Who should bat at Seven for South Africa?

[Rasimione]

Except that I disagree with AB at 5.

Ideally your best player should face as many balls as possible right? I've often wondered why he doesn't bat at 3. Perhaps the management feel that at 4/5 he can control the game a lot better. The other reason could be to try and accommodate Faf. He usuallylikes to get himself in before attacking hence he was moved from 6 to 3. Maybe his best position could be at 5 with AB batting 3.

 

[anil1405]

Domingo realised before the WC that the team would be better off having AB at 4 instead of 5. Was really pissed when he used to come in at 5.

Wouldn't want AB to bat at 3 though. Apart from the reasons you have mentioned, Proteas lower-middle order is weak. I mean really weak.

 

[Rasimione]

Domingo realised before the WC that the team would be better off having AB at 4 instead of 5. Was really pissed when he used to come in at 5.

Wouldn't want AB to bat at 3 though. Apart from the reasons you have mentioned, Proteas lower-middle order is weak. I mean really weak.

That's what happens when the wrong playersare selected.

 

[Flem274*]

This is punishment for leaving out my boy Ryan McLaren

The answer to this thread though is anyone but Parnell.

 

[morgieb]

Make Albie Morkel not become a T20 mercenary.

 

[Julian87]

Make Albie Morkel not become a T20 mercenary.

He's been playing List A stuff in South Africa. If an injury happened, he's who I'd be on the dog and bone to....besides Kallis.

 

[Rasimione]

Make Albie Morkel not become a T20 mercenary.

He never improve. Whenever he was given a chance he disappointed.

 

[Jimbo the giant]

Bat Duminy at 7 and use him as the 5th bowler. Can't be worse than Parnell. Rossouw at 3 and Miller at 6.


de Kock
Amla
Rossouw
Faf
Abdv
Miller
Duminy
Philander
Steyn
Tahir
Morkel

Problem is no one else in the XI has part time bowling experience. Would be much easier for SA if they had some batsman apart from Duminy who had part time bowling experience to squeeze a few overs out of.

I agree that team would be the best available and the one i would most fear. They have 4 strong front line bowlers which should make up for having Duminy as the weak link. Duminy isn't that bad any way I reckon he's as good as Moeen Ali and yeah wouldn't do any worse than what Parnell has been doing.

I'd tweak the batting a bit though and many will disagree with me

Amla
Rossouw
Abdv
Faf
Miller
Duminy
de Kock
Philander
Steyn
Morkel
Tahir

Rossouw was doing well opening pre world cup, de Kock is struggling a little at the moment. I reckon de Kock could do well as a finisher he can be a good hitter at the death but I can see why he should be retained as an opener.
AB can bat up 1 spot, the more balls he faces the better for SA.

 

[Rasimione]

I agree that team would be the best available and the one i would most fear. They have 4 strong front line bowlers which should make up for having Duminy as the weak link. Duminy isn't that bad any way I reckon he's as good as Moeen Ali and yeah wouldn't do any worse than what Parnell has been doing
I'd tweak the batting a bit though and many will disagree with me

Amla
Rossouw
Abdv
Faf
Miller
Duminy
de Kock
Philander
Steyn
Morkel
Tahir

Rossouw was doing well opening pre world cup, de Kock is struggling a little at the moment. I reckon de Kock could do well as a finisher he can be a good hitter at the death but I can see why he should be retained as an opener.
AB can bat up 1 spot, the more balls he faces the better for SA.

I doubt they would drop De Kock to 7. He is just rusty from that injury he had. I also think AB will continue at 4. The likeliest change could be Rossouw at 3 and Faf at 5. With regards to the number 7 position, Duminy should have got the gig long time ago. From what I've seen he is more than just a part timer. He is capable of 10 overs.

 

[Jimbo the giant]

I doubt they would drop De Kock to 7. He is just rusty from that injury he had. I also think AB will continue at 4. The likeliest change could be Rossouw at 3 and Faf at 5. With regards to the number 7 position, Duminy should have got the gig long time ago. From what I've seen he is more than just a part timer. He is capable of 10 overs.

Yeah I know they wont go with my preference, but I doubt they will even go with that team. More likely we will see the return of Behardien!

AB has to bat top 3 imo, why waste your best bat at 4, he needs to bat as much of the innings as possible.

 

[Daemon]

AB at 4 is good because he's who you'd trust most in pressure situations.

 

[Jimbo the giant]

AB at 4 is good because he's who you'd trust most in pressure situations.

That's an excuse IMO. He's their best bat he should bat 3, him batting that high reduces pressure on the rest of the batsman because they get off to a good solid start. He's good enough to bat deep, he can still be there at the end.

 

[cnerd123]

AB at 4 is good because he's who you'd trust most in pressure situations.

Were you for or against Kohli at 3? I don't remember.

 

[Dan]

This whole "your best batsman must bat at three" thing is such an absolute myth. It's wholly dependent upon the structure of the rest of your batting line-up, and the abilities of the player themselves.

Kohli should always bat three because India's strength is in the lower middle order -- they have lots of gun finishers in Raina, Dhoni, and to a lesser extent Jadeja, while the above-average openers mean he shouldn't be coming in too early. Kohli's game is to bat 40 overs and make a big ton.

de Villiers is far more suited to four in the context of the South African team. The South African strength is the top order; the lower-middle isn't nearly as strong as India's, so you want ABdV's finishing skills on offer as much as possible. Him coming in a bit later will probably help that. Meanwhile, ABdV batting at four maximises the ability of du Plessis to do something useful, since Faf's strength is building an innings while ABdV can go from ball one. Sure, having AB at #3 might get more out of him, but it gets less out of the South African team IMO.

