Warning: This entry contains strong and frequent traces of cricket. England v South AfricaAfter a bizarrely unsatisfying Ashes series victory, England take themselves to South Africa to continue to not really dominate the world of cricket. On the back of a one day series that had England become only the 2nd foreign team to win a 1 day series on that soil, the question raises itself: why does no one still think they're any good?
In this series, England won 2 games in their sleep, and got absolutely hammered in the middle. The other two got rained off.
It was like mini-Ashes. When England played well, it was as though everyone was waiting for the bubble to burst, but sort of went with while it lasted. Collingwood batted like Strauss, Anderson swung it and therefore won a game within half an hour, Strauss caught like Collingwood.
Only hours before, Collingwood batted like Strauss circa 2006-7, Good Anderson bowled like Bad Anderson, and Struass caught like Panesar, dropping 3 catches in an hour.
Has there been a more perfectly imbalanced series as the forthcoming one between England and South Africa this winter? I would suggest there hasn't, and this is in no small part becuase England are essentially playing England. Or, the Trottskyists might argue, South Africa are playing South Africa.
But like South Africa, England look a good side when, and only when, their captain is at the crease.
They make for interesting comparison, the two captains:
Strauss and Smith.
They're both captains, who took over their teams in relative peril. Smith took as captain when he was ridiculously young, 22, and the first thing he did was kick out Lance Klusener - a demiGod in South Africa at the time - who he thought was a divisive influence in the dressing room. A massive call. He essentially did to South Africa what Nasser Hussain did for England - kicked out anyone he didn't think had the
hearse and turned them into the side that recently beat Australia in Australia. His 150no to win the series against England in England is one of the great Test innings (although, obviously, I wanted him to lose, and he was, as ever, plump lbw on early in his innings). Strauss took over a coachless/managerless England team destroyed by another South African, KP, in the West Indies, and turned them into an Ashes winning unit in 3 months. Sort of.
They're both lefties (batsmen, that is; one suspects not politically), and both open the batting. Although while Strauss, in form, plays with silken and effortless, his innings punctuated with grace square of the wicket, Smith often looks like his batting with half a tree, half a shovel, and somehow makes a perfectly played ondrive look hideous and arthritic.
Both are brave cricketers. Smith's bravery is more obvious; he would bat with two broken hands and temporary blindness if he thought he could help South Africa win a friendly. Strauss' is more of the public school type: he might sound like he'd run for Mummy if someone called him a chubster, but don't be fooled. He got a hundred against Australia inspite of Warne saying lots of things about his Mummy, and Brett Lee hitting him on the head every 15 minutes.
More tape, please, don't call Matron.
Smith has the superior average, 50 to Strauss' 44, but Smith does get to bat against England's bowlers, and at regularly bats at the runfest that is the Wanderers, whilst Strauss has to bat with the comically straight-limbed Cook, and plays at Chester-le-treet in April, which is surely worth 6 runs a year.
Both field at slip, although Smith's nucket hands make in anatomically impossible for him to drop a catch, like dropping a football into a volcano. Strauss generally catches blinders.
Both carry the hopes of their country on their shoulders, and have both recently won series against Australia. When Strauss makes runs, as he did all summer against the Australians, the side looks balanced, confident, purposeful. When the captain falls early, so does his team, like skittles, often all of them before it's even time for lunch. When Smith doesn't get out early - which actually means, if he survives the inevitable and palpaply
out LBW shout in the first 2 overs - South Afrca wins. When he falls, they collapse like only... England can.
But then there are the differences.
First and foremost, it's very hard not to like Strauss, whilst it is physically impossible to do anything but loathe Smith, with his George W face and massive hands. Strauss is a gent and is, in spite of being brought up in South Africa, unimagineably English. Smith is a bully. Strauss, I have no doubt, would find a stray cat and search the streets for hours to return it to its owner. Smith would think about it, then kill, skin, and eat the cat if he thought no one was looking. According to cricinfo, Strauss went to Radley and then to Durham, wheras Smith has no education whatsoever.
These are the simple facts.
The restWithout Kallis, the rest of the team are like a carbon copies of each other. Cook and Amla: both good, both fail to convert good starts.
Both teams have talented middle orders who average in the 40s by scoring like this: 10, 10, 0 ... should we drop him... 150no! Totally unreliable. Duminy looks the best bat, but is in Bopara-like form and Swann, the best spinner, might have him pinned.
Both have compative, pugnacious and yes unpleasant but quite good wicketkeeper batsmen in Prior v Bouncher. Broad is a good all rounder but miles from the finished product, and so becomes a tasty Morkel. Anderson and Steyn are world beaters... when fit, when it swings, and when the good one turns up.
Is that such a surprise when the England team is very South Africa. In order of South Africanness, you have Trott (he's there right now!), Pieterson (famously), Prior (born there), Strauss (born there).
Either way, I still find that I want England to beat South Africa more than anyone. With Australia it's like fighting Goliath. But with this lot, for some more than others, it's a bit like they're playing themselves.
Enjoy the series.
