England vs SA ODIs

England v South Africa at Leeds on May 24, 2017

1st ODI Match scheduled to begin at 14:00 local | 13:00 GMT

2nd ODI: England v South Africa at Southampton on May 27, 2017

(11:00 local | 10:00 GMT)

3rd ODI: England v South Africa at Lord's on May 29, 2017

(11:00 local | 10:00 GMT)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st ODI

Pitch:
Recent games have seen big scores, although Headingly is known as a seamers ground for the most part.

Weather:
Forecast sunny and hot with some light cloud, unlikley to be enough to make a difference for seamers.

SA have never won an ODI at Headingly, but come in ranked number one. England despite their revival are only ranked 5 in a congested table partly due to a tough winter tour schedule and historic results from the old side bringing them down. The bookies have them favouirtes to win, albeit with the natural home backing bias.

England side (from):
Jason Roy, Alex Hales, Joe Root, Eoin Morgan (capt), Jonny Bairstow? Ben Stokes, Jos Buttler, Moeen Ali? Adil Rashid, Chris Woakes, David Willey? Liam Plunkett? Mark Wood
2 of these will have to miss out, all arguably deserve a start. England may choose to continue the experiment with 1 spinner after Rashid and Root combined effectively against Ireland. Moeens continued his poor returns with the ball over the winter for England into the County season and frankly would be getting selected for the sake of two spinners rather than on form and ability. If he doesnt play then theres a question of whether England feel they can afford the luxury of 5 seamers given the number of all rounders they have, or if Bairstows continued excellence with the bat demands selection at the expense of 6.5 bowling options (although he has struggled in his last two RLC matches).
Plunkett and Willeys chances may be helped by being home ground players, but Wood is the nearest thing to a genuine fast strike bowler England have so is unlikley to miss out. Stokes' IPL form and general superstar status makes him nailed on, and its hard to imagine Woakes missing out either. Buttler too is a given for the gloves, whilst replacing him with Bairstow could be considered theres no sign thats on the cards. Most likley Bairstow will remain the resrve batsman/keeper and have to wait for an injury.
All in its a healthy position for England with everyone fit an available, and their weakness in the spin department is less of an issue on home pitches. The batting reamins deep reagrdless of the line up they choose, with Bairstwo in it would be truely formidable.

South Africa (from):
Quinton de Kock (wk), Hashim Amla, Faf du Plessis AB de Villiers (capt), JP Duminy, David Miller, Chris Morris? Andile Phehlukwayo? Wayne Parnell? Kagiso Rabada, Morne Morkel, Imran Tahir? Keshav Maharaj?

Whilst they lack Englands all rounders they make up for this with some genuine superstars (even without Steyn) and real pace, and players who should have no issues with English conditions especially on a sunny day. Unlike England with Tahir and Maharaj they have a couple of very capable limited overs spinners both of whome deserve a place, but again its likely only one will be selected with Duminy offering an option.
Pretoriuos played both warm ups but didnt do much with bat or ball, so Im assuming he wont force his way in.
They won both tour warm up matches with all the senior bats making a decent score, de Kock a century and a duck. Its hard to judge but if we consider the opposition on a par with the current Ireland side (which frankly may be generous to Ireland) then SA showed every bit as much dominance as England did in their warm ups.


Should be a cracking series.

Like you said Goose this should be a cracking series - a good warm up for the champions trophy

Morgan has said that most of the England squad are likely to get a game in this series - suggests they are flexible with their approach, but I'd expect Bairstow to miss out this first game and Moeen to play (ie. continue with the formula they have for the past year or so)

Roy goes cheaply but Root and Hales looking good. 41-1 after 6. Pitch looks a belter

Roys struggles continue then, but theres no discgrace in getting out cheaply on a seamers pitch new ball to SA.
No great surprises in teh line ups. England have giuven Moeen another chance rather than picking more seamers and more batting than they perhaps would need theyve gone with the guy who gives them little in either.

