South Africa - chokers?

by jbeadlesbigrighthand Thu 20 Jun - 17:20

I was interested to read Gary Kirsten dismissing his own side as chokers in light of their defeat to England. Given the number of high profile players missing from the SA team, it seems a pretty harsh accusation. I didn't see the game however, so can't comment on whether it looked more like SA being over-awed by the occasion or more like they simply were the lesser team. Can anyone else cast any light?

On a wider note, is the label fair for SA cricket in general? Yes, SA have failed on the big occasion a number of times. It seems to me that the majority of these supposed chokes have been on the sub-continent. Also, have SA ever truly been favourites for a tournament? I've always felt that SA have traditionally had 1 or 2 real world class players backed up by a team of highly competitive guys who are not quite of the same calibre. It seems to me that SA sports teams will always be there or thereabouts, because they're a very athletic nation and because they're incredibly competitive. However, I feel that the cricket team, rather than choking have just lacked that little bit extra to get over the line.

by Duty281 Thu 20 Jun - 18:16

They certainly didn't choke yesterday. They were beaten by the clearly superior team - England.

by GSC Thu 20 Jun - 18:37

I think it was more than applicable yesterday. Yes England had conditions in their favor, and Anderson and Tredwell bowled well.

However the pitch wasn't doing anything extraordinary, Finn and Broad were largely wayward, so there wasnt really any excuse for 80-8.

by msp83 Thu 20 Jun - 21:45

Unfortunately, Kirsten is right.
England, particularly James Anderson, made life very difficult for the South African top order. But for all his troubles, he got only 2 wickets.
There was a certain sense of panic in the SA batting yesterday after Amla went early. Other than Faf du Plissis and Robin Peterson, no other batsman gave any sense of security at the crease, Amla didn't look his usual self, AB went flashing at a wide ball, and JP Duminy batted as if he was reliving the moments during the England series of 2010 when he was a walking wicket. To cap it all, Ryan McLaren then got out like a madman.
Taking absolutely nothing away from England, Anderson was terrific, Finn got an early big wicket, Tredwell bowled very well. But 80-8 was to a significant extent, South Africa's own making.

by skyeman Thu 20 Jun - 23:54

Not for me.

Surely choking, by it's very definition means when you are chasing?.

In sports, a "choke" is the failure of a team to win a game or tournament in which they had been strongly favored to win or has squandered a large lead in the later stages. Which does not apply this time

They just played very, very poorly this time, when batting FIRST.

Would Kirsten have said this if he were still the coach?. WEIRD.

by KP_fan Fri 21 Jun - 11:44

I don't think Kirsten really thinks so harshly about SA......he is simply trying to invoke "hurt" amidst SA players

and I agree with skyeman's statement.....neither SA nor SL choked....for choking is losing from a very very strong position.

Both teams were comprehensively crushed

by subhranshu.kumar.5 Fri 21 Jun - 12:21

Saying SA choked is itself a disrespect to the hard work done by English bowlers.

by kingraf Fri 21 Jun - 17:52

I don't think it was a choke. To choke in a match, I think you need to have legitimate designs of winning the match, at no point did we even have legitimate designs of scoring 200!! England played well, undoubtedly, and the toss was massive. But the boys were simply overrawed by the moment 80/8? AB was wild, Alma indecisive (to an admittedly good ball), McLaren lost the plot, Duminy played for turn, having seen no evidence of turn from Tredwell. We didn't choke but one team was playing with demons, some real (Anderson was truly phenomenal yesterday), and some imagined (20 years of baggage)

by Gerry SA Fri 21 Jun - 18:20

Hardly choking.

Missing Smith and Kallis proved costly in this tournament.

Then Morkel getting injured and Steyn only playing one match compromised the chance of winning the event.

Hopefully Tsotsobe is discarded as he's not worth a place in the side.

by kingraf Fri 21 Jun - 18:34

Ja Lopsy was disappointing. Some players never get it back after injury, might be the case with Lopsy. Although discarding bowlers (who as a unit had only one bad match) because they couldn't defend 175 is a tad harsh. But there are real positives to take from this tournament. Phangiso in his only match showed that he truly does belong. Miller is finally living up to the hype. Ingram was a worthy replacement to Smith, and McLaren showed that there might just be life after Kallis (in that bit and pieces, "We sold Ronaldo because we have Nani" manner). With 18 months to go until 2015, I am quite happy with where we are. in ODI's. As a team, when at full strength we will do well in Australia.
Morris
Morkel
Steyn
Peterson
Phangiso
McLaren
Duminy is a very decent attack to pick from, especially in Australia where raw pace counts for that much more. while picking batsmen from
De Kock (I suspect)
Smith
AB
Amla
Kallis
Duminy
Miller
Robbie P (he looked more bstsman and less pinch hitter at three)
Ingram
Du Plessis
will be a lovely headache. All in all, Champions Trophies have always served as barometer to where teams are, and overall Im happy

by jbeadlesbigrighthand Fri 21 Jun - 18:43

Gerry, that was my view. Not just Smith, Kallis, Steyn, Morkel, but also no Philander, or de Lange, who, before getting injured, looked like he could have given the selectors some headaches. But then why would Kirsten say that? I don't buy the theory of psyching up the players. Surely it just adds pressure?

To play Devil's advocate, I don't see why you have to be in a winning position to choke. Choking is just a case of under-performing under pressure. That can be a reaction to the event itself as much as the situation.

by Gerry SA Fri 21 Jun - 18:48

kingraf wrote:Ja Lopsy was disappointing. Some players never get it back after injury, might be the case with Lopsy. Although discarding bowlers (who as a unit had only one bad match) because they couldn't defend 175 is a tad harsh. But there are real positives to take from this tournament. Phangiso in his only match showed that he truly does belong. Miller is finally living up to the hype. Ingram was a worthy replacement to Smith, and McLaren showed that there might just be life after Kallis (in that bit and pieces, "We sold Ronaldo because we have Nani" manner). With 18 months to go until 2015, I am quite happy with where we are. in ODI's. As a team, when at full strength we will do well in Australia.
Morris
Morkel
Steyn
Peterson
Phangiso
McLaren
Duminy is a very decent attack to pick from, especially in Australia where raw pace counts for that much more. while picking batsmen from
De Kock (I suspect)
Smith
AB
Amla
Kallis
Duminy
Miller
Robbie P (he looked more bstsman and less pinch hitter at three)
Ingram
Du Plessis
will be a lovely headache. All in all, Champions Trophies have always served as barometer to where teams are, and overall Im happy

For me JP Duminy continues to disappoint. His weakness against spin is getting worst by the day. He's 29 years old now and his not improving as a batsman of his talent should've.

By the time the 2015 World Cup starts, Marchant de Lange will be the leader of the attack. He was already identified as the man to bowl in the death overs until his back got screwed.

An attack of Steyn, de Lange, Morkel/Morris, McLaren and Peterson will be more than a handful.

I don't see Smith playing the 2015 World Cup. Or Duminy.

So I think the batting could look like this

Amla
de Kock/Ingram
Kallis/Duminy depending if Kallis' body fades. Then Duminy at 5.
Du Plessis
de Villiers
Miller
Peterson
McLaren

by Gerry SA Fri 21 Jun - 18:53

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:Gerry, that was my view. Not just Smith, Kallis, Steyn, Morkel, but also no Philander, or de Lange, who, before getting injured, looked like he could have given the selectors some headaches. But then why would Kirsten say that? I don't buy the theory of psyching up the players. Surely it just adds pressure?

To play Devil's advocate, I don't see why you have to be in a winning position to choke. Choking is just a case of under-performing under pressure. That can be a reaction to the event itself as much as the situation.

I think Kirsten is trying to keep the players motivated ahead of Russell Domingo taking the reigns.

Personally, I'm more than happy for Big Vern to be a Test only player.

De Lange is the big loss. Kirsten had labelled Marchant as the death bowler in the run up to the 2015 World Cup.

As great as Steyn is, he gets belted in the death overs. Tsotsobe has no clue have to bowl without swing or seam. McLaren's a decent death bowler, but he's not got the pace of Marchant.

The pieces are there to dominate ODI cricket, but they've not fallen into place yet.

by trebellbobaggins Sat 22 Jun - 13:13

No I don't think they are. I think they lost the toss and faced great bowling in tough conditions and then, like any team can, collapsed under the pressure to up the run rate.

by kingraf Sun 23 Jun - 4:03

No we collapsed long before "run rate pressure" could be factored. 50-4 batting first, what run rate pressure?

by msp83 Sun 23 Jun - 8:57

Think South Africa should look to Kallis only in test matches from here on. The aging body means he has to do a lot of picking and choosing as far as ODIs are concerned. Besides adding to Kallis' workload, it destabilizes the team as well.
AB de Villiers is struggling to juggle the triple responsibilities of captaincy, keeping and key batsman. So I would say relieve him of the first 2 and let him focus on the batting aspect.
So
Smith
Amla
du Plessis captain
de Villiers
Duminy
Miller
de Kock wicketkeeper
Peterson
Morris
Steyn
Morkel
To trust Duminy with 10 overs consistently may not be a great idea. Faf can bowl a couple of overs, and even Smith can bowl 1 or 2. An all-rounder at 7 with AB continuing to keep could be an option. But unless they find a good all-rounder who can hold his own with bat and ball, they have to do that. I am not too sure of McLaren either with ball or bat. South Africa, like Pakistan and yesterday's West Indies producing fast bowlers, used to produce quality all-rounders. Who are the up and coming ones?
Perhaps they could think of batting Robin Peterson at 7, Morris at 8, and if he stays fit, bring Marchant de Lange as an additional bowling option.

by Gerry SA Sun 23 Jun - 12:47

msp83 wrote:Think South Africa should look to Kallis only in test matches from here on. The aging body means he has to do a lot of picking and choosing as far as ODIs are concerned. Besides adding to Kallis' workload, it destabilizes the team as well.
AB de Villiers is struggling to juggle the triple responsibilities of captaincy, keeping and key batsman. So I would say relieve him of the first 2 and let him focus on the batting aspect.
So
Smith
Amla
du Plessis captain
de Villiers
Duminy
Miller
de Kock wicketkeeper
Peterson
Morris
Steyn
Morkel
To trust Duminy with 10 overs consistently may not be a great idea. Faf can bowl a couple of overs, and even Smith can bowl 1 or 2. An all-rounder at 7 with AB continuing to keep could be an option. But unless they find a good all-rounder who can hold his own with bat and ball, they have to do that. I am not too sure of McLaren either with ball or bat. South Africa, like Pakistan and yesterday's West Indies producing fast bowlers, used to produce quality all-rounders. Who are the up and coming ones?
Perhaps they could think of batting Robin Peterson at 7, Morris at 8, and if he stays fit, bring Marchant de Lange as an additional bowling option.

Quinton de Kock is an opening batsman, so when he becomes a regular member of the ODI side, he'll open with Amla.

McLaren has been told he's the all rounder for next 18-24 months. So he's here to stay.

Duminy, after 5/6 years at the international level still has glaring issues with his game. Hopeless against spin. Average footwork against the moving ball. As for his bowling, on flatter pitches he'd get smashed around.

by Corporalhumblebucket Sun 23 Jun - 20:38

England choked big time today.

by KP_fan Sun 23 Jun - 20:42

yes...this was the choke of the tournament

by Gerry SA Sun 23 Jun - 20:48

At least we Proteas fans can sleep more easily from now on.

Thanks England for taking on the mantle

by GSC Sun 23 Jun - 20:50

Yes England choked pretty badly.

by KP_fan Sun 23 Jun - 20:51

Well that leaves England the only nation to have never won a 50 over tournament inspite of having played in all.

Bresnan frozen in headlight was Donaldsque...and that's when you knew the classic signs of choke were kicking in

by GSC Sun 23 Jun - 20:54

Ok guys, enjoy your win.

by alfie Mon 24 Jun - 4:07

KP_fan wrote:Well that leaves England the only nation to have never won a 50 over tournament inspite of having played in all.

Bresnan frozen in headlight was Donaldsque...and that's when you knew the classic signs of choke were kicking in

Why is an Indian fan so fixated on bashing Bresnan ? Game seems to me to have been lost in the few balls before when Morgan Bopara and Butler all got out without advancing the score...

Not sure why it is necessary to sneer at England for "choking" (sounds more like panic anyway ; slightly different , and not uncommon in a run chase in t20) : How about congratulations well played India.
And a pretty decent effort from England to get within one big hit of winning.

Glad they got a game in anyway. 20/20 is a bit of a raffle to be honest , but since the best team over the tournament won I have no complaints.

by KP_fan Mon 24 Jun - 10:23

alfie wrote:
KP_fan wrote:Well that leaves England the only nation to have never won a 50 over tournament inspite of having played in all.

Bresnan frozen in headlight was Donaldsque...and that's when you knew the classic signs of choke were kicking in

Why is an Indian fan so fixated on bashing Bresnan ? Game seems to me to have been lost in the few balls before when Morgan Bopara and Butler all got out without advancing the score...

Not sure why it is necessary to sneer at England for "choking" (sounds more like panic anyway ; slightly different , and not uncommon in a run chase in t20) : How about congratulations well played India.
And a pretty decent effort from England to get within one big hit of winning.

Glad they got a game in anyway. 20/20 is a bit of a raffle to be honest , but since the best team over the tournament won I have no complaints.

Dear alfie,

I will answer 2 of the questions you raised:

1) Indian Fan is your asusmption.

India is the main team I support......follower of international cricket......and comment on appreciatively all that is good.....and critically the obvious blunders and flaws...

Picking medicore Bresnan for his percieved batting skills ahead of the best availbale bowlers is a mistake england makes and repeats and I keep pointing it out from my very first post on this forum and innumerable times thereafter....when they pay the price for such mistakes

and not picking Prior as the WK is the other obvious blunder resulting from over analysis and too much strategizing....that I have also pointed out.

2) Sneer for Choking.......It wasn't a sneer...but a factual observation based on the latest incident.

It might sound like a sneer/ ridicule to true English fans.....because they love their team...so it hurts and undertsandbly so.

regards

by Duty281 Mon 24 Jun - 10:29

I think the Bres was picked for his bowling over Finn. Not his batting. We seem to forget that Finn bowled poorly against the Saffers, and Bresnan offers greater control. Of course, when the game was reduced to a 20/20 slog, that plan kind of backfired.

by liverbnz Mon 24 Jun - 10:41

KP_Fan

If you are a follower of international cricket then you will rightly know that Bresnan was picked due to his ability to swing the ball rather than his batting skills. Also, Finn tends to offer less accuracy - even though his better economy rate may debate this point - Bresnan almsot always bowls within the PP overs which will inflate his ER somewhat.

Matt Prior has been picked on many, many occasions for England in ODis, tried in different postions in the order and in different roles. His record suggests he hasn't particlurly excelled in this format at the higher level. Furthermore, any keen follower of international cricket would know that Prior has a pretty slim array of shots so bowling straight at him tends to shut off his favoured off-side shots, which bring frustration and therefore his wicket. Batting in ODis lends itself to players with a greater selection of shots that can pierce a wider spread field than that of a Test match -as you would know as a 'follower of international cricket'. Hence the last Prior ODi experiement at the WC2011 ended as all the previous have - in failure. England have since moved on and rightly so.

But anyway, congratulations on winning another ICC tournament. Hopefully it goes a long way to healing the recent home defeat to England which mysteriously coincided with your dissapearing from these boards.

PS: India were 1-0 up then too if I'm right? To a team who can't play spin! That's choking if I ever saw it.

by Duty281 Mon 24 Jun - 10:42

liverbnz wrote:KP_Fan

If you are a follower of international cricket then you will rightly know that Bresnan was picked due to his ability to swing the ball rather than his batting skills. Also, Finn tends to offer less accuracy - even though his better economy rate may debate this point - Bresnan almsot always bowls within the PP overs which will inflate his ER somewhat.

Matt Prior has been picked on many, many occasions for England in ODis, tried in different postions in the order and in different roles. His record suggests he hasn't particlurly excelled in this format at the higher level. Furthermore, any keen follower of international cricket would know that Prior has a pretty slim array of shots so bowling straight at him tends to shut off his favoured off-side shots, which bring frustration and therefore his wicket. Batting in ODis lends itself to players with a greater selection of shots that can pierce a wider spread field than that of a Test match -as you would know as a 'follower of international cricket'. Hence the last Prior ODi experiement at the WC2011 ended as all the previous have - in failure. England have since moved on and rightly so.

But anyway, congratulations on winning another ICC tournament. Hopefully it goes a long way to healing the recent home defeat to England which mysteriously coincided with your dissapearing from these boards.

PS: India were 1-0 up then too if I'm right? To a team who can't play spin! That's choking if I ever saw it.

I probably shouldn't but I certainly Laugh

.

by KP_fan Mon 24 Jun - 10:53

liverbnz wrote:KP_Fan

If you are a follower of international cricket then you will rightly know that Bresnan was picked due to his ability to swing the ball rather than his batting skills. Also, Finn tends to offer less accuracy - even though his better economy rate may debate this point - Bresnan almsot always bowls within the PP overs which will inflate his ER somewhat.

Matt Prior has been picked on many, many occasions for England in ODis, tried in different postions in the order and in different roles. His record suggests he hasn't particlurly excelled in this format at the higher level. Furthermore, any keen follower of international cricket would know that Prior has a pretty slim array of shots so bowling straight at him tends to shut off his favoured off-side shots, which bring frustration and therefore his wicket. Batting in ODis lends itself to players with a greater selection of shots that can pierce a wider spread field than that of a Test match -as you would know as a 'follower of international cricket'. Hence the last Prior ODi experiement at the WC2011 ended as all the previous have - in failure. England have since moved on and rightly so.

But anyway, congratulations on winning another ICC tournament. Hopefully it goes a long way to healing the recent home defeat to England which mysteriously coincided with your dissapearing from these boards.

PS: India were 1-0 up then too if I'm right? To a team who can't play spin! That's choking if I ever saw it.

--Nothing that i have seen In bresnan makes him a better bowler under any condtions than Finn.
He shouldn't be amongst the top 5 seamers in England if bowling was the only criteria to go by:shock:

---All that I have seen in Prior in the last 2 years makes him a highly skillful, solid temperament and very adaptable to conditions and match situation batsman against top quality bowlings
and I haven't seen him play for England in the last 2 years in limited over formats.... when all the above listed batting skills in him have peaked.

To keep him out when he is visibly in his peak prowess in the last 2 years as a batsmen on the evidence and reputation of his ancient days....is England shooting in their own foot.
And results of England in the limited over tournaments are the case in point.

--remaining points about India losing test match series etc...are out of context genreally.......most defnitely so at this point in time.

by liverbnz Mon 24 Jun - 11:01

All I'm trying to do is offer reasons why England have chose not to go down the routes you have suggested. You may not think Bresnan is a better bowler than Finn - but the England management team who have watched them much more than yourself I'm sure think Bresnan offers more in this format.

As for Prior, all his exploits have come in the longer format, in which we already knew he was an important asset for England. This does not change the fact that his scoring range is limited (although slightly improved in that he can score off his legs better now) and prevents him from doing as well in the shorter format at international level. He had a fantastic Ashes series in 10/11. England picked him for the WC on the strength of it and he failed again. Move on.

The comments on India being chokers are as much in context as your comments re England.

by Duty281 Mon 24 Jun - 11:03

KP_fan wrote:
liverbnz wrote:KP_Fan

If you are a follower of international cricket then you will rightly know that Bresnan was picked due to his ability to swing the ball rather than his batting skills. Also, Finn tends to offer less accuracy - even though his better economy rate may debate this point - Bresnan almsot always bowls within the PP overs which will inflate his ER somewhat.

Matt Prior has been picked on many, many occasions for England in ODis, tried in different postions in the order and in different roles. His record suggests he hasn't particlurly excelled in this format at the higher level. Furthermore, any keen follower of international cricket would know that Prior has a pretty slim array of shots so bowling straight at him tends to shut off his favoured off-side shots, which bring frustration and therefore his wicket. Batting in ODis lends itself to players with a greater selection of shots that can pierce a wider spread field than that of a Test match -as you would know as a 'follower of international cricket'. Hence the last Prior ODi experiement at the WC2011 ended as all the previous have - in failure. England have since moved on and rightly so.

But anyway, congratulations on winning another ICC tournament. Hopefully it goes a long way to healing the recent home defeat to England which mysteriously coincided with your dissapearing from these boards.

PS: India were 1-0 up then too if I'm right? To a team who can't play spin! That's choking if I ever saw it.

--Nothing that i have seen In bresnan makes him a better bowler under any condtions than Finn.
He shouldn't be amongst the top 5 seamers in England if bowling was the only criteria to go by:shock:

---All that I have seen in Prior in the last 2 years makes him a highly skillful, solid temperament and very adaptable to conditions and match situation batsman against top quality bowlings
and I haven't seen him play for England in the last 2 years in limited over formats.... when all the above listed batting skills in him have peaked.

To keep him out when he is visibly in his peak prowess in the last 2 years as a batsmen on the evidence and reputation of his ancient days....is England shooting in their own foot.
And results of England in the limited over tournaments are the case in point.

--remaining points about India losing test match series etc...are out of context genreally.......most defnitely so at this point in time.

His ODI average is a very low 24.18 with only 3 50s in 62 innings. All of that at an average strike rate of lower than what Trott manages. Why should he be picked? He's had his chance in ODIs, he failed.

by KP_fan Mon 24 Jun - 11:06

liverbnz wrote:All I'm trying to do is offer reasons why England have chose not to go down the routes you have suggested. You may not think Bresnan is a better bowler than Finn - but the England management team who have watched them much more than yourself I'm sure think Bresnan offers more in this format.

results speak for themselves. Eng management have obviously watched him more but not learnt enough

As for Prior, all his exploits have come in the longer format, in which we already knew he was an important asset for England. This does not change the fact that his scoring range is limited (although slightly improved in that he can score off his legs better now) and prevents him from doing as well in the shorter format at international level. He had a fantastic Ashes series in 10/11. England picked him for the WC on the strength of it and he failed again. Move on.

yes they can keep shooting themselves in their foot....their choice

The comments on India being chokers are as much in context as your comments re England.

OK...if that makes you happy and allows us all to move on

by Duty281 Mon 24 Jun - 11:26

Well KP_fan, as soon as you've explained how not picking someone with an average of below 25 is shooting themselves in the foot, we can all move on.

by KP_fan Mon 24 Jun - 11:46

Duty281 wrote:Well KP_fan, as soon as you've explained how not picking someone with an average of below 25 is shooting themselves in the foot, we can all move on.

I C&P what I wrote above in repsonse to your question in talics below give special attention to the underlined part....because you obviously did not digest it the first time.
also question for you...when did Prior play his last ODI??......
answer: 2 years and 3 months back

All that I have seen in Prior in the last 2 years makes him a highly skillful, solid temperament and very adaptable to conditions and match situation batsman against top quality bowlings
and I haven't seen him play for England in the last 2 years in limited over formats.... when all the above listed batting skills in him have peaked.

To keep him out when he is visibly in his peak prowess in the last 2 years as a batsmen on the evidence and reputation of his ancient days....is England shooting in their own foot.
And results of England in the limited over tournaments are the case in point.

by liverbnz Mon 24 Jun - 11:54

And yet again you fail to mention that his 'peak prowess' is not in the shorter format but in the Test match arena where he has always excelled. If he is in 'peak prowess' how come he isn't being snapped up by one of the IPL teams. Are they also 'shooting in their own foot'?

by alfie Mon 24 Jun - 12:21

KP fan...thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I recognize that you have an interest in cricket outside India , and I am aware you frequently comment on English affairs. My surprise was that you seem so relentless in your criticism of Bresnan in particular...
I know you thought he shouldn't have been picked , and you are of course entitled to your opinion , but his dismissal run out in the penultimate over was hardly the chief reason for England's defeat so I thought featuring it as the main item was a bit OTT . As others have said above , he was picked for his bowling. We can certainly debate his inclusion over Finn , but your assertions that the decision was clearly wrong do not make it so...and we have no way of knowing whether Finn would have done better.
Never mind...the other point was this use of the overworked "choke" cliche. This label is thrown around rather too freely , in my opinion.
The term was originally used to describe the phenomenon of a sportsman becoming virtually paralyzed by the imminence of victory , to the point that he or she tightens up and becomes incapable of playing his natural game...usually resulting in an increased timidity , an abandonment of positive action in favour of just waiiting for the opponent to present the game on a plate ...with inevitably fatal consequences.
It is usually less applicable to teams , for the obvious reason that individuals react differently to pressure. (certainly it is nonsense to accuse SA of choking the other day - they were never in a position to win the game at any stage. But it is an easy way of not bothering to analyse a match properly : a lazy journalist's short cut )
Had England crawled and stuttered throughout their innings , then the comment might have some validity. But so far as I can tell England played much as they have throughout the tournament : early base- building , even though hampered by the loss of some early wickets on this occasion ; followed by the charge later in the innings from Morgan and Bopara. They got very close ; but rather than freezing they then went too hard , trying for big shots instead of knocking it about : bad judgement more than choking in my book. And a bit of inexperience from Buttler. Followed by a touch of panic...
Not that it matters. They lost . India won . That is cricket.
I won't get into the wicket keeper debate...but I will be surprised if England go back to Prior for ODIs.

by KP_fan Mon 24 Jun - 13:06

liverbnz wrote: If he is in 'peak prowess' how come he isn't being snapped up by one of the IPL teams. Are they also 'shooting in their own foot'?

he will be "snapped" for 500K+ and may even be offred captaincy of a less stary side like Deccan or Pune......if there was a feeling of assurance given to his buyers that he would be availbale for the better part of the IPL season.

feelers were sent to him throuhg common agents....and that's why he warned ECB of (English) players frustrations

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/604881.html

others from Englnad that will be snapped by IPL if ECB relents a bit...are Broad, Woakes, Swann, Monty, Hales, Onions, Meaker....as I wrote before on the IPL thread.

by msp83 Mon 24 Jun - 19:17

liverbnz wrote:All I'm trying to do is offer reasons why England have chose not to go down the routes you have suggested. You may not think Bresnan is a better bowler than Finn - but the England management team who have watched them much more than yourself I'm sure think Bresnan offers more in this format.

As for Prior, all his exploits have come in the longer format, in which we already knew he was an important asset for England. This does not change the fact that his scoring range is limited (although slightly improved in that he can score off his legs better now) and prevents him from doing as well in the shorter format at international level. He had a fantastic Ashes series in 10/11. England picked him for the WC on the strength of it and he failed again. Move on.

The comments on India being chokers are as much in context as your comments re England.

If England management think Bresnan is a better bowler than Finn is, then there is something seriously wrong with them. People pointed out Finn didn't have a good game against South Africa. I would request you to just go through the scorecards of the England-Sri Lanka game as well as the England-New Zealand game. Watch Bresnan bowling to Kulasekara if you can, or at least read through the cricinfo commentary. He didn't reverse it, he didn't move the new ball either, all that he did was to land it just where the batsmen loved and got smashed around. There is almost a 1 run difference between Finn's and Bresnan's economy rate in the former's favor. Yet people want to believe in the fantasy that Bresnan offers greater control.
I believe Bresnan is picked as an insurance cover for the middle order that hasn't been in the best of form, also considering the high risk strategy of expecting the middle order to start striking from ball one and convert the platform into a big score. But that strategy also didn't work in any of the games other than the Australia one where Bresnan's contribution with the bat was handy.

by msp83 Mon 24 Jun - 19:33

The thread is moving on from South Africa to England, perhaps since the C word is now being thrown at England as well, its alright. Doesn't mean I agree with the tag on England.
Anyways, on the England wicketkeeper debate. I don't quite share KPF's position on Prior. As people pointed out, his ODI record is pretty poor, and although he's a quick scorer in tests, he hasn't often manage to go beyond certain restrictive fielding formations and lines from the bowlers. But at the same time, the concern is that the replacements haven't done well consistently. I would have Prior anyday over Kieswetter, poor and inconsistent with the bat, not really safe with the gloves. Jonny Bairstow didn't get an extended run in the side despite a promising start, and although he's his county's first choice wicketkeeper, many are not convinced with his glove work. Jos Buttler has some serious talent. But is he really ready for international cricket? He doesn't seem capable of adapting his game, and doesn't look like someone who really think his game through. A finisher has to be a good stroke player, but more importantly, he has to think his game through very well, like an MS Dhoni or a Mike Hussey or a Michael Bevan. Buttler doesn't seem capable of doing that at the moment. Perhaps England can give Buttler a few more chances, then if he doesn't improve, they should think of other option, and despite his limitations, Prior should also be there in the mix, what he has for sure is the ability to adapt his game and a solid temperament, qualities very much needed in a finisher.

by KP_fan Mon 24 Jun - 19:34

Tweet going around Smile

The problem of importing South Africans, England, is that you might just *cough cough* #Choke #

by Duty281 Mon 24 Jun - 19:38

Who were these South Africans then? Headscratch

by ShankyCricket Mon 24 Jun - 20:06

Suggestions for Faf to be captain? His ODI average is less than Rohit Sharma. Is this how bad SA have become?

