Amazulu

I'm not sure if that series is going ahead. Looking at the ICC future tour program, England were due to tour Pakistan in January. I don't think that tour is now going ahead (as they don't want to die), as according to the ICC, Englands next test is away to Sri Lanka at the end of March.

General Tojo

The ECB and PCB agreed that the tour will comprise three Test matches, four ODIs and three T20s to be played in Dubai and Abu Dhabi (UAE).Can't find the dates though.

Amazulu

Cool. I just read that that tour is going ahead but no details published as yet. SA should go No.1 by early January, with England taking over by April. SA's tour of England next UK summer will then decide who goes No.1 towards the end of 2012.

Burbage

Number one is a bit of a timetable lottery. Being the dominant side in test cricket is a different matter, and England won't achieve that until they've beaten SA and India in their own backyards. And SA will provide a much stiffer task in England than India have done too.

But England are an excellent side, and they look stronger than everyone else. The 2005 England side had some pretty overrated players. Flintoff had a good season that year, but really was overrated as an all rounder. Giles and G. Jones weren't really very good. The only weakness in the current side appears to be Morgan (at least when Trott is fit, Bopara doesn't seem to have the right mentality), and Morgan keeps making runs, and the more time he spends in the middle the better he'll get. They also have Finn and Tremlett in the wings.

India's attack has no depth and without Kahn they're not going to bowl anyone out, and SA seem dependent on Steyn and Morkel, and one presumes Kallis can't go on for ever. But at full strength SA are a team to reckon with. Next meeting of SA and England should be a cracker if everyone's fit.

chris955

Unfortunately they will try anything to take the gloss of the achievement, I guess he conveniently forgets Australia's very long list of foreign born sports stars

chris955

Thats the thing SA seem to be almost totally reliant on 2 or 3 players and if they are injured they have no real depth to fall back on unlike England who seem to have a surplus of truly first class players waiting in the wings.

Amazulu

Bollocks. All teams are reliant on their top players

chris955

Yes, SA seem totally reliant on them.

Broad Shoulders

If we lost Cook/Bell, Trott/Pietersen and Anderson/Broad we would be in the same position. I agree we have better depth, but they are nowhere near as good as our first choice XI

chris955

Well yes I agree that if England lost all those 6 players that are established and settled it might take a game or two before they were back up there. My point was that they aren't totally reliant on just 2 players.

Broad Shoulders

No I was saying that if England lost any 3 of those individuals from those combinations, we would be stuffed. I do agree that if they lost Steyn they would be in greater shit than we would if we lost one of those 6 I listed

Amazulu

Are you replying to my post?

If so, no quote, no reply.

Amazulu

If you guys lost Swann you would be in the shit. Panesar? He's crap.

Broad Shoulders

Swann had two wickets in this series to his name before this last test. I think he picked up a total of two in the last one. Whereas Broad was on 19 ( I think) and Anderson 12. I reckon we would survive without Swann more than we would survive without Anderson. Granted, if it was a flat wicket dust bowl then yes we would miss him, but there aren't a huge amount of those around the world.

It's not like Swann cleaned up the Aussies, is it?

In terms of reliance at the moment I would put our order in the following:

1. Anderson
2. Trott
3. Cook
4. Bell
5. Swann

chris955

I don't know even without 3 of those I don't see it being a disaster for England to be honest. You only have to look at the bowlers or batsmen who put in the best performances in recent tests to see that it could be one of 7 or 8 players. That I think is the major difference in the 2 teams.