South Africa vs England ODI Series

First topic message reminder :

Surprised there is no thread for this yet. Fixtures are:

1st ODI: South Africa v England Bloemfontein on Feb 3, 2016

(13:30 local | 11:30 GMT)

2nd ODI: South Africa v England at Port Elizabeth on Feb 6, 2016

(10:00 local | 08:00 GMT)

3rd ODI: South Africa v England at Centurion on Feb 9, 2016

(13:30 local | 11:30 GMT)

4th ODI: South Africa v England at Johannesburg on Feb 12, 2016

(13:30 local | 11:30 GMT)

5th ODI: South Africa v England at Cape Town on Feb 14, 2016

(10:00 local | 08:00 GMT)

I am with alfie on this - I think it boils down to having bowlers who can win you the game with their ten overs, rather than keep it tight and move the ball around a bit and maybe pick up a wicket or two. Bowlers who can take a "genuine" wicket rather than rely on the batsman making a mistake from an attacking stroke

Broad is definitely in that category as we see in Tests, Anderson could be in English conditions, Finn is of course an option especially in the middle overs - the next ODI tournament is the CT in England next year

The hope would be, you have the players who on their day could get the opposition 50-5 and wondering whether to rebuild or attack, rather than 50-1 even if the run-rate was kept in check

alfie wrote:Hi guildford

Essentially it is because of the pace - or lack of it... I don't really mind them both being left arm any more than I'd be bothered by two right armers operating together.
To be fair I haven't really watched enough of the recent ODIs to have formed a firm opinion on the two of them : but what I have seen still leaves me feeling there is nothing very remarkable about them as pace bowlers , other than lefthandedness and an ability to swing the ball ...    While I support the idea of looking to the future in ODIs and also generally reserving Broad and Anderson for the five day game , I haven't seen anything to suggest they would be more effective than the "old timers" in , say , typical Australian conditions - or Indian - in ODI.
Doesn't mean they aren't a reasonable option - which is why I am fine with them continuing along with Finn , Jordan ( and maybe Plunkett ?  I would keep Wood to Tests) - for the immediate future. People can improve - and hopefully several of the current group will continue to do so.
Just that if England are to threaten the next World Cup I think they might need some as yet unknown "other" in the bowling department rather than banking on the present group of bowlers...and I feel one of these two would probably make way - if they ever find him , of course !

Many thanks, Alfie. You don't particularly surprise me but your comments helpfully confirm the position in a clear way. I note it is really all to do with pace - or lack of it, as you say.

I didn't really think it would be the case (and you confirm it is isn't) but I did wonder if some part of your concern was about them both being left armers. There really isn't any reason why that should be so - after all, a good bowler is a good bowler and, as you also say, plenty of right armers operate together.

Where I was coming from - if anywhere and I appreciate this is probably very wobbly - is that there aren't many left arm seamers around; certainly not in English domestic cricket and probably at all levels worldwide too. One of the pluses often said about a left armer when he does make it into the team (any team) is that, ''he offers something different''. I feel that's true and an additional benefit for his team although obviously he has to be good enough to make the team in the first place; Tymal Mills is a good example here - a lefty and bl**dy fast but too lacking in control (and sadly fitness) to guarantee him a first team county spot. I just wondered if you felt - even at all - that having two left armers operating together was a dilution of the ''something different'' factor and so might reduce their individual effectiveness.

It's not something I feel strongly about but has crossed my mind with regard to Surrey. Last season, 17 year old lefty Sam Curran came onto the scene with considerable county success. Since then, Surrey have additionally recruited another left armer, Footitt. They are both regarded as good - or even better than that - bowlers and that in itself might well be good enough. However, I do wonder if there might be too much of a sameness and the two might not particularly complement each other. I accept there's a lack of logic there as loads of right armers operate well enough in partnership and always have done. However, I still can't help feeling Sam Curran won't have so much of an ''unusualness'' factor.

Broad and Woakes in for Jordan and Willey - ENGLAND put into bat by SA

Not the best of starts , with runs scarce in these early overs and Roy caught hooking cheaply.
On the plus side Hales is starting to motor...ten off Abbott that over.

From past score records England are going to need a big score.

Rather underwhelming 39 from the first ten overs...

