England v South Africa - 1st Test @ Lord's

[SUFCEssex]

looks like it could be a long slow day today.

 

[Southminster_Shrimper]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Pretty dull as test matches go although I guess SA are just playing for a bore draw.

I hope there is more action at the Oval else I maybe forced to get very drunk...

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The surprise was more that South Africa collapsed in the first innings, than the game heading towards a draw.

I was pretty wary about enforcing the follow-on as I thought it would most likely just kill our bowlers, not the best idea considering we've back-to-back tests.

For those thinking if Flintoff had played it might have been a different story, think back to the Sri Lanka test at Lords a few years back. Saj Mahmood bowled excellently to rip the heart out of the Sri Lankan middle order, England asked the Lankans to bat again and Freddie bowled about 40 fruitless overs on a flat pitch as England sought to bowl out SL again, and it is widely assumed that that effort was the cause of his injury problems.

 

[Grayson]

Smith out. The door has been slightly opened, we need to now batter it down.

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

The surprise was more that South Africa collapsed in the first innings, than the game heading towards a draw.

I was pretty wary about enforcing the follow-on as I thought it would most likely just kill our bowlers, not the best idea considering we've back-to-back tests.

For those thinking if Flintoff had played it might have been a different story, think back to the Sri Lanka test at Lords a few years back. Saj Mahmood bowled excellently to rip the heart out of the Sri Lankan middle order, England asked the Lankans to bat again and Freddie bowled about 40 fruitless overs on a flat pitch as England sought to bowl out SL again, and it is widely assumed that that effort was the cause of his injury problems.

Totally agree. The Sri Lanka Test shows just how difficult it has been in recent years to bowl a side out twice at Lords, and it may have been worth batting for a session and a half just to give the bowlers a rest. That said, there's no guarantee that the pitch would've broken up enough to enforce a win in the last 150 overs.

I thought England actually bowled and fielded (Ambrose apart) pretty well today. Vaughan was inventive with his field positions and bowling changes, and Pietersen was unlucky twice (once when Smith gloved one down the leg side before lunch and then when Ambrose dropped a regulation one just before the new ball) not to grab a second innings wicket. How few runs and how many chances does Ambrose have to drop before he himself is sent back to Warwickshire to regain some form and confidence (for the record, his current Test average of 27 is one run better than James Foster's, the Essex man easily having been thrust into the international arena before he was ready).

South Africa batted well today, and McKenzie's innings was reminiscent of Michael Atherton's numerous efforts for England in the 1990s. If they get through to lunch no more than three down, they should have enough in hand to get a draw. If England nick a couple out with the new-ish ball early on, then it could get a little interesting with SA having a reasonably long tail.

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Pretty dull as test matches go although I guess SA are just playing for a bore draw.

I hope there is more action at the Oval else I maybe forced to get very drunk...

Today's day (particularly the first two sessions) was compelling rather than boring. SA had to be prepared to bat for five sessions to save this match, and up against Sidebottom and Anderson with the new ball and then Monty wheeling away into the rough to Smith and attempting to induce an outside edge from McKenzie, it was proper Test match cricket (i.e. a test of character).

What Twenty20 cricket in particular, and also the increase in run-rates in Test cricket worldwide, has done is make that sort of day less interesting to some people, but I hope that the 30,000 who paid £65-£80 for a ticket today appreciated that the day's play was two international sides battling toe-to-toe, one to win and the other to save the match.

 

[Southminster_Shrimper]

Today's day (particularly the first two sessions) was compelling rather than boring. SA had to be prepared to bat for five sessions to save this match, and up against Sidebottom and Anderson with the new ball and then Monty wheeling away into the rough to Smith and attempting to induce an outside edge from McKenzie, it was proper Test match cricket (i.e. a test of character).

What Twenty20 cricket in particular, and also the increase in run-rates in Test cricket worldwide, has done is make that sort of day less interesting to some people, but I hope that the 30,000 who paid £65-£80 for a ticket today appreciated that the day's play was two international sides battling toe-to-toe, one to win and the other to save the match.

I have been to many a game of various forms so know how it works. I was just saying that it made for what is now considered boring viewing and it was if you compare it to the other matches.

Its quite rare these days to get such a tactical test match.

My hope is that my £60 ticket will show more action in a day than this has. As much for me than anyone else.

