Second Test: England v South Africa, Nottingham, July 14-18

[Slipstream]

some suggestions that Woakes wont play in the series

Why can't Woakes play 2nd XI cricket. Hameed played the other day against Warks 2nd XI. Got 71 (135)

no idea, just what i've read that he wont be fully fit til the WI series

I read that he will be fit for the next Test but there's only 20/20s happening at the moment and the first Warks match is played at the same time as the 4th Test.

[Arthur Crabtree]

On paper, this is a high quality side.

Not all that convinced. Not too many problems with this series so far though, a good win and a likely defeat. SA aren't an easy side to beat.

But compared with the last England side I would describe as strong (the one with KP and Swann that won in Australia and India) it feels that high quality might be overstating it a bit. Of the side that won in Melbourne and Sydney in 2010-11, I think from the present side, Root would get in for Collingwood and Broad would get in for Bresnan, though Broad played in that series (Cook and Anderson then were better than now). Prior was a better keeper than Bairstow and a more tested bat. The biggest problem is that Swann has in no way been adequately replaced, but there are many other deficiences.

[bigfluffylemon]

But there's still a lot they don't have. A spin attack, back up pace, or a pace attack that functions away from home. Batting depth and a reliable top order. A strong keeper (though JB is improving) and good catchers...

And in terms of behind the scenes, they are set up to bat recklessly but in the field attack too cautiously. The selectors have a dismal record recently and for the past few years England have had a limited and uninspiring captain.

With Woakes, Anderson, Broad and Stokes, they shouldn't need other pace attack players, except when one of them is injured (which I suppose is going to happen often).

Spin and the top order have been a problem, but batting depth shouldn't be. You've got Cook, Root, Stokes, Ali and Bairstow who've all averaged over 45 since the start of 2016 I think (Cook may be a little below), and Woakes who averages over 30 coming in at number 8 or 9. That's a deep batting line up, even if you have a couple of weaker bats in there. Most sides do - Ashwin bats as high as 7 for India, and while he's certainly capable with the bat, he averages 32. South Africa have had Duminy (average 32) and Dean Elgar (average 38) in the side for years, and it hasn't stopped them being very difficult to beat. Australia have been carrying the Marsh brothers for ages, and haven't found a decent replacement for Haddin. These sides are a lot more consistent with the bat than England, especially at home.

This is my point. England's stats are highly misleading in that they point to a side that shouldn't be struggling with the bat anything like as much as it does. Most of the problems you point out (keeping, catching, spin) are in the field rather than with the bat. The only answer I can give is that England are too reckless compared to the likes of India, South Africa and Australia who seem more able to grind out big scores and wear the opposition down. England attack too much, as you say. When it comes off, they destroy opposition attacks and they win comfortably. When it doesn't, they collapse. Hence a record over the last two years or so of extremes - win big or lose big, with very little in between (and few draws to boot).

[bigfluffylemon]

On paper, this is a high quality side.

Not all that convinced. Not too many problems with this series so far though, a good win and a likely defeat. SA aren't an easy side to beat.

Ok, I phrased that poorly. On paper, this is a side with many quality players. But they seem incapable of translating that quality into consistent results, whether because the gaps in the side are too big to cover over, or for other reasons.

[bigfluffylemon]

5 draws in 33 games (including this one, which is going to end with a result one way or another) since the start of 2015. And perhaps in only one of those 5 games were England batting to save the draw (SA Cape Town). In the others, they were on top and failed to force the win

I think there is the problem.

[rich1uk]

dont know if this is too simplistic but we have a middle order that are all quite samey, all very dangerous and can score quickly, but grinding out an innings isn't really something that comes naturally to any of them

we've seen us recover alot from 80odd for 4 to post decent scores with counter attacks but that also carries the risk of 80odd for 4 turning into 150 all out

[Arthur Crabtree]

[quote="bigfluffylemonSpin and the top order have been a problem, but batting depth shouldn't be.[/quote]

I wasn't clear there. Of course England probably have the best batting down the order since SA in the late nineties. I meant more that they are struggling to find batters to take spots in the top five. Ballance, Duckett, Vince, Lyth, Hales... Still waiting to see with Jennings.

[Arthur Crabtree]

dont know if this is too simplistic but we have a middle order that are all quite samey, all very dangerous and can score quickly, but grinding out an innings isn't really something that comes naturally to any of them

we've seen us recover alot from 80odd for 4 to post decent scores with counter attacks but that also carries the risk of 80odd for 4 turning into 150 all out

Yes. Couldn't England have seen off Philander and Morkel and then put pressure on the less experienced bowlers? But they all wanted to be playing shots all the time. A couple of hours spent making the bowlers work could only have helped England.

[bigfluffylemon]

dont know if this is too simplistic but we have a middle order that are all quite samey, all very dangerous and can score quickly, but grinding out an innings isn't really something that comes naturally to any of them

we've seen us recover alot from 80odd for 4 to post decent scores with counter attacks but that also carries the risk of 80odd for 4 turning into 150 all out

Yes. Couldn't England have seen off Philander and Morkel and then put pressure on the less experienced bowlers? But they all wanted to be playing shots all the time. A couple of hours spent making the bowlers work could only have helped England.

