SA vs Eng: positives and negatives.

[Rachael]

With day one fully over I was wondering if we could come up with some sort of fairly objective assesment of positives and negatives that each coach might be reflecting on (especially inthe light of the fact that both sides seem to be seeing this series as a significant measure of where they are at).

Home side first: performances with the bat.

Seems likely that the SA camp would not have been mad keen on being 8 down at the end of the first day having won the toss.. especially with <300 on the board.. but that a couple of real positives can be drawn out of this situation: {i} that score was posted through the efforts of the lesser stars of the side, notably Rudolph and Dippenaar... and without any assistance of any sort from the two proven performers, Smith and Kallis; and {ii} despite the losses... all the lesser batsmen showed encouraging signs of being able to cope with the pace and bounce offered by Harmison, Flintoff and Jones... if not with the craft of Hoggard and Giles. Worry that things are only going to get tougher must be fairly well matched against relief that the team does actually look the part.

Away side second: performances with the ball and in the field.

Presumably there is much rejoicing that after a day of getting away (Hoggard and Giles aside) with pretty ordinary performances (talk sport talked of more balls in the wrong areas than the right areas)... the match is very much England's for the taking. The encouragement that comes from knowing that they have competed without the "big guns" really firing must match the SA camps delight in who stood up to be counted. Add in the obvious mitigating circumstances of a ropey warm up as preparation, a swirling breeze and good reason to think that Harmison, in particular, will bowl himself into the game... and the negatives (performances that a more confident team might have exploited) can be overlooked.

Thought for the day... this was "a good toss to lose". Given what Hoggard achieved.. and the poor preparation of the English batsmen... there's a very good chance (as the Talksport team noted) that Pollock would have been almost unplayable if he'd been bowling in the opening session... and that the situation could just as easily have been reversed.

One thing's for sure: on a pitch that had "draw" written all over it.. that's not looking like a likely outcome right now.

[Rachael]

I'm going to try and find both English and (if someone ca point me in the right direction) South African assessments.. but I'll kick off with the most obvious one: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...407520,00.html

Originally Posted by CMJ

England had the edge by the end, but for South Africa to have got within sight of 300 despite ducks for their two outstanding batsmen, Graeme Smith and Jacques Kallis, showed the level of determination in their ranks. In particular they refused to be bullied by the pace and hostility of Flintoff and Stephen Harmison.

Aside from noting the two obvious contributions.. CMJ singles out Pollock's "most fluent and untroubled innings" which was cut short when he "attracted from Hoggard the nearest thing to an unplayable ball all day". He also has (in a seperate article) interesting things to say about Giles. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...407536,00.html

ps. struggling to find decent SA analysis: best yet is http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/zones/s...103350940.aspx

[R W S]

Well I saw every ball after lunch so I'll give my input from that perspective.

The wicket is flat and slow and if England don’t score over 450 they need their lumps felt. This is the smallest test ground in SA and the outfield is quick. Smith was out playing at a ball he should have been watching (it was elbow height and a foot outside the off stump) - 2nd ball of the first test of a series at home and you're skipper - what was he thinking - all that 'dominate early' talk must have short circuited his usually calculating mind - don't expect him to make the mistake again.

AB de Villiers looks a good prospect and played fluently and without giving a chance, although many of his scoring strokes went in the air, particularly on the off side, before he was the victim of a contentious lbw decision.

Kallis, The big man got in a right pickle against Harmison and the way Vaughan brought back England’s ace to face the senior SA bat indicates a deliberate play out of the tactics room. Im not convinced the fast in swinging yorker that hit the base of his off stump at 92.6 mph was deliberate but I hope it was because it will have the effect of keeping Kallis in his crease for the next few innings at least.

Good stoical efforts from Rudolph & Dippenaar. Most of the Saffers were getting into an early crouch against Flintoff and many were struck (notably Rudolph) by his short of a length bowling. You get a fast track and they will be crapping themselves. It's no wonder Jennings ordered the pitch flooded. It will be interesting to see how Dale Steyn goes because there is no one else in the Saffers side with the threat of Harmison/Flintoff & yes even Jones. Oh alright Ntini has got it as well. . .

