South Africa ATG - Open Voting

[Howe_zat]

I actually think the number of allrounders available means there's much more room for manouvre in this side. For example you could say there's little need for Pollock when you have Procter (or vice versa) and there'll be some debate over whether Tayfield should be picked ahead of a 4-man pace attack when Faulkner will probably be there to provide spin. And if you go with only 1 or 2 specialist pace bowlers, then which of Donald, Steyn and Adcock miss out.

[watson]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

I actually think the number of allrounders available means there's much more room for manouvre in this side. For example you could say there's little need for Pollock when you have Procter (or vice versa) and there'll be some debate over whether Tayfield should be picked ahead of a 4-man pace attack when Faulkner will probably be there to provide spin. And if you go with only 1 or 2 specialist pace bowlers, then which of Donald, Steyn and Adcock miss out.

I agree that there is little need for Shaun Pollock as an allrounder because of Faulkner-Waite-Procter in the lower-middle-order.

It may make more sense to play a third strike bowler of real pace like Adcock, Peter Pollock or Steyn to partner Donald and Procter. Then the RSA attack would be on a par with the Windies ATG attack. Peter Pollock, Steyn, and Tayfield are also handy lower-order batsman as well.

Incidently, Shaun Pollock's bowling average against Australia (1997-2006) is 36.85

[Jager]

Four man pace attacks are just plain wrong in my opinion, for all the credit that Warne/Murali get you'd think having at least one spinner of ATG level in each team would be a bare minimum.

[Prince EWS]

Bruce Mitchell
Graeme Smith

[Flem274*]

Graeme Smith
Gary Kirsten

[watson]

Originally Posted by Jager

Four man pace attacks are just plain wrong in my opinion, for all the credit that Warne/Murali get you'd think having at least one spinner of ATG level in each team would be a bare minimum.

I agree, 3 x quicks, 1 x off-spinner, and 1 x leggie/left-armer is the ultimate attack as it covers all pitches and conditions. Not to mention dismiss batsman who play pace well, but spin not so well, and vice versa.

I remember Murray Bennett making the great Viv Richards look second rate at the SCG in 1985. He had absolutely no idea how to combat Bennett's flipper in the second innings and got his stumps smashed. I lept out of my lounge-room seat at the time.

Here we have a fabulous scorecard where Australia bat first and score 471 against Marshall, Garner, Holding, and Walsh (!!!), and then the Windies are bowled out twice by the leggies to lose by an innings;

5th Test: Australia v West Indies at Sydney, Dec 30, 1984 - Jan 2, 1985 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

[SeamUp]

Barry Richards
Graeme Smith

Some would argue about including Barry over the rest (considering their records and service). Its just unfortunate we never got to see more of him at test level but there is no denying his quality. I'm a big fan of Eddie Barlow, he is someone you want in your team to fight by your side but unfotunately misses out.


Besides the other options mentioned above as openers (Gary Kirsten, Herschelle Gibbs, Eddie Barlow & Bruce Mitchell) who missed out in my selection.

Other notable mentions -

Herbie Taylor (1912-1932) opened succesfully at times for South Africa but would jump between opening and the middle order just like Eric Rowan (1935-1951) did. Jackie McGlew (1951-1962) was a stone-waller opener but there is no arguing with his test career record and his stature in SA cricket. Another was all-rounder Trevor Goddard (1955-1970) who opened for the majority of his career. Lastly Jimmy Cook (FC career 1972-1995) would have eventually taken over from Eddie Barlow as Barry Richard's opening partner in the mid to late 70's and into the 80's. I would have had no doubt that he would have had a successful test career barring isolation.

[Teja.]

Yeah, The only reason I did not pick Herbie Taylor to open because he's the first batsman I'd pick to bat in the middle order for SA, at No. 4.

The best batsman SA has ever produced, and the best batsman in the world between WG's peak and the entry of Sir Jack, in my opinion.

[Teja.]

500+ runs against England in 1913/1914 against Barnes taking 49 wickets @ 10.

Boggles the mind, really.

[Howe_zat]

God ****ing damnit it's going to be Smith isn't it

[harsh.skm]

I have just one gripe with my selection. Barry Richards will not like the batting style of Graeme Smith in the least May even say a word or two (although that seems unreasonable). Barnes.... One of the great continuing mysteries. Seems like Herb Taylor may have had problems with consistency.

[kyear2]

After a long series (Where said Marshall was Man of the Series) and Holding was frequently hurt and Walsh was making his debut and on a prepared spinners wicket.

2nd Test: West Indies v Australia at Kingston, Mar 13-16, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

In this game Australia played two spinners and still gave up over 400 runs, one of occurances mean nothing.

3rd Test: West Indies v Australia at Bridgetown, Mar 26-30, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

And in this game the same two spinners gave up 300 twice, including a last day victory, while the fast bolwers took all of the wickets for the other team, again doesn't prove anything.

[watson]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

God ****ing damnit it's going to be Smith isn't it

I make it, but someone should double-check;

Richards = 23
Smith = 15
Mitchell = 11
Kirsten = 4
Barlow = 2

[harsh.skm]

Originally Posted by watson

I make it, but someone should double-check;

Richards = 23
Smith = 15
Mitchell = 11
Kirsten = 4
Barlow = 2

How does Kirsten get 4? Might be better to appoint him coach of the side

[harsh.skm]

Originally Posted by kyear2

After a long series (Where said Marshall was Man of the Series) and Holding was frequently hurt and Walsh was making his debut and on a prepared spinners wicket.

2nd Test: West Indies v Australia at Kingston, Mar 13-16, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

In this game Australia played two spinners and still gave up over 400 runs, one of occurances mean nothing.

3rd Test: West Indies v Australia at Bridgetown, Mar 26-30, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

And in this game the same two spinners gave up 300 twice, including a last day victory, while the fast bolwers took all of the wickets for the other team, again doesn't prove anything.

Very good post. Just what I wanted to say, but thought it should be obvious anyway (and I was way too lazy)