SA have bowled pretty well , to be fair. And perhaps there is more in this pitch than is usual for an ODI at this ground ? In which case it might have been a good toss for AB to win , as you'd think SA will be chasing on a much more bat-friendly surface.

Why do people find Imran tahir's celebrations funny?

Bad to worse...

97/4 now as Stokes departs sending Tahir off on his extravagant celebratory run...for the third time. And I missed the lot by going for a shower after the drinks break !

To take the positives :Buttler is in with thirty overs to go

Two good wickets from him but yeah, slightly quite annoying celebrations.
He would feel pretty stoked about them however.  

Now Buttler gone... with around 28 overs to go.

England just need to bat out the overs now. Forget Hollywood cricket, maybe have a dart in the last 10 if it comes to that. At least give the bowlers something to go at

Buttler gone already and I can only assume the pink clothing of the fielding side has been too much for England's batsmen.

Two all with one to play , eh ? Nothing like a cut throat final match...

It appears they've forgotten how to bat - ah well onto the last game

Oh dear. Buttler c&b for a whopping 1.

England managing to underline the point I made in the last game that too often it falls to 2-3 players to build their innings.

Lets hope somebody decides to stick around with Root and help us to a respectable total.

80-odd for 2 and now 100-5. Nearly halfway through the innings and it looks as though SA will tie the series.

If they do I expect their momentum will carry them through the 5th game.

Okay, conspiracy theory time as Moeen goes for 4, leaving England at 108-6.

[tinfoil]
The SA cricket authorities have bribed England to throw this and the previous match, to give the supporters a reason to turn up for the 5th match and thus saving their match revenues.[/tinfoil]

dyrewolfe wrote:

England managing to underline the point I made in the last game that too often it falls to 2-3 players to build their innings.

Yes, and as pointed out, its an unfair opinion. 2 or 3 players performing in each innings is fine, as if the others chip in then that will result in a good score, as England have generally done lately. This is just a bad match collectively so far, they do happen, there are 2 teams out there not just England doing what the hell they want

Momentum is a load of rubbish. Else how would - to use the immediate example - SA have come back from getting hammered in the first two games to effect a brilliant chase in game three ?

Agree SA will surely win today - England look unlikely bat their fifty overs ! But the fifth game will be a new day so anything could happen.

I suppose questions will be asked after this effort about reckless batting etc ...but you can't applaud the full on attacking performance that scored 399 in game one and then complain when the same approach comes unstuck occasionally.
Though perhaps Taylor may feel a little aggrieved now at being left out of the t20 squad in the light of England's failings against the spin
of Tahir

Here's some stats to back that up - out of the completed ODIs since the start of NZ series last summer, England have passed 300 in 9 out of 17 matches, winning 6 of those. They then won 4 out of 8 matches where under 300 was made (3 of those were run chases, so 300 couldn't be made)

That's 10 out of 17 wins, with the batting delivering more often than not. Different players have contributed with Roy, Hales, Root, Morgan, Buttler and Taylor all making hundreds in that period

This is a vast improvement from the abject world cup, or the days when it was Trescothick, KP or no-one to make a hundred

VTR wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

England managing to underline the point I made in the last game that too often it falls to 2-3 players to build their innings.

Yes, and as pointed out, its an unfair opinion. 2 or 3 players performing in each innings is fine, as if the others chip in then that will result in a good score, as England have generally done lately. This is just a bad match collectively so far, they do happen, there are 2 teams out there not just England doing what the hell they want

I don't see it as unfair at all, when its usually the same few players expected to bail us out most matches. It puts extra pressure on them and when they have an off-day we are screwed.

Also not sold on this idea that England can bat deep either. It works sometimes, but rarely in real pressure situations like this one. Additionally, we wouldn't need to bat deep, if the top-middle order was more reliable.

alfie wrote:Momentum is a load of rubbish.  Else how would - to use the immediate example - SA have come back from getting hammered in the first two games to effect a brilliant chase in game three ?

Agree SA will surely win today - England look unlikely bat their fifty overs !  But the fifth game will be a new day so anything could happen.

I suppose questions will be asked after this effort about reckless batting etc ...but you can't applaud the full on attacking performance that scored 399 in game one and then complain when the same approach comes unstuck occasionally.  
Though perhaps  Taylor may feel a little aggrieved now at being left out of the t20 squad in the light of England's failings against the spin
of Tahir

I think its perfectly justified. Its no good looking great in 2 games, if you then go and lose the series (yes, I know it hasn't happened yet).