I think Moeen just about deserves a chance as his ODI bowling has been fairly economical recently and he barely gets time to play a proper innings. He does need to do something more than steady soon though, especially if Rashid starts to perform again, he could find himself out of the side fairly quickly

Moeen and Morgan disappoint the Twitter crowd by scoring all the runs

Amla and particularly du Plessis motoring. 143/1 off 24.

Generally reckoned nowadays that a team should be able to double in their final 20 overs the total it reached in the first 30 overs provided enough wickets are in hand. On that basis, 170/1 off 30 will be good enough for a South African victory and they look well on course for that. England need to get amongst the wickets and soon ....

... and with that, the expensive Wood gets Amla lbw with a review in the 25th. That could lead to a turnaround and/or an interesting finish but the visitors still in the box seats for my money.

And another! Plunkett has du Plessis caught behind in the 26th. Two new batsmen need to start again. Now a very different game ....

176/3 off 30. JP and AB settling well. 164 more needed. We're going to need more wickets ....

guildfordbat wrote:176/3 off 30. JP and AB settling well. 164 more needed. We're going to need more wickets ....

Don't use up all your jinxes this early in the summer!

England chipping away, but have struggled to defend against SA in the recent past. I still favour SA from here

And Guildford will be interested to hear the equation has apparently changed to sides being able to double their 32 over score in the last 18 overs. This was per TMS which is quite a shift from the commonly understood 30/20 split

Hmm looks like I am with a jinx as the man who stopped England defending scores last time out, Chris Morris goes. It's not going to be his Day Today

And De Villiers goes to Moeen. And, you would think, that should be that.

I'm calling this as rigged to make me look like an idiot.

And 10 points off VTR for that awful joke :p

It was a bad one, can't defend it!

A good win for England with a lot of room for improvement. Positive signs heading into the CT

Followed the latter stages on cricinfo so can't properly comment but South Africa wasted a great position. Scandalous to fail to use your allocation up by 5 overs.

Morris was a big disappointment at Surrey last season, hopefully that will continue.

VTR - yeah, I've heard about doubling your 32 over score in the last 18 but feel that depends too much on one batsman going very big and, in particular, also staying there to the end. It's clearly doable but too much of a risk to rely on in any way imo.

Gooseberry wrote:I'm calling this as rigged to make me look like an idiot.

As Moeen was dancing down the wicket and tonking Tahir all over the place I thought Goose would be hating this

Seriously though a good win for England and as VTR said room for improvement too. Chris Woakes is a properly good one day bowler, and Plunkett seems to have found some form too. Lovely stuff

We could do with Roy/Buttler scoring some runs in one of these next two games (neither exactly had a great time in the IPL)

Guildford...id also say wickets in hand and the quality of the lower order matters too.
S.A. are strong up top but have a proper tail unlike England.

And yes as I was only saying this morning Moeen is a fine all round cricketer and due to have his day.
Cough

No doubt a fine performance and deserved MOTM for Moeen but still think it's a fair point that he needs to deliver more consistent performances to stay in the side. Without wanting to be too negative I'd say yesterday was a one in every ten games type performance

Looking at the side in general, I would say he and Rashid are most vulnerable, with Plunkett and Wood likely to be rotated out at times but not dropped altogether. I was glad to see them both play as I think their pace is needed as a wicket taking option in the middle overs

VTR wrote:No doubt a fine performance and deserved MOTM for Moeen but still think it's a fair point that he needs to deliver more consistent performances to stay in the side. Without wanting to be too negative I'd say yesterday was a one in every ten games type performance

Looking at the side in general, I would say he and Rashid are most vulnerable, with Plunkett and Wood likely to be rotated out at times but not dropped altogether. I was glad to see them both play as I think their pace is needed as a wicket taking option in the middle overs

I think Moeen is in a tough spot batting wise - he had time yesterday to get himself in before going all out attack, but often at 7 you're coming in with 5/6 overs to go and you need to swing right away. As I think you pointed out earlier his bowling economy has actually been improved in the last 12 months. As I've said I like the balance he brings to the side.

