England: 262 for 9 (Pope 56*, Stokes 47 – Pretorius 2/26)
Day 1 at CapeTown always brings back memories for me. I had the absolute pleasure of attending the test there in 2005. It was actually sad to see the area in which I spent four of the five days of that game (yes, it went five days, but if it were a 4 day test, we’d have followed on midway through Day 3). now cordoned off for redevelopment. I do hope the grass bank returns there. It was a great way to watch the cricket.
Anyway, let’s shrug off those memories, and instead focus on today. England chose to omit Jonny Bairstow, while Burns and Archer missed out through injury. Zak Crawley came into open, Ollie Pope reclaimed his place at number 6 and back-up keeper, while Dom Bess gives England a spin option, while Matt Parkinson might be wondering if this paid up working holiday is going to continue with him being ignored. England won the toss and batted.
And within 3 overs Crawley was back in the pavilion, nicking a swinging delivery from Philander. Zak is going to sink or swim here – the last selection of Bairstow over him at Centurion indicated a lack of faith – and he looks like he might get a run if he can just show something in the second innings. I saw him, admittedly a small sample size, at the Oval last year and was really impressed how he handled Morkel. But Philander is a different kind of test animal….
Denly and Sibley then dug in for most of the morning session, before Sibley, who is gradually increasing his output each test, was taken just before lunch when he nicked off to Rabada. England lunched at 67 for 2.
The afternoon session saw Denly become becalmed, while Root did the advancing of the score. I missed the immediate post-lunch session walking the border collie, and when I came back, Root was out, being undone by pace and gloving the ball to de Kock off the pretty impressive Nortje. He had made 35 of the partnership of 42. 105 for 3. Ben Stokes joined Denly, with those memories of 4 years ago and his double century in lots of people’s minds. But before we could get to grips with any of that, and with no hint, Denly played down the wrong line to Maharaj, left a gap between bat and pad, and was castled. Out for 38, and 127 for 4.
Stokes and Pope then put together a partnership – no not 100+ but at least over 50. Pope is one of those players that looks lovely when he hits it, but gives you a real chance, and he did at the start today. He seems to lunge at spin, play with firm hands, but man, when he drives it, it’s like watching Ian Bell. Stokes started to look really dominating, plonking Maharaj over long on for six, and a dismissive pull for four was a lovely shot. Then, bang, chipped to cover for 47. No reason, no hint, just a chip to extra cover. 185 for 5.
Jos Buttler came in, played aggressively, was dropped off a tough chance at silly mid-off, and then nicked off after a flowery 29. No excuses here, Jos. No protecting the tail and then getting out trying to get fast runs. He has the gloves now, so maybe has a bit more time to go, but there are whispers out there. 221 for 6.
Sam Curran played a good shot, then left one and had his off stump knocked out. 231 for 7. Dom Bess, picked partially for his batting, nicked off to the first ball with the new cherry from Vernon Philander. 231 for 8. Stuart Broad’s Embarrassing Dismissal DVD registered another entry when he was yorked by Rabada with bat behind his pad and his feet beating the retreat. 234 for 9.
Pope then added 28 with Jimmy Anderson, and passed his second test fifty with some deft and inventive shot making. The day after his 22nd birthday he played with great maturity and showed he is someone we can look to the future to. He had some luck when Rabada bounced Pope, who hooked it to Philander only for it to be judged a no-ball by the third umpire. The ball before, when Pope upper cut for four, it was an enormous no-ball I called on Twitter (Sky later confirmed it) and this wasn’t called. Umpires have a really tough job, but that was blatant. Maybe this should just be handed to the third umpire. Pope finishing the day on 56 not out. In the words of Atherton “the one bright spot”
What’s there really to say? Any sense in getting angry about this? A different type of batting failure. Instead of one contribution of 80, and another of 40 with single digits elsewhere, we now have numbers 2-7 all making scores between 29 and 47, with one exception. It’s different. All getting in and all getting out (except Pope, of course, but he got lucky spooning one over mid-on early in his innings).
South Africa bowled well, make no mistake about it, but England are going nowhere in test cricket, especially away from home. I go back, as I always do, to the Pakistan test about 20 months ago when we won, well, but the England innings was a lot like this. No-one was making the big centuries. We were relying on helpful bowling conditions and scratching out 250-350. I said then it wasn’t a template for the future. I shrug my shoulders these days.
