England Series averages v SA

5 batsmen averaging over 47, and no bowler averaging under 31

Monty leading the bowling averages.

Tim Ambrose looking on shaky ground with just 16.16 and 97 runs in 6 innings.

What odds would you have got on Colly being second in the batting averages at the start of the series I wonder?

Or even 3 innings into the series!

JKLever wrote:

5 batsmen averaging over 47, and no bowler averaging under 31

Monty leading the bowling averages.

Tim Ambrose looking on shaky ground with just 16.16 and 97 runs in 6 innings.

One of those instances where averages don't tell the whole story. Jimmy Anderson bowled his socks off all series, Steve Harmison deserved way better than his four wickets in this match, yet Monty - who disappointed when required to bowl in the 4th innings on worn wickets - and Sidebottom, who was well under par - a shadow of his winter self - top the bowling averages.

And, as has been mentioned in the match thread, Bell's series comprised of an opening innings of 199 and then the remainder of the series scoring 130 runs @ 22.

For me, Pietersen was the only England batsman all series who consistently looked genuine Test class. And that's been England's problem for a long time now...

Alistair Cook 'looked' pretty good - but didn't capitalise on a lot of starts. Still you'd rather he averaged 47 getting a fifty every match rather than scoring 199 then doing f*ck all for the rest of the series.

Sidebottom pitches the ball up and knows how to take wickets - despite not being at his best and struggling with injury he has been much more potent than Flintoff who benefitted from that dodgy sightscreen.

When did Pietersen take a wicket - I don't remember that?

Oh, and who the f*ck is DJ Pattinson?

Gary 111 wrote:When did Pietersen take a wicket - I don't remember that?

Oh, and who the f*ck is DJ Pattinson?

Took Steyn in the first Test.

I'm amazed at the order of the bowling averages, Sidebottom and Panesar did seem to have ordinary series compared to the impact Anderson, Flintoff and in his one appearance Harmison had. Perhaps it was a case of the luck not going their way, as they looked easily the most threatening bowlers.

It's also a surprise to see so many high batting averages, though it was a pretty poor effort from Bell to end up averaging 47 after a near double century to start with. This was his great chance to silence the doubters but he finishes the series still with a lot to prove. Great effort from Colly to turn things round and show once again he's the sort of player we need in there at 5 or 6, not particularly stylish but up for the fight. And Cook was remarkably consistent in getting starts, but I haven't seen anyone get as many 30-70s and then get out since Mark Butcher. He's better than that and should be our batsman who is there to play really long innings. KP of course remains a class apart, hope he can continue to lead by example unlike Vaughan whose batting form slumped once he became captain.

You only have to look at their economy rates to see why Sidebottom and Panesar ended up with the best figures. Neither were at their best but when you keep it tight you're going to profit. The likes of Harmison and Anderson still serve up a buffet ball every few overs, Broad every over. Sidebottom still bowled in the right areas even if he was only at 75%.

Augustus wrote:You only have to look at their economy rates to see why Sidebottom and Panesar ended up with the best figures. Neither were at their best but when you keep it tight you're going to profit. The likes of Harmison and Anderson still serve up a buffet ball every few overs, Broad every over. Sidebottom still bowled in the right areas even if he was only at 75%.

Monty served up more pies than normal as well I'm sure, I suppose that is counteracted by the fact that left arm spinners bowl a lot of balls that the batsman can just pad away.

It's wickets that win you Tests, we really looked a popgun attack at the start of the series and didn't look like bowling a decent side out twice. While I'm not writing off the likes of Sidebottom who I'm sure still has a part to play fully fit, the fourth Test line-up offered more threat and variety than we've had for a while and it's good to see an attack that offers a bit of everything - orthodox and reverse swing, pace, height and bounce and spin. A five-man attack allows you to have "impact" bowlers like Flintoff and Harmison without bowling them into the ground and watering down the effect they have.

Anderson though still bowls a lot of rubbish when the pitches are flat. He seems to need help from the pitch to prosper.

Red wrote:Anderson though still bowls a lot of rubbish when the pitches are flat. He seems to need help from the pitch to prosper.

as one ancient roman who has taken out citizenship in Oz and is a firm Oz cricket fan, let me say I am mortified by the stellar series of bell, colly and harmi...as for the Monysaurus' outstanding figures - they alone fully justify the well founded KP optimism

england after their triumphant series v the saffies are now 5th on the test ratings list...the rest of the test playing countries are in holy terror of the rise of the pomgolian lion

The bowling strike rates are the problem- Not one bowler with a strike rate under 60, which is probably a result of consistently bowling a yard too short.

England certainly bowled better than SA though.

Red wrote:England certainly bowled better than SA though.

You are right they did. Which shows how poor our batting lineup really is!

Morkel couldn't hit the cut strip consistently, Ntini looked shoddy, Kallis is Kallis, Harris is just pump, Nel tries hard but was hit or miss, and Steyn only played 2 Tests.

horace wrote:as one ancient roman who has taken out citizenship in Oz and is a firm Oz cricket fan, let me say I am mortified by the stellar series of bell, colly and harmi...as for the Monysaurus' outstanding figures - they alone fully justify the well founded KP optimism

Change the record FFS horrie .....
I realize you are desperate to see them play in the next Ashes series ....

ok merls ... just for you