I don't think momentum is "rubbish" either. If it is, why do so many people involved in sports talk about it? Sport is as much psychological as technical. In this particular case, you have to say England have given SA a lot of help. They  haven't had to work too hard to come back from being 2-0 down.

In fact I'd say its England's complacency, rather than SA having a brilliant resurgence.

See my post above. I think we will have to agree to disagree. You seem to want a Top 6 or 7 who all make at least 50 every time they step out there, well I agree that would be nice!

I personally am pretty happy with how things are developing, we have more potential century makers than I can ever remember in an England ODI team plus one that isn't even in the team (Taylor) and you could add Bairstow who won a match almost single handed last year but doesn't make the team

Root and Woakes going along sensibly. Must try to bat out the fifty and edge the score up to 240 ... maybe more if they are there at the end and able to tee off...

You'd think SA will chase anything England could conceivably make from this position : but you never know. A bit in this pitch for the bowlers so if a couple of wickets fell early there could be a contest.

What a valuable player is Joe Root ! He took his time getting going today (another sign the conditions are tougher than normal for batting ) but has since prospered where the rest have folded up. Touch of class.

dyrewolfe wrote:

VTR wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

England managing to underline the point I made in the last game that too often it falls to 2-3 players to build their innings.

Yes, and as pointed out, its an unfair opinion. 2 or 3 players performing in each innings is fine, as if the others chip in then that will result in a good score, as England have generally done lately. This is just a bad match collectively so far, they do happen, there are 2 teams out there not just England doing what the hell they want

I don't see it as unfair at all, when its usually the same few players expected to bail us out most matches. It puts extra pressure on them and when they have an off-day we are screwed.

Also not sold on this idea that England can bat deep either. It works sometimes, but rarely in real pressure situations like this one. Additionally, we wouldn't need to bat deep, if the top-middle order was more reliable.

So who's coming into this reliable top to middle order that isn't already there then?

I find your stance on this bizarre dyre - but each to their own

dyrewolfe wrote:

alfie wrote:Momentum is a load of rubbish.  Else how would - to use the immediate example - SA have come back from getting hammered in the first two games to effect a brilliant chase in game three ?

Agree SA will surely win today - England look unlikely bat their fifty overs !  But the fifth game will be a new day so anything could happen.

I suppose questions will be asked after this effort about reckless batting etc ...but you can't applaud the full on attacking performance that scored 399 in game one and then complain when the same approach comes unstuck occasionally.  
Though perhaps  Taylor may feel a little aggrieved now at being left out of the t20 squad in the light of England's failings against the spin
of Tahir

I think its perfectly justified. Its no good looking great in 2 games, if you then go and lose the series (yes, I know it hasn't happened yet).

I don't think momentum is "rubbish" either. If it is, why do so many people involved in sports talk about it? Sport is as much psychological as technical. In this particular case, you have to say England have given SA a lot of help. They  haven't had to work too hard to come back from being 2-0 down.

In fact I'd say its England's complacency, rather than SA having a brilliant resurgence.

Hey I'm not saying you can't be disappointed with a poor performance...I am too. But I think given recent efforts the batting list can be given some tolerance for a bad day...

As to "momentum" : yes , a lot of people talk about it. And whenever a team wins a couple of games in a row , people claim this proves it matters ...then when they fall in a hole the next week this gets ignored...
In truth I am inclined to agree that the winning effect (confidence is what it really is , surely ? But call it momentum if you like) can be a useful thing -I think more often within a single match than in a series . The trouble is it is so frequently stopped and reversed (just look at the last Ashes series for example !) that it's effect is hugely overrated. So I will continue to disregard it - feel free to disagree

I feel a Woakes MOTM coming on

Good fifty stand from these two

Your man Woakes doing himself no harm here , Olly . Like to see him go on to play a big one...

At the risk of hexing them ; 170 plus fourteen overs could produce a score north of 260 - which would at least make a game of it.
Not that I will be staying up to watch it. Bit late here so I will leave it to you fellows shortly...good luck

alfie wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

alfie wrote:Momentum is a load of rubbish.  Else how would - to use the immediate example - SA have come back from getting hammered in the first two games to effect a brilliant chase in game three ?

