South Africa vs England ODI Series

by VTR Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:45 pm

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)

by guildfordbat Sat Feb 06, 2016 11:53 pm

Hi again Alfie et al - just back after some morning shopping. Smile

34/1 off 9 - not disastrous but hoped for a better start than than that. Feel this could be difficult ....

by kingraf Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:16 am

Every review today could have been a wicket if only they elected the mankad option

by guildfordbat Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:30 am

kingraf wrote:Every review today could have been a wicket if only they elected the mankad option

So poor play by the bowlers, eh Duty and Olly? Wink

by alfie Sun Feb 07, 2016 1:51 am

Hmm

Back after a couple of hours sleep to see England apparently cruising in... And then Morgan rather donates his wicket.

So still need run a ball 90. And now Stokes gone to a slightly unnecessary reverse sweep.

This might be tricky.

by alfie Sun Feb 07, 2016 1:52 am

Aha. Stokes reprieved by drs .

Lucky boy.

by alfie Sun Feb 07, 2016 1:57 am

Bah. Stokes bowled by Morkel ...no doubt that time.

Out for a duck. And not a good duck Smile

England making a bit of a mess of this chase I think. Hales with a welcome score but he needs some assistance or this is not going to end well...

by alfie Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:17 am

Hales gone for 99 , alas.

Buttler and some handy late bats still to come but with sixty still needed off 51 they're making heavy weather of it...

by guildfordbat Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:20 am

alfie wrote:Hales gone for 99 , alas.

Buttler and some handy late bats still to come but with sixty still needed off 51 they're making heavy weather of it...

A much better chance for SA now with Hales gone but still England's to win or lose imo with 5 wickets still in hand and less than 7 an over needed over 8 overs.

by alfie Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:34 am

Yes ...runs flowing with Moeen starting well and Buttler finding his rhythm...

Abbott over going for sixteen has just about settled it.

by alfie Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:38 am

...and quickly ; as Buttler destroys Tahir completely

Though he probably should have been caught.

All over clap

by dyrewolfe Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:45 am

Well, after a bit of a wobble, England win at a canter with some destructive batting from Buttler, ably assisted by Moeen.

Shame for Hales, getting out like that, but at least he has the consolation of laying the foundation for the victory.

by guildfordbat Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:53 am

Pretty comfortable in the end. A major benefit of having several really destructive batsmen in the line up. Stokes failed today but Buttler sure came to the party.

On UK Sky, Stewie ''impressed'' by the approach of England's management - ''taken very seriously after a long Test tour ... no resting of players for white ball cricket ... gearing to World Cup now ... good planning''.

by Mad for Chelsea Sun Feb 07, 2016 3:00 am

afternoon all. Only really caught the last 80 runs of England's chase or so, so can't comment too much, but Buttler's rather good isn't he? Very Happy

You can understand why England for so long played him in the finisher role, simply because he's so good at it.

Today for instance you have Behardien 23 not out off 26 balls, Buttler 48 off 28, which was pretty much the difference between the two teams. Overly simplifying I know, and Behardien is hampered by the lack of batting behind him, while Buttler knows England bat much deeper, but still... A part of me reckons Behardien is picked in part for his bowling, since SA need to muddle through 10 overs of him and Duminy, and that lack of balance rather hampers SA IMO.

by kingraf Sun Feb 07, 2016 3:00 am

Good performance by England. Thought we were pretty close in the first game and even for large parts of this one but in the end I think England having a deeper batting line up saw them through. Behardien had to check his charge towards the end because he'd run out of partners but England didn't have that problem. when batting with seven batsman you need four or five to really play on and maybe in that regard we were a little unlucky as JP got a bum call and I'm still not sure how the third umpire overturned the Rossouw decision but c'est la vie.

by alfie Sun Feb 07, 2016 3:03 am

Not many Test players in the side to be rested , actually...

Really only Root Moeen and Stokes who might be eligible for a break ; but I agree it's a good idea to keep them out there (though if they can go 3-0 I might give Stokes a spell)

by guildfordbat Sun Feb 07, 2016 6:40 am

Alfie - yeah, fair enough although I think Stewart's main point that we are finally doing all we can to take ODIs seriously and not simply a poor relation of Test cricket still stands.

