Pick a South Africa XI readmission to 2008

[iamdavid]

1.G Smith*
2.G Kirsten
3.J Kallis
4.D Cullinan
5.A Prince
6.AB De Villiers (although I feel within a year or two Duminy will demand this spot)
7.M Boucher+
8.S Pollock
9.N Boje/P De Villiers
10.D Steyn
11.A Donald

 

[Matt79]

BTW, those who've picked a spinner for every Test rather than just for the subcontinent or the odd other turning pitch that might be encountered, or picked Ntini over the heads of at least (in my book) 2 or 3 better-qualified candidates, some reasoning would be interesting?

Four good seamers are more than enough, and a spinner is a useful thing to have. Including Kallis to have that fourth seamer certainly doesn't compromise anything in terms of the batting, hence you have the luxury of adding another dimension to the attack.

One of the main criticisms leveled at SA at various times since readmission was that there attack often lacked variety.

Nothing anyone here is going to shift your perception of the value of having a specialist spinner in the team, and I don't think you're going to convince anyone either, so just chalk it up to a difference of opinion regarding the value of variety.

I'm ambivalent about Ntini - as I said, I think Steyn is probably better, and in another season or two's time, I'd be prepared to include him over Ntini. Meanwhile Ntini's taken nearly 400 wickets at a good average in a period of batsman domination. There are others, like Fanie, who have a case as well, but I'm happy to have Ntini.

 

[Richard]

I'd have Fanie over Makhaya without a backward glance. For all the talk of variety, Ntini is the most one-dimensional bowler to take so many wickets, probably ever. And no, I won't ever be convinced that there's the slightest value in a spinner when he has precisely zero chance of getting good batsmen out. If anyone could actually tell me why it's supposedly of some use, rather than just "I think it is", it'd be good. All I ever get is "variation is useful sometimes" or something hugely vague like that. Frustrating TSTL.

There are no quotas for this side BTW, else obviously he (Makhaya) would be the first name on the 'sheet.

 

[Matt79]

Haurtiz got more than one important top-order wicket in this series, on pitches that were doing nothing for finger-spinners. Harris too. You're not bowling to machines, you're bowling to people who have to adjust and alter what they're doing. That sometimes creates openings where otherwise there would be none. They probably shouldn't get out to them, but history shows us that time and again good batsmen have done so. They're batsman induced dismissals, but their errors the batsmen sometimes make because of the change in bowling approach.

 

[Uppercut]

Haurtiz got more than one important top-order wicket in this series, on pitches that were doing nothing for finger-spinners. Harris too. You're not bowling to machines, you're bowling to people who have to adjust and alter what they're doing. That sometimes creates openings where otherwise there would be none. They probably shouldn't get out to them, but history shows us that time and again good batsmen have done so. They're batsman induced dismissals, but their errors the batsmen sometimes make because of the change in bowling approach.

But you're bowling for batting mistakes. I don't think a top-order batsman is any more likely to make an unforced error against Hauritz than they are against, say, Michael Clarke. Or JP Duminy, who incidentally also picked up the wicket of Australia's most in-form batsman during the series. Hauritz has five wickets at an average of over 50 in this series. Even with the supposed advantage of making the batsmen adjust what they're doing. Would a fifth seamer really have done any worse?

 

[zaremba]

Following-on from the England and West Indies ones... let's have a SA side from readmission to the end of last year.

Reckon I'd go for:
GC Smith
G Kirsten
JH Kallis
DJ Cullinan
WJ Cronje (c)
BM McMillan
MV Boucher (w)
SM Pollock
PS de Villiers
AA Donald
DR Steyn

This is on the presumption that the match wasn't played in the subcontinent - in the subcontinent (or on occasional other pitches elsewhere) I'd bring in N Boje or P Harris for either Pollock or Steyn (can't really decide which). In the squad I'd also have HH Gibbs, L Klusener, AB de Villiers and DJ Richardson (could hardly be anyone else could it?). If anyone objected to Cronje's presence, which in a way would be understandable, he'd be replaced with AG Prince (though probably in time JP Duminy).

What about everyone else?

Handy looking team, that. However I feel that 6 right-arm seamers (7 if you include Cronje) is not necessary.

I'd go for

1. Smith (c)
2. G Kirsten
3. Kallis
4. Cullinan
5. Gibbs
6. Rhodes
7. Boucher (w)
8. Pollock
9. Fanie de Villiers
10. Donald
11. Steyn / Boje (if spin is in the air)

Squad players:

13. ABdV
14. Klusener
15. McMillan
16. Schultz

Cronje would not be within 1000 miles of the team, least of all as captain. Gibbs makes it into the team only because he was incapable of getting out for under 20 when paid to do so - it takes a pretty special talent to do that.

Tempted to play ABdV alongside Gibbs and Rhodes which would make this probably the best infielding team in history. Not sure who would make way for him though - possibly Kirsten (never enjoyed watching him play, but admittedly a fine opening bat).

 

[Goughy]

Handy looking team, that. However I feel that 6 right-arm seamers (7 if you include Cronje) is not necessary.

Yeah, I counted 7 which I whought was overkill.

Id probably play the extra bat

1. Smith
2. Kirsten
3. Gibbs
4. Kallis
5. Cullinan
6. Cronje (c)
7. Boucher (wkt)
8. Pollock
9. Donald
10. Adams
11. Ntini

Gibbs isnt perfect but he adds a different aspect to others.
Cronje a strong backbone and captain
Enough seam bowling to 'blow the bloody doors off'
Adams is **** but dangerous. In this attack he would have no responsibilities apart from to bowl when nothing was happening and provide something different.