You should never judge a pitch until both teams have batted, and bowled, on it, but this feels light. Very light. But let us see….
Over Rate Watch – One over light in the 6 and a half hour’s play today. I suppose we should celebrate that.
So, looking forward to Day 2 (although my watching will be curtailed for Teddy’s annual vet visit). And I will continue to watch wistfully. It is a really, really lovely ground. I miss those days. I certainly remember being well watered by the end of that first day, like the England fans appeared to be during that 10th wicket partnership!
Blatant self-promotion on the “Extra Bits” – On This Day for January 3rd. – I have the next six days covered as well.
Comments on today, and those for Day 2, below.
Being Outside Cricket 
I was enjoying this game this morning. Dogged cricket. Good tight bowling. Nothing fancy and it was absorbing. However, the usual happened and today it happened when I fell asleep this afternoon having had a bad night last night. I woke to find we had managed to lose 5 wickets in an hour and a half.
I should have gone back to sleep…..
LikeLike
It is not so much that this is a side that contains a number of poor batsmen, rather it contains a lot of batsman who don’t know what good test batting is.
Sadly only those outside of the bubble point this out, so, as sure as night follows day, it is an observation that must be ignored by those inside it.
I’ve said it elsewhere, but I am still utterly dumbfounded by the decision to go with Silverwood over Kirsten.
Gary fucking Kirsten.
I hated him. Hated him with an absolute passion, because he was so good and stubborn and my hopes of England victory (or avoiding defeat) rested on him getting out and no matter how hard I willed it, he wouldn’t oblige.
Kirsten was so obviously what this side needed. What I would pay to know just quite how underwhelming his presentation must have been.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He probably underused the word ‘stakeholders’. There is no other explanation.
LikeLiked by 3 people
And now we’ve (probably) lost GK for good, please can we have Alec Stewart ASAfuckingP!
Happy new year all and thanks to the writers and contributors…I always read here first and foremost. Great blog.
LikeLike
Root was all over the place against the quicks, the short ball got into his head and caused his downfall.
LikeLike
Sibley starting so square on, he had to twist to (even try) to play straight. Jos edging a ball about 18” OUTSIDE off with a forward defensive shot. I could go on but I just can’t be arsed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mmm. Don’t entirely agree with that about Sibley. He’s square on his stance, but moves into position as the ball is released. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that – think Shiv Chanderpaul – it’s how it’s executed.
LikeLike
Fair enough. Chiv kept way lower though and moved earlier. To my (untrained) eye, Sibley looks “wrong”. The ball he got out to he only really had two shots: across the line (which is fine if you’re good enough) or that horrible “return to book” attempt to straighten up and play a text book shot. You shouldn’t do both. You’re orthodox or not.
LikeLike
Oh Chanderpaul was far better, I’m not disputing that for a second – merely that stance looking awkward isn’t in itself a reason for a player not being in the right place when the ball is bowled.
LikeLike
Ok, so you’re saying nothing inherently wrong with Sibley’s stance when I’m saying he can’t pull it off because he’s not good enough. What’s the point of the debate?
LikeLike
Well, I’m saying his stance is a separate question to whether he’s good enough. He’s very open in his stance, but he’s quite side on when he plays the ball. I don’t see his setup as being the issue really, and the reason for invoking Chanderpaul was that he looked hideous as the bowler ran in, but was really very orthodox in his positioning and balance as the ball was delivered.
As to the point of the debate, solely that you raised it.
LikeLike
So what is the issue?’
LikeLike
Um, I thought it was a conversation.
LikeLike
It is. You said
I don’t see his setup as being the issue
Keen to hear your thoughts given I think it is
LikeLike
Ok fair. May I ask what part of his set up is the issue?
I’m not trying to catch you out – just trying to frame my answer
LikeLike
Per my opening comment:
“Sibley starting so square on, he had to twist to (even try) to play straight”.
I’ve no issue with unorthodox – quite the opposite – but Sibley is trying to do both. And he can’t.
Hence my comment about trying to twist to do so.
Your point seems to be where the bat ends up. Nobody would disagree with that (because you can’t) but you took that argument with me against Sibley!
Not sure why.
LikeLike
Ok well, my objection to that hypothesis is that while he starts that way, he moves across from a pretty square on position as the ball is bowled. So I don’t see the “twisting” part at all. He looks ugly in his stance, but as he plays the ball he’s pretty orthodox.