I've heard him at the Oval be very scathing about preparations for previous World Cups.

by Mad for Chelsea Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:48 am

kingraf wrote:Good performance by England. Thought we were pretty close in the first game and even for large parts of this one but in the end I think England having a deeper batting line up saw them through. Behardien had to check his charge towards the end because he'd run out of partners but England didn't have that problem. when batting with seven batsman you need four or five to really play on and maybe in that regard we were a little unlucky as JP got a bum call and I'm still not sure how the third umpire overturned the Rossouw decision but c'est la vie.

Having watched the highlights, I'm a bit surprised by the above. You have:
a) a change in the ball rotation right after it passes the bat, clearly visible on the magnifying lens - the seam changes from a NW-SE axis to an E-W one.
b) a noise picked up by ultra-edge: in fact you have the noise of bat hitting ground (a sort of continuous scramble) followed immediately by the small spike which usually means an edge.
c) a deflectiong. It's not a big one, but again fairly clearly visible on the magnifying lens.
d) how far Buttler goes to take the ball. This one is more subjective obviously, but it seems to me that Buttler has gone further to get to that than he would to a delivery passing the stumps where it did without a nick. Now this could also be due to say some reverse swing, but when added to a,b,c for me you certainly have conclusive enough evidence to overturn.

Duminy got a poor one though. I've seen some criticism of De Kock for using the review, but IMO it's a bit harsh, given that the ball from Stokes only just pitched in line (Stokes in general doesn't swing it into a left-hander, so to win an LBW he has very little margin for error), and of course the fact that De Kock is SA's most in-form batsman. It's never a guarantee that another batsman would have the chance to use the review in the innings, and hindsight can be a wonderful thing in these cases.

On Duminy's dismissal, I wonder if the umpire was in part influenced by the fact Duminy was playing straight down the ground rather than through the leg-side, quite rare for a ball that's missing the stumps? Pretty ordinary decision, in fact Coetzee had an ordinary game.

Overall though, SA can have no complaints, England were certainly the better team today.

England are in fact developing very nicely indeed in this format. I see the points raised by guildford via Stewart that England seem to at last be taking the format seriously. I think the separation of the ODI side from the Test side (largely) has certainly helped. The days of Anderson and Broad being constantly rested from ODI series and expected to turn into match winners at the WC seem long past, and that is a good thing. I think given how many Tests England - in particular - play, it's almost unreasonable to expect fast bowlers to play both formats, simply too big a workload IMO, so picking ODI specialists (or at least guys who aren't ever present in the Test team) makes a lot of sense.

Obviously an even bigger change is England waking up to the idea that you can score heavily in the middle-overs, rather than plodding along in the hopes of setting things up for a final assault. The batsmen have been liberated, helped by being given a run in the side in Hales and Roy's cases, and it shows. They're also helped by a strong generation of aggressive players coming through of course...

by kingraf Sun Feb 07, 2016 6:50 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
kingraf wrote:Good performance by England. Thought we were pretty close in the first game and even for large parts of this one but in the end I think England having a deeper batting line up saw them through. Behardien had to check his charge towards the end because he'd run out of partners but England didn't have that problem. when batting with seven batsman you need four or five to really play on and maybe in that regard we were a little unlucky as JP got a bum call and I'm still not sure how the third umpire overturned the Rossouw decision but c'est la vie.

Having watched the highlights, I'm a bit surprised by the above. You have:
a) a change in the ball rotation right after it passes the bat, clearly visible on the magnifying lens - the seam changes from a NW-SE axis to an E-W one. Must be honest I wasnt looking for a change in rotation. Might have been there
b) a noise picked up by ultra-edge: in fact you have the noise of bat hitting ground (a sort of continuous scramble) followed immediately by the small spike which usually means an edge. The ultra edge starts oscilating before the ball gets to him and before he's hit the ground
c) a deflectiong. It's not a big one, but again fairly clearly visible on the magnifying lens .
d) how far Buttler goes to take the ball. This one is more subjective obviously, but it seems to me that Buttler has gone further to get to that than he would to a delivery passing the stumps where it did without a nick. Now this could also be due to say some reverse swing, but when added to a,b,c for me you certainly have conclusive enough evidence to overturn Alternatively having looked at Duminy's one, Buttler would almost certainly have had to go as far to pick that one up, surely?.

