South Africa Test Squad

Not major news, really, given that they have named an unchanged 15 man squad for their forthcoming tour of England.

Smith
Amla
A Peterson
R Peterson
de Villiers
Kallis
De Lange
Philander
Steyn
Morkel
Tsotsobe
Duminy
Tahir
Boucher
Rudolph

A very strong side, as we well know, but very similar to England in that they have a questionable opening spot (do England still? I guess so, given that one of the two generally seems to fall early!) and a ropey number six. Their third seamer is likely better than England's, though England possess the better of the spinners.

All set up for a great series, though my early prediction is 1-1.

Fists of Fury wrote:Not major news, really, given that they have named an unchanged 15 man squad for their forthcoming tour of England.

Smith
Amla
A Peterson
R Peterson
de Villiers
Kallis
De Lange
Philander
Steyn
Morkel
Tsotsobe
Duminy
Tahir
Boucher
Rudolph

A very strong side, as we well know, but very similar to England in that they have a questionable opening spot (do England still? I guess so, given that one of the two generally seems to fall early!) and a ropey number six. Their third seamer is likely better than England's, though England possess the better of the spinners.

All set up for a great series, though my early prediction is 1-1.

I think SA's opening problem is more significant than England's, though Petersen should not be under-estimated. SA are probably now slightly stronger at six (Duminy or Rudolph) than England (Bopara or Bairstow), although none of the four I mentioned have yet turned themselves into consistent Test cricketers. England win the 'keeping and spinning slots quite comfortably, but the pace attacks are nigh on impossible to split.

I think SA's third seamer perhaps gives them the edge in the fast bowling department, but agree with you otherwise.

I said this a while back when we did a comparison of both teams. SA for me have more weak spots in their team (second opener a bit dodgy, n°6 ditto, Boucher on the wane, Tahir not quite settled yet, England's only weak spot is n°6), but they also have more star quality I think, so it looks set up for an intriguing series. As for the squad, yep, no surprises there, though I'm a bit surprised they've only got two proper openers there (then again, England go on tour with only two openers nowadays too).

One factor that could make a difference is SA haven't played much cricket recently (in fact none) so could be a bit rusty at the start. Where's the first test being played?

All in all, can't wait. My club has more than its share of Saffers (expats) so I imangine we'll have a few get-togethers over some beers and maybe a barbecue or two, with plenty of banter. Should be great fun

Fists of Fury wrote:I think SA's third seamer perhaps gives them the edge in the fast bowling department, but agree with you otherwise.

For me, Anderson and Steyn are the two premier fast bowlers in the world. Anderson is better with the new ball, and Steyn later on with reverse swing.

Morkel and Broad are both excellent support acts. Morkel is perhaps slightly more hostile, but again that is balanced out by Broad (over the last 12 months) being slightly more consistent.

Philander has made a great start in international cricket, and always makes you play whilst now bowling that slowly. Bresnan perhaps surprises you with the amount of movement he gets, and the difficulty batsmen have had in playing his short ball. Again very difficult to split, though I am tempted to agree with you that Philander edges it.

The back up is quite similar. Tsotsobe, like Onions, had some early success in Tests but has had less opportunities recently. de Lange and Finn are both fantastic talents, and perhaps the two fastest of the lot, but both have to (rightly) wait their turn for a chance in the XI.

That's pretty much spot on.

This series, more than any other, is about ensuring you don't have any disastrous sessions with the bat. If you do, you will more than likely lose the Test as a result of it.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I said this a while back when we did a comparison of both teams. SA for me have more weak spots in their team (second opener a bit dodgy, n°6 ditto, Boucher on the wane, Tahir not quite settled yet, England's only weak spot is n°6), but they also have more star quality I think, so it looks set up for an intriguing series. As for the squad, yep, no surprises there, though I'm a bit surprised they've only got two proper openers there (then again, England go on tour with only two openers nowadays too).

One factor that could make a difference is SA haven't played much cricket recently (in fact none) so could be a bit rusty at the start. Where's the first test being played?

All in all, can't wait. My club has more than its share of Saffers (expats) so I imangine we'll have a few get-togethers over some beers and maybe a barbecue or two, with plenty of banter. Should be great fun

The 1st Test is at The Oval, after two tour games. In terms of reserve openers, I assume that whoever isn't chosen at 6 (Duminy or Rudolph) would go up to open if there was an injury. If Boucher is injured AB will keep, and again which ever one of Duminy or Rudolph isn't picked comes in.

I wouldn't rule out them playing four quicks, if the conditions are in favour. Tahir is yet to do much at Test level, and they might take the view that de Lange is a better option, as they did in the last Test in NZ.

Meanwhile, I should have mentioned in my previous post that a big area of strength for SA is Kallis. He is still a very effective bowler (contrary to what some assume), and a far better fourth/fifth seamer than Trott.

2-0 to SA, if I were to predict. Much stronger batting line up IMO.

