England vs South Africa - test series thread

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

First topic message reminder :

In the fast paced nature of international cricket, we are just over a week away from the first of four test matches between SA and England - should be a good one.

South Africa have named their squad...missing some big names in Steyn, ABDV - also no Dane Piedt, Stephen Cook either.

South Africa squad: Faf du Plessis (captain), Hashim Amla, Temba Bavuma, Theunis de Bruyn, Quinton de Kock, JP Duminy, Dean Elgar, Heino Kuhn, Keshav Maharaj, Aiden Markram, Morne Morkel, Chris Morris, Duanne Olivier, Andile Phehlukwayo, Vernon Philander, Kagiso Rabada.

Still a very strong team - especially in the seam bowling ranks. Although with Faf missing the first test, the batting is reliant on Amla and De Kock I feel

England have a few injury concerns - particularly Stuart Broad - any thoughts on the SA squad, and potential England one?

[LivinginItaly]

Sorry.....I jinxed him.....Westley out

[alfie]

Unfortunately Westley fails to do as we hoped...gone to a fine de Kock catch from Rabada.

SA being rewarded for some good bowling : suddenly England in a bit of trouble at 92/3

[jimbohammers]

29 from 88 balls , painful

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

29 from 88 balls , painful

England in the 2nd test - "they threw their wickets away playing too attacking"

England in the 4th test - "they're not attacking enough"

Can't win.

[jimbohammers]

I didnt say that?

1 run scored in 6 overs

[dummy_half]

Obviously not easy to get runs at the moment - Root still to get off the mark after 15 balls, where he's usually so good at rotating the strike, and Malan just with the first run off the bat since Cook got out.

[alfie]

Amazing how the wicket of Cook seems to have changed this game...

Before - England were apparently cruising , the hard work seemingly done before luncheon...now scoring looks impossible and even survival fraught .

Really tough four or five overs but now Root is away with a lovely drive.

Good Test Cricket as the hundred comes up.

[Gooseberry]

To clarify what I was driving at re Westley:

Theres been a host of players come in englands top 3 and do well in one or two innings only to fade badly and dissapear.
It may seem harsh critique of Westley but the scores he has made to date arent so earth shattetingly good as to nail down a spot for years ....or indeed sustained enough to be meaningful.
The plaudits seem more about how hes looked thsn what hes done so far.

Hey give him a chance Goose  ...it's only been two innings !    Think all we are saying so far is he looks the part.

Which Jennings , for example , doesn't.

Meanwhile Cook gets out ...good bowling Maharaj but that wicket came as a real surprise : Cook looked as if he booked in for bed and breakfast.

Important Westley stays with Root now...

Im pretty sure thats what I was doing ...saying hes been given a chance rather than having proved anything yet. Hes done enough to retain the good will of the internet, without actually having done anything of real note yet and that it will be some time before we can (? should but probably will anyway first time he makes an 80) really start talking about him as an established force.

[Gooseberry]

29 from 88 balls , painful

England in the 2nd test - "they threw their wickets away playing too attacking"

England in the 4th test - "they're not attacking enough"

Can't win.

1st and 3rd tests ...won

Can win.

[Gooseberry]

Im only ablew to follow online commentary today ... is this looking like a par 300 pitch (in line with the last test)? If so Englands position is still strong.
Looking ahead there should be cloud cover for most of the match.

[LionsV2]

There's nothing wrong with Westley's scoring rate as long as he's then able to move through the gears once the foundations have been made, something Strauss was very good at doing during his pomp but Compton couldn't.

[alfie]

Fair enough , Goose...

Certainly Westley will need to get one or two heavy scores before he is anointed as the New Trott ...or whatever. I suppose my point is more that I'd rather see three solid efforts - in fairly difficult conditions for the most part - as a start than one lucky hundred and a couple of ducks. I do think he has probably shown enough to hold his spot for the West Indies series : would you not agree ?
And I guess then he really would be expected to produce some big numbers.

[alfie]

As to the par score : hard to say. Ball did plenty early on , bats did well to survive. But now three players have had decent to good starts and none yet gone on...
Still enough there to keep the bowlers interested. May flatten out ? But certainly not a 400 pitch at present. To be honest I think most English pitches - except the ones that seem to have been deliberately drained of all life : thank heavens we aren't seeing them so much
lately - give a team at least a chance with anything over 300 batting first.
Looking healthier now at 133/3

[dummy_half]

Fair enough , Goose...

Certainly Westley will need to get one or two heavy scores before he is anointed as the New Trott ...or whatever.  I suppose my point is more that I'd rather see three solid efforts - in fairly difficult conditions for the most part - as a start than one lucky hundred and a couple of ducks.  I do think he has probably shown enough to hold his spot for the West Indies series  : would you not agree ?  
And I guess then he really would be expected to produce some big numbers.