Duminy got a poor one though. I've seen some criticism of De Kock for using the review, but IMO it's a bit harsh, given that the ball from Stokes only just pitched in line (Stokes in general doesn't swing it into a left-hander, so to win an LBW he has very little margin for error), and of course the fact that De Kock is SA's most in-form batsman. It's never a guarantee that another batsman would have the chance to use the review in the innings, and hindsight can be a wonderful thing in these cases.

On Duminy's dismissal, I wonder if the umpire was in part influenced by the fact Duminy was playing straight down the ground rather than through the leg-side, quite rare for a ball that's missing the stumps? Pretty ordinary decision, in fact Coetzee had an ordinary game.

Overall though, SA can have no complaints, England were certainly the better team today.

England are in fact developing very nicely indeed in this format. I see the points raised by guildford via Stewart that England seem to at last be taking the format seriously. I think the separation of the ODI side from the Test side (largely) has certainly helped. The days of Anderson and Broad being constantly rested from ODI series and expected to turn into match winners at the WC seem long past, and that is a good thing. I think given how many Tests England - in particular - play, it's almost unreasonable to expect fast bowlers to play both formats, simply too big a workload IMO, so picking ODI specialists (or at least guys who aren't ever present in the Test team) makes a lot of sense.

Obviously an even bigger change is England waking up to the idea that you can score heavily in the middle-overs, rather than plodding along in the hopes of setting things up for a final assault. The batsmen have been liberated, helped by being given a run in the side in Hales and Roy's cases, and it shows. They're also helped by a strong generation of aggressive players coming through of course...

Its not the fact that its been given out, more that I disagree with there having been enough evidence to overturn the original decision. He might have edged it, he probably did, but I can't ever remember a decision reversed on the basis of the ball changing axis.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Tue Feb 09, 2016 11:43 pm

Jason Roy in serious danger of becoming the next Ian Bell in ODI's (always finding funny ridiculous ways to get out when looking good!)

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Wed Feb 10, 2016 12:29 am

Oh Jos has middles his first ball to fine leg

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:15 am

I think this root fella has a future in this game

by dyrewolfe Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:39 am

Root and Stokes together at the crease, in full flow.

The stuff of every bowler's nightmares? devil

by Mad for Chelsea Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:26 am

good comeback from SA in overs 44-48, but the last couple of overs with Rashid and Willey going strong just pushed the momentum back towards England. The benefits of batting deep

Splendid innings from Root, and excellent support from Hales - who's having a cracking series - and Stokes. My feeling is this pitch is a bit too paced and not that easy to bat on, but the lights and dew might quicken things up and help SA.

SA have of course strengthened their bowling for this one, so will be interesting to see how they go about the chase. Unlike England, they have a fairly long tail.

Tahir's form must be a huge concern for them, he's provided no control whatsoever throughout the series, and little wicket-taking threat either.

by SimonofSurrey Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:43 am

Olly wrote:Jason Roy in serious danger of becoming the next Ian Bell in ODI's (always finding funny ridiculous ways to get out when looking good!)

.
Comparing Jason Roy and Ian Bell as ODI batsmen is like comparing Eurostar to SW Trains: they may look quite similar in some ways, but only one of them is capable of serious acceleration and then maintaining such high speeds

by guildfordbat Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:47 am

Very much as MfC says.

England may feel that they might have got 20 or so more compared to how they were going with about half a dozen overs left. However, they really can't be too unhappy at all about putting 318 on the board. Haven't watched much but from what I did see I also didn't think batting looked that easy. Would feel we're firmly in the box seats. A couple of our bowlers will have to fail to properly turn up if SA are going to achieve the rate required.

