Now and then

[John]

How does the South African team compare to the side that last toured blighty.

1.The obvious misses will be Shaun Pollock and Gary Kirsten. Shaun was already on his way down by that tour but despite that he will be missed.
Gary was a good and experienced batsmen. He will be missed.

2. A lot of players have older and may be coming towards the end of their careers. Ninti ,Kallis and Boucher. None of these are at the top of their game anymore.

3. Two additions in the last year Steyn who is looking better and better and Morne Morkel who without setting the world on fire has put in a couple of decent performances.

4. The lack of an allrounder is an obvious problem.

I think Smith will have to bat like he did in 2003 for SA to have any chance.

[Rachael]

This strikes me as a curious assessment of where South African cricket is at... and especially with respect to Pollock. He wasn't really "on the way down" even when he retired: he had a few seasons where minor injuries limit him, but he was forced out of the side by an absolutely appalling, pace-obsessed coach at a time when he was bowling beautifully - in his last 6 Tests he took 26 at 18.46!!!

That said.. the seam bowling looks as strong as anyone's these days...

Re: Boucher... I'd say he was at his peak now. After years of being a disgrace he could almost be classed as a gloveman nowadays

Re: the all-rounder issue... is Kallis not going to be fit to bowl? If so... what's the problem?

I don't doubt that Kirsten will be missed: any side would miss such an outstanding contributer... but the only real weakness I see in the current SA side is the perennial one of slow bowling. If we end up with a long, dry summer that could be a major issue.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by John

I think Smith will have to bat like he did in 2003 for SA to have any chance.

I think the left handed Smith is the batsman that will test Anderson, Broad and Sidebottom, also Kallis will pose the same problems.
If England can handle these two players, then they will win the series.

I am not sure the England bowlers bowl well against big hitters like Smith, look how the New Zealand attacking batsmen took the England bowling to task.

A big plus for England will be if Flintoff is fit, he has bowled well in the past against SA, remember when he and Hoggard between them won a series for England in SA I think in 2004?.

To close to call this coming series.

[Occasional Fan]

In the meantime, Smith has torn a hamstring while playing quick cricket or something in India. He reckons he will struggle to be fit for the start of the South Africa tour, although the coach has other ideas about that.

BBC report here.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

In the meantime, Smith has torn a hamstring while playing quick cricket or something in India.

I am not surprised players get hurt in that ridiculous so called format of cricket - the way players have to stretch running very tight runs is just asking for trouble. Twenty/Twenty is far to physical with players having to overstretch themselves in every aspect of this game. I think even supporters of this format will have to concede it can't be played side by side with the same players of Test cricket.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Ernest

I am not surprised players get hurt in that ridiculous so called format of cricket

Players get injured in all forms of cricket; some even get injured when practising or training (or walking on a stray oval object).

Originally Posted by Ernest

I think even supporters of this format will have to concede it can't be played side by side with the same players of Test cricket.

It will have to; unless you'd rather see all the best players in the world announce retirements from Test cricket to focus on ODIs and Twenty20!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Players get injured in all forms of cricket; some even get injured when practising or training (or walking on a stray oval object).It will have to

Yes I agree with the above M, but why exacerbate the matter with Test players having to stretch and chuck themselves about in the frantic 20/20 game?.

Originally Posted by Maranello

unless you'd rather see all the best players in the world announce retirements from Test cricket to focus on ODIs and Twenty20!

Well M, I would rather players make a choice between either playing in the new frantic matches, or concentrating on the their Test cricket - I see a split between the two formats.

Can you really see Flintoff or even Shoaib being able to compete in 20/20 with their injury track records, and if they tried - how long would they last?.

I would have more time for 20/20 if it was a sport in it's own right, with it's own players and managers - I think that's the sencible way to go.

[Rachael]

I can see Twenty20 offering injury prone players a way to continue their careers long after their Test career has ended. Sure, it is intense... but a bowler only need manage 4 overs. What is a batsman typically going to face? I haven't paid enough attention to even make an informed guess, but the answer is basically "not many".

I can see Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath carrying on for several more years in Twenty20, and injury afflicted players giving up Test cricket to extend a career in a form of the game that puts rather less strain on the body.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I can see Twenty20 offering injury prone players a way to continue their careers long after their Test career has ended.

That's a fair comment I could agree with, but while players are still involved in Test cricket - I believe they should be banned from taking part is such a frenetic physical sport, or lose there Test places.

I believe this has to be the way, otherwise players like Flintoff or Simon Jones (if he ever returns) or Bond et at - will miss more Test cricket than they play through stress injuries.

[Ninjaman]

And who is going to ban them?