I think Rashid is fairly established as the #1 ODI spinner at this point - and agree with you on the wicket taking ability wood and plunkett bring in those middle overs (as shown yesterday I thought plunkett bowled very well in particular). I do think we miss Willey with the new ball though - he has that knack of always getting one or two early

Fair points, I certainly want both Moeen and Rashid to succeed as England have invested a lot in them and they have both played well at times. A spinner who can get through ten overs, picks up wickets and can generally score at a SR of 100+ is an asset so lets hope Moeen keeps it up

I am not so bothered about Willey - decent with the new ball but after that I feel he has to be hidden from the attack due to his pace. Not a bad option to have though as he never let's England down

VTR wrote:No doubt a fine performance and deserved MOTM for Moeen but still think it's a fair point that he needs to deliver more consistent performances to stay in the side. Without wanting to be too negative I'd say yesterday was a one in every ten games type performance

Looking at the side in general, I would say he and Rashid are most vulnerable, with Plunkett and Wood likely to be rotated out at times but not dropped altogether. I was glad to see them both play as I think their pace is needed as a wicket taking option in the middle overs

I was listening to TMS and the close of the game on the way home yesterday, and the analysis of the two bowlers was interesting.

They suggested that England would be very happy getting 4-80 from Rashid. He's in the side as a wicket-taker and if he goes for runs they don't mind.

They also pointed out Moeen is our most economical bowler since the World Cup, albeit not taking a ton of wickets.

It appears the two are being given very different roles and therefore there performances aren't really comparable, or even competing for the same place(s).

All the while England are winning, you'd find it very hard to change the balance. 4+2+Root seems to be working very well in the bowling stakes. The only way Ali or Rashid would be under threat is if (a) their performances dipped or (b) there was another spinner threatening to do their role better than they can do it. I think they're both safe.

I wouldn't be surprised if England pick the same team for the second game, then Bairstow, Billings, Ball and Willey coming in for Root, Buttler, Plunkett and Wood for the 3rd game, just to give everyone that run-out. I'd then expect us to try to keep the strongest team together for 5 games in a row in the Champions Trophy.

Gooseberry wrote:Guildford...id also say wickets in hand and the quality of the lower order matters too.
S.A. are strong up top but have a proper tail unlike England.

And yes as I was only saying this morning Moeen is a fine all round cricketer and due to have his day.
Cough

Goose - yep. I did actually mention earlier ''provided enough wickets are in hand''. South Africa were so well placed yesterday with only 1 down after 24 overs but then proceeded to chuck wickets away like confetti. As for their lower order, cricinfo were bigging them up and referring to Parnell having opened the batting. I wasn't convinced - most from number 7 seemed to be batting a place too high (having checked their stats, that confirmed they are nothing special) and just because someone has opened doesn't make him a credible opener.

As for Willey, if from the start of the game he's not trusted to come back and bowl in the final powerplay, that's definitely limiting your options and probably too much for him to be included.

robbo277 wrote:All the while England are winning, you'd find it very hard to change the balance.

To expand on this point:

We're the second most expensive team in terms of economy rate since the 2015 World Cup, however;

In 26 completed games (1 no result) since the start of 2016, England have won 18 (69%), tied 1 and lost 7.

England have bowled the other team all out on 10 occasions (37%), including in all 6 of their last ODIs. In games where England have taken 10 wickets, they've won all 10.

England average 7.96 wickets per ODI - and that's pure wickets/ODI, not adjusting for rain effected games or batting failures shortening chases.

Hi Robbo, as you probably know already - on the 10 occasions we've bowled the other team all out, how many of those times were our opponents batting second? I'll comment further upon getting the stat, thanks.

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Robbo, as you probably know already - on the 10 occasions we've bowled the other team all out, how many of those times were our opponents batting second? I'll comment further upon getting the stat, thanks.

England batted first 7 of the 10 occassions.

When bowling first England have taken on average 7.8 wickets , including one reduced overs game.

So the actual difference in wickets taken between bowling or batting first is pretty minimal even if the opposition has bust out a few times desperately chasing tough totals.

Morning all.

