South Africa's ODI Line Up After the World Cup?

[gettingbetter]

Inevitably (well atleast most times), after a team with so much potential lose the WC, drastic changes are made to the team. But I think South Africa are going to be one of the few teams that will have minimal changes made to it. In saying that, i think certain changes should/should've been made.

• 
  Abolish the quota system:

I'm not sure how long the system has been in place - maybe 7 years? But it has slowly increased and instead of the team being selected on performance merit, some players are picked on their skin colour. Just remember, how many of the coloured players would be picked in the team without the quota system? Ntini, Langeveldt, Gibbs - they would be picked 90% of the time, with the exception of Langeveldt.

My main qualm with the quota system is that the composition of the team/squad is skewed. I believe that the team is required to have 4 coloured players in the team and 6-7 in the squad (please correct me if I'm wrong). Prince is the best coloured batsman in SA, I have no problems picking him in the Test team, if anything, he'd be the first person I would pick after Smith, but in the ODI team? He's got a strike rate of less than 70.

Also, the squad has individuals who should not be there. Seriously, where was van der Wath? Klusener-esque type of player, could of been a real threat at the WC.

• 
  Get a spinner

Murali and Hogg have been the oustanding spin bowlers this tournament (suprise suprise that AUS and SL are in the final?), and the likes of Vettori, the spinners from Bangladesh and others have contributed significantly with the ball in either reducing the run rate or taking wickets at crucial moments.

Smith certainly knew that a spinnee was needed and this was seen with the inclusion of Peterson and even Smith bowling himself. In conjunction with the predictability of the SA bowling attack - right arm over, 130-140km/ph . Once again 'll compare to AUS and SL; bowler who can bowler 150+, a metronome, a left-hander and a spinner.

 

[Prince EWS]

Getting a spinner is a lot easier said than done though - if they don't have one, they don't have one. Realistically, if not for the "target", then Harris would have been taken to the World Cup ahead of Petersen... but would he really have done much better? Or even been a better option than Hall or Nel? Doubtful IMO.

The quota system must go though, really. One could argue that the likes of Bosman, Telemachus and Petersen had limited impact on the tournament anyway, but the fact of the matter is, carrying these players in the squad and knowing full well that they'd be unlikely to get a game unless things became really dire drags down the team. Kemp was in drastically bad form and yet couldn't be dropped for the simple fact that there was no-one else to pick. Had Van Der Wath or Van Wyk been in the squad instead of a player that was clearly just being carried, he could have been given a game. Furthermore, it became evident that the use of the spinner could have been beneficial to the side, and yet the only option was so ridiculously substandard that he wasn't worth playing.

Now, Boeta Dippenaar. People argued his exclusion for the likes of Loots Bosman to be one based on balance - that is, Dippenaar is a slow-scoring batsman who likes the ball coming on and plays with little power, while Bosman is a midwicket basher who can provide quick starts or good finishes to the innings. While I thought this was a moot point given the fact that Bosman is unlikely to score any runs anyway, I accepted it somewhat. However, there is no reason for Ashwell Prince to be in the team ahead of Dippenaar. They both score at similar rates - in fact, Dippenaar is more versatile in the fact that he actually has played some quick-scoring knocks and can bat in the top order as well as down at #5 - and yet Dippenaar averages infinitely more. Dippenaar could either come in to open and allow De Villiers to bat at #5 where he is less vulnerable to the new ball, or Dippenaar could bat at #5 himself and play the Prince rescue/strike-rotation role (except to a much better standard).

 

[Goughy]

Yeah, Van der Wath, Morne van Wyk and Dippenaar should all have been in the squad. Ahead of Bosman (joke selection), Telemachus (aged journeyman) and Petersen (neither a batsman or a bowler).

Dippenaar's exclusion illustrates that far from political interfrence diminishing, it is alive and well but opperating in a less obvious fashion.

Prince is a capable player but he is nowhere near being one of the top six batsmen in South Africa.

Interestingly Fanie De Villiers, the ex-SA swing bowler and current TV Cricket host mentioned stuff similar recently (last month)

talking about whether the correct players are getting picked Morne van Wyk would have been there had it not been for transformation targets. He would easily have played 80/90 games by now. Another player who we've also missed out because of targets is Johan van der Wath.....and dont even get me started on Neil McKenzie. He has shown he has the ability to play brave cricket

The thing about the targets is that the guys selected are not rubbish but that there is a noticable dropoff from those that should have gone. All the quota players can play, its just means that by not picking the very best players available regardless SA is going to be at 90% capability rather than 100% whilst the policy continues. Its hard to challenge to be the best in the world when you are giving yourself small but real handicap.

 

[Prince EWS]

The thing about the targets is that the guys selected are not rubbish but that there is a noticable dropoff from those that should have gone. All the quota players can play, its just means that by not picking the very best players available regardless SA is going to be at 90% capability rather than 100% whilst the policy continues.