The highlighted bit is the key. OK, hasn't yet kicked on from a start to get a really significant score, but hasn't looked like an accident waiting to happen as is the case with Jennings. Looks like the sort for whom it's only a matter of time before a couple of really good innings happen - Windies will likely offer easier opportunities to make runs than the SA attack.

[GSC]

Malan with a fairly dim witted dismissal just before tea puts SA back on top.

England need a partnership this evening.

[VTR]

Malan out for another low score. Didn't seem the most convincing pick in the side to start with and hasn't done much with his chance. Ballance could definitely find himself back in the team at 5 when he's fit again.

Bayliss says we don't need 8 batsmen, but I think we do with players like Jennings and Malan currently in the team!

[GSC]

Not desperate to go back to Ballance either to be honest. Think he's had enough chances.

[VTR]

I don't disagree - but that's what I think the selectors will do, Ballance was going to play at 5 in the last Test until he got injured. If his replacement doesn't convince then he will probably get a final, final chance in the actual position that he bats in

[dummy_half]

While Westley looks the part, unfortunately Malan does not as yet (at Test level). Far from convinced that Ballance coming back is the solution, despite his prolific CC season.

The problem is that we still have a hole in the middle order unless Bairstow gives up the gloves and plays as a specialist batsman (Foakes perhaps coming in as a keeper/batsman able to bat at 8 with Woakes or Toblerone Jones at 9). Not convinces Bayliss sees this as an option, as he tried Buttler as a specialist bat and kept Bairstow with the gloves during the winter.

[VTR]

The middle order seems to me to be a problem of Bayliss's making. As he doesn't really watch cricket, if someone smashes a few runs in a T20 he'll put them in the Test team. Buttler and Malan just aren't going to be reliable Test middle order batsmen, ever

There's not exactly a queue of amazing options but there's got to be a better approach than promoting based on limited overs form

[GSC]

To be fair, without putting Westley or Malan down, that they're next in the queue doesn't really say much about the up and coming batsmen England have at present.

[dummy_half]

To be fair, without putting Westley or Malan down, that they're next in the queue doesn't really say much about the up and coming batsmen England have at present.

It's a fair comment - these are guys in their late 20s who have adequate but not outstanding first class records. Stoneman is much the same, although in pretty good form this summer (CC average well over 50). You would expect someone (other than Root, who is of the younger generation) to be shining through amongst the younger batsmen, at least to a better level that a CC average of 35-40.

[dummy_half]

A bit of a frustrating day for England's batsmen - we keep getting almost to strong positions and then lose a wicket. SA doing a good job generally of keeping things tight with only Olivier of the main bowlers going at more than 3 an over.

[GSC]

Good day of test cricket so far. SA have bowled well on a tricky pitch and England have had to grind it out. Good test after the 2nd test when they struggled to control themselves

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

If someone can explain why the heck they've sent Roland Jones out ahead of Moeen here I'd love to hear it

[wisden]

nightwatchman


260-6 90 overs bowled...honours even IMO

[GSC]

Pretty even day. Think England will be happier to have runs on the board given the streaky nature of both sides batting. SA bowled well but England dug in.

[alfie]

If someone can explain why the heck they've sent Roland Jones out ahead of Moeen here I'd love to hear it

With you on that , Olly. Unusual to have a night watchman to cover a number eight anyway ! I suppose TRJ was ready to go and Moeen standing down when the wicket fell and it was too late to change plans even though TRJ was not going to face a ball ...but that doesn't explain why swapping 8 and 9 when the new ball was in use - and continuing tomorrow - seemed like a good idea ...

Surely Moeen is better equipped to face fresh pace bowlers first up in the morning ? And if he could bat some overs then Toby might be able to play some shots again when he came in ? Odd decision.

Maybe the adventurous ( questionable/ weird/ plain daft) plan is for Roland-Jones to attack immediately tomorrow and upset the SA game plan

[alfie]

As for the day as a whole I have SA marginally ahead after that late wicket. Considering conditions (and the slow outfield cost a bit in the scoring rate) England have probably done quite well to get through just six down ; but as batting might get a bit better tomorrow they maybe haven't done enough to keep the nominal advantage of winning the toss.
Could be skittled for 300 or a little less ...or the "tail" might wag vigorously and take them to another 350 : so I guess the state of the game could reasonably be called " open"...bit like the last match...

