Pick a South Africa XI readmission to 2008

[Richard]

Even if Pietersen could be picked, I wouldn't have him in my side if we're looking at the competition.

1. G Kirsten
2. GC Smith
3. DJ Cullinan
4. JH Kallis
5. WJ Cronje
6. MV Boucher
7. SM Pollock
8. L Klusener
9. N Boje
10. Ntini
11. Donald

12. Rhodes

Nicky Boje and Ntini ahead of PSdeV and McMillan? ITSTL. And Boucher isn't good enough to bat six in that side TBH, I'd have Klusener ahead of him.

 

[Richard]

Smith*
Kirsten
Amla
Kallis
Cronje
Gibbs
Boucher+
Pollock
Steyn
Ntini
Donald

12: Cullinan

I believe you said the idea of Stewart batting ahead of Thorpe was so terrible words couldn't describe it. So too is the idea of Hashim Amla (we'll leave aside Herschelle Gibbs) being a more merit-worthy pick than Daryll Cullinan for a team running to the end of 2008.

Even if Amla does go on to be better than Cullinan, which I myself extremely doubt.

 

[Marius]

Smith
Kirsten
Kallis
Cullinan
De Villiers
McMillan
Boucher
Pollock
Steyn
Donald
Ntini

If we needed a spinner I would go for Paul Harris instead of Ntini maybe. Also, Cronje, Prince, and Amla are all guys who could get a spot in the middle order, Wessels maybe too. Other back-up fast bowlers would be Fanie de Villiers, Craig Matthews, Ngam, and Schultz.

 

[Richard]

You'd have to get Ngam and Schultz fit first - which would require doctors not merely the best of 1992-2008, but who had medical science not yet discovered.

 

[Furball]

I don't "not like" them, I just don't feel they add so much as one thing to a team on most surfaces.

And I'd like to know what justification others have for thinking they do. If you're on a flat pitch where three\four seamers are being ineffective, there's actually precious little if any evidence to support the popular notion that a threatless fingerspinner is more useful than another threatless seamer to the remotest degree.

Also, by default a seamer almost certainly has a better chance of offering a threat than a fingerspinner, because seamers have more options available to them than fingerspinners do. You've got to be pretty bad as a seamer to be a worse bowler than a fingerspinner, on a non-turning pitch.

Is it impossible for you to grasp the notion that while you might think your word is gospel, other people might have a different opinion than yourself?

 

[Richard]

Of course it isn't. I just like to hear the reasoning for people having a different opinion to myself. Sometimes I can see good reason for opinions which differ to my own. Sometimes I can't. And the fingerspinner case, TBH, is one where I can't. It amazes me that anyone can see the matter differently to how I do.

 

[zaremba]

It's not always possible to predict in advance whether a pitch may develop into one which takes spin later on. And if it does then a fingerspinner may very well be a better bet than a 4th seamer, and a much better bet than a 5th seamer.

I don't think that you can rule out the variation point either. I've no idea how one would prove the point by use of statistics, but I can't help but feel that the variation offered by a spinner can be useful in changing the flow of a game - either by taking a wicket or stemming the flow of runs.

by default a seamer almost certainly has a better chance of offering a threat than a fingerspinner, because seamers have more options available to them than fingerspinners do.

The issue is not whether a fingerspinner has more variation than a seamer, the question is whether a bowling attack containing a fingerspinner has more variation than one without a fingerspinner - whcih self-evidently it does.

All of which said, I do have a lot of sympathy for your basic point.

 

[Richard]

It's not always possible to predict in advance whether a pitch may develop into one which takes spin later on. And if it does then a fingerspinner may very well be a better bet than a 4th seamer, and a much better bet than a 5th seamer.

While it's obviously true that you can never be totally sure, in my experience a pitch that turns little to none on days one, two and three then turns significantly on day four and five (or something along those lines) is extremely rare nowadays. The rate of pitch deterioration is sufficiently slow (and this evidently didn't used to be the case) that over five days most pitches will either turn a good deal from the start or won't turn a good deal at any stage. I can think of almost no cases in my cricket-watching time where a fingerspinner has achieved little purchase at the start of a game and gone on to achieve significant purchase later in it. Not to say there aren't any at all, just that I don't really think it's wise to make a selection to cover that possibility when that possibility seems to me to be an extremely remote one.

I don't think that you can rule out the variation point either. I've no idea how one would prove the point by use of statistics, but I can't help but feel that the variation offered by a spinner can be useful in changing the flow of a game - either by taking a wicket or stemming the flow of runs.

As I say - I've seen precious little evidence all my cricket-watching time to suggest this either. If batsmen are going to make a mistake, they seem to me to be as likely to make it against an innocuous seamer as an innocuous spinner. There's absolutely no way to prove this though - either way.

And also there's the case of...

The issue is not whether a fingerspinner has more variation than a seamer, the question is whether a bowling attack containing a fingerspinner has more variation than one without a fingerspinner - whcih self-evidently it does.

