(Report abuse)

(Report abuse)

The only position that is not tied down is the opening spot. Neil should still be given a run. and i think Duminy should probably be given a go before Prince. Injuries in cricket have often been the opportunity for another player to launch his career. It happened on numerous times, Eg Vaughan and Strauss or Cook. Duminy deserves a run given his unbelievable form in AUS.

When boucher was injured i had the same thought haunt me about the changing of guard.

So Prince sits out for me. Very hard to say that but if i was pushed that would be my answer. I cant see Amla or AB being dropped either, which leaves Smith And Kallis plus McKenzie.

(Report abuse)

Can’t we have a 12 man team? That would solve this whole problem….

(Report abuse)

That’s what I am talking about! Just like Kallis before he went all Kepler Wessels on us.

(Report abuse)

Tests

Smiffy
Hashim (Good no3’s shouldn’t find the conversion hard they often have to come in early anyway)

Kallis
JP Duminy
Prince

AB

Boucher

Botha
Morkel
Ntini
Steyn

ODI’s

Replace Kallis with Gibbs and push Hash to anchor the innings at no3. And get Loots Bosman to sort his head out, he’d make a great ODI opener if he focussed more.

(Report abuse)

My team for the tests:

Smith
McKenzie
Amla
Kallis
Prince
De Villiers
Duminy
Harris
M Morkel
Ntini
Steyn

ODI’s:

Smith
Gibbs
Kallis
Prince
De Villiers
Duminy
A Morkel
Botha
M Morkel
Ntini
Steyn

Regards, peter

(Report abuse)

(Report abuse)

on all-rounders, call me old-school, but i don’t think there is room for more than one all-rounder, and a genuine one at at that. the lower order certainly does need to contribute, but not in an all-rounder capacity per se. they there to bowl and get wickets. that’s why they’re in the team. scoring runs down the order is becoming increasingly important, as dale’s stand with jp testifies. tis doesn’t make dale an all-rounder. i would far prefer to have specialists in the team because, well, they specialise in a discipline, meaning they are morel iable to succeed in that discipline. if you follow your all-rounder logic to its ultimate conclusion, why not have 11 all-rounders? as such, i’d go only with one to provide either depth with the bat or the ball. after that, the it’s the batters’ job to score runs and the bowlers’ job to take wickets. we can’t select teams on the assumption that players won’t fulfil their roles.

this really is an interesitng subject, and i whole-heartedly agree albie could become a devastating test cricketer, especially with the proteas’ apparent (touch wood) ascent to world dominance. the thought of him at 6 or 7 really gets me going. however, i can’t see it making sense with jacques still around, jp looking to fill jacques’ spot at 4, jp keeping ashwell out, hash becoming a wolrd-class number 3, and ab having expressed desire to stay in the middle order.

as the original article makes plain - these are convenient problems indeed.

thansk for the reply, gerry.

(Report abuse)

I have a question though - Ntini at no 11 in 3/4 years?

Just a philosophical musing: we’ve been chatting about Prince & Mackers “getting old”, but cricket’s most famous goat herder himself is Prince’s age. Batsmen mature, bowlers grow old. a lot more impact and strain on a bowler than a batsman. We need to groom someone who can take over, a speedster who (delivers from midwicket) can match Ntinis pace. This is maybe a good indicator in support of your case for including Morne.

As for two all-rounders - well, modern cricket you are expected to be a bit of an all-rounder. More so on the bowler’s side than the batsmen. Specialist batsmen at the top of the order is okay, but everyone from 6 down is lately expected to contribute with the willow. Tails are supposed to wag in the modern game, and so the case is made for more “specialist all-rounders” as some inane commentator said.

(Report abuse)