England v South Africa, 3rd Test, The Oval, 27-31 July, 2017

Follow-on avoided.

Suddenly it's a road... if they can get the lead down to 100 or so it's game on.

Bavuma looks impassable ATM, but with the Ostrich now dismissed, I'm not sure Capt. Poopy Pants will "have the stomach" for the battle.

BTW, what's the word on Verny's affliction - a dodgy vindaloo??

Jimmy turns 35 tomorrow...

Hard to believe he featured in the 2003 edition of this series, when young Graeme "Greg" Smith made two double centuries, Nasser Hussain handed over to Michael Vaughan, and Alec Stewart (who is now 54) made his Test farewell appearance.

While Jimmy had some success in that series (alongside lesser remembered seamers like James Kirtley and Kabir Ali), it was 5 years or so before he fully established himself as a quality Test bowler.

Jandy was buggered up a lot in his early years in Test cricket.

His action, which they tried to remodel (because of that dip in his head on release) and nearly broke, certainly set him back.

Vaughan's "leadership", much feted as a result largely of the talent at his disposal in 2005, was at its worst in his risible unsympathetic handling of his young talented quick.

Jennings looks - perhaps not surprisingly - as secure as a Brexit economy or one-wheeled applecart (choose your metaphor).

But England get to almost a 200 lead at lunch.

Bad weather may have a big say today.

PeterCS wrote:Jandy was buggered up a lot in his early years in Test cricket.

His action, which they tried to remodel (because of that dip in his head on release) and nearly broke, certainly set him back.

Vaughan's "leadership", much feted as a result largely of the talent at his disposal in 2005, was at its worst in his risible unsympathetic handling of his young talented quick.

He didn't figure at all in '05 did he - unused squad member at the Oval when they went with the extra batsman in Colly if I remember correctly, that change (for the injured Simon Jones) being the only one made in the series. They clearly didn't trust him at that point in time.

Handling young bowlers is very difficult as it's such a fine line between fine tuning them and protecting them from injury, and coaching the raw pace and ability out of them. There was fault on both sides with Anderson, his attitude at times and the way he was managed. But if he'd been an England mainstay from 2003-08 it's unlikely he would still be going now. Sometimes players just need to mature a bit.

I seem to remember the initial remodelling of action was due to a running on the pitch issue that threatened to derail his career at the hands of the umpires, rather like Finn's running into the stumps?

Well bugger the rain.

PeterCS wrote:Jennings looks - perhaps not surprisingly - as secure as a Brexit economy or one-wheeled applecart (choose your metaphor).

But England get to almost a 200 lead at lunch.

Bad weather may have a big say today.

Oui, Jennings lucky not to be out on six to his nemesis Philander. He doesn't look a long-term prospect in the opening spot.

The hyphen put in the best performance for an English bowler in his first test since James Kirtley took 6/34, also against South Africa.

beamer wrote:

PeterCS wrote:Jandy was buggered up a lot in his early years in Test cricket.

His action, which they tried to remodel (because of that dip in his head on release) and nearly broke, certainly set him back.

Vaughan's "leadership", much feted as a result largely of the talent at his disposal in 2005, was at its worst in his risible unsympathetic handling of his young talented quick.

He didn't figure at all in '05 did he - unused squad member at the Oval when they went with the extra batsman in Colly if I remember correctly, that change (for the injured Simon Jones) being the only one made in the series. They clearly didn't trust him at that point in time.

Handling young bowlers is very difficult as it's such a fine line between fine tuning them and protecting them from injury, and coaching the raw pace and ability out of them. There was fault on both sides with Anderson, his attitude at times and the way he was managed. But if he'd been an England mainstay from 2003-08 it's unlikely he would still be going now. Sometimes players just need to mature a bit.

I seem to remember the initial remodelling of action was due to a running on the pitch issue that threatened to derail his career at the hands of the umpires, rather like Finn's running into the stumps?

