Cricket 3

[DJDonegal]

90 overs as long as the weather holds, and I haven't heard the best of forecasts going around, but then it's London and could become a tropical paradise ten minutes after a snowstorm.

[Hereward]

Crap pitch, crap game. But if you meet my ever low expectations and contrive to lose this game, England, I will hunt every last one of you down with dogs, hunting ban or no hunting ban.

[Jeor]

England still have a slight chance to pull off a win if they can bowl the South Africans out for a target of less than 100. There's still 50 overs left in the game, but they'll need bowl them out in the next 30ish overs to give them enough time to chase.

The best thing South Africa can do now is score runs (probably where Boucher and De Villiers will come in handy). Every run that increases the target will be a further nail in the draw coffin. ;)

It'll be a good escape for South Africa if they manage it. They were completely pummelled by England in the first three days, and now with a draw, they get to start the series all over again, with their bowlers learning from the experience.

[Daeric]

Match drawn and I don't think that'll come as a surprise to anyone really considering how the pitch panned out on the last two days.

Now to see how the Flintoff situation pans out, through it might be slightly easier to solve as Sidebottom has a stiff back and they might chose to rest him for the next match.

[IheartTesla]

I am going to keep a "this is what proper Test cricket is about" watch. Today's entry, [url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/07/south_africa_keep_england_at_b.shtml"]Jonathan Agnew[/url]:
[quote]It might not have been the most compelling viewing we have ever seen on a cricket field, but the discipline and patience shown by South Africa's top order batsmen to save the Lord's Test was mighty impressive.

There will, sadly, be those who think that this was an example of tedious Test cricket, but that is a shallow observation.[/quote]

Seriously, tautological definitions of proper Test cricket aside, what will it take to make commentators admit that Test cricket can sometimes be uninteresting?

In other news, Asif's "A" sample tests came back positive from the IPL random drug testing. I had him or Shoaib pegged down as the offender. Since he was caught in Dubai with weed (I think) I am going to go out on a limb and assume he tested positive for THC. Someone should tell him it takes a long time for those things to get out of the system. But I could be wrong and smoking grass might not be on the banned list.

[Jeor]

I always thought the best part about Test cricket was good bowling and batsmen being challenged, which you don't often find in the other forms of the game. It's the only form of the game where bowling and batting still has a reasonable chance of an even fight, and for me, that is its selling point. Naturally some of the more exciting Test cricket happens on the fourth and fifth days of a Test, when deliveries should be spitting, balls turning square, good batsmen holding out and counterattacking while wickets may be falling at the other end while the run chase is on.

None of that happened in this Lords Test. From a purist's point of view I can appreciate the defensive accomplishments of the South African batting, but it's fair to say that if you wanted to show someone the best parts of Test cricket, you wouldn't be showing them this match.

[Paxter]

[quote name='Jeor' post='1439794' date='Jul 15 2008, 07.48']None of that happened in this Lords Test.[/quote]

Well, that is not entirely true. Day 3 saw some very good test cricket, with wickets tumbling at one end while Ashwell Prince grafted his way to an absolutely fantastic test match century. That was a very good contest between bat and ball IMO. We also had some really excellent fielding with fine catching from Strauss and Anderson. So the Lord's pitch did at least produce one day of very high quality test match cricket. Of course, the second innings was characterised by very slow and relatively unremarkable cricket. The first two days were also quite pedestrian, but luckily KP was at the crease so the runs were flowing very quickly.

Overall, I quite enjoyed this test match. But I can certainly see where people like cyrano and Jeor are coming from. Maybe Botham is right and the Lord's pitch should be dug up.

BTW, I think that what has happened with Asif is a real shame. He is a very talented young cricketer and, when fully fit, he is the spearhead of the Pakistani attack. But it seems that he is really losing the plot with these drug-related issues now emerging. Very sad to see.

On a slightly different point, what do people think about the team that SA should pick for the Headingly test? Did Harris do enough to keep his spot? Or should Mr Personality (Nel) come into the team?

Ther is also talk about the England team selection and whether Flintoff should replace Broad or Collingwood (or maybe even Sidebottom if he is injured). Personally, I would take Broad out of the team. Seeing as he has hardly contributed at all with the ball this Summer, you won't be losing much in the bowling department by taking him out of the team. And as long as he keeps getting picked in ODIs, I don't think that dropping him will hamper his development in any way.

If England are going to drop Collingwood (which they should if he fails to make a score in the next two or so test matches), then Owais Shah should come straight into the team. Unless England really want to make the change to 5 bowlers, Flintoff is not good enough to bat at 6 in test match cricket.

