Aussie Death Bowling Problems.

[Richard]

Yeah, during the game at Hobart between Australia and New Zealand before Bong got his hat-trick I remember posting just bowl yorkers.

26 in an over, as I recall... or was it 22...

Shame, as he was super in the rest of that game.

 

[Richard]

Hall is actually a pretty fine bowler, imo. Not the fastest, but he has the variations and control needed to be a good death bowler.

Oh, he's not the worst, certainly, but he's not even a first-choice player!

 

[Steulen]

Oh, he's not the worst, certainly, but he's not even a first-choice player!

No, but that's SA selection policy for you. I think he's wasted at 9. He should play at 6 or 7 instead of Kemp

 

[Richard]

Kemp >>>>>>> Hall with the bat.

 

[Steulen]

Kemp >>>>>>> Hall with the bat.

Hall >>>>>>>>>>>>> Kemp with the ball.

And Hall's no mug with the bat either. Might be wise to play him after Boucher, but certainly before Pollock. Kemp is wasted in the current line-up, there's enough lower order hitting there.

 

[Richard]

IMO Kemp is more than a lower-order hitter - he's a proper batsman who can build an innings. So, obviously, are Boucher and Pollock but Hall?

Of course, Hall's a better bowler than Kemp, by far, but IMO the two aren't really in direct competition. You can have both, or you can have just Kemp.

 

[Steulen]

IMO Kemp is more than a lower-order hitter - he's a proper batsman who can build an innings. So, obviously, are Boucher and Pollock but Hall?

Of course, Hall's a better bowler than Kemp, by far, but IMO the two aren't really in direct competition. You can have both, or you can have just Kemp.

I would argue you can have both, just Kemp, or just Hall . Which would make them direct competition, even if they do not have the same role in the side.

Sa have a very settled line-up where the first nine names can be added to the team sheet without second thought. For the last two places, I'd say there's competition between Hall, Kemp, Langeveldt and Peterson (Bosman and Telemachus would be the drinks-carriers / minnow bashers in the squad). Who gets the nod would depend upon conditions and recent results, but all things being equal I'd go for Hall first and Kemp second.

 

[Richard]

I honestly can't see Kemp being dropped.

I think
Smith
ABdeV
Gibbs
Kallis
Prince
Kemp
Boucher
Pollock

Nel
Ntini
are set-in-stone. It's just a question of Hall or Langeveldt. That's the advantage of having two top-class all-round cricketers (even if neither Kallis or Pollock are exactly all-rounders in the true sense of the word) in your side.

 

[Steulen]

I would argue that SA have a potential problem with that line-up. Ntini and Pollock will both bowl a full 10 overs, probably taking a few wickets while not giving up too many runs. Nel could very well join them, in fact should join them being a frontline bowler, but he's prone to getting carted and you need insurance against that. Kallis is a good bowler but hardly ever bowls a full 10-over quotum. In case of Nel going AWOL, it's left to Smith and Kemp to bowl too many overs, and with Pollock likely to bowl his full 10 early on, you also need a second death bowler . That's why I'd have Hall in there, perhaps together with Kemp as Langeveldt hasn't been really convincing so far.

 

[Richard]

Nel usually tends to go for runs at the death only - is usually pretty reliable in the middle.

And personally I've not got too many problems with Kemp and Smith bowling, say, 4 or 5 overs between them (if Kallis bowls 8 - and there's no reason why he shouldn't bowl 10 if he's not going the distance - and Nel has 7 good ones then a shocker and has to miss 2 - that's 4).

Sadly, Nel is the only option at the death there, but he's still better than either Pollock or Ntini. Ideally, you'd have Lang (who's mixed brilliance with nonsense at the death) and Hall, but there isn't really room in the team for such a thing, and with Hall's unreliability that's 3 non-batsmen (Ntini, Nel, Lang) and a questionable lower-order batsman. Plus Pollock and Boucher.

 

[pup11]

Didn't Hall start his career as an opening batsman so he certainly can handle the willow.


Kallis is also good option at the death for the Proteas.

 

[Richard]

Didn't Hall start his career as an opening batsman so he certainly can handle the willow.

Nope, he did open in his first few ODIs (when Gibbs was banned) but he's never been an opening-batsman of any sort.

 

[Steulen]

He opened in the Test series in India and got a century. Doesn't say too much about his credentials as an ODI opener, but he did play the role.

 

[pup11]

I am starting to get a feeling that death bowling is problem with every side atm in international cricket, its hard to accept this as an aussie fan but the aussies are probably the worst bowling at death compared to other teams.


West Indies on the other hand are pretty good at the death overs (IMO) with the likes of Bravo,Samuels, Smith,Gayle, and Taylor. They have pulled back things a lot times at the death.

 

[Richard]

He opened in the Test series in India and got a century. Doesn't say too much about his credentials as an ODI opener, but he did play the role.

Yep - says a bit about the perception of his batting that it was only done in those 2 series in the subcontinent, though!

Absolutely insane that he was opening with de Villiers down the order in the 2nd of those series though.

 

[Richard]

I am starting to get a feeling that death bowling is problem with every side atm in international cricket, its hard to accept this as an aussie fan but the aussies are probably the worst bowling at death compared to other teams.

It's been a problem for quite a few years, chum...

Since the retirements or decline (sometimes the latter preceding the former) in the likes of Wasim, Donald, Gough, Cairns, Murali, Saqlain, Streak, Fleming, etc. the standard of death-bowling's gone through the floor. There are very, very few around at the current time.