3rd Test South Africa vs England

[freddie flintoff 142]

Time to look forward a few days till the 2nd of january now.

Once again i'v been onto my contact in SA, and it seems the south african side will be near enough the same. a couple of changes expected.

Boeta Dipp ready to come back after the calf infection, apprently would have played in this test if the draining of his knee hadnt gone wrong so he'll come in at the expence of Alma it is thought, but the politics of SA cricket it would be no surprise if van jaarsveld was dropped.

talk is over on the south african tv is dale steyn may be given a 'rest' and either langeveldt or hall will replace him. a case of another year in prov cricket they think, but at the risk of being lost in the system as many have before, rumours of the ginge nacie hayward coming back at some stage during the series.

doubt any 'real' shocks will come from the sections, the track is likely to turn on 4th5th days and how unbalanced the south african side was with out boje, how he bowled in englands 2nd innings is fairly irrelevant.
also the cape town wicket this season apperently has been fairly quick but flat early on so place to bat first it would seem. apprently the grounds man trying to make it quicker but isn't getting to the pace of jo'burg (that helped by the alltitude).

should be another competive test match on the 2nd

[Ernest]

What do you reackon ff142, and others.

First the sun is shining 10 miles from you ff,like a spring day.

Anyway who in the England team is in for the chop?, who not longer can hold their own?,who is the weakest link?.

Vaugan has been crap with the bat, but is a good skipper.

Will key open the lock to get into the England team?,or will they keeeeeep the faith with Butcher.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Anyway who in the England team is in for the chop?, who not longer can hold their own?,who is the weakest link?. Vaugan has been crap with the bat, but is a good skipper. Will key open the lock to get into the England team?,or will they keeeeeep the faith with Butcher.

Weakest English link so far? No question: Harmison. I don't suggest they should drop him, or that they will.. but there's only one player who has looked totally rank in every spell and who couldn't be entrusted with a role and he's that man. His figures are poor enough.. but all seem agreed that even those flatter. More like the new Dev Malcolm or periodically AWOL Andy Caddick than the new Curtley Ambrose.

Giles did just as badly with the ball as Harmison in that last innings... but in truth he should probably not have been bowling at all. Bowling wise... no such excuse for Flintoff though (very patchy in both matches to date with the ball, far too much short stuff, serious lack of control over line). At least there have been SOME good signs from Jones (again patchy, but at least SOME decent stuff: that's an improvement).

Bowling wise.. if England had a really brutal coach.. only Hoggard would be sleeping easy right now.

Batting wise... there's only Strauss currently looking to have both form AND class.. and even he's managing soft dismissals. Tresco's looking ordinary, Bucher's batting from memory but scraping by. Vaughan's looking OK but getting no returns whatsoever. Thorpe's been batting from memory and has only just started showing signs of form. Flintoff's been looking, once again, like the old familiar no 7-8 bat. Good job Jones is in good nick... shame about the glovework.

The positive for England is that if they are looking in dire shape.. SA are looking stacks worse. Batting wise... even Kallis is not convincing entirely (certainly early on)... and the best of the rest is just promise: Rudolph's struggling to convert, De Villiers is still finding his feet. They look in need of a sudden re-emergence of Smith and Gibbs and of Dippenaur coming back and of batting NZ style... right down to 9. Bowling wise.. it's still, pretty much, the same old one-man show. If Langveldt does come in for Steyn that would surely help... but if Pollock's carrying an injury the signs are even worse.

Not sure who's the happier coach right now. The South African camp is finding lots of small bits of encouragement that the future is going to be less bleak than widely foretold. The Enland camp is doing just fine on results and can rejoice that this is being achieved whilst playing badly and without key players actually delivering (Vaughan), turning up (Harmison) or reaching potential (Flintoff)... but must be losing much of the confidence that they had been building up as the signs of vulnerability grow.

[Ernest]

We have to remember that England due to politiacal reasons have played no serious cricket since last August, the fault the the ECB, who could have arranged alternative matches, even had it only have been against state sides in South Africa, or any hot place for that matter.

The cricket has been stange, the rules obtuse, but still England are one up in the series, after playing one of the great Test Mtches ever.
I have seen a lot of drawn matches with merit, the one were Bob Woolmer single handed save England from defeat against Australia, batting for nearly two days.
So on the hot flat pitch in Durban, with the hot sun beating down on an underprepared England team, the second Test must rank with the best..

Leaving alone the first Test Match, who has come out of the second Test with credit.

Hoggard bowled well, he seemed the fittest of the England bowlers, and looked the best.
Harmison looked poor but still bowled wicket taking deliveries, including dropped catches of his bowling.
Flintoff bowled OK on that pitch, was economical until asked to bowl to take wickets, but again he looked weary.
Simon Jones in flashes looked the part, but was erratic, but early days yet.
Giles should not have been playing, he could not move at the crease.
He had to put up with hostile short bowling from the South Africa quicks.
vaughan bowled OK, he should bowl more.