Agree SA will surely win today - England look unlikely bat their fifty overs !  But the fifth game will be a new day so anything could happen.

I suppose questions will be asked after this effort about reckless batting etc ...but you can't applaud the full on attacking performance that scored 399 in game one and then complain when the same approach comes unstuck occasionally.  
Though perhaps  Taylor may feel a little aggrieved now at being left out of the t20 squad in the light of England's failings against the spin
of Tahir

I think its perfectly justified. Its no good looking great in 2 games, if you then go and lose the series (yes, I know it hasn't happened yet).

I don't think momentum is "rubbish" either. If it is, why do so many people involved in sports talk about it? Sport is as much psychological as technical. In this particular case, you have to say England have given SA a lot of help. They  haven't had to work too hard to come back from being 2-0 down.

In fact I'd say its England's complacency, rather than SA having a brilliant resurgence.

Hey I'm not saying you can't be disappointed with a poor performance...I am too. But I think given recent efforts the batting list can be given some tolerance for a bad day...

As to "momentum" : yes , a lot of people talk about it. And whenever a team wins a couple of games in a row , people claim this proves it matters ...then when they fall in a hole the next week this gets ignored...
In truth I am inclined to agree that the winning effect (confidence is what it really is , surely ? But call it momentum if you like) can be a useful thing -I think more often within a single match than in a series . The trouble is it is so frequently stopped and reversed (just look at the last Ashes series for example !) that it's effect is hugely overrated. So I will continue to disregard it - feel free to disagree

Well, thats the thing with momentum being a psychological factor. It depends on the players' state of mind and general attitude. Obviously winning gives you a feelgood factor. This can make you really dig in and try even harder, or it can make you overconfident and a bit lackadaisical. Just like some people can thrive in adversity and only give their best when they're staring down the barrel.

So, yes I probably should have qualified my original comment. Generally, it is a good thing, but it does have a flip side. Funny thing, the human mind, eh?

Back to the match, its great to see JR on the verge of another ton. Fantastic effort in the circumstances. Invaluable support from Woakes too. If these two can drag England to around 250-260, we might yet set SA a challenging target (provided our bowling is a darn sight better than last time).

Thank heaven for drs as Root successfully reviews his lbw !

Need him to stay him if they're going to make a competitive total. But this has been a fine partnership anyway and at least has avoided a complete meltdown as the 200 comes up...

Woakes gone ...bounced too high to hook , really. Rabada with an important wicket .
But Rashid and Broad can bat .

Well played Joe Root

Stayed up for that...masterful performance. Hope he can accelerate to the finish now...

Rashenius is great

Well, we will have a total to work with. The start is key, and we look to have stronger bowling attack this game. If we can somehow have SA 50-3, they do have a long looking tail so it could get interesting. De Kock needs to be in those 3 wickets though!

Fantastic knock from Root! Almost single-handedly given England a fighting chance...Hales doing well to lay a foundation of sorts.

Rashers and Broady will need to find the boundary regularly to get us to a good total. Adil already on 20 - he's not hanging about.

275 looking the likely target for SA. Probably not enough, but a lot higher than looked possible when we were 100-5.

Olly wrote:Rashenius is great

Well he's certainly handy.

Just need him to follow up his batting with 4/35 later on and he might be the match winner

Pity Root couldn't finish ; but at least you'll have a game to watch...

Only seen bits and pieces today but - once more showing my appreciation of the supporting actor role - a very valuable contribution from Woakes. Worth a lot more to the team than his own individual score of 33 would suggest. Had he gone early it surely would have been a case of start the car!

Despite that and Root's heroics, it looks as we haven't got enough but it should at least be something of a contest.

As for more general matters here - momentum is no more than this year's buzz word. Confidence and the right amount of it has and always will be important in sport as in most of life. Too little is clearly a weakness but too much causes arrogance and ultimately mistakes. Knowing the right amount is normally only possible when judging after the event.

I've also no great problem with our ODI batsmen. By way of example, Roy has been pretty disappointing in this series but you can't give someone license to tee off from the start and then expect him to deliver all the time. There were moans at the Oval about his t20 form for Surrey early last season. Alec Stewart commented, ''He won't come off every time but if he bats 12 overs, we'll win the game.'' As regulars will know, I like Stewart and have no reason to hide that but do feel he got that nail fairly on the head. I would question whether dyrewolfe is doing the same.

