Pollock and Malinga, have selectors completely lost the plot?

[pasag]

Neither axing (or non-selection) makes much sense, both deserve to be in their sides easily. What on earth is going on?

 

[Jono]

Different circumstances though. I reckon the SA selectors have been trying to phase Pollock out for a while now (unfortunately).

The Malinga move is just a tactical disaster. The SL camp got over-excited with Fernando's temporary form (as many do). The quicker people realise that he'll never live up to his the potential that many see in him the better. He's a decent ODI option, but you can't have him being on of your 3 seamers in test cricket. Just not on.

 

[Goughy]

Pollock has been on the way ot for a while now.

Its been long discused in South Africa. Firstly the new ball was taken off him and then he was seen to be powder-puff without the new ball as ammunition.

I dont agree with it but that has been the thinking.

Im guessing Malinga comes down to 3 things. None of which I particularly agree with but there must be a reason.

a) They think there are better options
b) A career Test econ rate of nearly 4 means that the sessions he bowls in could rapidly get away from Sri Lanka
c) His overall record is good but not special and a player with such a record shouldnt be an automatic selection.

Personally Id pick both of 'em but selectors have their own ideas.

 

[social]

Pollock's non-selection has nothing to do with whether he's the best man for the job - it's about looking to the future and looking after quota requirements

Malinga's non-selection was just a ridiculous error - Australian batsmen could hardly have believed their luck

 

[Richard]

Nonsense does Pollock's non-selection have anything to do with quotas - those picked ahead of him (Harris, Nel and Steyn) are all non-previously-disadvantaged. It's a simple case of misreading the fundamentals of bowling.

Basically - selectors (aided usually by the press) make stupid decisions quite often. A few random for-instances that come to mind...

Alec Stewart being replaced by Chris Read (in Tests) in 2003 (and don't tell me it was totally his decision - had he received more backing from press and selectors he might possibly still be playing now, and I tell you what he'd be a damn decent shot at doing better than anyone tried since him, and certainly he would have in 2004). Read playing in 1999 was pretty stupid too.

Simon Katich (205 or something for once out, contributing more than anyone to saving the game, in his most recent Test) being dropped for Andrew Symonds (who had no case, at all, for selection) in 2004.

Piyush Chawla, aged 17, making his Test debut when there were already 2 spinners in the side and he was never going to do more than fill-in the odd over.

For Pakistan, New Zealand (recently) and West Indies (in the last 10 years or so) there are too many for any one to come to mind.

 

[aussie]

Malinga non-selection is strange, when i woke up this morning to check the game i thought SRI had played 4 seamers & Murali not to realise the ignornace.

Pollock though as mentioned already is probably been phased out gradually by the selectors given that he has been such a great servant to SA cricket since their return to cricket. In Pakistan even though i agree with him not playing test on sub-continental tracks anymore they said they didn't think he would be effective but would play him on home where wickets will suite him now back home they say we want to stick with a winning side. Its pretty clear now what up in the selectors thinking with regards to Pollock AFAIC.

 

[social]

Nonsense does Pollock's non-selection have anything to do with quotas - those picked ahead of him (Harris, Nel and Steyn) are all non-previously-disadvantaged. It's a simple case of misreading the fundamentals of bowling.

Basically - selectors (aided usually by the press) make stupid decisions quite often. A few random for-instances that come to mind...

Alec Stewart being replaced by Chris Read (in Tests) in 2003 (and don't tell me it was totally his decision - had he received more backing from press and selectors he might possibly still be playing now, and I tell you what he'd be a damn decent shot at doing better than anyone tried since him, and certainly he would have in 2004). Read playing in 1999 was pretty stupid too.

Simon Katich (205 or something for once out, contributing more than anyone to saving the game, in his most recent Test) being dropped for Andrew Symonds (who had no case, at all, for selection) in 2004.

Piyush Chawla, aged 17, making his Test debut when there were already 2 spinners in the side and he was never going to do more than fill-in the odd over.

For Pakistan, New Zealand (recently) and West Indies (in the last 10 years or so) there are too many for any one to come to mind.

400 plus wickets at a tick over 20

Nearly 4000 runs at an average far better than some batsmen

Top quality fieldsman

The guy deserves respect!!!!!

Save your comparisons to less than an all time great!

Let him retire when he wants

Harris, Nel, Steyn, Stewart, Katich and Chawla are not fit to shine his boots!

 

[Richard]

Alec Stewart certainly is.

In any case, having once been a great is nothing, really. Pollock is clearly not the bowler he was 8 years ago (and hasn't been for a fair while, obviously) and IF he were to no longer be in South Africa's best XI I'd say it was quite fair enough to drop him.

As it is, it's merely stupid to say that he's not - in South Africa. About as stupid as it was to say Symonds was a better option than Katich at said time.

 

[gettingbetter]

In any case, having once been a great is nothing, really. Pollock is clearly not the bowler he was 8 years ago (and hasn't been for a fair while, obviously) and IF he were to no longer be in South Africa's best XI I'd say it was quite fair enough to drop him

That may be so, but he is definetly a better bowler than Nel, Steyn and M. Morkel (the latter, barring injury I believe is ahead of Pollock in the selectors mind too).

