Based on what criteria Acker?

That supposedly 'successful squad' has consistently failed to 1) Take 20 wickets per Test Match and 2) Beat any side not not in the bottom 2 or 3 places of the ICC rankings table.

They cannot beat any side not considered one of the worst in the ICC.

If he's not been fit then why has he been selected?
He may have his wickets under 30 but if you discount the cheap ones against the WI and NZ whats his record like then??

No, it only pick one of them.

I was asking the same question.....

__________________
Mark.

Well said. England completely outplayed SA in the first Test... played better than the scoreline suggests in the second Test... and were the better side in this most recent Test. That doesn't mean all is well... but I'm more encouraged now than I was (say) in the years immediately following the disappearance of Gough, Caddick and White... or in the years immediately following the disappearance of Simon Jones for that matter!

What is getting really lost in this discussion, however, is just how encouraging the SA performance has been. The batting was supposed to be "Kallis plus a bunch of nobodies"... but that's been anything but the case. The bowling has also been decent.

Bottom line: it's already been a very interesting series and there's still more to come!

As I understand it from what the commentators had to say about the issue, NE, was that the batsmen who were having problems with sighting Flintoff were McKenzie and Kallis who were much taller than DeVilliers and Boucher.It had something to do with the angle at which they were sighting the full deliveries(yorkers) from Flintoff, this problem didn't unfortunately extend to the left-handed Smith who is pretty tall. It was why Kallis was very upset and McKenzie looked disturbed after the dismissal. I did see Flintoff try yorkers against Boucher and DeVilliers and they successfully dug them out.

Well anyone who has been looking at South African cricket for the last 6-8 months knew this wasn't the case. DeVilliers scored a double hundred, McKenzie, Smith played well in India in conditions completely foriegn to them.They are a winning team with a momentum which is why I always felt they had that slight edge over England and now they have come out on top.

Played on a ground Lords that has had a recent history of becoming a placid pitch late in test matches, so I think your not bowling them out in test 1 theory is being blown out of proportions with scant regard for extenuating circumstances.

As for who they are beating, they can only beat who they play against and if that happens to be a team low on the ICC test rankings so be it. And I stated that I thought the reasons in my previous post were the catalyst as to why they stopped winning/drawing and in general halted what had previously been a fairly succesful cricket season and then lost two games in a row.

A typically fair and balanced comment, Rachael, and one that I endorse. England have had a hard time, but the series has been a good one and I am looking forward to trying to follow the Oval test from Greece later this week.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan