Yeah. I voted for Gibbs too but it's not like there are long-reaching consequences for having a poor side selected here. We voted for what we voted for, and if we want to have an ongoing discussion about why that was a poor choice then that's good for the thread/forum but we shouldn't be having a re-vote just because the group who lost one of the votes is making a lot of noise.
With no front line spinner and a part time keeper that's 2 significant gaps though.
Nah, disagree, people seem to dismiss steadiness and consistency for occasional brilliance. I think Garner was competing in that way. The guy could bowl longer spells and gave no runs away, he's a perfect foil for express bowlers, whilst also taking wickets at an incredibly low average. Most under-rated player on cricketweb.
Regardless of what you say, he only kept for 15 matches out of a career of 44 Tests, that is part-time.
Playing against lesser sides than all time great sides...
South Africa are pretty dangerous imo..
IMO That perfectly balanced RSA team would beat our current WI team over a 5 Test series quite comfortably as it doesn't have a single weakness. Just check out that great depth in both batting and bowling.
not when he was keeper
It's a matter of quality over quantity, four of the top 10 batsmen of All Time and two of the top five pacers and four of the top fifteen fastmen and Greenidge was a match winner in his own right.