Overall I felt it was a pretty convincing performance from England. Batted well, bowled (mostly) well, fielded well. Nearly everyone contributed. Can't have too many complaints.

Obviously they'd like Roy and Buttler to produce something of substance in the last couple of games. That's twice in recent internationals Buttler has got out in that manner by the way, flicking a leg-side delivery to leg gully. Suspect teams may try to target him there, so interesting to see how he responds. Roy played a poor shot, but then again Hales also drove loosely early on (the one from Rabada which nipped back and only just missed the stumps), game of fine margins at times.

I think Morgan deserves some credit for his captaincy, bringing Wood and Plunkett back turned the game with the wickets of Amla and Du Plessis in successive overs.

As for the balance, I don't think it will change, though the seamers may rotate a little. 4+2 is a nice range of options (+ Root for a few overs) and Stokes's issues yesterday to me showed how important that sixth bowler is. It's fine to give Root a couple of overs here and there, but you don't want to be in a situation where he's needing to bowl 7-8 overs because one of the five main options has broken down or taken real tap. Also, I'd point out that England's strength since the last world cup has been their batting, so weakening their bowling options to (potentially) strengthen the batting seems counter-productive. Doesn't hurt obviously that Moeen turned in such a fine performance yesterday. Bairstow is unfortunate, but there you go.

Re Willey, much as I like his swing and wicket-taking ability up front, he feels like a bit too much of a luxury in 50 over cricket. T20s is another matter, and he's definitely in England's first choice team there for me. I do wonder if England will be tempted to pick him should Stokes not recover (or England not wish to risk him) in the remaining games. Otherwise, I feel England now know their best XI to be yesterday's side, and given they have just comprehensively beaten the number one ranked team that's a fairly ringing endorsement.

I agree with guildford re SA's tail, I think Morris and Parnell feel a place too high. Loather as I am to criticise batsmen getting out playing attacking shots, Morris's dismissal yesterday was horrific, given he had AB in fine form at the other end and still plenty of time to set the game up for the finish. I also don't think the reverse sweep is a great option for him in general, his strength being hitting the ball hard and cleanly (see previous ball). I don't think there's much of a solution though, given again the need for six bowling options. In past years they've gone with Behardien at 6/7, but I don't really rate him.

Gooseberry wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Robbo, as you probably know already - on the 10 occasions we've bowled the other team all out, how many of those times were our opponents batting second? I'll comment further upon getting the stat, thanks.

England batted first 7 of the 10 occassions.

When bowling first England have taken on average 7.8 wickets , including one reduced overs game.

So the actual difference in wickets taken between bowling or batting first is pretty minimal even if the opposition has bust out a few times desperately chasing tough totals.

Thanks, Goose. I had expected the difference to be more marked.

To be fair on SAs tail its us being conditioned to Englands ludicrous depth that makes them seem a place high.

In regard to Willey the real key is are England happy to continue with 4 right arm seamers?
If hes the best of the left armers and isnt producing enough with the ball to warrant selection ahead of one of those in the side then they will have to sacrifice that ability to target certain players weaknesses and offer variety.

Id agree that this game has cemented Englands "first choice" line up which has remained pretty stable since the last world cup both in make up and personel. But yeah chances are the other games with see the wider squad used....absolutely no risks to fitness to be taken now.

Just to annoy the Surrey crowd as is my way Im going to point out that Roy seems to be struggling a bit since India. Hopefully he will get some confidence and fleuncy in the next two games. Buttler too hasnt been at his best with the bat for some time, but I can only se Bairstow wrestling the gloves off him if England get off to a very bad start to the tournament.

I cant ever remeber a time when the side looked this settled, whilst at the same time having other players available who would be included on merit in their own right.

