Other factors you overlooked in this statement. Elgar will most likely open for SA in the very near future + vs Rudolph he has many years ahead of him + the ability to form a partnership with Smith for many years into the future. Besides he started of in a really weak fashion and is only improving. Maybe he is a bit too young.
Please dont insult Hick.
He became a dad yest
Hmm think we need to move forward. There are soooo many batsman that can make the team in our top 6 and becuase of that, he is just too old now.
Hahahaha. "His test average is a bit inflated by all those runs he scored."
I was comparing their ability. Hick was clearly the better batsman, i was comparing their rise & fall in the ENG set-up.
It doesn't necessarily, I agree. I'd prefer it to ODI failure as an indicator for likelihood of test apptitude tho.
It's a sticky one and no doubt one that's be thoroughly debated on here. I'd be inclined to agree though, I'd imagine the number of players where Test ability ~ ODI ability is much much greater than the number of players whose Test ability >>> ODI ability.
Yip. Collingwood a good example of an ODI player (lousy FC record as it happens) who's turned out competent enough at the proper stuff
Quite happy with Prior at 6. I wouldn't bat him at 7 just because he's the keeper. If we play 7 batsmen including him, great, but in that case Morgan would be just fine at 7. It's where Alec Stewart started (as a pure batsman at that stage) IIRC.
Well a 7,8,9 of Broad, Swann and Plunkett? is pretty decent I'd say.
In which case Wright, Broad, Swann as a 7-9 is strong. Whether Wright's bowling will stand up in Test matches is another question.
Yeah but there's not many options besides him. Nobody offers the same balance that Flintoff does, we either strengthen the batting and go with a 4 man attack + part timers or we can go with a 5 man attack. People like Wright and Plunkett are a bit of a bodged attempt at doing both of these things and we aren't necessarily better off for trying to do that.