I paid the same for a 20/20 finals day ticket at the oval and despite some rain it was an absolutely superb day. Best money for cricket I have spent although the 5 6s in an over from Dimi last summer was special.

Its obvious where the masses will be attracted but I will watch it regardless. I just thought today was a bit boring, probably as much for the tactics combined with the flat pitch. All for a side batting to save the match, its unusual to have the pitch in their favour tho....

 

[SUFCEssex]

SA had a decent day today and although it wasn't T20 action spilled entertainment it was a days cricket and i sat there with a few beers watching nearly all day.

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

I have been to many a game of various forms so know how it works. I was just saying that it made for what is now considered boring viewing and it was if you compare it to the other matches.

Its quite rare these days to get such a tactical test match.

My hope is that my £60 ticket will show more action in a day than this has. As much for me than anyone else.

I paid the same for a 20/20 finals day ticket at the oval and despite some rain it was an absolutely superb day. Best money for cricket I have spent although the 5 6s in an over from Dimi last summer was special.

Its obvious where the masses will be attracted but I will watch it regardless. I just thought today was a bit boring, probably as much for the tactics combined with the flat pitch. All for a side batting to save the match, its unusual to have the pitch in their favour tho....

Although it was the same pitch that England shot SA out for 247 on the third day - that's probably now shown to have been the anomaly with only three and five wickets falling on days one and two.

I thought Vaughan's tactics were intriguing; mixing up the bowlers, turning to Pietersen to bowl to Smith at the end of each session, putting in two mid-wickets or two men in close on the offside, the umbrella field for Collingwood, a specialist point for Smith, Monty's different lines and Sidebottom varying his angle of delivery.

I suppose I spent much of my formative years watching England battling (and failing miserably most of the time) to save Test matches in the mid- to late-1990s. I loved watching Michael Atherton bat for hours and remember being glued to the radio for two days as he saved that Test in SA with his 185*, so I probably have a ridiculously high boredom threshold!

I enjoy watching all forms of the game, but I would contend that the final hour of Essex's Twenty20 quarter-final win over Northants was more boring than today's six-and-a-half hours of play at Lord's.

 

[number11]

How few runs and how many chances does Ambrose have to drop before he himself is sent back to Warwickshire to regain some form and confidence (for the record, his current Test average of 27 is one run better than James Foster's, the Essex man easily having been thrust into the international arena before he was ready).

.

My shout earlier in the season was that a return for Freddie would maybe need to co-incide with a return for Prior behind the stumps. Freddie's form just isnt good enough for a spot in the top 6, but if we have Prior Freddie and Broad occupying the 6/7/8 slots (I think there could be an argument for Prior going ahead of Freddie) then that is not too bad a lower middle order. Id fancy more runs from that combo then Colly / Ambrose / Broad, plus you get an extra front line bowler.

Again it comes back to the question of whether to go with a specialist keeper, but sadly, as silky as his glovework may be, I just dont think Foster has been weighing in with enough runs in the championship.

 

[sufcintheprem]

The South Africans just look to be cruising so far today. The short balls at Amla are all a bit predictable and not really causing him any problems. Unless Monty steps in with something special, I'm not sure anythign other than a draw is coming here.

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

My shout earlier in the season was that a return for Freddie would maybe need to co-incide with a return for Prior behind the stumps. Freddie's form just isnt good enough for a spot in the top 6, but if we have Prior Freddie and Broad occupying the 6/7/8 slots (I think there could be an argument for Prior going ahead of Freddie) then that is not too bad a lower middle order. Id fancy more runs from that combo then Colly / Ambrose / Broad, plus you get an extra front line bowler.

Again it comes back to the question of whether to go with a specialist keeper, but sadly, as silky as his glovework may be, I just dont think Foster has been weighing in with enough runs in the championship.

Prior would certainly weigh in with enough runs - I think you could make a genuine shout for him to be selected as a specialist batsman ahead of Collingwood to be honest, although obviously Colly offers a little bit with the ball and is an excellent fielder.

I suppose you have to weigh up whether you want your wicketkeeper-batsman to be a wicketkeeper or a batsman! There were a few 'half-chances' in the last Test (I'm thinking here of Smith gloving one down the leg-side off Smith just before lunch on day four and then getting an inside edge against Panesar IIRC) that Ambrose didn't even get close to. The score at that stage would've been 40-1 or 60-1 respectively and the entire innings would've had a different complexion. I'd've back Fossie to have caught either of them, tough as they may have seemed. Prior probably wouldn't, Ambrose certainly didn't, but in theory Prior would've got more runs than Ambrose did, or Foster would.