Only saw about half the England innings (bit late these d/n games down here !) but impressed with the home team's effort generally and agree it does suggest the XI is all but settled. Moeen picked a good time to come back to form with bat and ball ; the mix of bowlers looks to be offsetting to a significant extent the arguable lack of "real class" (by comparison with some teams) among the individual bowlers - and surely Plunkett has shown his value to ensure he will be preferred to Willey , despite being another boring right arm merchant
Willey may yet play a part ; but I'd suggest he'd be more likely an alternative to Wood , perhaps , for reasons of rest and rotation or possibly a very "swingy" sort of day ?
Good to see Morgan keeping up his good form , though it would be nice to see Roy and Buttler get back in runs soonish.
Think YJB , Ball and Billings are injury reserves.

Of course disaster may strike on Saturday and all change on twitter : but for now I think you could say the mission looks on track...

Gooseberry wrote:
...

Just to annoy the Surrey crowd as is my way Im going to point out that Roy seems to be struggling a bit since India. Hopefully he will get some confidence and fleuncy in the next two games.

...

I think we all appreciate that's your role, Goose, and you perform it with continuing enthusiasm.

That said, I don't disagree with you about Roy struggling. He's actually played little cricket in recent months which can't have helped. Largely on the bench at the IPL and then a couple of one dayers for Surrey. He's worth sticking with imo but I understand the note of concern.

Decent enough game. England did well to get to 340. 340 is always a lot, but I thought with 160ish to go, six sticks in hand, and 20 overs left, we should have won it handily. Not going to stress too much about this though. Heading into this series, we've won 14/16 and haven't lost a bilateral series since Bangladesh in 2015, so our apparent lack of depth can't actually be all that bad?

kingraf wrote:Decent enough game. England did well to get to 340. 340 is always a lot, but I thought with 160ish to go, six sticks in hand, and 20 overs left, we should have won it handily. Not going to stress too much about this though. Heading into this series, we've won 14/16 and haven't lost a bilateral series since Bangladesh in 2015, so our apparent lack of depth can't actually be all that bad?

I think it was perhaps slightly exaggerated yesterday by the comparison to England's batting depth, which is pretty amazing TBH. Basically, both teams were set up almost identically when the fifth wicket fell ca over 35 (SA with a slight lead), but whereas England had Moeen coming to the crease with Woakes, Rashid and Plunkett to follow (and Wood, who would make a decent number ten in most teams), SA had Morris, followed by Parnell etc. As such, the comparison is unflattering to SA. As you say though, they have been in tremendous form of late, and shouldn't worry too much.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

kingraf wrote:Decent enough game. England did well to get to 340. 340 is always a lot, but I thought with 160ish to go, six sticks in hand, and 20 overs left, we should have won it handily. Not going to stress too much about this though. Heading into this series, we've won 14/16 and haven't lost a bilateral series since Bangladesh in 2015, so our apparent lack of depth can't actually be all that bad?

I think it was perhaps slightly exaggerated yesterday by the comparison to England's batting depth, which is pretty amazing TBH. Basically, both teams were set up almost identically when the fifth wicket fell ca over 35 (SA with a slight lead), but whereas England had Moeen coming to the crease with Woakes, Rashid and Plunkett to follow (and Wood, who would make a decent number ten in most teams), SA had Morris, followed by Parnell etc. As such, the comparison is unflattering to SA. As you say though, they have been in tremendous form of late, and shouldn't worry too much.

Yeah, I'd probably rather have Dwaine Pretorius coming in before Morris, but I'm pretty happy with our depth. Even in comparison to England's. Morris can go nuclear as well as anyone in the world. Parnell averages two less than Rashid, one less than Woakes. I don't think there's a huge difference lower down between the two teams to be honest. yesterday, England's lower order went off, ours didn't.... But I'd hardly be picky about having one or the other when Rahid averages 27, Woakes 25 and Plunkett 21. We're hardly talking about James Faulkner or Lance Klusener types here

kingraf wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

kingraf wrote:Decent enough game. England did well to get to 340. 340 is always a lot, but I thought with 160ish to go, six sticks in hand, and 20 overs left, we should have won it handily. Not going to stress too much about this though. Heading into this series, we've won 14/16 and haven't lost a bilateral series since Bangladesh in 2015, so our apparent lack of depth can't actually be all that bad?