 

[TT Boy]

It is a problematic decision not playing Shaun at home, not because of his bowling for his role would be fairly insignificant compared to that of Steyn and Ntini but it’s his batting which RSA can not compensate for at home - its too invaluable and when you have top order batsman who can not even average 40 in test cricket then his omission will be felt, especially when his replacement number eight is Andre Nel - who as Danny Morrison said is really a number ten masquerading as someone who can hold a bat.

 

[Richard]

That may be so, but he is definetly a better bowler than Nel, Steyn and M. Morkel (the latter, barring injury I believe is ahead of Pollock in the selectors mind too).

Debatable, but either way that wasn't the point I was making there. The point is that Pollock hasn't been one of the best bowlers going around in Tests for about 6 or 7 years, and hence he's not someone who should be treated with kid-gloves.

 

[Richard]

It is a problematic decision not playing Shaun at home, not because of his bowling for his role would be fairly insignificant compared to that of Steyn and Ntini but it’s his batting which RSA can not compensate for at home - its too invaluable and when you have top order batsman who can not even average 40 in test cricket then his omission will be felt, especially when his replacement number eight is Andre Nel - who as Danny Morrison said is really a number ten masquerading as someone who can hold a bat.

South Africa have four number-elevens in this game. It's alarming. Especially for one who remembers a day when South Africa had Boucher at seven, Klusener at eight and Pollock at nine.

 

[White Lightning]

not picking malinga was strange at best.

i don't know what was going through the sri lankans mind when they went with that one....

at least the south africans can afford to not pick pollock. the have some other good bowlers going around. for what its worth i don't know why they're not picking him, but i would have him in my team any day.

 

[TT Boy]

That may be so, but he is definetly a better bowler than Nel, Steyn and M. Morkel (the latter, barring injury I believe is ahead of Pollock in the selectors mind too).

Steyn has done an excellent job since coming back into the side and not only has he actually looked better than Shaun but statistically his done better than him in those ten games since his return.

Steyn- Average 26.30, three 5 wicket hauls and 43 wickets
Pollock- 28.51, no Michelle's and only 31 wickets.

Have not got the strike rates stat but doubtlessly Steyn's is also far better than that of Pollock's.

Although, just looking at Pollock’s batting for the period (33.28) and it makes for dim reading, its better than what most of the South African batsmen were averaging.

 

[TT Boy]

South Africa have four number-elevens in this game. It's alarming. Especially for one who remembers a day when South Africa had Boucher at seven, Klusener at eight and Pollock at nine.

It is but once Morkel is fit (December) he should at least offer some dexterity and lower order stability if Pollock does not return.

 

[Richard]

That's presuming his bowling can force his way into the side - a given if Nel continues as he did yesterday and in the Second Test in Pakistan, but not so if he starts once again to bowl as we know he can.

There's obviously little chance of him replacing Ntini or Steyn.

 

[Craig]

The axing of Pollock is one thing, and they certainly could of done with his batting ability, but no Malinga, is just dire. The last time I can think of such a wierd call was when Dwayne Bravo didn't play against Australia in the 1st Test in 2005 when they came here.

 

[gettingbetter]

Debatable, but either way that wasn't the point I was making there. The point is that Pollock hasn't been one of the best bowlers going around in Tests for about 6 or 7 years, and hence he's not someone who should be treated with kid-gloves.

It might not be the point you were initially making, but it does lend itself back to who is better than who e.g. Michael Vaughan was a better batsman 5 years ago than he is now, doesn't mean that Bopara should be ahead of him. Same story with Warne circa 06-07.

I can see what the SA team is trying to do, and I do appreciate the difficulty in introducing and moulding the likes of Morkel, Steyn and further on Duminy, Tshabalal, Philander and co. But for the moment, why Pollock isn't ahead of Nel is beyond me. Neither Nel or Steyn will be as you would say Rich, 'fit enough to shine Pollock's boots,' and I'll eat my computer if that is the case.

 

[gettingbetter]

Steyn has done an excellent job since coming back into the side and not only has he actually looked better than Shaun but statistically his done better than him in those ten games since his return.

Steyn- Average 26.30, three 5 wicket hauls and 43 wickets
Pollock- 28.51, no Michelle's and only 31 wickets.

Although, just looking at Pollock’s batting for the period (33.28) and it makes for dim reading, its better than what most of the South African batsmen were averaging.

Thanks for the stats - I don't want this argument (atleast from my side, to expand into batting ability), but we all know what Pollock can do, and there isn't anything all to remarkable about the differences between Steyn and Pollock

Aren't those stats slightly askew though? Are you taking into account both their last 10 games or Styen's last 10 games and the games Pollock played withing those? Because Pollock didn't play in the Pakistan series where Steyn was rather prolific.

 

[bond21]

I dont believe Pollock got left out. He is a senior player, one of their best bowlers and is can bat!

Nel was batting at 8 for god's sake, Nel is a ferret.