[DemonKing]

To nobody's surprise the player who tested positive for doping in the IPL is...Mohammed Asif!!!!

I think the PCB has to shoulder a lot of blame here...they went out of their way to let him off on a technicality for his first offense and that obviously taught him nothing except to make him think he's bullet proof.

A shame really as I haven't seen him bowl a lot but he seemed like a good prospect.

[Jeor]

[quote name='DemonKing' post='1440462' date='Jul 15 2008, 16.24']I think the PCB has to shoulder a lot of blame here...they went out of their way to let him off on a technicality for his first offense and that obviously taught him nothing except to make him think he's bullet proof.[/quote]

Although the PCB were weak, I don't think too much blame lies with them. It's still Asif's fault, and he should have realised that he had a narrow escape last time - I'm sure his family, friends, managers or agents would have said something along those lines. It's going to be confusing here because we don't know who takes action - ICC, IPL, PCB...but someone needs to come down hard on him. He can't escape twice.

And Paxter...I see what you mean about Day 3 and the individual performances (Prince, and the England bowlers), but I still wasn't particularly excited about the cricket because in the context of the match at the time it really didn't mean anything. At no real stage was the match ever in a position where both sides had realistic chances of winning, so that kind of dampened things, and overall, the bat dominated way too much. Mind you, I don't think it was a particularly [i]bad[/i] Test, just not a good one.

[sckma]

Well, I am glad that Amla played well, especially after his last series in England. I am also glad that he got over the short ball 'problem' he had last time as well (although, he seems to be chucking a Steve Waugh, and just avoid playing a shot, rather than solving it, and playing the short ball to score.... but that is conjecture and hardly worth taking from him)

Anyway, it seems that, judging by Vaughn's comments, it is unlikely that Broad will be dropped, as he provides some protection if Flintoff and Ambrose (?) fails. Which means, it is most likely that Collingwood will be dropped, as he didn't really contribute with the bat, and Bell just scored a 199. But then, is it really inspiring for your one-day [i]captain[/i] to be sitting on the bench indefinitely? (if flintoff plays well enough not to get dropped) So if you look at it from that angle, it seems Broad would be the best and logical choice, especially if Flintoff goes as a number 8, where his batting will not really have to make a difference, and thus his failures won't matter.
I reckon his real value is bowling anyway. His bowling always seems to have momentum behind them, unlike the other bowlers.

Well, that's my two cents.

[Daeric]

Vaughns the test captain but we don't see him in the one day side.

The two disciplines should be kept seperate and one shouldn't be assured of a place just because you captain the side in the other format.

[Hereward]

Of course, Collingwood isn't the ODI captain at that moment anyway. He's suspended for the next four matches. Who knows if he'll be back as captain after that.

[sckma]

[quote name='SirRots' post='1440598' date='Jul 15 2008, 19.34']Vaughns the test captain but we don't see him in the one day side.

The two disciplines should be kept seperate and one shouldn't be assured of a place just because you captain the side in the other format.[/quote]

Well, Test cricket is usually seen as a step up from one day cricket, and usually, one day cricket is used to groom potential future captians. When Vaughn retires, you would rather an experienced captain than an inexperienced one, and it seems collingwood is next in line... but it is hard to hold respect when your own place in the team is suspect (as in from the beginning... I know Steve Waugh had a period where he was almost dropped for not playing well enough... but then he scored [b]that[/b] hundred at Sydney 2003 ashes)

But I get your point, the two sides should be selected differently, and regarded separately. It should, but it hardly ever is.

[Jeor]

Barring caretaker captains and stand-ins, I don't know if there have actually been any instances of an ODI captain not playing in the Test side, although there have been more than a few going the other way (Steve Waugh, Hashan Tillekeratne, Nasser Hussain come to mind as Test captains who gave up playing ODIs).

It's hard to drop Broad. If you were picking the team on paper based on what they bring, you'd put in Flintoff for Broad, because you improve both your batting (marginally) and bowling. If you put Flintoff in for Collingwood (or any other batsman for that matter), you're sacrificing batting for bowling. When you put form into the equation though and Collingwood's struggles with the bat of late, I suppose you're not really sacrificing that much batting for your bowling.

I still think they should put Flintoff in for a bowler though. ;) This South African attack will come good at some stage - and I think the next Test is at Headingley (?), which is as good a place as any for a pace attack to fire. That's when they're going to want as much batting as they can find.

[Hereward]

Headingley is not the bowlers' paradise it once was and, anyway, has never been terribly rewarding to pace bowlers, particularly those who bowl back of a length. The South African pacemen shouldn't, theoretically, prosper there. But by that standard nor should Flintoff!