Well, decent support from Woakes and Rashid, but I can't see 262 being enough.

Didn't help with Broad getting out stupidly, instead of farming singles and trying to keep Rashid on strike. Those 2 extras we didn't use could have got us up to 280-odd.

alfie wrote:

Olly wrote:Rashenius is great

Well he's certainly handy.

Just need him to follow up his batting with 4/35 later on and he might be the match winner

Pity Root couldn't finish ; but at least you'll have a game to watch...

Alfie - bang on about Rashid. He's had a couple of tidy onefers in this series but he really needs to properly come to the party now.Would be good for Moeen to join him too.

guildfordbat wrote:Only seen bits and pieces today but - once more showing my appreciation of the supporting actor role - a very valuable contribution from Woakes. Worth a lot more to the team than his own individual score of 33 would suggest. Had he gone early it surely would have been a case of start the car!

Despite that and Root's heroics, it looks as we haven't got enough but it should at least be something of a contest.

As for more general matters here - momentum is no more than this year's buzz word. Confidence and the right amount of it has and always will be important in sport as in most of life. Too little is clearly a weakness but too much causes arrogance and ultimately mistakes. Knowing the right amount is normally only possible when judging after the event.

I've also no great problem with our ODI batsmen. By way of example, Roy has been pretty disappointing in this series but you can't give someone license to tee off from the start and then expect him to deliver all the time. There were moans at the Oval about his t20 form for Surrey early last season. Alec Stewart commented, ''He won't come off every time but if he bats 12 overs, we'll win the game.'' As regulars will know, I like Stewart and have no reason to hide that but do feel he got that nail fairly on the head. I would question whether dyrewolfe is doing the same.

My problem isn't just with Roy...or indeed any batsman in particular. Its the general pattern that is emerging, whereby it falls to 2-3 players (Root and Hales in this case, with support from Woakes & Rashid) to carry the team.

As for the word "momentum" I've been listening to sports people using it for donkey's years, so its far from being "this year's buzzword".

Momentum isn't an actual thing - just a made up thing to try and explain why people do well in spurts

Decent enough recovery from the lower order - some of the positives of the long batting order coming into effect again.

Very much think the saffers will knock this off with ease tho

momentum is a real thing. You only have to watch those giant cheese rolling contests to see that.

However, yes, it is misused horridly by commentators. If a player, or team, hit a good streak it is not momentum pushing them on but usually confidence. Anyone who has ever played golf will know how much easier things are when you are confident, rather than nervous.

I meant in sports - obviously with cheese rolling and the such its a thing!

You mean like how when footballers score, they don't literally "stick it in the onion bag" and are merely disappointed rather than "sick as parrots" when they lose?

I must also assume no sports player has ever actually orbited the moon in happiness when they have won something.

I thought we all knew that butchering the English language was part of a commentator's job description?

This just off the BBC live text:

South Africa women beat England

Ebony Rainford-Brent
Ex-England batter on BBC Test Match Special
Posted at 15:41

"South Africa's first win in an ODI against England in 12 years is massive for them. England have the better resources and opportunities so for South Africa to pull this is off is fantastic.

"South Africa are really on the up. They've had success in Twenty20 but to do it in 50-over cricket as well is different.

"They have the momentum going into the final match. England were outplayed in all facets - South Africa started and finished the game with a bang and looked the better team."

Wow - huge wicket!

Broad gets Amla for a duck. SA 2-1. Brilliant ball - inside edge onto his stumps.

England need a couple more of those to give themselves a genuine chance, so not getting hopes up just yet.

Get Rashid on

CHRIS WOAKES!!

The Stokes - Woakes combo strikes and suddenly SA are 63-3...

Game on!

If they can get rid of AB and Duminy before they score too many, England might just pull this off...

Olly wrote:CHRIS WOAKES!!

Wicket maiden from the great man

Oh you plonkers that's a turning point surely

Why would you ever dive across Chris Jordan?

Now the umpire doesn't give a plumb LBW lol

Now Roy drops De Villiers - yep there's the missed chances for England