I think it was perhaps slightly exaggerated yesterday by the comparison to England's batting depth, which is pretty amazing TBH. Basically, both teams were set up almost identically when the fifth wicket fell ca over 35 (SA with a slight lead), but whereas England had Moeen coming to the crease with Woakes, Rashid and Plunkett to follow (and Wood, who would make a decent number ten in most teams), SA had Morris, followed by Parnell etc. As such, the comparison is unflattering to SA. As you say though, they have been in tremendous form of late, and shouldn't worry too much.

Yeah, I'd probably rather have Dwaine Pretorius coming in before Morris, but I'm pretty happy with our depth. Even in comparison to England's. Morris can go nuclear as well as anyone in the world. Parnell averages two less than Rashid, one less than Woakes. I don't think there's a huge difference lower down between the two teams to be honest. yesterday, England's lower order went off, ours didn't.... But I'd hardly be picky about having one or the other when Rahid averages 27, Woakes 25 and Plunkett 21. We're hardly talking about James Faulkner or Lance Klusener types here

Morris' returns to date dont back that up. An average of 18 at an SR of 99 is pretty pathetic up against Moeen
Parnells SR is worse than any England players.
Plunkett isnt a Faulkner, but hes a number 10 for england with better stats than SA's 7 and 8. Their actual 7 (Moeen) is a Faulkner. SAs 10 and 11 dont even have good SRs, unlike their England counterparts (although Woods stats like Phulehkwahteverhisnameis should be brushed over as hugkley misleading ...but he can hit a ball)

Sorry but there is a real gulf between Englands 7-11 and SAs.
The reverse is true of the top order where SA have a truely formidable unit of genuine ODI stars.

alfie wrote:Only saw about half the England innings (bit late these d/n games down here !) but impressed with the home team's effort generally and agree it does suggest the XI is all but settled.  Moeen picked a good time to come back to form with bat and ball ; the mix of bowlers looks to be offsetting to a significant extent the arguable lack of "real class" (by comparison with some teams) among the individual bowlers - and surely Plunkett has shown his value to ensure he will be preferred to Willey , despite being another boring right arm merchant  
Willey may yet play a part ; but I'd suggest he'd be more likely an alternative to Wood , perhaps , for reasons of rest and rotation or possibly a very "swingy" sort of day ?
Good to see Morgan keeping up his good form , though it would be nice to see Roy and Buttler get back in runs soonish.
Think YJB , Ball and Billings are injury reserves.

Of course disaster may strike on Saturday and all change on twitter : but for now I think you could say the mission looks on track...

Hi Alfie - I wonder if it actually helps in particular Rashid and Ali that they're perceived by opposition batsmen as lacking ''real class''; the batters thus feel rather obligated to get after them and give their wickets away in the process. Unlike, say, facing a class slow act like Ashwin, where they are largely content to play out his 10 overs. Just a thought.

kingraf wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

kingraf wrote:Decent enough game. England did well to get to 340. 340 is always a lot, but I thought with 160ish to go, six sticks in hand, and 20 overs left, we should have won it handily. Not going to stress too much about this though. Heading into this series, we've won 14/16 and haven't lost a bilateral series since Bangladesh in 2015, so our apparent lack of depth can't actually be all that bad?

I think it was perhaps slightly exaggerated yesterday by the comparison to England's batting depth, which is pretty amazing TBH. Basically, both teams were set up almost identically when the fifth wicket fell ca over 35 (SA with a slight lead), but whereas England had Moeen coming to the crease with Woakes, Rashid and Plunkett to follow (and Wood, who would make a decent number ten in most teams), SA had Morris, followed by Parnell etc. As such, the comparison is unflattering to SA. As you say though, they have been in tremendous form of late, and shouldn't worry too much.

