they had and with Sidebottom injured Flintoff should've come in for him. The whole Flintoff factor unbalanced the team. With Flintoff "bowling so well" they only need 5 batsman + Ambrose. It can be arrogance but personally it was a false sense of security. England were unlucky with the number of bowls passing the edge so i wouldn't write off their bowling attack. Their batting is a whole other story.

The team at Edbaston:
Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Shah
Ambrose
Flintoff
Anderson
Monty
Sidebottom/Hoggard

 

[irottev]

Broad needs to go away and develop his batting and focus on that. He can keep bowling part time. That or else he needs to learn how to swing the ball or seam it. Currently he can't be selected as a bowler. On recent evidence, he should bat above Ambrose at 7. Either way, he's no where near good enough to be a first change bowler. He's a good ODI player, just not good enough for bowling at test level yet.

 

[m_vaughan]

Broad is a good bowler and soon to be great. All his doubters will be eating their words soon.

 

[karnog]

Broad is a good bowler and soon to be great. All his doubters will be eating their words soon.

Broad is an exciting potential but England need to nurture the bloke properly. The kid needs to start from the shallow end to get to the top.

 

[Owzat]

Broad is an exciting potential but England need to nurture the bloke properly. The kid needs to start from the shallow end to get to the top.

Broad is an excellent BATSMAN, his bowling is ok but not good enough for Tests yet.

Interesting stat of the day :-

Vaughan's last 15 innings : 371 runs @ 24.73
Broad's 11 innings to date : 371 runs @ 41.22



Anyway, England unbalanced the side from the off by playing Ambrose at six to accommodate not only Flintoff but another bowler as well. Neither Flintoff nor Ambrose is a number six, they scored 103 runs between them at 25.75, 74 of those when it was too late. The main difference, as in the first Test, was the two big centurions.

1st Test : 1st innings lead 346 >> Bell 199 + Pietersen 152 = 351
2nd Test : 1st innings lead 319 >> De Villiers 174 + Prince 149 = 323


Vaughan has deflected a little bit of attention, or so he hopes, by defending Pattinson if not his selection. I am one of many who criticise the selection, but not the player. It wasn't his fault England took a radical step in playing an unbalanced side BECAUSE they couldn't bowl South Africa out in two days at Lords.


Owzat XI (3rd Test)

Strauss (c)
Cook
Shah
Pietersen
Broad (specialist batsman, part-time bowler)
Bell
Flintoff
Ambrose/whoever (wk)
Sidebottom
Anderson
Tremlett/Panesar/Jones (depends on the pitch)

For me the only problem is fitting so many seamers into one pitch, you could make a case Flintoff was relatively toothless as a bowler and I could maybe include Jones as part of a four man attack instead. For a supposed great bowler, Flintoff doesn't take as many wickets as he should. His ER is great, his average is over 30 and should be under 30 while his SR of 65.96 is a wicket every 11 overs and he should really be nearer 50 than 70

In fact England have lost the last SEVEN Tests in a row that Flintoff has played, he's taken just 16 wickets and scored 310 runs @ 23.85

Flintoff wickets

0 : 23
1 : 36
2 : 32
3 : 15
4 : 9
5 : 2

Not enough times does he take 3+ wickets (only 22.22% of the time) Batting he makes 0-29 runs 61.11% of the time and single figures (including ducks) a worrying 34.26% of the time. Too much the 'Flintoff Factor', a reputation like Beckham's that far exceeds what he delivers. Is he worth a place in the side? Only if he scores more runs or takes more wickets, otherwise he might as well be called Jonah as Freddie

 

[The_gas]

I would make some big changes for the next match. Here would be my lineup.

Cook
Bell
Strauss
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Flintoff
Anderson
Harmison
Jones
Panesar

Well, small problem is i am missing a wicket keeper

Sod it, Strauss to keep wicket. Batting and bowling looks much stronger now though.

 

[shravi]

I would make some big changes for the next match. Here would be my lineup.

Cook
Bell
Strauss
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Flintoff
Anderson
Harmison
Jones
Panesar

Well, small problem is i am missing a wicket keeper

Sod it, Strauss to keep wicket. Batting and bowling looks much stronger now though.

Bell has a twin brother?

Can Strauss actually keep wicket? That looks a good line up to me if Strauss can actually keep wicket well.

 

[BigCrickNan]

If I were Tremlett I would be extremely disappointed after this test. If you're chosen as the back up bowler you should bloody well be the back up bowler if one of usual bowlers is injured. Yet, Pattinson is selected and even plays in the XI! There's no use in having a back up bowler if you don't use him for what he's there for :.

Well the selection was horses-for-courses, if it was overcast for 5 days it would of benefited Pattinson tenfold, whereas Tremlett has other attributes such as pace and bounce, and doesn't neccesarily rely on swing. Picks at Headingley like this have worked before, such as Neil Mallender and Kabir Ali, but who put in good performances but never got a game after

 

[CortezTheKiller]

I wonder if Pattinson will be allowed to play for Victoria next season? Probably not.

As I understand it if he does it'd have to be as an overseas player. No player can be registered in two countries as a "local". It's why Ryan Harris couldn't take up his contract at Sussex too; QLD wouldn't offer him an overseas contract.

Madness that a bloke who grew up in Ned Kelly country isn't considered an Aussie (especially as his kid bro plays for Oz U-19s!), but there it is.

 

[angryangy]

Pattinson will remain with Victoria as an overseas player. Harris tried to join Sussex as a Kolpak, which you can't do if you're playing first class cricket somewhere else.

In terms of the game, you can't blame the bowlers too much, they missed Sidebottom and certainly wouldn't have done any better with 4 bowlers than with 5. Pattinson didn't have the worst game, but they needed a huge performance and there's no selector in the world who can guarantee that. There are reasons why the likes of Hoggard, Harmison and Jones aren't already in the team, reasons which have obviously continued to affect selection when a place opens. Whether it was fair on Tremlett is another matter.

While they need to be firing on all cylinders, the biggest lack of power has been from Vaughan, Collingwood and Ambrose all averaging less than 30 in the year to date. The four batsmen who do score runs are required to put in Bradmanesque performances or be lambasted for inconsistency and the people are also calling for the disposal of England's 4th most in-form batsman. Collingwood is already out and Flintoff may not be the answer, at least not as a no. 7. If Vaughan can't be deposed, then Ambrose is surely in the reticle. You may claim that keepers are there to keep, but you have to find six batsmen one way or another.

 

[usy]

Holy man, Safricans just made my day,

 

[CortezTheKiller]

Pattinson will remain with Victoria as an overseas player. Harris tried to join Sussex as a Kolpak, which you can't do if you're playing first class cricket somewhere else.

Pretty much, but Harris is actually a UK citizen (I think both his folks are English), so wouldn't technically be a Kolpak.

How many overseas players are Australian states allowed, by the way? Could be interesting decision for the Vic selectors if it's only one, as Dirk Nannes (Dutch passport) is playing for Middlesex as a non-overseas player too.