***Official*** Australia in South Africa 2013/14

[benchmark00]

Yes

 

[Tangles]

So should be entertaining to let him open vs MJ. SA putting the fans first.

 

[ajdude]

Is this a real thing?

Man he could die if there's any sort of pace at all in the wicket.

sounds like it, either that or Parnell.

 

[Daemon]

Was cut off the contracts list like yesterday or something too. Don't expect that'll help his confidence.

But Morne Morkel likened Elgar to a bull terrier, and Michael Clarke expected the 26-year-old to fight if called upon.

"I've seen enough of Dean. He's a good player and that's why I think they'll go with him," Clarke said.

Clarke trolling SA into picking him imo.

 

[benchmark00]

Would deffo give Parners Parnell his fourth debut.

 

[Dan]

Playing 2 of Parnell, McLaren and Peterson is so utterly stupid for South Africa. Leaves them both a genuine batsman and genuine bowler short, when they shouldn't be short of either as long as ABdV 'keeps.

Shocking selection.

 

[benchmark00]

Well McLaren is dead and as if anyone in their right mind would play Peterson.

So...

 

[Shri]

And isn't Abbott supposed to be a better seam bowler on green tracks compared to Hendricks? No idea why a lot of people go for H.

 

[harsh.ag]

If they pick Parnell ahead of Hendricks and Abbott, the selectors have lost it. Even if does well, the selectors would have already conceded defeat to Australia in their minds.

 

[Dan]

Well McLaren is dead and as if anyone in their right mind would play Peterson.

So...

Yeah, was speaking more in a general sense prior to the series. And I'm advocating not playing Peterson, its just the RSA selectors obviously don't agree. Not sure what you're getting at with this post at all, tbh.

As a side note, picking Elgar is also a dumb move by the selectors. May as well be playing with 10.

And isn't Abbott supposed to be a better seam bowler on green tracks compared to Hendricks? No idea why a lot of people go for H.

Realistically Abbott should be the next fast bowler in, and rightfully so. I just like the idea of a young, quick left-armer getting a go.

 

[Dan]

If they pick Parnell ahead of Hendricks and Abbott, the selectors have lost it. Even if does well, the selectors would have already conceded defeat to Australia in their minds.

Nah, different roles. They aren't picking Parnell as a specialist bowler. He's the only logical replacement if they want to keep the same team (im)balance.

As I said, the 2 of McLaren/Parnell/Peterson thing weakens them so much. They can play 7 bats and 4 seamers so easily with ABdV keeping and Duminy just as (in)effective as Peterson at bowling spin; yet they go for 6 and 3 with 2 bits-and-pieces players who add little.

 

[Top_Cat]

Parnell for sure. Bowler like him will annoy Warner and be in with a chance of nicking off Smith.

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah, was speaking more in a general sense prior to the series. And I'm advocating not playing Peterson, its just the RSA selectors obviously don't agree. Not sure what you're getting at with this post at all, tbh.

As a side note, picking Elgar is also a dumb move by the selectors. May as well be playing with 10.

Well what selection are you talking about? Who has advocated playing two of those listed? What selection are you saying is dumb?

 

[Dan]

Well what selection are you talking about? Who has advocated playing two of those listed? What selection are you saying is dumb?

First Test:
7. McLaren
8. Peterson

Second Test (rumoured/like-for-like selection):
7. Parnell
8. Peterson

Which generally suggests to me that the South African board of selectors advocate such a selection. I believe it to be a poor option, considering they have better batsmen and bowlers available rather than Parnell, and the 2 bowling all rounders thing is surplus to requirements when JP Duminy bowls spin that's equally ineffective as Peterson's, hence allowing you to play another specialist batsman and specialist bowler. I feel it strengthens the team, since Peterson won't cause any problems anyway.

I also don't rate Parnell at all.

Furthermore, if the selectors do follow my line of thinking and go with the two specialists:
7. Elgar
8. Abbott
I'm suggesting that Elgar is a waste of space for the reasons you have outlined previously. Namely that he isn't very good.

 

[benchmark00]

Are you getting your rumours from Malcolm Conn?

 

[howardj]

Lalor > Conn

 

[Shri]

As long as we are talking about RSA, they are also pushing a bill to legalize weed. Thats so AWESOME. Woah.

 

[Spark]

Peter Lalor @plalor
Oh my god, chaos in south african camp, they are adjusting team sheet at the toss

?????????????????

 

[Spark]

So apparently all of de Kock, Elgar and Parnell are playing.

 

[howardj]

Dennis Cometti there on the commentary....#legend