That doesn’t answer/disagree/counter the point as to whether he’s good enough, but honestly, he looks fairly orthodox to me as he strikes the ball.
LikeLike
Is that what it took to “frame” your answer?
He looks awful to me.
I hope he does well.
LikeLike
Yes, sure, I was curious.
That’s why I think it’s an interesting question and mentioned Chanderpaul. We’re kind of better disposed to players who look pretty (all of us) rather than ugly ones. But looking ugly doesn’t necessarily mean poor technically. Or in other words, I don’t have a problem with Sibley’s stance as much as his finishing position.
LikeLike
Must say, I think Jomesy is right about Sibley (sometimes) twisting to get his bat down. It also often seems to have to come across the front pad to do so, and I think is often why the toe of the bat ends up shifting more to the leg side than the positions pf his hands.
It’s not so much about having an open stance as much as it is how you get out of it. Desmond Haynes was another who was superb at it. Sibley? Not so much.
LikeLike
Yes, I’d agree with that. It’s less about where he starts and more about where he finishes. And some with highly orthodox stances also end in some grim positions. But equally Steve Smith finishes in some horrible positions and is no kind of model for anyone. Why some succeed and some don’t – hell if I knew that one…
LikeLike
Curiosity moves the goal posts.
LikeLike
Im not trying to do any such thing. Why on earth would I? It’s a debate.
LikeLike
I admit I haven’t worked out exactly how/why Smith actually is a good example for kids, but he always finishes with his bat perpendicular under his hands which are right under his eyes. He’s possibly showing as long as you do that the rest can look as if you’re playing twister.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Smith fascinates me because of the way his bat comes down from gully. Everything is wrong about that but it works. And it’s been pointed out (and if you watch it on YouTube it’s quite startling) how similar that is to Bradman. What I’ve not seen anyone do is a proper coaching analysis of where the similarities matter – I’d love to see that.
LikeLike
Nope. But I’m entirely willing to take your word for it. ☺️
It’s a reason I love watching him. A player who I can’t work out – Pietersen was an example too – is something really special, because we spend years aspiring to top cricketers – and then we get people who rip up the rule book. I adore them.
LikeLike
Er, wasn’t it either you or me who pointed out the Bradman thing?
Actually, I have worked out what Smith’s batting looks like. Do you know what Larping is? It’s an acronym for Live Action Role Play (ing) and they do it on Mount Royal (near my winter residence when I’m down from the tundra). They dress up and make their own swords and shields from bits of wood wrapped in foam and duct tape. Bless their hearts, they’re keen, but not always the most physical of cats. Steve Smith’s batting looks like them when they’re having a sword fight.
LikeLike
Pretty smug debate Chris, it’s your blog so up to you how you treat your readers:
“As to the point of the debate, solely that you raised it.”
“ Um, I thought it was a conversation.”
“ I’m not trying to catch you out – just trying to frame my answer”
Let me know when you’re done on passive aggression. I’m done here.
LikeLike
Honestly, absolutely none of that has been my intention at any point.
If it’s how you feel, I can only humbly apologise. In no way did I want you to think that.
LikeLike
Fair enough but after a long hiatus I won’t be commenting any time soon.
LikeLike
Oh please don’t do that. I thought we were having a conversation. If I’ve screwed up and upset you, I’ll apologise again. I had no idea I was annoying you.
LikeLike
Jomesy, I think Chris is being genuine in his apology. But I also like your posts. I don’t always agree (although as with the Sibley example, I also often do), but all that’s OK, because you are someone who makes me think and that’s the point. I sincerely hope you don’t stop posting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do too. I really do.
LikeLike
Holy shit, that was one hell of a discussion. I ended up with no idea what either of you were talking about, although it seemed to make sense to Quebecer. Figures.
Jomesy I didn’t think there was ill intent there, just grappling through the fog of blog.
Pope: “Some frustration but you look at some of the wickets, there’s some good balls in there, the pitch has offered a little bit for the seam, there’s a little bit of spin out there so it’s probably more a reflection of the pitch rather than how we played, I think.”
Yeah, England, done in by the pitch again. If they were given decent pitches to play on, they’d be fine.
LikeLike
I heard Ollie Pope afterwards talking about being pleased to have got England into a strong position. Ok, allowances should be made for someone who’s just stripped off his pads and is (rightly) pleased with his own performance, but bloody hell, that’s some self-delusion. I hope it’s not shared by anyone else in the team.