Too true.

I guess victory is not impossible if we bowl them out for less than 150, but frankly I think the game is already lost.

[meninblue]

But there's still a lot they don't have. A spin attack, back up pace, or a pace attack that functions away from home. Batting depth and a reliable top order. A strong keeper (though JB is improving) and good catchers...

And in terms of behind the scenes, they are set up to bat recklessly but in the field attack too cautiously. The selectors have a dismal record recently and for the past few years England have had a limited and uninspiring captain.

With Woakes, Anderson, Broad and Stokes, they shouldn't need other pace attack players, except when one of them is injured (which I suppose is going to happen often).

Spin and the top order have been a problem, but batting depth shouldn't be. You've got Cook, Root, Stokes, Ali and Bairstow who've all averaged over 45 since the start of 2016 I think (Cook may be a little below), and Woakes who averages over 30 coming in at number 8 or 9. That's a deep batting line up, even if you have a couple of weaker bats in there. Most sides do - Ashwin bats as high as 7 for India, and while he's certainly capable with the bat, he averages 32. South Africa have had Duminy (average 32) and Dean Elgar (average 38) in the side for years, and it hasn't stopped them being very difficult to beat. Australia have been carrying the Marsh brothers for ages, and haven't found a decent replacement for Haddin. These sides are a lot more consistent with the bat than England, especially at home.

This is my point. England's stats are highly misleading in that they point to a side that shouldn't be struggling with the bat anything like as much as it does. Most of the problems you point out (keeping, catching, spin) are in the field rather than with the bat. The only answer I can give is that England are too reckless compared to the likes of India, South Africa and Australia who seem more able to grind out big scores and wear the opposition down. England attack too much, as you say. When it comes off, they destroy opposition attacks and they win comfortably. When it doesn't, they collapse. Hence a record over the last two years or so of extremes - win big or lose big, with very little in between (and few draws to boot).

The coach during the tour of India said that they want to play attacking cricket in test match. When that is the strategy, it is difficult to play big innings like Chet. Having one Sehwag / Gilchrist / Warner / KP type player in batting lineup of 6 or 7 is fine. But if more players try to play that type of cricket in tests, except when the match situation allows too, it is a very risky strategy.

[rich1uk]

just watching CWoTV and they are having a similar discussion to what we were having above and without wanting to open up a debate on KP again, its almost as if we are seeing the mindset he used to get criticised for applying to our whole team atm

that we play the way we play, when it comes off it looks great and we win, when it doesn't come off, we lose, and its not going to change

i know its easier said than done but they have to learn better situational awareness, that doesn't mean Ben Stokes or Moeen Ali becoming Chris Tavare but just recognising when to dig in

[sussexpob]

England have a 1 that it is argued is past his best. They don't yet have a fixed 2. They don't have a fixed 3. 4, no problem. Their 5 is coming to the end of a wonderful spell if form and has made himself safe. Their 6 averages 32 and scores a century every 8.5 tests.

So in batting, we have two set players, one there on name and a tiny question mark, three that are not good enough.

Our 7 is slowly learning to bat better. But still an overall average of 35 with bat, 40 with ball isn't cutting it really in any specific role in the team, arguably even as all rounder.

That means a second all-rounder is in, who seems to be a wild miracle hope pick.

Our seam bowling attack has two ageing legends, but surely one or both with decline soon. Without wakes that leaves seam options averaging nearly 40 and 35. With no spin holding option that's test class consistently, this leaves a potentially deep hole if the new ball isn't doing the job.

So, we have arguably 5, probably 6 places occupied solidly. With potentially more than half the team a very bad series away from the drop.

Add in the fact that the back ups are hardly inspiring, that there has been a decade long consistent string of selection misses, and I fail to see how the prognosis is positive.

England are a root injury away from being a beatable team for anyone.

[rich1uk]

i always like how cheerful you are Sussex


they've just made another point on CWoTV that has been rattling around in my head, we have been very reluctant to pick guys that are late 20s/early 30s and whether we need to take a leaf out of Australia's book and the success they had with Rodgers and Voges, rather than worry about whether someone might only have a couple of good years left in them

the two sides of that are if someone has made it to 30 without getting picked then are they good enough, but that argument fails to recognise that people change both mentally and technically over time, and given how important temperament, patience and discipline are for a batsman then some people only gain that as they get a bit older, some of us are still looking

[sussexpob]

Maybe a good point, but more linked to the face that fits problems that England implemented throughout the setup. England have a vision of the perfect cricketer, if you don't tick enough boxes and pass enough tests to prove you can tick them in the future, your ignored.

I'd say it's as simple as pick form players with enough historical good performance to back it. This creating test match players nonsense hasn't work

[rich1uk]

the issue we always seem to end up with is that because we stick with under-performing players for so long, that by the time someone who has got the selectors attention from being in great form is actually given a chance, their form has cooled off