Yes again - Tahir is a strange one, so effective in English domestic cricket but desperately struggling on the international stage.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:59 am

Saffers cruising to this

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:00 am

Oh and we really need to drop Jordan soon

by guildfordbat Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:07 am

Olly wrote:Saffers cruising to this

Smashing start for SA but let's see if they've still got 10 wickets in hand when 200 comes up ....

by Duty281 Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:12 am

Olly wrote:Oh and we really need to drop Jordan soon

Very, very soon. He's just another Jade Dernbach.

by kingraf Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:55 am

guildfordbat wrote:
Olly wrote:Saffers cruising to this

Smashing start for SA but let's see if they've still got 10 wickets in hand when 200 comes up ....

Your powers of prescience are remarkable

by VTR Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:11 am

Well this will be a right drubbing, England will have to review their bowling options. I hope Jordan is never seen in an England shirt again, I don't care if he can field well.

Only one of Topley or Willey should probably play.

Not too worried anyway, Finn will come back with Woakes and Broad pushing for a place.

by guildfordbat Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:19 am

Well, powers of prescience or not, I think we can safely call this one now. Haven't seen any of this innings but clearly very disappointing second half showing by England.

No issue with Jordan being dropped for the next game but saying ''never again'' is an over reaction. There's talent there even thought it hasn't shown itself well in this series. As the other bowling stats today suggest, we're not so overloaded with effective bowlers that we can permanently write off someone so early into their career.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:25 am

Rashid has bowled very well again

by guildfordbat Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:45 am

Jordan not helping my or, more importantly, his cause.

by guildfordbat Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:49 am

Olly wrote:Rashid has bowled very well again

2 wickets in 3 games at exactly 5 per over. Tredwellian perhaps?

by VTR Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:53 am

I would stand behind never again for Jordanz he is not an especially young player and has played quite a few games now for not much return other than some good catches

He must surely be miles behind Finn, Broad and Wood now and Woakes was very good in the UAE.

I'd prefer England to move on and look at the next crop of young players (Overtons, Currans etc) if they want to experiment with the bowling

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:54 am

guildfordbat wrote:Jordan not helping my or, more importantly, his cause.

I think he has potential like you, but there's no way he should be in this side ahead of Woakes IMO.

Also agree with VTR that there's probably only room for one of Willey/Topley when Finn is back - and of the two at the moment I'd drop Topley and keep Willey (although I do think Topley is very talented).

Otherwise the side works really really well - will obviously have off days and defeats, but a lot of potential. The extra batting allows the likes of Buttler/Stokes to go in with freedom, and we still have 6 bowlers in the side with it (heck we have David Willey who has a 40 ball T20 hundred to his name coming in at 9/10!).

South Africa batted superbly, and bowled very well in between overs 35-45 to keep us down to 320 (when it looked like we were on for 350+). Keeps the series alive!

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:55 am

guildfordbat wrote:
Olly wrote:Rashid has bowled very well again

2 wickets in 3 games at exactly 5 per over. Tredwellian perhaps?

Very much so! Just on the eye test he seems to be a lot more consistent than when he first came into the side in the summer, the spell in Australia seems to have done wonders for his confidence

by dyrewolfe Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:16 am

Well we got schooled that time.

Thought 318 would have been okay, despite our batting continuing to be horribly inconsistent...still too many of our top and middle order having collective off-days, leaving 2-3 players to rescue the situation.

Bowling horribly ineffectual...could neither get the wickets or control the run rate (even allowing for the undoubted talent of the SA batting line-up).

Lets hope things are a bit less one-sided next time around.

by VTR Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:20 pm

That's harsh I think, the batting has been consistently winning us games since the NZ series, there must be at least 5 or 6 games in that period where England either set a large total or chased down a target with ease.

Agree on the bowling, but its quite an experimental line-up lacking proven wicket takers. Add a couple of more hostile pace bowlers though and you have a serious team

by Mad for Chelsea Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:27 pm

Harsh on the batting, which has been collectively very good since the NZ series.

England didn't bowl well though, that's for sure. Credit to De Kock and Amla, who played lovely innings, and the conditions quickening up under lights helped them a fair bit, but England's bowling - with the honourable exception of Rashid, and to a lesser extent Stokes - was all over the place. I see Jordan's bearing the brunt of the criticism, but Willey, Topley and Ali were hardly any better IMO.

