posted Jul 9, 2008

Sorry, Silk, I often agree with you on these things but think you are being washed away with the Steyn bandwagon here. It is only since the beginning of 2007 that DS has really done it - 18 months in Test series against Pakistan, India, NZ, West Indies and Bangladesh.

Hardly a true test, especially considering the mythical batting strength of the current Indian side.

Oh, and by the way, Harmy took 6 wickets @ 35 in his first tour of Sri Lanka.

I'm not saying that Steyn is not a brilliant fast bowling prospect, but he has a long way to go - everyone said Harmy was brilliant back in 2004.

Let's see how he takes to English conditions - my bet is he will take wickets, but will go for a lot of runs.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 9, 2008

One thing that may play to our advantage is that Steyn has not bowled much with the Dukes ball I guess. (Assuming SA play with a Kookabara)

A lot of bowlers find it hard to adjust. Morkel may also struggle.

The bowler who worries me is Kallis. His record in England is exceptional, and I can see him running through our middle order quite easily.

It's nothing to do with pace. He's medium. If a dobbler like Ian O'Brien can cause panic in our batsmen, goodness knows what Kallis can do.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 9, 2008

SA do play with Kookabara (?sp)

Kallis will definitely be dangerous if he can be bothered to bowl.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 9, 2008

Quote from Stuart Broad...- "We've got two world-class swing bowlers with the new ball so obviously we'll be hoping it swings and we just need to stick to the game plans we've used throughout the last Test match series"

So the whole plan is that we hope the ball swings?

Maybe a little harsh as I doubt he would reveal all Englands plans to the media but it does highlight the weakness of the attack....Even if it does swing there is a more than an evens chance that Anderson won't bowl well...

This could be a massacre...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 9, 2008

2-1 or 3-1 to the Saffers for me. They look like a side which is really going forward whilst England look like an OKish side who aren't really going anywhere.

England to get royally stuffed at Lords (as per usual), the next 2 to be closer but with SA always having the edge, but England to win the last test on a turning Oval track with the following team:

1. Cook
2. Strauss
3. Vaughan
4. KP
5. Shah
6. Prior
7. Fred
8. Broad
9. Sido
10. Jones
11. Monty

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 9, 2008

It's good to hear Stuart Broad not getting sucked into bombing the SAFs - that is definitely the right way to go for him. However before this series is out, I could see both Sidebottom and Anderson being replaced.

If it swings, I think Anderson particularly and Sidebottom to a lesser extent are a match for any batting side. However if it doesn't swing - Anderson has no clue and Sid will revert to accuracy. We _need_ a strike bowler and while I did see Broad sending some down at 90mph in the last ODI, I don't see that as his role. I think he's ideally suited to being a 1st change bowler with his bounce. England will also miss a huge trick in not playing Hoggard who looked good to me against Essex (notwithstanding he's not suited to limited overs). Remember Hoggard picked up Smith for a passtime in 2004-5.

Fred for Collingwood is the obvious swap because neither Sid nor Anderson deserve to be dropped ... yet.

Sidebottom's done everything that's been asked of him over the last 12 months but that effectively means his CV is based on NZ and WI - neither are good test sides. Against India and SL (admittedly in SL) he's not been that potent.

The real headache for the selectors has to be Ambrose. His batting's even worse than Read's by the look of it - I didn't think that possible.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 9, 2008

"The real headache for the selectors has to be Ambrose. His batting's even worse than Read's by the look of it "

I don't think so

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 9, 2008

I can't see us getting anything from this series as SA has England out gunned in every department (apart from spin). Their top order is devastating, their middle order is in better form, the pace bowling is fast and they can move the ball about.

SA are in a different league to our batting line-up, we need to get at least 300 even 350 by the time we are into the tail or we could be looking at an “innings and xx runs” loss.

And I seem to be one of a minority by saying our bowling doesn’t need changing (though I would put Flintoff in for Jimmy or Siders when fit) but it is our batting side that needs a shake up, e.g. put Shah in for Bell or Collingwood they need to be given a rest or they may have a similar problem to Treser.

1. Andrew Strauss
2. Alastair Cook
3. Michael Vaughan
4. Ian Bell
5. Kevin Pietersen
6. Paul Collingwood (Replace with Shah)
7. Tim Ambrose (Replace with Prior)
8. Ryan Sidebottom
9. Stuart Broad
10. Monty Panesar
11. James Anderson (Replace with Freddie and bump him up to 6 or 7)

This will give us a stronger batting line up with real depth, with Panesar being the only member without any batting credentials; it will reduce to us to a 4 man attack with the possibility of some part-time bowling from some of the others but I think with the 4 that are left we can get regular wickets.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 9, 2008

The South African bowling attack is frightening, yes. Our batting is shaky, yes. But South Africa's batting isn't the best either. If we can get stuck into them early doors, especially Smith, like we did against Australia in 2005 we may avoid the drilling that I fear we'll get. We must be aggressive from the off.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 9, 2008

This is a big series for England ahead of the Ashes, but frankly NZ were closer to England's level than England are to South Africa. Home advantage may count but for me an easy series win for SA against a brittle batting line-up. And without Flintoff, England's attack lacks bite, plain and simple

add comment | complain about this comment