Poor man's slippy.No question about it, this is the stupidest thing I've ever seen written.
Durban, the India of SA.The Durban of India then.
It is up there with ridiculous calls.So how bad is this SA selection? I just don't see how it makes any sense at all.... even if you really needed 5 bowlers, I can't see the purpose of playing 3 spinners? Maybe you thinking a bit of aggression with 5 bowlers to try bowl out the opposition rather than a more conservative extra batsmen? But then the tactics have just been poor as they appear to be defensive in nature, sit back and wait for something to happen? I can't see any sensible thought process here. Probably 9th dimensional thinking beyond me.
The buck for sure. Usually it's guys who look like Jack Leach who are whacking off in the closet while peering out.Question is, is Gnske referring to the **** or the bull?
It's almost like they've picked Muthusamy based on the idea of having a spinning all-rounder, which to be fair is quite appealing. The problem is that they seem to have ignored his career stats as an average of under 35 after 69 first-class matches should have raised questions as to whether he's actually good enough to fill the role he's been picked for.No disrespect but Muthusamy is bits and pieces at this stage of his domestic output. Rather here nor there on what he is expected to churn out. Runs or wickets.
Only if you assume Piedt and Maharaj could not do the job. And neither of Ngidi or Nortje could do as least as good a job... even though they are far more impactful players.If India were batting last, Muthuswamy's would have been a decent-ish selection.
Classic case of a touring side getting spooked by foreign conditions and working themselves into a lather to try and "counter" them imo.So how bad is this SA selection? I just don't see how it makes any sense at all.... even if you really needed 5 bowlers, I can't see the purpose of playing 3 spinners? Maybe you thinking a bit of aggression with 5 bowlers to try bowl out the opposition rather than a more conservative extra batsmen? But then the tactics have just been poor as they appear to be defensive in nature, sit back and wait for something to happen? I can't see any sensible thought process here. Probably 9th dimensional thinking beyond me.
Both he and Agarwal have been fantastic. Survived some good bowling early on and have really cashed in. Perfect test cricket batting.Hate-loving this Rohit innings.
It does make you wonder about how much influence the last tour has had on this selection? But then not playing the extra bat is still puzzling.Classic case of a touring side getting spooked by foreign conditions and working themselves into a lather to try and "counter" them imo.
I think it would have made a sense if he'd fulfilled his batting potential. If he'd repeated his 2017/18 season when he racked up an average of 40ish with the bat batting 5 and 25ish with the ball it would have kind of been worth the punt. His dismal season with the bat that saw him drop down the order makes him much less appealing as a player though IMO. I like him as a player but as a third spinner and seventh batsman at this point of his career it's kind of ehhh. If they were taking a punt each way on the pitch/toss and wanted three quicks and two spinners, or he was closer to being worth picking as a bat, it would have been fine I think. As it is, hmm.It's almost like they've picked Muthusamy based on the idea of having a spinning all-rounder, which to be fair is quite appealing. The problem is that they seem to have ignored his career stats as an average of under 35 after 69 first-class matches should have raised questions as to whether he's actually good enough to fill the role he's been picked for.
Right but most of the sceptics here have argued a batsman should have been selected in his place, so they've actually batted less deep than they could have.Or else they've decided to go back to the model of the South African teams of 90s which batted a long way down.