The Oval? Excellent! I was slightly worried it would be at Lords, which has tended to be very flat in recent years, so might negate SA's rustiness (warm-ups are good, but no substitute for the real thing). Plus the Oval usually spins, which is the area where England hold the advantage.

You're right, Rudolph will probably open if it comes to that (injury or loss of form for Petersen) but I'm surprised given SA's problems there they haven't gone for a specialist back-up.

Yeah big Jacques is still a more than handy bowler. Expect him to take some wickets.

Not sure Kallis' bowling should trouble us too much.

For me, the two guys who separate the two sides are Kallis, the batsman and Steyn, the bowler. We dont have anyone as good as these two IMO. The rest are pretty evenly matched. But SA's catching is a factor too. Our catching in the post Colly era has been a tad disappointing. We cant expect to drop the likes of Amla, Kallis and De Villiers and get away with it.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Not sure Kallis' bowling should trouble us too much.

For me, the two guys who separate the two sides are Kallis, the batsman and Steyn, the bowler. We dont have anyone as good as these two IMO. The rest are pretty evenly matched. But SA's catching is a factor too. Our catching in the post Colly era has been a tad disappointing. We cant expect to drop the likes of Amla, Kallis and De Villiers and get away with it.

I respectfully disagree on your first two points.

But I agree that the close catching, which became exceptional in 2010 and 2011, has declined slightly of late. Strauss's form in the slips is average, whilst Bresnan and Swann don't quite gobble them up like Colly did.

Pietersen is as good as Kallis when it comes to batting in England. So is Bell for that matter.

Without looking it up though I think we, as a team, have played Steyn really well in the past and his record isn't half as good against us as it is against other teams. So how we play him and Philander will be crucial, as those are the two bowlers I see running through us quickly, rather than Morkel who will bowl well but not perhaps rip through us like the other two will.

And I remember Kallis struggled on his last tour of England, although that was mainly with Freddie. But yeah, bowling at that middle order of Amla, Kallis and AB will be crucial to us wining the series.

*Steyn averages 32.3 with the ball against England, compared to a career average of 23.18, although these figures are slightly skewed as he struggled in his first series which was against England in 04/05 (52 avg).

We play Steyn ok, he will take wickets of course as he is a world class performer, but we aren't all at sea against him by any means.

Morkel, on his day, can rip through anyone, however those days aren't always that frequent.

England's catching is generally superb, though there have been more drops than you'd like of late, granted.

As for Kallis the batsman, I don't just feel it is him. In this series there are several batsmen on an even keel. Kallis, Pietersen, de Villiers, Amla and Bell are the five. As JD says, the way the bowlers bowl to the respective middle orders may be crucial to the outcome of the series. Pietersen and Bell, as Stella rightly says, are every bit as good as the South Africans on English soil.

Casting my mind back a year with India coming over I was thinking "how the **** are we going to bowl them out twice?" and convinced myself we would lose the series.

I have that feeling again this year: "how are we going to make runs against Steyn and Morkel?", surely they'll win at least one test for SA, so I'm thinking 1-1 at best.

I'm hoping my pessimism is rewarded with similar results as last year. Can't help being pessimistic when you grew up watching cricket in the 90's!

I thought the exact same thing as you, VTR. Let's hope we have similar success as we did then!

I can't see the South Africans rolling like that, though. If we are to win a Test we will have to be superb, and I'd like to think that the same can be said for the Saffers. Collapses and dropped catches will simply cost Test matches in that series.

No resting players in this series

Agree Fists - a much tougher team. India only fought for a Test and a half last year.

2-0 England for the series. England to dominate 1 Test and win, England to edge another Test and win, South Africa to dominate 1 Test and England to cling on for a draw. What a series it should be!

This series is going to be tough and I can't wait for it, think it will be a draw 1-1. Don't write off Tahir just yet ( provided we play him obviously), he has been working on his bowling and might just surprise- I say while hoping it won't come back to bite me in the ....!

2-1 england IMO...

will be very close though.

stormers1 wrote:This series is going to be tough and I can't wait for it, think it will be a draw 1-1. Don't write off Tahir just yet ( provided we play him obviously), he has been working on his bowling and might just surprise- I say while hoping it won't come back to bite me in the ....!

I'm a Warks fan and he did a very decent job for us when he was our overseas.

He is a talented bowler, but just hasn't quite had the returns expected of him at international level yet. His time may come, but I hope it isn't for this series

The problem fists is do we know how to make use of him. I know that fact has been mentioned before but the question still remains in my mind. Especially considering the lot that came before him

Perhaps not. Smith, after all, has rarely captained a 'proper' spinner.

I am still excited that we have a decent spinner in our team and just worry that we might spoil what could be a golden opportunity to go top, he is not young and although as a spinner he could play for a few more years who replaces him??
I do agree with you on Morkel too, I don't rate him away from home (saying that I don't know what his stats are at home and away) and have had many a heated discussion about him and his brother with my old man, Morne did do well during the IPL and made me eat my words.

Tahir has to be used as an attacking option....you can tell by the sheer amount of f/c wickets he has amassed that he is class...