Still has an intermittent attitude problem - can get very petulant at times. But then, I suppose there is some element of Jekyll & Hyde in most quicks (and some slow bowlers). When things don't go their way, when conditions/ball/pitch offer little, when a batsman keeps playing and missing. It's odd in his case, because he is quiet, unassuming, short on words but courteous off the pitch. (Then again, that's not an unfamiliar story with a lot of top sportsmen - when they get their 'mean head' on, crossing the white line into play mode.)

I thought the remodelling in Anderson's case was more the result of a (misguided) insistence he should be less shoulder rotation and more head-up. It may be that unreconstructed, his action WOULD in time have led to more shoulder injuries (as well as missing more return catches, not seeing them coming back) - but at the time it seemed to have messed with his mind, and effectiveness. The consistency would have taken time anyway.

But true, if it kept him out of the fray longer than if they had left him a bit more to his own devices, quite possibly efficacious in and for the long run.

I've lost count of the number of times that Jimmy has been written off (myself included). It's fair to say, however, that he he's having the last laugh. England could get another 12-18 months out of him if he's wrapped in cotton wool when not required.

I still think his low point was in NZ in around 2008, when he started bowling bouncers at Chris Martin of all people when Southee was teeing off at the other end... that was the point I really thought he didn't have the cricketing intelligence to be a successful Test bowler. I think they had just ditched Harmison and Hoggard in favour of Anderson and Broad (in response to a poor batting performance from the team) and most of us were unconvinced.

Thoughts so far:

Eight batsmen is one too many -  I liked the balance of the side in the first two tests. Just tell me whose prong Rashid has to pull to get a run in the test side.

Can we stop the chatter about Stokes' ideal position in the side and how good a player he is? He is a star. End of!

Humble pie time: I would not have let Roland-Jones be Liam Dawson's bag-carrier, never mind give him a test. Admittedly, he had favourable conditions to bowl in, but he's shown himself to be a highly skilled bowler but sterner tests lie ahead in more unforgiving conditions.

Eight batsmen is too many, but so is six bowlers! Five seamers is a complete waste of time, and we don't have two spinners worthy of the name (and there's no point playing two spinners in English conditions anyway, 90% of the time).

A nice problem to have though, when two of your five-man attack and your keeper are legitimate top five batsmen. I know, you don't really want to waste one of them at number 8, but when the top five is a bit uncertain it's nice to have that fall-back.

I think Rashid is worth a go - especially against the West Indies who don't appear to have much clue about playing spin bowling. We'll also need a back-up spinner in Oz (assuming that their players have put the collecting tins away by then).

Basil wrote:I think Rashid is worth a go - especially against the West Indies who don't appear to have much clue about playing spin bowling. We'll also need a back-up spinner in Oz (assuming that their players have put the collecting tins away by then).

Rashid seems to have had his file stamped NTPFEA in terms of Test cricket, not entirely sure why but there have been hints dropped about attitude...

Basil wrote:I've lost count of the number of times that Jimmy has been written off (myself included). It's fair to say, however, that he he's having the last laugh. England could get another 12-18 months out of him if he's wrapped in cotton wool when not required.

Agree. Tho like Warner, he is ordinary away from home.

Good knock from Jenny. Could be a keeper.

Patient debut 50 from Westley, but we need to kick on after lunch. An hour or so of sloggery then stick them in before tea?

Congrats to Westley on his debut 50*.

beamer wrote:Patient debut 50 from Westley, but we need to kick on after lunch. An hour or so of sloggery then stick them in before tea?

Assuming SA bowl 25 or 26 overs in the pm session - if England want to have a go at them before tea, that leaves them around 20 overs to get 100 - 120 runs.

Sounds about reasonable. With eight wickets in hand, some very attacking batsmen to come, and the fact that it probably doesn't really matter if they get bowled out, they may as well play this next hour and a half like a T20 innings.

Root may yet get into the position of having to wait for Westley to make 100 before he can declare.

How many Tests is that?

Does Faf need reminding that lump of wood is not just for propping himself up with at the non-striker's end?