Four bad seamers is no different to three bad seamers and a bad spinner, though, is the point.
As someone who recalls you talking down Ntini as a pretty average performer and talking up "Fast Fanie" before now, I'd be interested to hear why you chose Ntini above PSdeV?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
Both true. I think Ntini is really one dimensional and Im not a massive fan. However, his record deserves consideration and I think he compliments the other seamers well.
Gibbs and Smith together despite the wheels coming off towards the end for both players was one of the most successful opening combos the game has had (only Neil Mac and Smith beat it for South Africa). As to why Gibbs is in the side, he is the most talented batsman South Africa has had since readmission and given this side is selected in pomp, Gibbs was better than Cullinan for mine.
The thing about Cullinan (all try and dig the article and statistics) was that he was one of the best players in the world in recent history of playing good bowling on bad tracks.
Warne would want him in the team
Ntini must miss out. A very good bowler with amazing heart and stamina, and capable of dismissing good batsmen, but I just think that de Villiers had the edge.
Gibbs being the most talented batsman since anything is highly debateable for mine, as deficiencies remained in his game throughout his career and were almost always exploited by bowlers of the highest class. Smith and Gibbs may indeed be the most successful opening combo of this or that, but it's exceptionally unlikely they'd have been such a thing against more consistently top-class bowling. I'd have more faith in Kirsten than either of them, especially Gibbs. If I had Gibbs in my side, it'd be as the middle-order batsman he was for the first 10 years or so of his cricket-playing, not as an opener.
And personally I want more than one year of anything before picking anyone for any form of longevity-related team. Hence, no ABdeV for me.
We get it. You don't like fingerspinners.
That's what i thought, was surprised people were excluding him. It's not just the he scored more difficult runs, he also scored more runs at a better average than any of his potential replacements too.
Haha, it's a shame that this is the first thing people remember Cullinan for. (I do too to be fair, but he was a quality player in his own right)
If you're looking to win a Test match you'd sooner have Pietersen than Cronje. Mind you it's a big "if".
I don't "not like" them, I just don't feel they add so much as one thing to a team on most surfaces.