LikeLike
But batting out the first day IS an unusually strong position for England.
LikeLike
Now, now… 🤣
LikeLike
I mean, has Ollie seen us do that before? He’s very young.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Batting out the day in the era of 4 day test cricket will make players akin to Bradman
LikeLike
Virat Kohli has come out strongly against 4 day Tests today. Important that he did.
LikeLike
Good for him, it’s a pity we have so many over paid wimps who do everything their governing body dictates.
Modern players seem frightened of the governing body. Look what happens when you challenge conventional wisdom…….KP…. shows why they do what they are told.
LikeLike
If there is one player’s opinion which is important it is Kohli’s. So great to hear that he is opposed to 4 day Tests.
LikeLike
I’ve for a while now thought Stokes is batting in too high a position. He should be at six or seven. I much prefer him as a counter attacking or just an attacking batsman who puts bowlers and the fielding team in the back foot.
LikeLike
Haven’t heard too much about Ed Smith……. and his so called laps of honour have been rather less prevalent on these overseas tours. The much vaunted funky selections of the man with two brains has turned in to more pulling shit out of his arse. (Even though it is a superior and educated arse than most plebs sit on)
Early days in this test match of course, and SA’s weaker part you would feel is their batting. However if they finish England off quickly tomorrow and the score 400 it’s going to be up hill again for England.
Is it time to ask if central contracts are too protective of failing batsman? Have they become a bit too much of a hammock rather than a reward for excellence? Maybe this why they want to four day cricket. To hide the fact that they are not able to play five days.
LikeLike
I don’t mind the occasional funky selection. It’s the refusal to admit he got it wrong and try some some-one else that pisses me off.
LikeLike
Quick point about Pope and the “inventive shot making” admitting pointed to. Pope batted for well over 100 deliveries to get himself in to the 30s – and only at the end went in to inventive shot making mode. In other words, he played himself in. See that, Jos?
With our lower order playing as it is, Pope”s never going to score a test century.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I sort of want to reopen the Sibley debate, I just don’t want the bad blood. Here’s the question:
Does Sibley, who looks ugly, have a technique that will work?
There is a sub-question,
Can it work even if he is not a genius like KP, Bradman, Chanderpaul or Smith (Graham or Steve)?
Sub-sub-question:
Are geniuses geniuses simply because they have found an unorthodox technique that works better than the textbook given their unique circumstances?
I could never bat and I haven’t seen much of Mr Sibley, so I don’t have the answers. I will note that KP thinks that Sibley’s issue is that his hands are to the offside of his eyes. This is meant to allow him to shovel it through leg, but leave him vulnerable to balls outside off.
I also realised why KP was so unpopular. He understands things quicker and better than most. He doesn’t sugar coat criticism and he’s a weird enthusiast. This makes me love him, but I suspect is hard for the fragile egos of professional cricketers to deal with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What a brilliant post. Will reply when sober. If I remember, but really want to.
LikeLike
“Are geniuses geniuses simply because they have found an unorthodox technique that works better than the textbook given their unique circumstances?”
No, I would not say so. Geniuses are geniuses because intuitively they do whatever works; and if what they do is not working they adapt very quickly. That is why they often seem to have so much time to play their shots. Whether that is an unorthodox technique or a very orthodox technique. Don’t think it would be fair to classify Sangakkara and Dravid as less than geniuses to be honest.
As with regards to the KP remark, I think you may well be spot on. Compare Cook and Strauss on the one hand, and other hand Pietersen in the commentary box for instance.
LikeLike
One thing the Smith/Bradman comparison makes me wonder is this: if the two most successful Test batsmen ever, who (almost certainly) never met each other, have a very similar technique which is totally un-textbook, does that show primarily only that the textbook has been wrong for a very long time?
LikeLike
Well, yes, but then it should be acknowledged that its only really non-coaches that have this idea that there is a “correct” way to bat, rather than simply a few fundamental principles.
LikeLike
Told everyone that 4-0 series loss would flatter South Africa. Good thing the first batsman is supposed to come in at 12 …
LikeLike
Interesting discussion between Pollock and Nasser Hussain about Broad and Anderson. Both agreed that they bowl too short because they hate going for runs. Hussain acknowledged their excellent records but was clearly frustrated. Pollock said even if they went for 300 in their next game, it wouldn’t effect their averages much so they should think of the team, pitch it up and try and take wickets,
Having said all of that, they have bowled well this morning.