Giles bowled a negative leg side line and, with the exception of one ball to Dippenaar that bounced and turned off a length to miss both bat and off bail by millimetres , posed little threat. Why Hoggard wasnt bowled in the afternoon session when there wind was blowing strongly is the only question mark I have with Vaughan’s decision making. The way he placed a short mid off and a short extra cover for Giles showed a nice inventive touch in the field.

So it going to be about Delia Smith - and how good our cooking is.

it's very early and i not fully awake. . . .

[Rachael]

You might have been watching, RWS.. but were you listening? Everything that's been said by all the commentators suggests that this is NOT a 400+ pitch. Small fast outfield, yes, but a track that makes scoring quickly very difficult. Even as I speak someone on talksport is saying that the only times SA scored quickly yesterday were when England (and Harmison in particular) bowled poorly.

Your report sounds seriously partisan on two other points: every other commentator has been talking about how fluent, attractive and positive, rather than stoical, Rudolph's innings was.. and in suggesting that there was evidence that South African's will "be crapping themselves" when faced by the pace and bounce on a faster track.

What I DO find interesting are the reports that (despite the ordinary figures) Simon Jones' bowling was the big plus for England yesterday: seemingly not quite up to Hoggard's standard.. but far mre impressive than the figures indicate.

I'm with you in singling out AB de Villiers though: once Gibbs comes back from injury to reclaim his opener's spot... he looks an interesting prospect as a gloveman to come in at 7 or 8 in place of Tsolekile.

[R W S]

Originally Posted by Rachael

You might have been watching, RWS.. but were you listening? Everything that's been said by all the commentators suggests that this is NOT a 400+ pitch.

Get back to me on this if i really need to see an optician and get my ears tested.

Originally Posted by Steve Lynch - Editor of Cricinfo

The suspicion was that, on a sluggish pitch which is likely to get progressively slower and lower, South Africa's 337 was some way short of a par score.

"We probably finished up around 70-80 runs short, because we really needed to get to 400," admitted Dippenaar - although he wasn't giving up the fight. "We're up against it a bit, but tomorrow we'll come out fighting hard to turn it around."

You are perhaps the one with sensory deprevation! What ALL do you refer to?

England 150/0 off 41 overs - not a chance given

Originally Posted by Rachael

Your report sounds seriously partisan on two other points: every other commentator has been talking about how fluent, attractive and positive, rather than stoical, Rudolph's innings was..

Partisan? Me?
Rudolphs strike rate was under that of the innings as a whole (just what was needed granted - but 29 runs of 178 balls excluding the fours shows he was 'stoical' - in my EYES)

(152/1 - Steyn bowls Trescothick)

Originally Posted by Rachael

and in suggesting that there was evidence that South African's will "be crapping themselves" when faced by the pace and bounce on a faster track.

Originally Posted by BBC

Zander De Bruyn spent an uncertain 24 minutes at the crease. He looked vulnerable to the short ball and was out playing no shot to Flintoff

Originally Posted by Aggers

Tsolekile initially looked uncomfortable against some short-pitched Andrew Flintoff bowling.

We'll have to wait and see - but I'd like to revisit this point (whether Im right or wrong) when they get to Cape Town!

Originally Posted by Rachael

What I DO find interesting are the reports that (despite the ordinary figures) Simon Jones' bowling was the big plus for England yesterday: seemingly not quite up to Hoggard's standard.. but far mre impressive than the figures indicate.

Jones did indeed bowl with some menace - and bowled a fuller length than GBH/Fred. Promising.

Originally Posted by Rachael

I'm with you in singling out AB de Villiers though: once Gibbs comes back from injury to reclaim his opener's spot... he looks an interesting prospect as a gloveman to come in at 7 or 8 in place of Tsolekile.

If there wasnt a positive discrimination policy Im sure they would have considered giving him the gloves and batting him at six some serious thought. As for Gibbs . . . . he seems to have ********** someone off, luckily for England!

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by R W S

Get back to me on this if i really need to see an optician and get my ears tested.

I believe the pitch average for 1st class cricket at St George's Park is something like 310.. and would guess that against the Aussies.. most sides would jump at 320-340 on this pitch... but of course.. if the bowling is consistently too short.. and frequently ill-directed.. any sort of total is possible!

Originally Posted by R W S

As for Gibbs . . . . he seems to have ********** someone off, luckily for England!

He's ostensibly out through injury.. though his form has also been dire.