Batting, well we will have to forget Englands first innings, so on with the second.
Strauss did just fine, but needs to learn how to carry an innings on the following day.
Trescothick, could not be faulted, was a very good innings.
Butcher, his place has to be in doubt, I think he may only get one more match, he looks really out of sorts.
Vaughan, if was not captain, he would be dropped.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Flintoff's been looking, once again, like the old familiar no 7-8 bat.

Rachael how could you say this, England were in dire straits when Flintoff came to join Thorpe, and together with patient defencive batting, once again this duo saw England out of trouble(again).
Only for Flintoff backing Thorpe the way he did, Jones would not have had the freedon to play his shots.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Good job Jones is in good nick... shame about the glovework.

Did he ever middle one shot Rachael, sure was entertaining, but you must admit he rode his luck.

All the commentators were wrong, after Englands first innings ALL said a draw was not an option.

The England bowling looked rusty, but the South African bowlers were no great shakes, the only reason Pollock had more economical figures than Flintoff, was becuase he contained, like I have said in other posts, batsmen see bowlers like Pollock and McGrath off, and this match showed it can be done, Flintoff was economical at first, as everyone knows he can be, but was under orders to attack with the short ball.

The weakest link for me was Mark Butcher, but I would give him more time, because he niether has played any serious cricket since August.

A good game.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Did he ever middle one shot Rachael, sure was entertaining, but you must admit he rode his luck.

Yup, he middled more than one. He top edged 1 or two pulls, but so did Thorpe.

[Paoli]

I think Harmison was okay, not at his best obviously but was still quite potent. S. Jones was in good touch, as was Hoggard. As with Giles and Gareth Batty, i consider neither of them to be international class spinners.

Also, i think the offering of light was an unfortunate decision. As Nas said on Sky, Vaughan didn't have the chance to ask to bowl his spinners.

Btw, i reckon that Freddie Flintoff song is great. Would FreddieFlintoff142 or anyone else know the words? lol thanks

[Paoli]

Well the post i started about 10 days ago was whether or not Vaughan should captain. I know he is good but don't runs come before captaincy. Then again, apart from Butch (who is incredibly out of sorts) and Thorpe (who is in the twilight) there is no one with enough experience to captain England

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Batting, well we will have to forget Englands first innings, so on with the second.

Come off it: the first innings is where it really counts if you are going to stake a claim to be a top team.

It's true that you do occasionally have a run of unfortunate developments that make an innings grossly unrepresentative of the application and commitment on display.. as was indeed the case in the final Test in Sri Lanka some 11-12 months ago... but that wasn't the case in this most recent Test - the implosion was due first and foremost to brainless cricket, exemplified (though not restricted to) the mindless hoick that saw Flintoff's innings end before it had even begun.

In two successive tests the Aussies have struggled at first on that front.. being 5 down for not many. In both cases they added 200 or more for the last 5 wickets. That's without picking all-rounders (their 8-9-10-11 are all picked purely as specialist bowlers). England got off to a bad start and then what happened?

You can't just conveniently overlook the brainless cricket in the first innings and take awy some positives from the way the batsmen made ammends in the second innings: that innings was not some flash in the pan oddity... but fairly reminiscent of several innings England have played in the last 12 months - despite the runof results... it was the sort of performance one still braces oneself for pretty much every time England go out to bat.

Originally Posted by Ernest

Strauss did just fine, but needs to learn how to carry an innings on the following day. Trescothick, could not be faulted, was a very good innings. Butcher, his place has to be in doubt, I think he may only get one more match, he looks really out of sorts. Vaughan, if was not captain, he would be dropped.

The weakest link for me was Mark Butcher, but I would give him more time, because he niether has played any serious cricket since August.

Strauss played beattifully: he was compsed, tidy and able to demonstrate great touch. Tresco was, by all accounts, exposed as a real ugly duckling by comparison: got the job done, but left the impression he really didn't belong at this level. Not sure what basis you have for praising the latter over the former.

Vaughan is arguably in better touch than his recent scores suggest... and from what I hear is {a} looking the part; {b} getting out to decent bowling (unlike his colleagues, including Strauss, who have basically been gifting their wickets away.

Butcher's a different matter though: completely out of touch and yet STILL contributing. I think it is this, rather than any masterful talent when in touch, that makes him such an appealing cricketer. I'm not disagreeing that he's still got more to prove.. but I think this alone marks him out as a more worthwhile top order bat than (say) Tresco (the weakest of the top 6 in my book).

Originally Posted by Ernest

Rachael how could you say this, England were in dire straits when Flintoff came to join Thorpe, and together with patient defencive batting, once again this duo saw England out of trouble(again). Only for Flintoff backing Thorpe the way he did, Jones would not have had the freedon to play his shots.

I'm quite happy that Flintoff's eventualy played a decent innings.. but the dire straits were not to e found when he came out to bat 2nd time around (when, to be fair, even Ronnie Irani or Dominick Cork would have fancied their chances) .. but when he came out to bat 1st time around.

Better batsmen than Flintoff have reputations for only making runs when the pressure is reduced.. let's hope this doesn't prove true of your hero.

[Ernest]

It's all here Rachael click here Flintoff was second only to Hoggard in South Africas first innings, he took 2 wickets, Hoggard took 3, but I think Flintoff was more economical, so it is up for debate who was the best bowler.