Personally, I would pick a specialist wicketkeeper every time and let the top six get the majority of the runs. Certainly if Prior played he could bat at six ahead of Freddie, but a middle order of Flintoff, Foster and Broad is far from brittle. Fossie played a lot of battling innings in his Test career, and averaged 26. I reckon with the improvements he has made to his game, he would average 30+ in Test cricket now. Remember, Mark Boucher, who has been first-choice for SA for a decade, only averages 30 in Test cricket, and nobody complains that he doesn't contribute.

 

[MrB]

Saw a couple of little stats which sums up just how flat the Lords pitch is these days:

'Six draws in a row at Lord's equals what is believed to be the record for a single venue, previously held by the National Stadium in Karachi between 1969 and 1978.'

'In the 1970s, English batsmen hit eight Test hundreds at Lord's. In the 1980s, they made 12; in the 1990s, 10; and in the 2000s, a whopping 32, with Sri Lanka and Australia next year still to come.'

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

It's all to do with the new drainage apparently. Because it's so good, the water table is now a lot lower than it was, with the obvious effects on the pitches.

 

[number11]

Prior would certainly weigh in with enough runs - I think you could make a genuine shout for him to be selected as a specialist batsman ahead of Collingwood to be honest, although obviously Colly offers a little bit with the ball and is an excellent fielder.

I suppose you have to weigh up whether you want your wicketkeeper-batsman to be a wicketkeeper or a batsman! There were a few 'half-chances' in the last Test (I'm thinking here of Smith gloving one down the leg-side off Smith just before lunch on day four and then getting an inside edge against Panesar IIRC) that Ambrose didn't even get close to. The score at that stage would've been 40-1 or 60-1 respectively and the entire innings would've had a different complexion. I'd've back Fossie to have caught either of them, tough as they may have seemed. Prior probably wouldn't, Ambrose certainly didn't, but in theory Prior would've got more runs than Ambrose did, or Foster would.

Personally, I would pick a specialist wicketkeeper every time and let the top six get the majority of the runs. Certainly if Prior played he could bat at six ahead of Freddie, but a middle order of Flintoff, Foster and Broad is far from brittle. Fossie played a lot of battling innings in his Test career, and averaged 26. I reckon with the improvements he has made to his game, he would average 30+ in Test cricket now. Remember, Mark Boucher, who has been first-choice for SA for a decade, only averages 30 in Test cricket, and nobody complains that he doesn't contribute.

I agree with you on the keeper situation, but feel that unfortunately we need to have a better balance. If we were going with 6 specialist batsmen and 4 bowlers then a genuine keeper at 7 (especially with a competent 8) is fine. However Flintoff is unfortunately not a top 6 batsman on current form, and therefore we would need to compensate elsewhere.

With Ambrose, I just feel he is a halfway house between the two schools of thought. Prior is a decent batsman with a healthy test average, Foster a class keeper but not scored heavily enough and would expose a weak looking batting line up unless we had 6 out and out batters. Ambrose has some 'decent scores' and is an ok keeper. Id be more confident Prior working on his keeper to bring it up to adequate levels than Ambrose improving his batting to test match (or Foster) standard.

It looks like we are going to go into this game with Flintoff at 6, Ambrose 7, which is pretty weak (especially where our 9,10 and 11 are genuine tail enders).

THe other point this raises is whilst the Fletcher instigated system of selection consistency / loyalty has improved our team greatly, Im not a fan of players searching for their form in the test match arena. Ambrose, and Collingwood, have had a bit of a mare form wise (including the one dayers) and would surely benefit from racking up some championship runs, and the England team be strengthened by Prior coming in on the back of some decent form.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Prior would certainly weigh in with enough runs - I think you could make a genuine shout for him to be selected as a specialist batsman ahead of Collingwood to be honest, although obviously Colly offers a little bit with the ball and is an excellent fielder.