I think that's actually a bit generous actually, to everyone concerned except Ashwell Prince. Obviously Gibbs, Ntini and Langeveldt are merit selections anyway, but aside from Prince, the other target players ARE rubbish. Prince pretty much fits what you said there, but the likes of Petersen, Bosman and Telemachus are just plain rubbish at international level as far as I'm concerned. Prince basically lies in the middle - he's not a massive liability, but there are better players to have in his place.

Agree with the rest though, spot on. Farnie as well.

 

[gettingbetter]

Its good to see that folk are agreeing on the quota system.

One thing I don't understand is the Dippenaar situation, other than him being slightly more flexible than Prince (the whole, x can only bat at y theory is beyond me, I'm sure Prince would be capable opening, either way, SA, have Gibbs to fill the void, so the flexibility point is pointless), but I rather have Prince in the team than Boeta - just remember, they both have strike rates under 70. Also, Prince has had hardly the opportunities to imrpove his averages at the position he comes in.

So they can't take advantage of the powerplays at the start of the innings and they aren't very capable of the slog at the end of the innings.

Overall, I have no issues with Boeta being excluded. Although he did perform well in Australia in 05/06, the game has changed so much, players like Boeta are obsolete - where's Katich, Hinds and co? Also, this situation can be applied to why England are such a poor ODI team.

Prince is a capable player but he is nowhere near being one of the top six batsmen in South Africa.

I hope that is in regards to ODIs.

 

[Poker Boy]

They should have took Paul Harris IMO. He did take wickets in the India and Pakistan Tests and would have been better than Peterson (might be damming the guy with faint praise - I bet you the Saffies wish he had went to England and not KP). They also need to put Dale Steyn - their equivalent to Tait - in the team. Quite why they let him play for Warwickshire can only be explained by the quota system - not only was their attack spin free it was pace free - with Pollock not as fast and Ntini off form it was samey. The other question is the same as other nations - do they think Pollock, Boucher, Gibbs and Kallis will be around in four years and if they don't should they drop them from the ODI team now so they can rebuild? One point has struck me - there doesn't seem to be calls for the head of Smith or Arthur - are they going to be the only country that keeps both captain and coach? But the No 1 ranking was false - they got it by beating India and Pakistan, need I say more? - and they did as much as I thought they would. SA are now like England were up to 1992 -solid, efficent, good enough to do well but not good enough to win. PS - apart from Tayfield and the googly bowlers at the start of the 20th century have SA ever had good spinners? I read something about John Traicos being picked for that great 1970 team and it said "all they lacked was a spinner". Plus ca change...

 

[Goughy]

I hope that is in regards to ODIs.

And Tests

 

[Prince EWS]

One thing I don't understand is the Dippenaar situation, other than him being slightly more flexible than Prince (the whole, x can only bat at y theory is beyond me, I'm sure Prince would be capable opening, either way, SA, have Gibbs to fill the void, so the flexibility point is pointless), but I rather have Prince in the team than Boeta - just remember, they both have strike rates under 70. Also, Prince has had hardly the opportunities to imrpove his averages at the position he comes in.

There's the tiny matter of the fact that Dippenaar averages 42.87, while Prince averages 35.10. At domestic level, it gets even worse - Prince averages 30.05 in List A cricket. He's played 178 List A games without ever scoring a century, for the record. Dippenaar is infinitely better than Prince as an ODI player. In fact, he should be one of the first players on the team sheet.

As for Prince being able to open, I highly doubt it. The only things that make him at all useful in one day cricket are his ability to pick the gaps when facing spin. Have him open the batting, and he'd be more useless than Michael Vaughan.

 

[gettingbetter]

And Tests

You're out of your bleeding mind if you say that. He's been as good as Kallis for around 2 years and maybe even better than him in the last year.

 

[Prince EWS]

And Tests

I think that's a tad rough actually. He's improved out of sight in test cricket since he was first selected, and he thoroughly deserves his place. A dubious selection at best in the first place though.

 

[Goughy]

Regarding Poker Boy's comments.

I dont think the exclusion of Steyn was target related. White players such as van der Wath would have been above him in the pecking order.

I would not have taken Steyn and I dont really get the Tait comparison. Steyn is a very average OD bowler and is shorter, weaker and slower than Tait. Its also not as if Tait is the 2nd coming of Joel Garner in ODIs anyway.

 

[jot1]

Abolish the quota system, and bring in two specialist coaches. One to teach up-and-coming bowlers to become spin-bowlers and one to teach everyone to play spin. I have heard excuses like our pitches and climate aren't condusive to spin-bowling, so it's not worth our guys to become one because they won't do well and make the provincial teams. Obvously, if you can't even get into one of those teams, you'll never make the national squad.
Australia's climate and weather conditions are very close to ours and yet they have produced not only one of the 2 best spin-bowlers ever, but are churning out more of them.
Why can they do it and we can't. If we don't have spin-friendly pitches, hire someone to teach us how to make some of them at least semi-friendly so our guys can get some good practice right here in their back yard.
Lastly, keep certain players just for tests, some just for ODIs and even some just for 20/20 matches. The result? Less chopping and changing so the teams can become one cohesive entity and every one will know where he is and what is expected of him.