Yeah, I'd probably rather have Dwaine Pretorius coming in before Morris, but I'm pretty happy with our depth. Even in comparison to England's. Morris can go nuclear as well as anyone in the world. Parnell averages two less than Rashid, one less than Woakes. I don't think there's a huge difference lower down between the two teams to be honest. yesterday, England's lower order went off, ours didn't.... But I'd hardly be picky about having one or the other when Rahid averages 27, Woakes 25 and Plunkett 21. We're hardly talking about James Faulkner or Lance Klusener types here

Going to disagree, and I'm not sure you've got your stats right: according to cricinfo, Parnell averages 21.78. That's quite a bit below Moeen (27.7), Woakes (25), Rashid (25.7) and on a par with Plunkett (21.9). Also, his SR is significantly lower than all of them (Woakes at 86 the only one under 100 for England, Rashid the best at 112, Plunkett and Moeen at 101-102). Morris for what it's worth strikes at a shade under 100 with an average in the high teens, though it's not a huge sample size I guess (15 innings). Phehlukwayo seems to have made a good start to his ODI career, high average of 64.5 (boosted by 5 not outs from 7 innings), and striking at 107. But really, while it might not be a huge difference, England's lower order from 7 down looks significantly stronger than SA's to me, and the stats do seem to back that up. Doesn't mean SA's lower order is poor per se, but England's is a real strength.

EDIT: Goose snuck in first, but definitely agree with him.

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Only saw about half the England innings (bit late these d/n games down here !) but impressed with the home team's effort generally and agree it does suggest the XI is all but settled.  Moeen picked a good time to come back to form with bat and ball ; the mix of bowlers looks to be offsetting to a significant extent the arguable lack of "real class" (by comparison with some teams) among the individual bowlers - and surely Plunkett has shown his value to ensure he will be preferred to Willey , despite being another boring right arm merchant  
Willey may yet play a part ; but I'd suggest he'd be more likely an alternative to Wood , perhaps , for reasons of rest and rotation or possibly a very "swingy" sort of day ?
Good to see Morgan keeping up his good form , though it would be nice to see Roy and Buttler get back in runs soonish.
Think YJB , Ball and Billings are injury reserves.

Of course disaster may strike on Saturday and all change on twitter : but for now I think you could say the mission looks on track...

Hi Alfie - I wonder if it actually helps in particular Rashid and Ali that they're perceived by opposition batsmen as lacking ''real class''; the batters thus feel rather obligated to get after them and give their wickets away in the process. Unlike, say, facing a class slow act like Ashwin, where they are largely content to play out his 10 overs. Just a thought.

An interesting thought, and one that may have a measure of truth. Though stats suggest they've been more likely to play Ali (say 1-50 or so) in recent times and go after Rashid more. Rashid is more expensive, but he also gets (quite a lot) more wickets. It might also be that because England's batting is strong, sides know they need to score heavily so take more risks. I wonder how England's record in wicket-taking, said above to be at nearly 8 wickets per ODI, compares to other teams over the last couple of years?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

kingraf wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

kingraf wrote:Decent enough game. England did well to get to 340. 340 is always a lot, but I thought with 160ish to go, six sticks in hand, and 20 overs left, we should have won it handily. Not going to stress too much about this though. Heading into this series, we've won 14/16 and haven't lost a bilateral series since Bangladesh in 2015, so our apparent lack of depth can't actually be all that bad?

I think it was perhaps slightly exaggerated yesterday by the comparison to England's batting depth, which is pretty amazing TBH. Basically, both teams were set up almost identically when the fifth wicket fell ca over 35 (SA with a slight lead), but whereas England had Moeen coming to the crease with Woakes, Rashid and Plunkett to follow (and Wood, who would make a decent number ten in most teams), SA had Morris, followed by Parnell etc. As such, the comparison is unflattering to SA. As you say though, they have been in tremendous form of late, and shouldn't worry too much.

