The Proteas - Our Team!

ZCFOutkast said:
I would say horrible start, recovered extremely well, and now found out so much he won't be effective enough. Same thing happened to AB remember but AB was much older and skillful hence accomodated lower down the order. Will they persist with QdK failing if the likes of Davy Jacobs, MvW, Vilas, Kuhn, Mosehle & Rudi Second hit a serious purple patch in domestic? I think not. I believe they must secure his future right now by relieving him of opening duties totally!

Is Narine cleared to play? I haven't seen the UAE&WI squads. Does anyone have a link?

I think we're overlooking the fact that allcomers are smacking even Steyn around, so I'm sure someone can single-handedly get hold of Morkel/Philander even and bat us out of the match on any day e.g. Dwayne Smith or Andre Russell for the WI. Then of course there's Gayle&Pollard. Throw Narine&Roach into the mix, plus Dwayne Bravo, Samuels&Sammy, and you've got World Cup contenders if they discussed pay issues.

That list can grow longer - JP, Philander, Tahir.

I mentioned about 8 players who can single-handedly win a match for the WI. All of them are fearless, unorthodox players 7 of them regular allrounders ... yet only two of them were part of the Test series (which puts our "dominant" Test series win in context too). Anyway, with all due respect to Amla&Steyn, we only have ONE player who can be termed a match winner in ODIs. That's AB de Villiers. Having said that how many times exactly has he been a match winner. When we collapse he's dropped lower down the order only for him to come in and fail. When we get a good start he's not promoted up the order to accelerate further, but remains rooted at 5 then runs out of balls or falls recklessly. Bottomline is we don't have matchwinners so no CWC win possible. (I consider Tsotsobe a matchwinner by the way;)).

Try coming up with a list of potential matchwinners for each country in the World Cup and I can't see how the Proteas won't be among the bottom 6/7 teams. Is that Jacob Oram nodding?
Click to expand...

Theres no second chances in WC. There needs to be experience.
If, and I might be right, AB and Steyn have a bad WC, the others cant carry the team out of the hole.
Morkel imo is a leech off Steyn, it works in our favour, but Morkel cant lead an attack like Steyn can.
If the other teams have to analyze and work out Steyn and AB early in the competition, game over.
Without AB we still have JP and Amla, but will be heavily reliant on the likes of Miller, Faf and Rilee... how much confidence do you have in them?

WC is a different game, its why we always lose, the team with the most stars and best leaders always win.
BTW, anyone seen the NZ team? If you were worried about Aus, NZ is going to the finals this time, im sure of it. Their newbies are all power players.
 
Lament said:
Not really Justifiably.
Click to expand...
Lament said:
Phangiso has played more List A games yes, but he is older and does not have the same variations of balls that Piedt possess. Phangiso is not a poor bowler, but looking at both of them bowl, i'll rather have Piedt in my team.
Click to expand...
As much as imagine Ryan McLaren is struggling to understand how Parnell was selected ahead of him (leftarm-rightarm aside), Phangiso would also struggle to understand how/why Piedt was selected ahead of him(age aside). Same applies to Abbott over Tsotsobe(in every sense of the word).

As a selector you have to be able to back up your selections, statistically first and foremost, then suitability to conditions. Proteas stronger with Tsotsobe, McLaren & Phangiso than with Abbott, Parnell & Piedt. #FACT!

Marchant remains out of contention because no one has been brave enough to drop Morkel, even though Morkel had spells as poor as McLaren but never dropped. I beileve Marchant with his pace&height should have played some of the Tests ahead of Morkel, problem is Tsotsobe/Rory were the reserve seamer, not given enough faith and Morkel would be just as poor each time when he replaced them so they were too afraid to throw Marchant into the mix. No way Morkel was going to outbowl all of Tsotsobe, Rory, Abbott, Morris, Viljoen etc in the Sunfoil Series/Momentum/Ram Slam etc to get back in on merit. Mafia resisted it (Smith, Kallis, AB, Steyn). McLaren is English I think, so no Afrikaaner protection for him. :D

I read a comment somewhere someone says "McLaren has been poor for 12 months, Parnell his whole career." It's an extreme exaggeration, but I get what he means. Of course Parnel has extreme highs or extreme lows but on a consistent basis. On his day he can be as fast as&get as much threatening bounce as Morkel; swing it more than Steyn/Tsotsobe/Philander; or bat as aggressively as Klusener. Unfortunately people expect him to do it all the time like when he blew Aus away in th elost Test series recently then got injured. He's a mercurial player it will never happen. Fannie de Villiers prefers dependency so you favour McLaren. Those who want impact tend to prefer Parnell.
 
Lament said:
End of the day all of us thinks we could have chosen a better team, we will always criticise different players and why they where selected. End of the day we must just accept that the selectors and coach knows what they are doing and whats best for the team.
Click to expand...
Neoprod said:
100%
Click to expand...

The mistake people are making is mixing up or cross matching comparisons. Obviously it's out of convenience. But when you hear someone say McLaren instead of Phangiso, or Tsotsobe instead of Phangiso then they're ducking something.