by ShankyCricket Mon 24 Jun - 20:14

msp83 wrote:Think South Africa should look to Kallis only in test matches from here on. The aging body means he has to do a lot of picking and choosing as far as ODIs are concerned. Besides adding to Kallis' workload, it destabilizes the team as well.
AB de Villiers is struggling to juggle the triple responsibilities of captaincy, keeping and key batsman. So I would say relieve him of the first 2 and let him focus on the batting aspect.
So
Smith
Amla
du Plessis captain
de Villiers
Duminy
Miller
de Kock wicketkeeper
Peterson
Morris
Steyn
Morkel
To trust Duminy with 10 overs consistently may not be a great idea. Faf can bowl a couple of overs, and even Smith can bowl 1 or 2. An all-rounder at 7 with AB continuing to keep could be an option. But unless they find a good all-rounder who can hold his own with bat and ball, they have to do that. I am not too sure of McLaren either with ball or bat. South Africa, like Pakistan and yesterday's West Indies producing fast bowlers, used to produce quality all-rounders. Who are the up and coming ones?
Perhaps they could think of batting Robin Peterson at 7, Morris at 8, and if he stays fit, bring Marchant de Lange as an additional bowling option.

Kallis won't play any bilateral ODIs. Directly the World Cup. As for Faf as captain, read my previous post.

by liverbnz Mon 24 Jun - 21:07

msp83 wrote:
liverbnz wrote:All I'm trying to do is offer reasons why England have chose not to go down the routes you have suggested. You may not think Bresnan is a better bowler than Finn - but the England management team who have watched them much more than yourself I'm sure think Bresnan offers more in this format.

As for Prior, all his exploits have come in the longer format, in which we already knew he was an important asset for England. This does not change the fact that his scoring range is limited (although slightly improved in that he can score off his legs better now) and prevents him from doing as well in the shorter format at international level. He had a fantastic Ashes series in 10/11. England picked him for the WC on the strength of it and he failed again. Move on.

The comments on India being chokers are as much in context as your comments re England.
If England management think Bresnan is a better bowler than Finn is, then there is something seriously wrong with them. People pointed out Finn didn't have a good game against South Africa. I would request you to just go through the scorecards of the England-Sri Lanka game as well as the England-New Zealand game. Watch Bresnan bowling to Kulasekara if you can, or at least read through the cricinfo commentary. He didn't reverse it, he didn't move the new ball either, all that he did was to land it just where the batsmen loved and got smashed around. There is almost a 1 run difference between Finn's and Bresnan's economy rate in the former's favor. Yet people want to believe in the fantasy that Bresnan offers greater control.
I believe Bresnan is picked as an insurance cover for the middle order that hasn't been in the best of form, also considering the high risk strategy of expecting the middle order to start striking from ball one and convert the platform into a big score. But that strategy also didn't work in any of the games other than the Australia one where Bresnan's contribution with the bat was handy.

That SL game was just after Bresnan was excellent vs Australia, hence him being picked. He wasn't great in that game but only 1 of the England bowlers were.

Anyway, it's not just a case of who is the better bowler, but the better choice for the conditions and for the balance of the side. England management feel that's Bresnan at the moment as he generally bowls well during pp and at the death - albeit he's been inconsistent of late. Man for man, Finn is a better bowler for me, but England like the balance Bresnan brings - and I think very little of that is to do with his batting. Bresnan has quite a poor List A record so I'd find it bizarre for a national selector to pick him based on it.

Any maybe England were saving Finn for the Ashes? Let Bresnan play the CT as they don't feel there's a lot between them and let the just back from injury Finn rest up for the Aussies. Who knows.

by msp83 Tue 25 Jun - 13:20

liverbnz wrote:
msp83 wrote:
liverbnz wrote:All I'm trying to do is offer reasons why England have chose not to go down the routes you have suggested. You may not think Bresnan is a better bowler than Finn - but the England management team who have watched them much more than yourself I'm sure think Bresnan offers more in this format.

As for Prior, all his exploits have come in the longer format, in which we already knew he was an important asset for England. This does not change the fact that his scoring range is limited (although slightly improved in that he can score off his legs better now) and prevents him from doing as well in the shorter format at international level. He had a fantastic Ashes series in 10/11. England picked him for the WC on the strength of it and he failed again. Move on.

The comments on India being chokers are as much in context as your comments re England.
If England management think Bresnan is a better bowler than Finn is, then there is something seriously wrong with them. People pointed out Finn didn't have a good game against South Africa. I would request you to just go through the scorecards of the England-Sri Lanka game as well as the England-New Zealand game. Watch Bresnan bowling to Kulasekara if you can, or at least read through the cricinfo commentary. He didn't reverse it, he didn't move the new ball either, all that he did was to land it just where the batsmen loved and got smashed around. There is almost a 1 run difference between Finn's and Bresnan's economy rate in the former's favor. Yet people want to believe in the fantasy that Bresnan offers greater control.
I believe Bresnan is picked as an insurance cover for the middle order that hasn't been in the best of form, also considering the high risk strategy of expecting the middle order to start striking from ball one and convert the platform into a big score. But that strategy also didn't work in any of the games other than the Australia one where Bresnan's contribution with the bat was handy.
That SL game was just after Bresnan was excellent vs Australia, hence him being picked. He wasn't great in that game but only 1 of the England bowlers were.