Yeah, I'd probably rather have Dwaine Pretorius coming in before Morris, but I'm pretty happy with our depth. Even in comparison to England's. Morris can go nuclear as well as anyone in the world. Parnell averages two less than Rashid, one less than Woakes. I don't think there's a huge difference lower down between the two teams to be honest. yesterday, England's lower order went off, ours didn't.... But I'd hardly be picky about having one or the other when Rahid averages 27, Woakes 25 and Plunkett 21. We're hardly talking about James Faulkner or Lance Klusener types here

Going to disagree, and I'm not sure you've got your stats right: according to cricinfo, Parnell averages 21.78. That's quite a bit below Moeen (27.7), Woakes (25), Rashid (25.7) and on a par with Plunkett (21.9). Also, his SR is significantly lower than all of them (Woakes at 86 the only one under 100 for England, Rashid the best at 112, Plunkett and Moeen at 101-102). Morris for what it's worth strikes at a shade under 100 with an average in the high teens, though it's not a huge sample size I guess (15 innings). Phehlukwayo seems to have made a good start to his ODI career, high average of 64.5 (boosted by 5 not outs from 7 innings), and striking at 107. But really, while it might not be a huge difference, England's lower order from 7 down looks significantly stronger than SA's to me, and the stats do seem to back that up. Doesn't mean SA's lower order is poor per se, but England's is a real strength.

EDIT: Goose snuck in first, but definitely agree with him.

Going to counter disagree to be honest, and by definition of course, this means I am also disagreeing with Goose. Moeen averages 27, which is decent to be fair, but at 7, he averages 24.78, two nights ago that average was 21 at 7 (For what it's worth Morris averages 12 at 7 - in only seven innings, to be fair - so he probably loses this head to head, but to be fair he actually should bat 8 when Pretorius comes back; where he averages a more palatable 27.7).

Re: Parnell, in macro, his SR does look a little paltry, but it's worth noting that Parnell did strike it at a rather pedestrian 133% last season (his first proper run in the ODI team, in his career).

At the end of the day, this is a relatively inexperienced 7-10 (so the averages will oscillate, hence the eye Test, and anecdotes are for the moment, probably fairer... And anecdotally. I've seen them aid David Miller in hunting down 370. I've seen Phehlukwayo take over a chase while batting with AB in New Zealand. I've seen Phehlukwayo and Pretorius put together 60 for the ninth wicket on in 30-35 balls to get us within earshot of New Zealand from a dead situation. I don't think there's a noteworthy gap between the two lower orders. Maybe I'm wrong. But this is their first failure as a unit. Let's see what happens this summer

What I would say is any team relying on their lower order is probably already in significant trouble. Although Moeen played an excellent innings at 7 the other night, it was alongside one of the top 6, so not really a case of the lower order bailing the side out

I struggle to think of many examples for England - maybe Woakes allowing England to tie a game last summer vs SL, with the highest ever ODI score by a number 8 (95 not out). Even that was mainly alongside Buttler though....

Stokes appears to be carrying a knock on his knee - personally I'd just rest him these next two games and make sure he's ok for the CT - wouldn't want him to aggravate it further

Stokes probably glad they didn't rest him after his hundred forms the centerpiece of another England 330

Nice sunny afternoon so SA may still fancy chasing it : but England - if their fielding is better than SA's (which was awful) - should be able to defend. Will miss Woakes though. Hope Wood is on the ball.

Surprised that there were no comments after Mark Wood's heroics the other day

The knock on effect of winning the series on today's game is England have put out a team featuring a number of reserves including a first cap for Toby Roland-Jones. I wonder if he is being looked at as a possible Test player?

The England teams looks significantly weaker on paper today so I would not be surprised if South Africa, despite making a few changes themselves, win comfortably today

England 15-4 already - with Rashid down to come in at 7, England resting the all-rounders means the batting lacks the usual depth and this could get quite messy, all out for less than a hundred is possible. If that happens Roland-Jones will barely get a bowl so England won't learn anything about him

Well, this is... Unideal.

Yeah, this is a bit of joke performance. They are chucking the bat at everything despite the conditions dictating that a bit of defence is actually needed today. Anyone who's paid to watch this rubbish should be entitled to a refund

This is hilarious

England in dead rubber games are great fun

VTR wrote:Yeah, this is a bit of joke performance. They are chucking the bat at everything despite the conditions dictating that a bit of defence is actually needed today. Anyone who's paid to watch this rubbish should be entitled to a refund

I think the Lords crowd can afford it...