South Africa v England, 4th Test, Johannesburg, 24-28 January, 2020

So England are up 2-1 and can't lose the series.

England look settled now. Who comes into the SAf side for the suspended Rabada?

In answer to that question, here's one answer:

https://m.sport24.co.za/Cricket/EnglandinSA/rabada-ban-bullring-door-opens-for-beuran-20200117

"Jimi" is the Bails nick that awaits ...

There is a question for England, if Jofra is finally fit.

Whom does he replace?


Stokes, of course not. England need his batting, regardless of ball duties.

Bess can hardly be dropped after his Meesh, can he?

Broad? The veteran might be due a place on the rotating rostrum, but he looked up for it throughout at PE.

Curran? Offers too many different skills to the current side. Even if being thrust into spearhead position was not necessarily wise, as suggested on the T3 thread. (But then, Archer doesn't always open the bowling, ...)

Wood is the obvious answer, if he is feeling his glass joints again. But is he? His pace was down a bit on Day 5, but he looked a threat, and genuinely hostile. And had some success.

So I suppose, Archer (errr, if fit) for Wood (if he feels any twinge), and maybe no other change?

LIFO basis => Wood

I guess it depends on the pitch and conditions. No point playing Joffrey if he’s not 100% and/or he wouldn’t make the side stronger.

Certainly no batting changes barring injury/illness, so just the one decision to make in terms of the makeup of the attack.

I would go with the same XI. Woods has done enough to keep his place.

PeterCS wrote:In answer to that question, here's one answer:

https://m.sport24.co.za/Cricket/EnglandinSA/rabada-ban-bullring-door-opens-for-beuran-20200117

Thanks Peter.

England should do what Aust should have done at the Oval - played 11 batsmen.

Then it would be a case of "After you, Claude", rattled out twice for 120 a time, and all over in 2.5 days.

I remember West Indies playing 8 batsmen once after rolling us for 50-odd in the first Test.

You can’t set out to play for a draw in this day and age, though. It’s like employing a park-the-bus strategy against Liverpool.

beamer wrote:I remember West Indies playing 8 batsmen once after rolling us for 50-odd in the first Test.

You can’t set out to play for a draw in this day and age, though. It’s like employing a park-the-bus strategy against Liverpool.

Are you comparing the England cricket team to Liverpool FC?

JGK wrote:

beamer wrote:I remember West Indies playing 8 batsmen once after rolling us for 50-odd in the first Test.

You can’t set out to play for a draw in this day and age, though. It’s like employing a park-the-bus strategy against Liverpool.

Are you comparing the England cricket team to Liverpool FC?

Not exactly, it’s the same whoever you play (and given I was referring to England potentially playing for a draw, it would be South Africa who were Liverpool if I was being specific!)

Liverpool here is basically a metaphor for the pace of 21st century Test cricket, really - if you try and run down the clock, you will come unstuck eventually.

Anyway, Faf is possibly, probably, definitely maybe retiring this year. From one, two or three international formats. But not after this match, unless the SA selectors decide for him.

Who’s in the frame for replacement as Test captain? Not too many batsmen guaranteed their place, a similar issue to the one we’ve had in recent years.

Quinton De Cap?

PeterCS wrote:Quinton De Cap?

Elgar is the other possibility.

The problem with QdK is the obvious one: skipper, keeper AND core batsman is a hell of an onerous task to carry. The amount of intensity and focus needed for every minute of each game.

I wonder whether they couldn't find an alternative keeper, if he was promoted to skipper. And let him stand alternately at slip/mid-on/off as captains tend to do. Keeping is the least pressing of his three potential three duties apparently needed by SAf at the moment (Of course, a turnaround at Wanderers, and things may look a bit different.)

Didn't Elgar stand in when Faf was suspended?

Kocky has the ODI job then... I guess they will see how that goes as they consider the next Test appointment.

Elgar is not that old at 32 but if they’re in full rebuild mode then maybe a Smith-style leap of faith into the next generation is in order?

Meanwhile, BBC website:

'England have turned things around and should win series’ - Agnew


What a bleedin' expert. How prescient. What genius!

PeterCS wrote:Meanwhile, BBC website:

'England have turned things around and should win series’ - Agnew


What a bleedin' expert. How prescient. What genius!

I think that piece of NSS is the headline writer’s line, rather than his own... I know your views on the TMS crew though, to which I say... just try listening to TalkShite!

I have to say I have a sneaking regard for Gough.

Polly and Butch are good, speak forthrightly but with humour and with proper knowledge of the game. Prior too.

Even Nicholas, when he's removed from arse-licking distance, talks some sense. He has some judgment, of the game if not when it comes to excessive levels of adoration of particular individuals when they are near.

Kev less so. Big of mouth, prone to giving it out and brittle as hell to any hint of criticism or even humour with regard to himself. Dazzler, who speaks in good heart, and CAN take it (surprisingly) does him up like a kipper every time.


And hey - I have no problems with the TMS crew, en bloc! I really like Mann, Norcross, the mighty Guha, and others, regular or occasional (esp when they can get the likes of Coney, F Mohammed, etc.!)

K Howells, usually mor restricted to the county circuit,  is also great, when he gets on. (And doesn't get too heady.)

I love Vic Marks, am keen on "Ebs", even with all that gurgling and giggling, .... and I even appreciate Boycott's views, as long as he keeps to what he knows, and is not in pointlessly scathing mode or talkign ignorant politics. ...

The Guvnor also talks fair, honest sense. Good guy, fair judge.

But "Aggers", "Cat", the glib, trendy, over-opinionated and fickle Vaughan, the "what did YOU have for dinner last night?" bullfrog "Daggers", and the self-basting, tiresome Swann - those are the five you can keep, if you don't mind.

It's been a cracking series. Let's hope the last Test is just as exciting as the 1st 2 were.

It should be advantage England (1 Test up and no Rabada) but you never know with the Yarps. They appear a bit down and out but I never write them off.

On the other bit, specific to Agnew ...

beamer wrote:

PeterCS wrote:Meanwhile, BBC website:

'England have turned things around and should win series’ - Agnew


What a bleedin' expert. How prescient. What genius!

I think that piece of NSS is the headline writer’s line, rather than his own (...)

Yes, it's as if the headline writer/editor is sending up Agnew's level of argument! Since the latter always reacts to what's already happened, because - unlike commentators of greater weight - he is fickle, has no "centre of gravity", no greater authority of judgment.

He's - at best - like a weather forecaster who tells you what today was like .... (And that's my point throughout.)

skully wrote:It's been a cracking series. Let's hope the last Test is just as exciting as the 1st 2 were.

It should be advantage England (1 Test up and no Rabada) but you never know with the Yarps. They appear a bit down and out but I never write them off.

Indeed. And with England too, you can never be sure. As mentioned before, favourite status tends to sit uneasily on their heads. Sports teams representing England seem ALWAYS to fare better, fight harder, when considered underdogs.

From a partisan England point of view, one would hope that the (relative) fearlessness of youth of their young batsmen - and their evident skill, a more precarious quality at such times! -  will stand them in good stead. ...

But you never know. I hope South Africa rise to the challenge, despite morale hits and the loss of their main spearhead, and it's a proper battle to end the series.