Ok lets have it your way, lets take Englands first innings into account, Flintoff got 0, but Vaughan was little better with 1, in fact none of the batsmen were any great shakes, you can't just single out Flintoff.

So Englands second innings,Strauss and Trescothick played out of their skins, Strauss was no better than Trescothick, in fact Strauss played great, but then seemed to have the jitteres.

And I think it fair comment to say, batsmen, not just Strauss have to learn to pick an innings up the following day.

So Strauss was out, he had done his bit,Butcher got 13, and Vaughan 10, when they were out, England were still in danger of losing the match.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Vaughan is arguably in better touch than his recent scores suggest... and from what I hear is {a} looking the part; {b} getting out to decent bowling (unlike his colleagues, including Strauss, who have basically been gifting their wickets away

How can you say this, is there an excuse for him every time, Strauss had an excuse if he played a bad shot, maybe he was tired, he had spent time at the crease, unlike Vaughan.

Originally Posted by Rachael

I'm quite happy that Flintoff's eventualy played a decent innings.. but the dire straits were not to e found when he came out to bat 2nd time around (when, to be fair, even Ronnie Irani or Dominick Cork would have fancied their chances) .. but when he came out to bat 1st time around.

Better batsmen than Flintoff have reputations for only making runs when the pressure is reduced.. let's hope this doesn't prove true of your hero

You must be joking, when Flintoff came in to join Thorpe, defeat was still a possibilaty, but Flintoff stuck to his task, and HE and Thorpe steered England to safety.
This gave Jones the licence to have a go, and put England in a winning possition.
In South Africas second innings, with his 2 wickets, he was second only to Hoggard again.

Originally Posted by Rachael

I'm quite happy that Flintoff's eventualy played a decent innings..

Is this the same Freddie Flintoff who was Englands best batsman in the 2004 summer"eventually", don't know what you mean.

I think it safe to say, Butcher will have to shape up soon, or Key will take his spot, and on form alone, Vaughan would not get in the side, he is only in there because of his captaining skills.

[Rachael]

OK Ernest.. if you think Butcher's so weak let's compare his 2 knocks of note with Flintoff's two knocks of note.

Butcher came in at 152/1 in the 43rd over and helped add 194 in a 63 over period that built a platform for the match. Flintoff contributed merely 35 runs. Both got starts and then out to brainless shots…. But at least Butcher's error was induced by being deceived by the bowler and came after 4.5 hours of batting: Flintoff just went nuts just as England needed a cool head and whilst the guy was still fresh!

Roll on to the 2nd innings of this last Test where Butcher "failed": he made just 13 runs.. But actually batted for an hour and 40 minutes… helping advance the score by some 41 runs… but more significantly seeing off some 22 overs in the cause of saving the match.

Flintoff, by contrast, "succeeded"... posting 60 and helping advance the score by 114.. but actually only batted for 46 minutes longer than Butcher.

This is what I mean about Butcher: he has, by all accounts, been scratching around.. and yet in one innings he has anchored things to help England reach a winning position.. and in another.. where he ostensibly "failed".. he still found a way to help the england cause quite considerably during nervous moments.

I'm not putting down Fintoff's most recent innings: it was, by all accounts, a solid, measured performance.. but that success didn't do that much more to make the game safe than did Butcher's "failure".

Some players are worth more than their runs: Butcher is one.

ps. not sure quite what you are suggesting about Flintoff in the bowling.... Flintoff SHOULD have been the more pentrating (the pitch suited the taller bowlers and was a good one for people who could just land it on the seam in the right areas).. but he dropped far too many short.. and offered far too many loose balls.... and as I recall took at least one of his 2 wickets with a truly rank delivery.

Pps. Hoggard WAS more economical... but that's pretty irrelevent: there's a huge difference between being economical whilst pitching the ball up and landing it in the right areas to make the batsmen play (which Hoggard seems to be mastering).. and being economical "Alan Mullally style"... meaning by whizzing lots of pointless deliveries through in ways that demand nothing of the batsmen (as your man has increasingly been doing).

Ppps. this tells a story.

JH Kallis                 0s   1s   2s   3s   4s   6s   Runs  Balls    RP6B
v MJ Hoggard              46   10    4    0    2    0     26     62    2.52
v SJ Harmison             54   14    2    0    4    0     34     74    2.76
v A Flintoff              35    8    1    2    5    1     42     52    4.85
v SP Jones                35    8    2    0    9    0     48     54    5.33
v MP Vaughan              15    4    2    0    1    0     12     22    3.27
Total                    185   44   11    2   21    1    162    264    3.68

Hoggard kept Kallis to just 26 off 63 balls at 2.52 per over (with just two boundariess.. one every 5 overs). Kallis took Flintoff for 42 runs off just 52 balls at 4.85 per over with a boundary every over.

Curiously, Harmison actually did OK stats wise in that breakdown... but that just shows their weakness - Harmison was droping 3-4 or even 5 an over short rather than just the 1 an over that was called for... so managed a stack of dot balls - economical but pointless.