Of the debatable selections I believe it's:

Tall seamers - Morkel, Marchant
Swing+control seamers - Tsotsobe, Rory, Abbott
Bowling allrounders - McLaren, Parnell, Frylinck(I rate him big time), Morris, Rabada
Batting allrounders - Farhaan, Albie, Wiese, SvZ
Spinners - Phangiso, Leie, Piedt, Harmer,

Hard to reduce Steyn, Philander(&Tahir) to questions right now so they don't belong in any debate despite Morkel&Tsotsobe being superior ODI bowlers statistically.

The selectors got 2 out of 5 wrong. I'm not sure that's acceptable or in the team's best interests.
 
Rusty0 said:
BTW, anyone seen the NZ team? If you were worried about Aus, NZ is going to the finals this time, im sure of it. Their newbies are all power players.
Click to expand...
I remember saying somewhere that they will win their group (by virtue of the fact that they host AUS in Auckland for a D/N in their group game). Semi Finals? Why not, but win it? I'm not so sure, but I'll put quite a bit of money on them. Rumours of WI leaving out Pollard&Dwayne Bravo has left me with NZ as the only big payout punt. I've chosen Pakistan ahead of WI now as a result ... provided they don't bump into India as one of the knock-out matches. They always seem to outbat them. Their pace, spin&batting is as good as anyone really.

The bookies are full of sh*t! Proteas should be dark horses, but no more. They're being treated as near favourites. I wonder how many people have lost chunks of money as a result. Almost as if they and punters no they won't win, but odds are low enough to give it a casual chance. 1999 aside when I think it was worth it, add up all that money over the ODI&T20 WCs I'd say the most money lost has been on the Proteas.
 
ZCFOutkast said:
I remember saying somewhere that they will win their group (by virtue of the fact that they host AUS in Auckland for a D/N in their group game). Semi Finals? Why not, but win it? I'm not so sure, but I'll put quite a bit of money on them. Rumours of WI leaving out Pollard&Dwayne Bravo has left me with NZ as the only big payout punt. I've chosen Pakistan ahead of WI now as a result ... provided they don't bump into India as one of the knock-out matches. They always seem to outbat them. Their pace, spin&batting is as good as anyone really.

The bookies are full of sh*t! Proteas should be dark horses, but no more. They're being treated as near favourites. I wonder how many people have lost chunks of money as a result. Almost as if they and punters no they won't win, but odds are low enough to give it a casual chance. 1999 aside when I think it was worth it, add up all that money over the ODI&T20 WCs I'd say the most money lost has been on the Proteas.
Click to expand...

Finals, not winning it.
Pakistan has no edge, they lost Ajmal and Hafeez as a bowler. On Aus pitch they wont do well.

Proteas are always number one ranked, so naturally they are the favourites.
 
I never thought we'd have another Rwanda in Africa, but Boko Haram struck a couple of days ago. Images, emails, newspapers, radio etc are littered with all of that (in between CharlieHebdo-JeSuisCharlie of course). Thank goodness for CSA's contentious selection. Takes the mind of the world's madness and redirects one's rage!
 
I would actually feel better with SvZ in the team rather than Behardien. Better batsman and bowls about the same medium pace stuff. One of our problems is that we have too much difference in team selection between the three formats meaning too many players signed to play only a few games here and there. Rather try and select those players who can play in all formats as much as possible. Almost feel like for the limited overs formats we just choose new players every now and then and dont play the best players.

In theory selecting vastly different squads for each format makes sense, but practically we dont play enough of each format so that those players are in form. For example, we play a test series for a month against SL with the team performing world class. The next week you have ODI's and its a whole different team and suddenly you dont have that team coherence. Part of what makes us such a good test team is exactly that team coherence and the fact that the players know each other. In the limited overs format the team changes too often.
 
sox63 said:
Why are you quoting 4 day stats when this is about ODIs? When you look at the limited over records, Phangiso has played more games yes, however, similar average, better economy than Abbott. Phangiso is also more experienced than Piedt and they have similar avg and economy.

Abbott's selection is hard to justify by looking at stats, the decision was not based on performance but on a hunch by the selectors. Simple as that IMO
Click to expand...

The stats that the sites provide don't show the death bowling. That's what abbot was selected on.

As for Piedt vs Phangiso. Taking phangiso is the right call. Piedt is more attacking but we already have tahir so taking a more defensive bowler in phangiso is a good call imho.
 
stefan9 said:
Piedt is more attacking but we already have tahir so taking a more defensive bowler in phangiso is a good call imho.
Click to expand...
If Piedt is attacking, what is Leie?

I think Piedt&Harmer are control bowlers. Piedt turns it a lot so looks like he's attacking but I'd say as the both mature they'll settle into what Phangiso is. If we want attacking then it Leie, or RvdM
 
Wasn't Kyle Abbot suppose to be the designated death bowler in the world cup???
 
So much for the "Abbott has great control for the death" argument....
 
Abbott justified Parnells inclusion in the team.
Mclaren should have been in the WC squad, he has more experience, hes not good either but much better than Abbott.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X