Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yep, his batting only improved with the gloves and was a more than competent keeper.So do we cheat and let AB keep in all ATXI?
Yep, his batting only improved with the gloves and was a more than competent keeper.So do we cheat and let AB keep in all ATXI?
I have Smith with his nose in front of Mitchell. Other than that, agree with that top 7.Richards
Mitchell
Amla
Pollock
Kallis
Nourse
AB +
Thinking Faulkner more in sub-continent conditions.... Procter > Pollock (just!)...If you pick Procter that makes sense, adds a bit of variety to the pace attack although I'd argue so does Pollock. Definitely not Faulkner though as that would mean just the two specialist quicks in Steyn and Donald.
I can`t pick AB as specialist keeper as he never was one... and I personally prefer picking a pure keeper before keeper/batsmen...Yep, his batting only improved with the gloves and was a more than competent keeper.
Unless it's played in the SC, I'd have Procter or Adcock ahead of Tayfield, you already have Faulkner's leggies.I'm thinking
Smith
Richards
Kallis
Pollock
Nourse
AB+
Faulkner
Pollock
Tayfield
Steyn
Donald
Procter > Pollock (just)
Not to sure quite what the laugh is... unless you think that I`m talking about G Pollock, when I`m talking about S. Pollock..
I guess we just have different ideas of the gap between Procter and Pollock. Procter a far more skilled batsman and a better bowler.Not to sure quite what the laugh is... unless you think that I`m talking about G Pollock, when I`m talking about S. Pollock..
Heh, if you drop Tayfield for Procter, that lineup bats stupidly deep.Unless it's played in the SC, I'd have Procter or Adcock ahead of Tayfield, you already have Faulkner's leggies.
Richie Cunningham probably does deserve his spot, but there's something ferocious about a pace attack of Steyn, Donald, Procter & Adcock, with Faulkner in support.
I agree that Procky was the better bowler of the two. But saying Procter was a far more skilled batsman than Pollock might be underrating Shaun a bit.I guess we just have different ideas of the gap between Procter and Pollock. Procter a far more skilled batsman and a better bowler.
Disagree, I think Procter was a far better batsman. The gap between their bowling is much smaller than in their batting.I agree that Procky was the better bowler of the two. But saying Procter was a far more skilled batsman than Pollock might be underrating Shaun a bit.
6 centuries in 6 consecutive innings begs to differ.I agree that Procky was the better bowler of the two. But saying Procter was a far more skilled batsman than Pollock might be underrating Shaun a bit.
Of course you would if it was played outside the SC (or the WI based on pitches in the last decade). Tayfield is without doubt SA's best spinner, but with Faulkner being a lock for his all-rounder ability and being a very fine leg-spinner and with SA have so many really great pace options, I don't think you have a choice.There's no way in hell you'd drop Tayfield though.
Except almost all of their Test opponents at that time rate Pollock ahead of Richards, even though the latter was a genuine great batsman in his own right & a genius at County/FC level.For me it will always be Barry Richards.
The abilities he had against good bowling on poor wickets.
He was able to bat on difficult wickets. In one county match the extras was the second highest scorer I think 15 or so while Barry went on to make over forty. No other batsman came close to 8. In a test I remember about him talking about how one part of the wicket was slow and another was quick. He was somehow able to play attacking while taking that into consideration. Mike Procter if he had to choose a batsmen to bat for his life he would choose Barry.
He made 325 runs in a day against a side in Sheffield cricket that included Dennis Lilley .
Bradman said he was one of the three best players of short pitched fast bowling he ever saw.
He almost scored a hundred before lunch and come close to it at least onc other time.
He played Gleeson when other were struggling because he got so quickly to the pitch of the ball end read which way the was going to turn.
I certainly don't think Kallis would have been able to that against the quality of bowling. Kallis batted a strike rate of 40 for the greater part of his career. Barry let very few deliveries through to the keeper and always batted with a strike rate above 50 sometimes above 60.
Kallis was good but he was no patch against Barry. When has a ever faced a pace attack of the likes of the touring west Indies during the isolation years? Barry was the only one who constantly dealt with pace . Even Graeme Pollock struggled and only managed one hundred against them.
Because Allan Border is so great he's polling in the best South African Batsman thread, and he isn't even South African. That's why.The bigger question is how the hell does AB get almost as many votes as Pollock as a pure batsman assuming we're ignoring ODI/T20 cricket since 2 of those 4 never played them?