The Cricket Thread

[Anakha56]

So the fix is to get a "specialist batsmen" according Hudson... My question is... What is top 5 of our batsmen then? Especially Smith & Amla? Not much confidence going into the second game then...

[Mystical_Titan]

It seems the selectors are against making a lot of changes, which I can understand, but they also need to keep an eye on the bigger picture. These may be the players that have brought SA to the #1 ranking and kept them there, but at some point there will need to be a 'changing of the guard', so to speak.

My ideal XI:

- Smith
- De Kock
- Amla
- De Villiers
- Faf
- Stiaan Van Zyl
- Philander
- Parnell
- Steyn
- Morkel
- Imran Tahir

Alternatively, if you want a slightly stronger batting line-up:

- Smith
- De Kock
- Amla
- De Villiers
- Faf
- Stiaan Van Zyl
- Duminy
- Philander
- Parnell
- Steyn
- Morkel

[Anakha56]

You really like Tahir don't you?

Look I don't have anything against the guy per say but he bowls so many extras for a spinner and in the past we have lost crucial wickets because of his sloppy bowling & fielding. I really think he either A: Needs to tidy up in a big way or B: We drop him and hunt for another turner of the ball. Our current spinners all lack real turn but what does not help is having a pace bowler as your bowling coach. If anything we should get one of our successful spinners in and coach the spin department.

[Mystical_Titan]

You really like Tahir don't you?

Look I don't have anything against the guy per say but he bowls so many extras for a spinner and in the past we have lost crucial wickets because of his sloppy bowling & fielding. I really think he either A: Needs to tidy up in a big way or B: We drop him and hunt for another turner of the ball. Our current spinners all lack real turn but what does not help is having a pace bowler as your bowling coach. If anything we should get one of our successful spinners in and coach the spin department.

I do, but in this instance there is a larger issue at play: There is a particular illness in international sports that if a player doesn't start with a bang immediately, he / she gets discarded very quickly. Granted, Tahir has had many opportunities already, but he has genuine talent, whereas Peterson will never be anything more than a bits-and-pieces cricketer.

Now this is where the SA selection really confuses me: In the last match Tahir played, on a pitch which suited seam all the way and spin none whatsoever, not even the much lauded Ravindra Ashwin took a single wicket. In the match prior to that, he took 8 for 130! Career best figures and he gets dropped after the very next game. Someone please explain that to me.

After four tests, Jacques Kallis average 9.16 with the bat and Shane Warne average 96.5 with the ball. If they had made their debuts today, would either of them have played again?

If anything we should get one of our successful spinners in and coach the spin department.

One of our successful spinners... I'm sorry, but who would that be?

[Anakha56]

As you said, Tahir has had many starts and every time he comes back they say "We have worked on his bowling and fielding and he has improved" then he gets excited and bowls no balls, wides, drop catches and in general costs us a lot of runs. He is showing that no matter how hard he practices to get back in he shows no improvement. I would far rather find a younger player who does spin and see if he can do the job better than both our current options.

No idea . Only one I can think of is Pat Symcox and even then he was not that great maybe we should hire Warne?

[Mystical_Titan]

I would far rather find a younger player who does spin and see if he can do the job better than both our current options.

Fair enough. The problem is that South African pitches are and have never been conducive to spin, hence why the problem of producing test match level spinners exists in the first place.

No idea . Only one I can think of is Pat Symcox and even then he was not that great maybe we should hire Warne?

If I were CSA, I would hire Warne in a heartbeat. Personally I think he talks way too much, but as a cricketer to pass on knowledge, he is second-to-none. He was brilliant at what he did and he had an attacking mindset.

[Mystical_Titan]

What do Hashim Amla and the St George's Park pitch have in common? Both have gone unshaven for a long time.

[Mystical_Titan]

Can anyone tell me where the hell Marchant De Lange is?

I'm backing Parnell for McLaren's spot and if they drop Robbie P, they can play Dean Elgar as well and let Duminy bowl the spin.

