England can beat South Africa, if they locate the off stump

Much hilarity was to be had at the author’s expense just after the lunchtime session on Friday when James Anderson picked up Neil Mackenzie swinging at a wide one, directly after yours truly had confidently stated “He’ll never get him out bowling it there.”

But so much of cricket is about doing the basics right. The old adage about Glenn Mcgrath’s success was his natural line and length was to hit the top of off stump. And it is off stump that is England’s problem.

Do they even know where it is?

As Duncan Fletcher (whose stock seems to be rising by the day) noted in the Guardian on Monday, “Bowlers can be tempted into thinking that when a batsman plays and misses he is bowling the right line. But often he is bowling just too wide for the batsman to hit it.”

South Africa’s batting at Lords and in their more difficult sessions at Headingley were superb examples of batting. But Smith & Mackenzie, and de Villiers & Prince, were able to grind out such long innings waiting for the bad balls because so many of the deliveries they faced were not wicket taking balls.

If bowlers do not force the batsmen to play a shot, there is little chance of getting him out other than a moment of madness.

One of the features of modern television cricket coverage is the endless search for new graphics. But the analysis of where South Africa’s deliveries reached the batsmen makes an interesting comparison with England.

Irrespective of the yard of pace advantage, and late swing they can impart, South Africa’s bowlers bowled almost entirely at a nagging line and length just on and outside off stump. Even the best batsmen struggle with deliveries in what Geoffrey Boycott would call "the corridor of uncertainty." And when this is combined with pace and late movement, it can be lethal.

But it isn’t just England’s bowlers who need to programme their Tom Tom. Their batsmen proved themselves wholly incapable of knowing where their off stump is.

At Headingley a brief look at the scorecard reveals a large number of "c Smith/Boucher"—edges to slip or keeper. Strauss edged outside the off stump in both innings, while Flintoff played two drives on the back foot he couldn’t control.

Despite his red bull fuelled shot frenzy in the previous four balls, in his second innings Pietersen was out in his fifth delivery with an unsure defensive prod outside off stump.

Batting at any level, but especially at the highest, is about the certainty of being in line created by good footwork and reading the trajectory of the ball. The sad reality is that England at present could never bat for two days, as South Africa did, on any surface.

Which England batsmen would you pick to repeat Mackenzie’s nine hour vigil at the crease?

All this brings questions about the coaching of Moores. Leaving aside series won or lost, which players have actually improved during the last year? Anderson, possibly, but there can’t be many more.

Indeed there are worry signs that some may be going backwards. And the reported rift with Vaughan (still England’s best captain, and a good player out of touch), is another worry.

So can England win at least one of the next two tests? No one is pretending this it will be easy, but then nobody expected South Africa to be a walk over. England have talented players, especially in the bowling department, and once Sidebottom returns they will be even stronger.

But they need to rediscover the basics. Bowlers need to make the South Africans play, and miss, while batsmen have to get in line and choose their shots more carefully.

Cricket is so often a game of rhythm and confidence, and once you start doing the basics right again everything slots into place.

If they play with confidence and intelligence they can get back into this series.