[dummy_half]

As I put earlier, a day where it looked like England were about to get on top and then lost a wicket or two. Ended up pretty even - England could still press on to close to 400 or be skittled for 300, but either way have runs on the board. Will be disappointed with players getting starts but not making the innings-defining knock, but in the main have been got out rather than given wickets away (Malan excepted), so you have to credit the SA bowlers, who have also done really well to keep a lid on the scoring rate.

Don't understand the night watchman, especially as it's only switching the 8 and 9 round - problem is we don't really have a tail ender who is a good fit for night watchman - TR-J and Broad like hitting the ball and Jimmy A is no longer that reliable with the bat.

[alfie]

Malan out for another low score. Didn't seem the most convincing pick in the side to start with and hasn't done much with his chance. Ballance could definitely find himself back in the team at 5 when he's fit again.

Bayliss says we don't need 8 batsmen, but I think we do with players like Jennings and Malan currently in the team!

Might be harsh on Malan to toss him after two matches ; but he got out rather carelessly today which won't help his cause after double failure at The Oval. Still if he gets a score in the second innings they will probably give him another chance against West Indies ...Bayliss likes aggressive batsmen.

Do hope though that we don't end up with no new batsman impressing through the summer - and taking Ballance to Australia anyway for want of alternatives !

Incidentally : Livingstone was everyone's New Hope not so long ago : couple of pretty poor ODI s and he seems to have disappeared from view . Too hasty ?

There's always Hales as a five rather than opener ...Possible ?

[alfie]

As I put earlier, a day where it looked like England were about to get on top and then lost a wicket or two. Ended up pretty even - England could still press on to close to 400 or be skittled for 300, but either way have runs on the board. Will be disappointed with players getting starts but not making the innings-defining knock, but in the main have been got out rather than given wickets away (Malan excepted), so you have to credit the SA bowlers, who have also done really well to keep a lid on the scoring rate.

Don't understand the night watchman, especially as it's only switching the 8 and 9 round - problem is we don't really have a tail ender who is a good fit for night watchman - TR-J and Broad like hitting the ball and Jimmy A is no longer that reliable with the bat.

Agree with all that. Actually if they had to play night watchman this evening Jimmy would have made more sense - suspect he could still block a few if needed. But it really wasn't needed...

[sirfredperry]

Usual thing. Won't know if this is a decent score until both sides have batted. Despite the late loss of Stokes, I don't think this has been a bad day for England. As has been said above, there's nothing like runs on the board.

[GSC]

Think SA will want England out for under 300. 320+ is a decent score I think.

[LivinginItaly]

very difficult to judge who has the upper hand at the end of the first day. worth remembering though that given the conditions in the morning session and with a bit more luck for the bowlers England could easily have been bundled out for around 200.

All out for less than 320.....advantage south Africa
320 - 360........even game
more than 360....... advantage England

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Mitchell at Worcs, age doesn't bother me as I don't really think there's much great talent out there (although all I do is read about cricket sporadically so couldn't spot a player anyway).

To my mind, Ballance deserves a go at 5. I can feel for any number three at the moment though; I know they need to be almost a de facto opener, but not every innings. Jennings is getting to Roy during the One Dayers stage: they can't expect anything from him

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Stoneman is the name I forgot!

[CaledonianCraig]

For me Day One was shared. Another innings from Jennings where he just never looked settled or comfortable but I feel it may be too late to look elsewhere for an opener prior to the Ashes tour. Malan looks an attacking sort which is good but still gave his wicket away too easily - perhaps his last chance in the second innings? Westley again looked the best of the newcomers to the side mentally but do wish he'd learn to play more three dimensional shots.

For today England will look to bat well into the day. They'd want to reach lunch no worse than 330 for 7 and perhaps reach 400 before being bowled out at tea. In the final session of the day they'd feel on top if they could reduce South Africa to around 60 for 2. South Africa will have other ideas. They will look to have polished the tail off by lunch with England scoring around 300 or less. They'd want to reach tea no worse than 75 for 1 and end the day around 160 for 3.

[eirebilly]

I am surprised that little is being made of the attempted catch from Bairstow when he was on 4. I would be fuming if I were the SA captain at wasting a review. You cannot tell me that the slip fielder did not know that the ball hit the ground first, he even changed his hand position to prevent the ball bouncing away for runs. That, to me, is cheating.

[CaledonianCraig]

I am surprised that little is being made of the attempted catch from Bairstow when he was on 4. I would be fuming if I were the SA captain at wasting a review. You cannot tell me that the slip fielder did not know that the ball hit the ground first, he even changed his hand position to prevent the ball bouncing away for runs. That, to me, is cheating.