Yes, it does. But the point is that a seamer has more attacking tools at his disposal - to be able to increase his likelihood of getting a batsman out rather than a batsman getting out purely and exclusively through his own error - than a fingerspinner does, on most surfaces. It's also self-evident that bowling at even 70mph, never mind 80mph, gives a batsman far, far less reaction-time than bowling at 50mph - and that's just the start. Seamers can do so much more with the ball, on most surfaces, than fingerspinners can. And given the pace they're bowling at, they need to do so much less in order to make a delivery difficult to play than a fingerspinner does. All of this just adds-up, to me, to making your stock-in-trade, reasonable-quality seamer quite a bit better than your stock-in-trade fingerspinner, or even an exceptional fingerspinner, on a surface which does not allow the fingerspinner to turn the ball greatly.

All of which said, I do have a lot of sympathy for your basic point.

Why, I thank you kindly.

 

[stephen]

Well if the team was to play in the modern era, and more than 2 tests they need a spinner for the over rates. No good having your captain banned every 3 matches.

FWIW:

Batsmen

Smith*
Kirsten
Cullinan (dropped for Gibbs vs Aus)
Kallis
Rhodes
Prince

Keeper

Boucher+

Bowlers

Pollock
Steyn
Donald
Boje

The quick bowlers all pick themselves really. Except in certain all-time world teams, Pollock would be first picked for most sides. Donald is the best paceman SA have ever produced and Steyn could very well overtake him. Boje provides variety and the ability to speed up over rates.

To be truly world dominating SA would need to find a quality spinner though.

 

[Athlai]

You don't need a spinner for overrates, you just need to **** around less TBH.

 

[zaremba]

You don't need a spinner for overrates, you just need to **** around less TBH.

Agree strongly. 15 hours per hour is a pathetically low rate and you ought to be able to manage it easily with an all-pace attack.

 

[Richard]

You don't need a spinner for overrates, you just need to **** around less TBH.

Ind33d. Unless all your bowlers have runway-esque run-ups, 15 overs per hour is eminently manageable if you just show a teeny bit of urgency. Not even that, if you just don't show utter lackadaisical-ness (if that's a word).

 

[Richard]

Donald is the best paceman SA have ever produced and Steyn could very well overtake him.

Not really.

 

[Uppercut]

You don't need a spinner for overrates, you just need to **** around less TBH.

Agree strongly. 15 hours per hour is a pathetically low rate and you ought to be able to manage it easily with an all-pace attack.

I hate how the blame always comes down exclusively on the fielding side though. TV umpires can take an era to decide whether a shot was stopped on the boundary, inept organisers can spend the entire first morning trying to sort out a **** sightscreen and stop people wandering across the batsman's eyeline. Batsmen can leave the fast bowler waiting at the top of his mark while they have a deep conversation with the non-striker in the middle of the pitch before returning to take a fresh guard before every ball. Then pull away at the last minute because they have a bad feeling about a particular ball and force the bowler to run up again.

But the blame will always come down, 100% exclusively, on the fielding side.

 

[Richard]

It's quite true that if people want to sort-out over-rates and get them up to a decent level (16-17 per hour), there's a hell of a lot of things that could be done and a hell of a lot of people need to deal with some stuff.

 

[honestbharani]

Smith
Kirsten
Kallis
Cullinan
Rhodes
McMillan
Boucher
Pollock
Donald
Steyn
De Villiers


Quite tempting to have AB in there... but we are picking on performances, I guess.... And Jonty in simply because he is my fave RSA player by a distance... And also because he was good against spin when the rest were ****...

 

[Richard]

Gary Kirsten wasn't terrible against spin TBF. And eventually Kallis became pretty good as well.

 

[zaremba]

Smith
Kirsten
Kallis
Cullinan
Rhodes
McMillan
Boucher
Pollock
Donald
Steyn
De Villiers


Quite tempting to have AB in there... but we are picking on performances, I guess.... And Jonty in simply because he is my fave RSA player by a distance... And also because he was good against spin when the rest were ****...

Are 6 right arm seamers necessary given that it makes for a tail that's a bit longer than South Africa were used to?

 

[honestbharani]

Fanie could bat... and I like the extra pace of Donald and Steyn.. They will open the bowling and bowl at bursts.. Pollock and De Villiers will be the work horses.. If anything, I can may be get in a spinner for Fanie but I honestly don't think any of their spinners were any good... Schultz if he had had more of a career and lesser injuries, I felt, would have walked in ahead of Fanie but that is just the way it is... Maybe in due time someone like Prince or Duminy get in ahead of Jonty or even Cullinan.. I am really loathe to drop one of my all time favourite players..

 

[Richard]

Have long had high hopes for Duminy to be one of SA's best since readmission but don't ever see Prince ranking above Rhodes and not a chance of doing above Cullinan in my book.