Still, let's not over-react to one defeat by a very good ODI side. Yes, some of our bowlers inexperience was a little exposed, and it's possible they got a bit nervous at the chance of clinching the series, but England's ODI side still looks pretty good and is building up nicely.

Changes? Well none to the batting certainly. Hales, Root and Buttler - who was a tad unfortunate yesterday - are in fine form. Roy keeps annoyingly getting out when he looks ready to explode, but I think he'll come good soon. Morgan's form isn't that great in this series, but he'll be back. Stokes has had two very nice knocks, and seems to be making better use of his tremendous natural abilities (his ODI record is shockingly poor for such a good player). All in all, England have a settled top 7, and it's IMO clearly the best available.

Bowling. I see some saying Willey or Topley rather than both, but I like them as an option. They offer different things. The problem might be that if the ball isn't swinging their lack of pace up front can become a problem. Stick with them for me. Rashid has bowled very nicely this series for limited reward. Jordan I think needs to be dropped. Much as I like him, and think he'll do a job at the death, his stock bowling is just too much all over the place, and he releases too much pressure. If Plunkett were fit I'd pick him, his extra pace offers something a little different and can be a good wicket-taking option. Without him or Finn, Woakes may be the next best option, though not sure it solves the wicket-taking problems. Maybe bite the bullet and go to Broad as a short-term fix?

by dyrewolfe Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:28 am

Have to agree to disagree on the batting.

Yes, the team has collectively done well enough to get the results, but it seems to me, regardless of the format, it more often than not comes down to 2-3 batsmen to get good scores, while the rest go cheaply (some exceptions, obviously).

Either that, we have to be saved by a middle order / tail end fightback.

Yes, the overall figures and results look good, but there are nearly always a number of individual flops most matches. This time we didn't get away with it.

Strange that we struggled to get past 300 while SA only lost 3 wickets doing so.

by VTR Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:42 am

Well that's cricket isn't it? Or do you expect all of the top 7 to fire at once every time?

I think the Test team is a bit different as its the same few players being relied on most of the time, but I think the England top 7 in ODIs all have very good recent records

by Jetty Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:18 am

Broad is playing on Friday so who will drop out?

by **LondonTiger** Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:29 pm

I try not to comment on performances until the whole series is done with ODIs, however the bowling so far is palpably not good enough.

I know that we have been hindered by Finn's injury, but there shoudl only be room for Willey or Topley in 50 over cricket. Expecting 20 overs from their left arm medium pace is, unless the ball is hooping, too much.

Meanwhile - please, please explain to me what Chris Jordan brings to the party as a bowler?

by VTR Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:30 pm

Jetty wrote:Broad is playing on Friday so who will drop out?

Got to be Jordan hasn't it? Topley took a 4-for and has done quite well, Willey has been ok, Jordan absolutely awful

by alfie Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:23 pm

I would imagine Broad for Jordan is a sure thing for Friday.

I am , like LT , unconvinced that Willey/Topley really works on good pitches ; but am happy enough for them to continue for now. In general , I think the new ODI team bowling is a lot less convincing than the batting...but they have - just about - done the job so far...it makes sense to give them all plenty of experience early in the WC cycle.

by Gooseberry Fri Feb 12, 2016 1:08 am

LondonTiger wrote:

Meanwhile - please, please explain to me what Chris Jordan brings to the party as a bowler?

He can take his own catches?

by guildfordbat Fri Feb 12, 2016 4:21 am

alfie wrote:I would imagine Broad for Jordan is a sure thing for Friday.

I am , like LT , unconvinced that Willey/Topley really works on good pitches ; but am happy enough for them to continue for now. In general , I think the new ODI team bowling is a lot less convincing than the batting...but they have - just about - done the job so far...it makes sense to give them all plenty of experience early in the WC cycle.

Hi Alfie - grateful if you could expand on your reasoning here. In particular, is your concern just to do with their pace or is it also connected with Willey and Topley both being left armers? I have a ''Surrey reason'' for asking which I'll expand upon having heard from you. Thanks.

by alfie Fri Feb 12, 2016 1:12 pm

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 !

by Sponsored content