Firstly, it wasn't a wasted review. The umpire went upstairs to confirm the catch had been taken as he wasn't sure. I may be wrong but that is how I saw it. Secondly, I watched the replay and it is still marginally on high tech but you can just see it hit turf before hands clasp it. Far too marginal to call it cheating - more a genuine belief he had caught it but was in error.

[Nathaniel Jacobs]

Someone needs to give young Joseph a clip to the back of the noggin. He gets too many 50s but has a poor 50/100 conversion rate. I think he's got 42 50+ scores and just 12 100s. Slightly underwhelming.

On a side note Olivier looks like a fella you wouldn't want to bump into in a dark alley

[eirebilly]

It was a review CC, the umpire rightly called not out and it was reviewed (check the video on the BEEB). Also in that video, you can see that the slip fielder adjusted his hands to the top of the ball. At no stage did he have his hands under the ball. I cannot for the life of me, believe that he thought he caught that, he is a professional sportsman with excellent hand eye co-ordination so must have known it did not carry.

[CaledonianCraig]

It was a review CC, the umpire rightly called not out and it was reviewed (check the video on the BEEB). Also in that video, you can see that the slip fielder adjusted his hands to the top of the ball. At no stage did he have his hands under the ball. I cannot for the life of me, believe that he thought he caught that, he is a professional sportsman with excellent hand eye co-ordination so must have known it did not carry.

We shall agree to disagree on that. I, and even the commentators watched the replays, and weren't immediately sure until seeing it two or three times in slow mo so to expect the fielder to know in real time is just wrong. And by all accounts the fielder in question is not the sort of character to 'cheat' either. Will take a look at the video but when I watched I saw it as the umpire not being sure, checked with umpire at long leg who said he caught it and he then gave it out. Bairstow came down and asked what it was given for and I thought the umpire then (not sure) asked for replay to confirm if it carried or not.

[CaledonianCraig]

Right just watched it eirebilly and yes South Africa reviewed it. That being the case it rules out the fielder being a cheat as he is hardly going to want his team to waste a review on a catch if he knows he hasn't taken it.

[eirebilly]

We can agree to disagree but I stand by the fact that a professional sportsman will have excellent hand eye co-ordination and in the slow motion replay, you see him firstly attempting to get his fingers under the ball then adjusting them to the top of the ball (protecting against a bounce). Just cant see how he could be so convinced he caught it.

[James100]

You see this so often (fielders thinking they've caught it when they haven't) that I'm sure they're telling the truth when they say they think they've caught it. Ex-players, including all the commentators, generally agree that it's impossible to tell so I'd believe them. The adjusting to the top of the ball would happen anyway if his fingers had squeezed under the ball and it had bounced up, or it may have just been instinct and happened without him thinking about it.

Last weekend, my village side's short cover fielder appealed for a catch off my bowling despite the ball having bounced a lot further in front of him. The rest of our side quickly shut him down but he was adamant that he'd felt it go straight in despite us all seeing the ball bounce.

[LionsV2]

It was one of the more obvious bump catches you'll see and it clearly bounced up into his hands, the fielder will have known that.

[CaledonianCraig]

It was one of the more obvious bump catches you'll see and it clearly bounced up into his hands, the fielder will have known that.

Sorry I disagree. Do we extend the cheat tag to Bairstow then? He went down and asked the umpire what he was being given out for? Odd given that there was a thick inside edge onto his bat sending the ball into the slips. Was he trying to con the umpire that he never hit it? Of course not - just genuine human error as was the case with the fielder. I would imagine it is like when you are at a football match and you are so wrapped up in the moment that as soon as your side's player goes to ground you are certain it is a foul - you are overwhelmingly convinced but look at replays later and realise you were so wrong.

[eirebilly]

It was one of the more obvious bump catches you'll see and it clearly bounced up into his hands, the fielder will have known that.

Sorry I disagree. Do we extend the cheat tag to Bairstow then? He went down and asked the umpire what he was being given out for? Odd given that there was a thick inside edge onto his bat sending the ball into the slips. Was he trying to con the umpire that he never hit it? Of course not - just genuine human error as was the case with the fielder. I would imagine it is like when you are at a football match and you are so wrapped up in the moment that as soon as your side's player goes to ground you are certain it is a foul - you are overwhelmingly convinced but look at replays later and realise you were so wrong.

Because he saw that the ball was not caught, knew that there was an inside edge so was confused as if he was being given out for LBW? That would be my guess so hardly cheating...

I am not saying that the player in question is a cheat, I am saying that it was a cheating moment, it happens a lot.

[LionsV2]

Probably because he knew it hadn't carried, from playing the game you know when the ball bounces into your hands.

[Sponsored content]