 

[cnerd123]

This whole "your best batsman must bat at three" thing is such an absolute myth. It's wholly dependent upon the structure of the rest of your batting line-up, and the abilities of the player themselves.

Kohli should always bat three because India's strength is in the lower middle order -- they have lots of gun finishers in Raina, Dhoni, and to a lesser extent Jadeja, while the above-average openers mean he shouldn't be coming in too early. Kohli's game is to bat 40 overs and make a big ton.

de Villiers is far more suited to four in the context of the South African team. The South African strength is the top order; the lower-middle isn't nearly as strong as India's, so you want ABdV's finishing skills on offer as much as possible. Him coming in a bit later will probably help that. Meanwhile, ABdV batting at four maximises the ability of du Plessis to do something useful, since Faf's strength is building an innings while ABdV can go from ball one. Sure, having AB at #3 might get more out of him, but it gets less out of the South African team IMO.

WAC making the point I wanted to make before I could get to it.

 

[Jimbo the giant]

Fafs role will not change 1 bit. He will still have time to get in so I completely disagree. He has proven in t20 he doesn't need much to get going any way.

The rest of the team won't change 1 bit so their roles don't change so you still get the same result. An extra 5-10 overs with AB can only be a good thing.

 

[Jimbo the giant]

SAs openers are way better than India's and Miller+DUMINY>=Raina+current Dhoni

 

[Dan]

Fafs role will not change 1 bit. He will still have time to get in so I completely disagree. He has proven in t20 he doesn't need much to get going any way.

The rest of the team won't change 1 bit so their roles don't change so you still get the same result. An extra 5-10 overs with AB can only be a good thing.

His best T20 results have come in the top 3 -- where, compared to lower down at least, you have more time to get settled and then go for it. He 'catches up', de Villiers does not.


Let me put it this way to you. Should Michael Bevan have batted at #3 in ODIs for Australia? When Dravid and Tendulkar played Tests together, should Tendulkar have batted at #3 just because he was the better batsman?

Given that various coaching manuals say "you should have your best batsman at #3 because reasons", "you should have your best batsman at #4 because reasons" or "you should have your best batsman at #5 because reasons" and we've seen teams be successful with all three methods (e.g. Viv and Ponting and Bradman at 3, Lara and Tendulkar and Kallis at 4, Waugh and Border and Clarke at 5), I don't think we can ever consider it to be an immutable cricketing law. It varies depending on context, team balance, and the individual batsman.

 

[Prince EWS]

This whole "your best batsman must bat at three" thing is such an absolute myth. It's wholly dependent upon the structure of the rest of your batting line-up, and the abilities of the player themselves.

Kohli should always bat three because India's strength is in the lower middle order -- they have lots of gun finishers in Raina, Dhoni, and to a lesser extent Jadeja, while the above-average openers mean he shouldn't be coming in too early. Kohli's game is to bat 40 overs and make a big ton.

de Villiers is far more suited to four in the context of the South African team. The South African strength is the top order; the lower-middle isn't nearly as strong as India's, so you want ABdV's finishing skills on offer as much as possible. Him coming in a bit later will probably help that. Meanwhile, ABdV batting at four maximises the ability of du Plessis to do something useful, since Faf's strength is building an innings while ABdV can go from ball one. Sure, having AB at #3 might get more out of him, but it gets less out of the South African team IMO.

Yeah, spot on. It's not even blindly ideological; it's downright superstitious.

The argument that usually comes out in support of this is that "the best batsman should face the most number of deliveries." Now, even ignoring the fact that people should then be advocating the best batsman to open rather than bat three, it still makes absolutely no sense to me. Misbah is Pakistan's best ODI batsman, but Pakistan would surely do a lot better if Afridi faced most of the deliveries than if Misbah did. This theory creates, or at least works off, a false idea of a team's best batsman being the best because he makes better use out of the deliveries he faces, when in reality the best batsman is often the best because he's able to face more deliveries before being dismissed.

Your axiom should not be to have the best batsman face the most deliveries, but for the team to score the most runs. The former does not necessarily lead to the latter. If you've got a batsman capable of making a big score then it makes sense to give him the opportunity do so, but where each batsman should bat should be determined by the comparative advantage he offers in each spot rather than ancient mystical wisdom.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, spot on. It's not even blindly ideological; it's downright superstitious.

The argument that usually comes out in support of this is that "the best batsman should face the most number of deliveries." Now, even ignoring the fact that people should then be advocating the best batsman to open rather than bat three, it still makes absolutely no sense to me. Misbah is Pakistan's best ODI batsman, but Pakistan would surely do a lot better if Afridi faced most of the deliveries than if Misbah did. This theory creates, or at least works off, a false idea of a team's best batsman being the best because he makes better use out of the deliveries he faces, when in reality the best batsman is often the best because he's able to face more deliveries before being dismissed.

Your axiom should not be to have the best batsman face the most deliveries, but for the team to score the most runs. The former does not necessarily lead to the latter. If you've got a batsman capable of making a big score then it makes sense to give him the opportunity do so, but where each batsman should bat should be determined by the comparative advantage he offers in each spot rather than ancient mystical wisdom.

Screw you for applying free trade theory to cricket.

You're wholly correct, but go **** yourself you communist turd.