TBH, the batting look quite weak and the bowling overly reliant on Donald and Pollock but its still a good team and that is better than being reliant on Danny Morrison and Cairns

 

[Matt79]

But you're bowling for batting mistakes. I don't think a top-order batsman is any more likely to make an unforced error against Hauritz than they are against, say, Michael Clarke. Or JP Duminy, who incidentally also picked up the wicket of Australia's most in-form batsman during the series. Hauritz has five wickets at an average of over 50 in this series. Even with the supposed advantage of making the batsmen adjust what they're doing. Would a fifth seamer really have done any worse?

I hate all seam attacks with a passion that matches Richard's dislike of token spinners. I'll never agree that an all seam attack is preferable if there is a half way decent spinner. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I hate all seam attacks with a passion that matches Richard's dislike of token spinners. I'll never agree that an all seam attack is preferable if there is a half way decent spinner. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

So you'd have broken up Marshall-Holding-Garner-Roberts for a token spinner?

 

[Prince EWS]

I hate all seam attacks with a passion that matches Richard's dislike of token spinners. I'll never agree that an all seam attack is preferable if there is a half way decent spinner. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

What I'm waiting for is the day Bangladesh play a match on a square turner when Mushrafe is injured and select an all-spin attack.

 

[Matt79]

So you'd have broken up Marshall-Holding-Garner-Roberts for a token spinner?

They had Viv. And I'd rate that attack inferior to one with three equally good seamers and a very good spinner.

 

[The Sean]

So you'd have broken up Marshall-Holding-Garner-Roberts for a token spinner?

They had Viv. And I'd rate that attack inferior to one with three equally good seamers and a very good spinner.

I'd also be interested to know how many times that actual quartet took the field together. If it's much more than zero, I'd be surprised.

Regardless of the exact combination though, the Windies' four-pronged pace attack was definitely helped by there not being any top quality spinners in those isles at the time. If there had a spinner of the Gibbs/Ramadhin/Valentine class around during the 1980s I'd definitely have dropped one of the quicks for him.

 

[bagapath]

I'd also be interested to know how many times that actual quartet took the field together. If it's much more than zero, I'd be surprised.

Regardless of the exact combination though, the Windies' four-pronged pace attack was definitely helped by there not being any top quality spinners in those isles at the time. If there had a spinner of the Gibbs/Ramadhin/Valentine class around during the 1980s I'd definitely have dropped one of the quicks for him.

this attack played together in 6 tests. 2 against india and 4 against england. the four pronged pace attack had, at its best, three great bowlers and one good bowler. four great bowler together probably never happens in test cricket. f

 

[bagapath]

kirsten
smith (c)
kallis
cullinan
rhodes
s.pollock
boucher (wk)
steyn
de villiers
ntini
donald

 

[NUFAN]

kirsten
smith (c)
kallis
cullinan
rhodes
s.pollock
boucher (wk)
steyn
de villiers
ntini
donald

Haha.

Overkill on the bowling front just a bit don't you think?

My side.
1 G Smith
2 H Gibbs
3 G Kirsten
4 D Cullinan
5 J Kallis
6 A Prince
7 M Boucher
8 S Pollock
9 D Steyn
10 A Donald
11 M Ntini

 

[bagapath]

i am willing to drop de villiers for macmillen. but i have to keep rhodes, and i will not select cronje.

 

[Manee]

1. Smith
2. Kirsten
3. Gibbs
4. Kallis
5. Cullinan
6. Cronje
7. Boucher
8. Pollock
9. Donald
10. Steyn
11. Ntini

 

[Goughy]

If there had a spinner of the Gibbs/Ramadhin/Valentine class around during the 1980s I'd definitely have dropped one of the quicks for him.

And I have no doubt they would have been far less successful if they did.

The 4 seamers allowed them to completely control the tempo of the game, reduce scoring opportunities to a minimum and gave the batsman no rest.

A spinner may be nice but it would (maybe counterintuitively) ruin the balance.

 

[zaremba]

And I have no doubt they would have been far less successful if they did.

The 4 seamers allowed them to completely control the tempo of the game, reduce scoring opportunities to a minimum and gave the batsman no rest.

A spinner may be nice but it would (maybe counterintuitively) ruin the balance.

I agree with your basic point, but it's fair to say that when the Windies played Roger Harper they didn't seem to give much more away than when they played an all-pace attack.

The quality of the quicks in the Windies team may be a bit misleading though. The reality of a 4-man pace attack for many teams is usually a bit different. I can never get out of my head the misery of the 1st Ashes Test of 1989 (Defreitas, Newport, Foster, Pringle; Aus 601-7 dec)

 

[Goughy]

I agree with your basic point, but it's fair to say that when the Windies played Roger Harper they didn't seem to give much more away than when they played an all-pace attack.

The quality of the quicks in the Windies team may be a bit misleading though. The reality of a 4-man pace attack for many teams is usually a bit different. I can never get out of my head the misery of the 1st Ashes Test of 1989 (Defreitas, Newport, Foster, Pringle; Aus 601-7 dec)

Yeah there have been some shockers. However, we did some research a while ago in a thread and IIRC England in the 90s were far more successful with an all seam attack than with a spiner included.

It suprised me but there is some conclusion that could be drawn from that data.