Kallis can be used as the bowler who holds an end up, but Tahir is purely an attacking spinner, he is getting better at defending, however he is an attacking spinner!!

For me Imran Tahir could be the big difference separating these 2 top test teams, as English batsmen have always had serious problems in playing leg spinners throughout the history of test match cricket. Richie Benaud was Australia's match winner in the Old Trafford test of 1961, Chandrasekar was India's match winner at the Oval in 1971, Abdul Qadir tormented England's batsmen in 1987, Anil Kumble caused Graham Gooch's England team all sorts of problems in 1993, Shane Warne bamboozled England's batsmen throughout the 1990's up until his retirement in 2007, and I believe that even Zimbabwe's Paul Strang has caused England's batsmen problems on the 1996 England tour of Zimbabwe.

KP should score runs against SA. As long as he is not over aggressive against someone like Tahir.

South Africa should have selected Richard Levi as he would have belted Anderson, Broad, and Swann all over the legside boundary fences.

gboycottnut wrote:South Africa should have selected Richard Levi as he would have belted Anderson, Broad, and Swann all over the legside boundary fences.

gboycottnut wrote:South Africa should have selected Richard Levi as he would have belted Anderson, Broad, and Swann all over the legside boundary fences.

thats a dreadful comment, im sorry but that is awful, you havent seen much of Levi at all, otherwise you wouldnt have made that comment.

CF wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:South Africa should have selected Richard Levi as he would have belted Anderson, Broad, and Swann all over the legside boundary fences.

thats a dreadful comment, im sorry but that is awful, you havent seen much of Levi at all, otherwise you wouldnt have made that comment.

Oh yes I have! He has got amazing hand to eye coordination which enables him to hit the ball cleanly from way outside off-stump to his legside field, in the manner of the great Viv Richards.

he's terrible against swinging ball, and short ball, he's a slogger who can only hit on legside...

gboycs reeling in the bites...

The comparison of Levi to Viv Richards is utterly ridiculous!

With regard to the previous comments about Imran Tahir, that he is obviously class because of the number of FC wickets he has taken, I have a slight issue.

Leg-spinners are bowlers which domestic cricketers rarely have to contend with, and when they do they are often those that spin the ball marginally, rather than big turners like Tahir. This is particularly the case in English and South African domestic cricket, in which spin tends to play a supporting role. Therefore it is no surprise that domestic players struggle both to pick his googly, and to manouevre his leg-spinner. For every batsman that can do so, another three or four will likely struggle, and with the treadmill of domestic cricket there is less time to plan for particular, and unusual cricketers.

The suggestion is that at international level, in the Tests he's played thus far (admittedly few in particularly spin-friendly conditions) the opposition batsmen have had the skill to pick his googly. One reason for this is that international teams will spend longer planning for a particular bowler ahead of a series. The other is, of course, that top batsmen are more adept at adapting to different bowlers and, on the whole, a level better than those Tahir will have encountered in domestic cricket. Once his variation is de-mystified, his problems are compounded by the fact that he bowls far too many loose deliveries (even for a leg-spinner), perhaps as he tries too hard to find the 'magic' ball. At domestic level, as batsmen grapple with picking him and seeing him off these might go largely unpunished. But in international cricket the batsmen will be desperate to accumulate some runs (particularly if the pace bowlers have kept things tight), and have generally demonstrated the skill to hit him out of the attack.

That is not to say that he cannot have success at Test level. On the right surfaces, and with better accuracy, he can still be a big improvement on Harris. However, in this particular series I don't see him being a major threat unless he can find some accuracy and exercise England's batting demons from the winter by getting into the action early.

CF wrote:he's terrible against swinging ball, and short ball, he's a slogger who can only hit on legside...

Being terrible against the swinging ball doesn't make a player a bad one. As for being terrible against the short ball, well I've still to see any evidence of that being a weakness. And being a slogger type of player shouldn't prevent Levi from having a chance of playing at a test match level, as other sloggers such as David Warner and Virender Sehwag have managed to adapt their batting style to do well at test level.

gboycottnut wrote:

CF wrote:he's terrible against swinging ball, and short ball, he's a slogger who can only hit on legside...

Being terrible against the swinging ball doesn't make a player a bad one. As for being terrible against the short ball, well I've still to see any evidence of that being a weakness. And being a slogger type of player shouldn't prevent Levi from having a chance of playing at a test match level, as other sloggers such as David Warner and Virender Sehwag have managed to adapt their batting style to do well at test level.

Sehwag has a pretty full range of strokes around the wicket, and crucially along the ground, which allow him to be successful in Test cricket. He is very aggressive, but not a 'slogger' like Levi.

Warner has had two good Test innings and a whole heap of poor ones. At the moment he's probably the best the Aussies have in the opening position, and probably worth persisting with, as he has some form of technique to go with the big-hitting. He demonstrated that with his 1st ton against New Zealand, which was not a slogathon.

From Levi, on the basis of what I've seen so far, I can't see him having any success without slogging. And in Test and ODI cricket, particularly against the new ball, that simply isn't good enough.