This is a very interesting proposition. I was tempting a choice of S. Pollock here, but it seems Procter might even be the better batsman.Great champion of the old 'uns that I usually am I do think Faulkner is a tad over-rated round these parts - through no fault of his own he only played 12 of his 25 Tests against full strength opposition so, fine player that he undoubtedly was, I'm going to go for Mike Procter again - best all rounder the game has seen, through my rose-tinted glasses anyway
1417 wickets @ 19 and 22k runs @ 36 over 24 years in FC cricket.I'm leaving Procter out; lovers can suck it.
Yes it is a 'little over the top' because Kallis bowls in the mid 130s therefore the team already has 4 quick bowlers all capable of taking wickets. The skill of Kallis justifies the inclusion of Faulkner even more.I would like to go slightly unconventional here and pick AB De Villiers as the Wicketkeeper-Batsman at number 6, and then pick Procter, Pollock and Tayfield for the rest of the positions. Tayfield covers the spin option, and I think Faulkner does not add that much value to the side as either Procter or Pollock. This way, we have 4 top notch pacers, which I realize may be a little over the top, especially with Kallis in the side, but it's still awesome.
Yes it is a 'little over the top' because Kallis bowls in the mid 130s therefore the team already has 4 quick bowlers all capable of taking wickets. The skill of Kallis justifies the inclusion of Faulkner even more.