[Stuart]

Symcox and Boje sort of did a job while they were around. Probably the only spinner we've had since readmission who could actually get any decent amount of turn was Paul Adams. Not sure that he ever got enough experience, though, to coach the national bowling side.

[hamin_aus]

Paul Adams was a good spinner for about 15 minutes.... until batsmen worked out how to read his chinaman and cottoned on to the fact that he looked down as he delivered the ball so you had a second or two to move your feet and he wouldn't be able to adjust his flight or pitch.

That was pretty much it for him.

Symcox and Boje were good all-round one-day players - by that I mean they were decent spinners who could also bat a bit.
SA has never had a world class test match spinner.

[Stuart]

Paul Adams was a good spinner for about 15 minutes.... until batsmen worked out how to read his chinaman and cottoned on to the fact that he looked down as he delivered the ball so you had a second or two to move your feet and he wouldn't be able to adjust his flight or pitch.

Translation: "Hay guise, don't you remember that time Paul Adams bowled a bad spell? He sucked! Also, Dave Richardson only took one stumping in his career and might have dropped a catch once. How DID they ever persist with him?"

A test average of 32.87 with an economy of 2.98 over 45 matches and an ODI average of 28.10 with an economy rate of 4.40 over 24 matches (significantly better in both formats than Symcox and Boje) suggests that Adams was decent for more than 15 minutes. (His figures look somewhat Graeme Swann-like, in fact--but I suppose Graeme Swann also sucked.) He simply played in a time when SA selectors and coaches were dead set against anything but right-arm seamers--an attitude to which they seem to be returning.

Regardless, my point was that he could spin the ball. Certainly more than Symcox and Boje. And Peterson.

[Mystical_Titan]

Regardless, my point was that he could spin the ball. Certainly more than Symcox and Boje. And Peterson.

Paul Harris turns the ball more than Peterson. Now THAT"S saying something!

[hamin_aus]

A test average of 32.87 with an economy of 2.98 over 45 matches and an ODI average of 28.10 with an economy rate of 4.40 over 24 matches

If he was Gods gift to SA spin, why did he play so few matches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Adams_(cricketer)

Adams's bowling action was highly unorthodox and Mike Gatting likened it to a "frog in a blender".[1] Though his action initially caught world batsmen by surprise, he was soon exposed for lack of variety by the Australians. As such, he became less effective. December 2006 he was recalled to the Test side for the series against India, only to be dropped from the squad before the first Test.

Hay guise, remember when I tried to win an argument on the internet?

[Anakha56]

And we have lost two wickets with very little on the board . Our current "specialist" batsmen are doing wonders against this Aus attack...

[Mystical_Titan]

A test average of 32.87 with an economy of 2.98 over 45 matches and an ODI average of 28.10 with an economy rate of 4.40 over 24 matches

If he was Gods gift to SA spin, why did he play so few matches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Adams_(cricketer)

Adams's bowling action was highly unorthodox and Mike Gatting likened it to a "frog in a blender".[1] Though his action initially caught world batsmen by surprise, he was soon exposed for lack of variety by the Australians. As such, he became less effective. December 2006 he was recalled to the Test side for the series against India, only to be dropped from the squad before the first Test.

Hay guise, remember when I tried to win an argument on the internet?

That is certainly not what Stuart said. I think what he's alluding to is that Adams certainly had much more talent than anyone South Africa has used after him and although not earth shattering, he had a good record. Compare his record to Paul Harris, who also had a very long run in the team, and you'll see what I mean.

I've always firmly believed that had South Africa stuck with him and earnestly worked to improve him as a bowler, they would have reaped much better rewards. Instead they discarded him because he wasn't at the standard they expected, instead of helping him to get there. Bob Woolmer thought he was world class, that's certainly good enough for me.

The statistic that I find most telling is that 10 years after his last test, he is still 8th on South Africa's list of test wicket takers. He can't have been that bad then.

[hamin_aus]

I get what you are saying, they could have persisted with him - it's not like they were spoiled for choice at the time so i'm not sure why they didn't.
Still, history remembers him as the greatest SA spinner that never was.