As for ODI captains not playing in the Test side, I can only think of Adam Hollioake, but that experiment didn't last long.

[Paxter]

[quote name='Jeor' post='1440654' date='Jul 15 2008, 19.49']It's hard to drop Broad.[/quote]

Only because he is a good prospect. In terms of his actual performance in test cricket - he has been fairly poor (18 wickets in 7 tests, average 45.33, SR 87). His bowling stats read worse than most of the Bangladeshi attack. IMO it should therefore be a no-brainer for the England selectors - drop the young, inexperienced "all-rounder" (Broad) and replace him with the Ashes-winning veteran all-rounder (Flintoff).

As to sckma's comment that Broad won't be dropped because he provides batting "cover" for players like Ambrose - I'm not so sure about this. Ambrose is in the team to score runs. He is selected as a genuine all-rounder. The selectors have to either have faith in him to score runs or pick another 'keeper. England shouldn't be selecting players to cover for Ambrose at no. 8. Especially players like Broad who aren't taking enough wickets.

BTW I don't have a problem with dropping Collingwood even though he is ODI captain (test and ODI cricket are completely different ball-games and should be treated as such). But I think that if anyone is going to replace Collingwood in the test team, it should be Shah. The no.6 batting slot is a vital position in test cricket and Flintoff is simply not good enough to bat in that position at the moment. He hasn't made a test century in 3 years. Look who SA have batting in that spot - AB De Villiers who averages 40 in test cricket. That is, IMO, the kind of quality player that you need in that spot.

[Daeric]

You know who we need to force back into the game, Stewart :P

[Jeor]

[quote name='Paxter' post='1440842' date='Jul 16 2008, 00.15']Ambrose is in the team to score runs. He is selected as a genuine all-rounder. The selectors have to either have faith in him to score runs or pick another 'keeper.[/quote]

I think Ambrose's first job is still to catch the ball. Matt Prior and Geraint Jones, although enduring batting slumps, ultimately did not match up as fielders, and as such when there was even the slightest hint of their batting falling away, they were discarded. The selectors are trying a halfway house with Ambrose, because if they were really selecting on the basis of fielding they would pick Chris Read. So in that sense, I guess Ambrose is in there to score runs, but it's a bit more of a complex issue.

Sir Rots is correct...all England need is for Alec Stewart to come back. ;) He could probably do it, too, if he wanted to. By all accounts he's a complete fitness freak and could play until he was 50 years old. England simply have not found anyone to replace him for a number of years now.

[DJDonegal]

If Sidebottom's fitness is in any doubt then I think he has to be dropped for at least the Test at Headingley. We can't be running into a Test match against South Africa with Flintoff, returning from many injury problems, and Sidebottom with a possible collapse on the cards.

Otherwise, it has to be Broad who is dropped for this Test. I put this forward not only because like for like makes the most sense, but also because the England players have just spent 3 days in the field with their bowlers bowling a consecutive 260 overs. For that reason, they need the bowling attack to be as fresh as possible, and I think that the young and relatively inexperienced Broad should make way for Flintoff and things can be reassessed after that. For example, if Collingwood should fail with the bat again then bring Broad back in his place and shunt Flintoff up the order.

Of course, Flintoff hasn't been too hot with the bat recently, so there's a lot still to be resolved with the lower middle order.

[Paxter]

[quote name='Jeor' post='1441682' date='Jul 16 2008, 06.34']Matt Prior and Geraint Jones, although enduring batting slumps, ultimately did not match up as fielders[/quote]

Whilst that is certainly true of Matt Prior (his 'keeping in the Galle test match sealed his fate), that was not the case with Jones. Jones [i]did[/i] match up in the fielding department - in fact his 'keeping improved substantially over the course of his career. The sole reason for dropping him from the team was the deterioration of his batting - in his last 8 test matches he averaged about 12 and failed to score a fifty. The main reason the English selectors replaced him with Read was to rectify the batting problem (Read has a very similar first-class batting record to Jones, in fact Read's first-class batting average is slightly higher) and to marginally improve the 'keeping.

Personally, I don't believe that in the modern game a 'keeper's "first job is too catch the ball". I think that the two roles, 'keeping and batting, are equally important. If you aren't catching well - you're out. And equally, if you are batting poorly - you're out. We have seen this with South Africa. When Tsolekile forced his way into the team, his 'keeping was fine. But he averaged less than 10 with the bat. For that reason, Boucher came straight back into the team. Since then, Tsolekile has considered himself a batsman first and a 'keeper second.

As for Alec Stewart, he was a fantastic player. IMO, he is right up there, just after Gilchrist and perhaps Sangakkara, as the greatest 'keeping all-rounder of all-time.