I suppose you have to weigh up whether you want your wicketkeeper-batsman to be a wicketkeeper or a batsman! There were a few 'half-chances' in the last Test (I'm thinking here of Smith gloving one down the leg-side off Smith just before lunch on day four and then getting an inside edge against Panesar IIRC) that Ambrose didn't even get close to. The score at that stage would've been 40-1 or 60-1 respectively and the entire innings would've had a different complexion. I'd've back Fossie to have caught either of them, tough as they may have seemed. Prior probably wouldn't, Ambrose certainly didn't, but in theory Prior would've got more runs than Ambrose did, or Foster would.

Personally, I would pick a specialist wicketkeeper every time and let the top six get the majority of the runs. Certainly if Prior played he could bat at six ahead of Freddie, but a middle order of Flintoff, Foster and Broad is far from brittle. Fossie played a lot of battling innings in his Test career, and averaged 26. I reckon with the improvements he has made to his game, he would average 30+ in Test cricket now. Remember, Mark Boucher, who has been first-choice for SA for a decade, only averages 30 in Test cricket, and nobody complains that he doesn't contribute.

Whilst Foster is a superior keeper to Prior, don't underestimate Prior's keeping. In Sri Lanka he took a brilliant catch at Kandy whilst standing up to Hoggy. His problems with keeping I think have been more to do with stamina and concentration (remember Foster had a nightmare debut in India, in similar conditions to those Prior struggled to maintain concentration in) and are more when back to Sidebottom than when up at the stumps. Having kept to Lewry for years at Sussex, I suspect those problems just needed working on rather than abandoning.

Personally I think England's strongest team would be Prior at 6, Flintoff at 7 and Broad at 8.

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

His problems with keeping I think have been more to do with stamina and concentration (remember Foster had a nightmare debut in India, in similar conditions to those Prior struggled to maintain concentration in) and are more when back to Sidebottom than when up at the stumps.

Foster never had a problem in the Tests, it was more the ODI's where he struggled. I think Prior is a busted flush in the keeping sense, I would have no problems with him playing as an out and out batter, but his keeping could well cost us more than the runs he scores. As ES said we need to decide whether we are ever going to play the best W/K (Foster) or pick bats who can put the gloves on, in which case we should probably go back to Prior. I know what I would rather do.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Foster never had a problem in the Tests, it was more the ODI's where he struggled. I think Prior is a busted flush in the keeping sense, I would have no problems with him playing as an out and out batter, but his keeping could well cost us more than the runs he scores. As ES said we need to decide whether we are ever going to play the best W/K (Foster) or pick bats who can put the gloves on, in which case we should probably go back to Prior. I know what I would rather do.

Foster's test debut was an absolute mare. He got a pair and dropped a couple of catches, one a real sitter, which is what I was referring to.

I firmly believe Prior's keeping can improve. I don't think his keeping was _that_ bad in county cricket, its just that he developed an issue keeping to Sideshow which he needed to work on. England were however too impatient.

I am however very much in the camp of picking a wicketkeeper on what they all-round offer to the team. I think picking a keeper who can genuinely bat at no.6 gives your team much better balance and allows you to pick 5 bowlers. The wicketkeeper batsman is the preferred route taken by Australia, South Africa, India, Pakistan etc and for good reason IMHO. If England go down the route of a pure keeper, I think that will put us at a significant disadvantage compared to countries who look for a batsmen who can keep to develop as their keeper.

 

[number11]

I am however very much in the camp of picking a wicketkeeper on what they all-round offer to the team. I think picking a keeper who can genuinely bat at no.6 gives your team much better balance and allows you to pick 5 bowlers. The wicketkeeper batsman is the preferred route taken by Australia, South Africa, India, Pakistan etc and for good reason IMHO. If England go down the route of a pure keeper, I think that will put us at a significant disadvantage compared to countries who look for a batsmen who can keep to develop as their keeper.

Im of the same view. If we had 6 front line batsmen and 4 match winning consistent bowlers then I think an out and out keeper at 7 is fine. From 04 to 05 when Flintoff was in good nick with the bat this was also fine. However playing Flintoff now at 6 means we need runs from elsewhere, particularly the keeper and I will stick with my shout that Prior will come in by end of the summer.

Always thought Alec Stewart was under appreciated by some, but he was as good a keeper around, plus was genuinly good enough to play as a batsman anywhere in the order....a player like him now would improve this England team greatly!!

 

[Perth Bambi]

Was a bit before my time but wasn't Alec Stewart a batsman who could keep rather then a wicket keeper who improved his batting.