Also the fact that besides him only 7 SA bowlers have gone past 163 wickets is not a statistic you should just whip out.

[Stuart]

If he was Gods gift to SA spin, why did he play so few matches

Because he wasn't a right arm seamer. Every time they are remotely in trouble, South African selectors default to right arm seamers. If they had had a coach and selectors who were interested in investing time in a spinner, he certainly would have had more time in the team.

I actually think his unorthodox standard worked against him. When spectators watched him, it was so weird that they expected his action alone to bamboozle the world's best batsmen. When that didn't work out, everyone felt that he wasn't quite living up to expectations--statistics be damned!

Wikipedia may blast him for his lack of variety, but the stats speak for themselves. Not every spinner will be Shane Warne or Muttiah Muralitheran, but a spinner with a record that competes with Graeme Swann is more than a little handy.

One area in which Adams was really shown up, I always felt, was in his fielding. With the contemporary Protea fielding standard, a guy like Tahir can be pushed out somewhere and hidden. When Adams played, the South African standard was far higher than it is today.

[hamin_aus]

When spectators watched him, it was so weird that they expected his action alone to bamboozle the world's best batsmen. When that didn't work out, everyone felt that he wasn't quite living up to expectations--statistics be damned!

I actually didn't know his stats were as good as they were overall prior to this discussion - I always just assumed he really tanked after 2000 when he didn't.

Paul Adams aside, I 100% agree about right arm seamers. The 90's Proteas having 4 full time pace bowlers and someone like McMillan/Kallis in there as an all-rounder was so frustrating.
Seeing almost every game earn us penalties because we took too long to bowl our overs...
I was amazed when they gave a left arm seamer like Brett Schultz a run for a bit, until he injured himself...

[Mystical_Titan]

Also the fact that besides him only 7 SA bowlers have gone past 163 wickets is not a statistic you should just whip out.

I'm not referring only to the quantity. I think it says a lot about his efficiency that only three of those seven bowlers started playing after him and they were all front line seamers who did / do the bulk of the bowling.

[Stuart]

I 100% agree about right arm seamers. The 90's Proteas having 4 full time pace bowlers and someone like McMillan/Kallis in there as an all-rounder was so frustrating.
Seeing almost every game earn us penalties because we took too long to bowl our overs...
I was amazed when they gave a left arm seamer like Brett Schultz a run for a bit, until he injured himself...

That was only part of the story. Equally frustrating was that, as good as those bowlers were, it was just too predictable. When every bowler comes right-arm medium-fast over the wicket for over after over, the batsmen quickly settle into a rhythm. And, as you say, the overs take so long the batsman has plenty of time to adjust between balls.

What's more, everyone sees it--even the players who played during that era themselves--except the selectors.

[Stuart]

Also, it seems that the only spinner that SA will persevere with is a spinner who can also bat (Boje, Symcox, et al). Right now, Australia's front line spinner bats number 11. You'd never see that for very long in the South African team. It seems like they view spin as a part time art, and if the spinner can't bat then he's not a real cricketer. Much like wicket keeping, actually.

[Mystical_Titan]

Also, it seems that the only spinner that SA will persevere with is a spinner who can also bat (Boje, Symcox, et al). Right now, Australia's front line spinner bats number 11. You'd never see that for very long in the South African team. It seems like they view spin as a part time art, and if the spinner can't bat then he's not a real cricketer. Much like wicket keeping, actually.

To be fair to the selectors, Tahir would still be playing if he bowled a little more consistently and he'd always bat at # 11.

[KALSTER]

Thing is that all rounders have been one of our signature features for a long time. The more you reduce the number of all rounders, the more you weaken your batting line-up. I would also not be comfortable with increasing the number of hopeless batsmen in a side, unless the bowler was really worth it. Who is really worth it?

[WiK1d]

Kyle: "What makes this knock by Elgar even more impressive is that he is doing it without his middle fingers. Both of them are directed at CSA."

[Stuart]

Kyle: "What makes this knock by Elgar even more impressive is that he is doing it without his middle fingers. Both of them are directed at CSA."