Anyway, it's not just a case of who is the better bowler, but the better choice for the conditions and for the balance of the side. England management feel that's Bresnan at the moment as he generally bowls well during pp and at the death - albeit he's been inconsistent of late. Man for man, Finn is a better bowler for me, but England like the balance Bresnan brings - and I think very little of that is to do with his batting. Bresnan has quite a poor List A record so I'd find it bizarre for a national selector to pick him based on it.

Any maybe England were saving Finn for the Ashes? Let Bresnan play the CT as they don't feel there's a lot between them and let the just back from injury Finn rest up for the Aussies. Who knows.

Perhaps Finn's recent injury and his run-up issues might have been a factor. The reduced run-up didn't work all that well for him and he had to go back to the original one, perhaps the management thought more time in the nets would help him recuperate well, as well as give him time to get enough control with the run-up before the Ashes come around.
But I just can't take the argument that Bresnan is a better bowler than Finn is in any formats of the game. In ODIs, Finn averages 10 runs less for every wicket, and there is a 6 ball difference between their strike rates, again in Finn's favor. No disrespect to Bresnan, But Finn is just a fantastic bowler, who's value England may not have fully realized as yet.

by alfie Tue 25 Jun - 13:32

You are a real Finn fan , eh , msp ?

I rate him too , but I think at this stage of his career he is still a bit inconsistent , and can really spray it around on his bad days. In Tests he tends to get wickets anyway , even if he is expensive , so is a risk usually worth taking ; but I can totally see the reason for preferring Bresnan in an ODI. Not always , of course , but the selectors are closer to this than us and have a fair idea how the bowlers are going in practice. I understand Finn was a bit "off" in the nets recently , and the match he played did nothing to counteract that impression , so I think the call at the weekend was quite reasonable.
I fully expect Finn to play in the first Test , assuming he is not suffering serious run up/rhythm problems.

by Mike Selig Tue 25 Jun - 13:57

I would pick Finn over Bresnan any day of the week. KPF is laying into him partly because Broad has been doing well recently...

The calls for Prior are as usual misguided, but regular. He was in the form of his life in 2011 after the ashes, played the WC and was predictably hopeless. He is a very very good test player, but has been tried more or less everywhere in ODIs, and never done particularly well. I guess if you play him he's got to bat top 3 and England have 4-6 better options there anyway.

England panicked or choked; SA were dismantled by a better side - not that they played well, but for me to choke means you should win and don't. That is what England did, not SA.

by msp83 Tue 25 Jun - 14:47

alfie wrote:You are a real Finn fan , eh , msp ?

I rate him too , but I think at this stage of his career he is still a bit inconsistent , and can really spray it around on his bad days. In Tests he tends to get wickets anyway , even if he is expensive , so is a risk usually worth taking ; but I can totally see the reason for preferring Bresnan in an ODI. Not always , of course , but the selectors are closer to this than us and have a fair idea how the bowlers are going in practice. I understand Finn was a bit "off" in the nets recently , and the match he played did nothing to counteract that impression , so I think the call at the weekend was quite reasonable.
I fully expect Finn to play in the first Test , assuming he is not suffering serious run up/rhythm problems.

Alfie, I think Steven Finn is going to be one of England's very best fast bowlers. He has the talent and the attitude. He's been a quick learner as well, (only other than the love affair with the non-striker's stumps). Kemar Roach, James Pattinson, Steven Finn, Tim Southee they are the best of the under 25 group of fast bowlers who are going to enrich our game for the next decade or so, fitness permiting.
Perhaps Finn was a bit rusty coming back after an injury, perhaps he needed some time to hit his straps. In such circumstances, Bresnan was a handy replacement, and I have no problems with that. It is suggestions that Bresnan is a better option than Finn, and the argument that he is someone who usually offers greater control that I find quite problematic, because its just not true. A bowler who goes around for close to 5.5 can't be your best bet for control. Also note his strike rate isn't great either. Stats do not tell us all, but I think the Bresnan being the bowler with the better control is just a fantasy, and stats can pretty much tell that very clearly.
I hope the England management would have kept Finn in confidence as to why they were not playing him, and hopefully they would have had better reasons than "we think Bresnan offers us better control".

by KP_fan Tue 25 Jun - 14:56

I see a general rule applied by a few poster on this board.....

Finn is remebered for his "off" days.....which are few and far between.....

Bresnan is remebered for his "on" days....which are also few and far between

by msp83 Tue 25 Jun - 15:06

KP_fan wrote:I see a general rule applied by a few poster on this board.....

Finn is remebered for his "off" days.....which are few and far between.....

Bresnan is remebered for his "on" days....which are also few and far between

Can't agree more!.

by Sponsored content