 

[jot1]

Oi! I didn't mean to write a book!

 

[gettingbetter]

I'm still indifferent to your opinion on Boeta Prince. I'm not going to concede that Boeta is a better player than Prince (yet), but I wouldn't have either in the team to begin with - strike rates are just too low for what ODI cricket has become.

I would not have taken Steyn and I dont really get the Tait comparison.

This sort of relates to my point.

Smith certainly knew that a spinnee was needed and this was seen with the inclusion of Peterson and even Smith bowling himself. In conjunction with the predictability of the SA bowling attack - right arm over, 130-140km/ph . Once again 'll compare to AUS and SL; bowler who can bowler 150+, a metronome, a left-hander and a spinner.

Say what you want, but its pretty evident that a bowler who can bowl at that speed (as Steyn can) is an asset to the team.

 

[Goughy]

You're out of your bleeding mind if you say that. He's been as good as Kallis for around 2 years and maybe even better than him in the last year.

I think that's a tad rough actually. He's improved out of sight in test cricket since he was first selected, and he thoroughly deserves his place. A dubious selection at best in the first place though.

No doubt it may seem crazy to criticise a player that is at the top of his game. However I think he is playing above himself recently and the only way is down. I will trust my talent evaluation skills on this one and I have seen a lot of Ashwell Prince. Raving over players after a couple of good seasons is what makes Football managers spurge massive amounts of money on players that turn out to be very average.

Prince is at the top of his wave right now (helped by playing 21 of his 29 tests at home).

It will not continue.

 

[Goughy]

Abolish the quota system, and bring in two specialist coaches. One to teach up-and-coming bowlers to become spin-bowlers and one to teach everyone to play spin. I have heard excuses like our pitches and climate aren't condusive to spin-bowling, so it's not worth our guys to become one because they won't do well and make the provincial teams. Obvously, if you can't even get into one of those teams, you'll never make the national squad.
Australia's climate and weather conditions are very close to ours and yet they have produced not only one of the 2 best spin-bowlers ever, but are churning out more of them.
Why can they do it and we can't. If we don't have spin-friendly pitches, hire someone to teach us how to make some of them at least semi-friendly so our guys can get some good practice right here in their back yard.

The myth about SA is that it doesnt produce spinners. It is true at the top level but at the highest club and school cricket spinners play a massive role and many games are played on spin rather than seam friendly pitches.

I have seen an amazing level of spin bowling in this country (guys struggling to play Prov B that are better than Test players I have played with (naming no names)).

The issue isnt as deep as some would make out. The problem is the coaches, selection and culture at Franchise level. These monkeys wouldnt know how to handle a spinner if they were told. I think as new ideas flow through and the 'Ja boss' generations disappears and retires then the high level spinners that are there will actually come through.

As I said, the SA spin problem isnt as deep as many think but it is more frustrating as it is a cultural and handling issue at the top level rather than not being able to have young talent.

 

[Prince EWS]

So they can't take advantage of the powerplays at the start of the innings and they aren't very capable of the slog at the end of the innings.

You've left out half the game there though. If you want to have the confidence in the team to do the former and the resources to do the latter, you need reliable players who can score runs in the middle overs consistently. If the top order has no confidence in the #5-6 batsmen to rebuild if things go wrong, they won't have the confidence to take advantage of the PowerPlays, and even if they do and then the middle order folds, the team won't have the resources to go "all out" at the death until the last 3 or 4 overs.

Regardless of which though, you argued that you'd rather Prince in the team than Dippenaar, which makes virtually no sense given his strike rate is just as poor if not worse. I can understand the logic behind picking someone like Van Wyk, Gibbs or De Villiers over Dippenaar (even if I don't agree with it within the composition of the rest of the team..) but I can't understand the logic of picking Prince, who strikes at a similar rate and is much less reliable to score runs.

I'm not going to concede that Boeta is a better player than Prince (yet)

Do you have any justification for why that is?? All evidence points to Dippenaar being an infinitely better one day batsman.

 

[Raghav]

Everyone posting essays in this thread..no time to read all that stuff

 

[Prince EWS]

Everyone posting essays in this thread..no time to read all that stuff

Dire.

 

[TT Boy]

Its good to see that folk are agreeing on the quota system.

Well that's nice and all but considering the quota system as Cricket South Africa's Vince van der Bijl said is here to stay (for at least some considerable time), discussing it is pretty much redundant for there is more chance of my council tax being abolished.

In regard to South Africa’s future plans, surprisingly, (at the moment) nothing in the way of major change will occur. Haroon Lorgat said today that heads will probably not fly and all the team should expect is a dressing down from Gerald Majola, even Arthur could retain his coaching position.

Only real question of debate is Shaun Pollock, Makhaya Ntini and a spinner. Captain Smith said that Pollock’s role is of concern (due to his age) and that Shaun has a decision to make, whilst Makhaya’s one natured bowling received criticism from Arthur who expressed that Ntini has to step up his game away from home and a spinner according to Majola and Smith needs to be nurtured for 2011.