LikeLike
If on-field umpires won´t look for no balls, must be time for technology to step in. Two big misses so far in this match.
LikeLike
Yesterday it was Rabada, and today Broad. Van der Dussen is a very lucky man.
But the umpires know that if a wicket falls, there is supposed to be a front-foot check, so they may well have decided to focus on the more important bit (lbws and edges). Even if they get it marginally right / wrong (umpire’s call) their decision carries real weight there.
Using technology to check for no balls is rather straightforward (there is no predictive element at all).So it should not be too costly to implement. It would decrease the workload of the standing umpires too. It is really not that easy to check for lbws and overstepping.
So this is more on the protocol than on the umpires – but i do agree that using technology for no balls is the way to go. Especially if that can reduce the incorrect no ball calls (which is not a major issue in Tests, but is a real game changer in T20s).
LikeLike
What would be interesting to know (I doubt there’s any way to check) is if the incidence of umpires calling on field no balls has declined in recent years. It feels to me like it has, but it’s just an impression.
LikeLike
Two things. One is that the batting team are missing out on extra runs. The second however is that bowlers can always see where their feet have landed from the imprint left. In my book the bowlers should always be checking as a matter of habit.
LikeLike
Can´t find any global stats. Only two nbs in this match so far (Both fake wickets). List of top 50 no ball totals in a match available. Record = 103! (WI v Pak 1977). Most recent match in the list is from 2007, suggesting that either bowlers are getting better, or that umpires´ priorities have changed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wow, 103! 🤣. Interesting findings.
LikeLike
I can remember some-one in the media (pretty sure it was Jarrod Kimber) claiming that the umpires had been told not to worry about calling no balls.
LikeLike
Imagine 103 no balls in a Test in 2020. We’d struggle to get 70 overs in then …
LikeLike
Four day Tests would reduce the number of no balls by 20% 😉
LikeLike
I remember Graeme Hick when he was struggling to establish himself in the England team, and people said he needed to make more hundreds. He was playing against the WI and he was on about 96. He then got a short, wide ball that he smashed to backward point where he was caught. As he trooped off in despair the replays showed the bowler had bowled a no ball.
No referrals in those days. Umpires missed no balls in the past but they were trying to look for them. I think modern umpires don’t bother too much because they know if a wicket falls they can check it.
LikeLike
There was the famous Pakistan Test where loads were missed – http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/england_v_pakistan/1370125.stm
LikeLiked by 1 person
In 1971 England got not one single LBW decsion in the entire Ashes series down under. Perhaps the Aussie umpires were looking for no balls!!! (Snark)
LikeLike
Cricbuzz reports that 12 no balls in the post-lunch session were not called. So basically umpires don’t call them unless it is blatantly obvious the bowler is bowling from 15 yards …
It is probably harder to score runs from an uncalled no-ball than from a legitimate delivery (due to the batsmen having less reaction time), which is not exactly helping the scoring rates in Tests. I think England have uncovered a new method of bowling dry …
Which begs the question: why are there laws and rules in place, if no one can be bothered to enforce them? Again, this is not so much on the umpires as on the ICC.
LikeLike
Just to comment on the debate about orthodoxy, both Peter Willey and MJK Smith made stacks of runs from very front-on stances though both were probably just a little short of Test class – at the same sort of level as Nasser or Atherton.
Batsmen with pick ups towards gully… I recall Zaheer Abbas and Richie Benaud(!) both had big loopy backlifts. They scored a few runs too
LikeLike
Didn’t they used to call the Zaheer pick-up “the butterfly”? He was just before my time watching the game, so never really got to see him play.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you would have liked him. Pakistan didn’t play many Tests in the early 70s. He emerged in the first Test against England in 1971, after Illingworth’s Ashes victory, with a 270. Three match series and that was his only real contribution but, hey! He came back in 1974 and scored a 250 in another 3 match series. I think he deserves a Dmitri big hundred assessment
LikeLike
So South Africa 5 down for practically the same score as England. And since you don’t want to bat last in Cape Town, slight advantage to England now.
LikeLike
South Africa have 4 batsmen who made more than 5 runs, only two of whom made more than 20 runs, and they are still in it. On a pitch that is really not doing much. This kind of batting is an insult to slapstick comedy batting.
Test cricket does not even pretend to have standards anymore.
LikeLike