From: 8934959@sunvax.sun.ac.za
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: SA team observations
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:41:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: sunvax.1992Nov12.184110.5634
Organization: University of Stellenbosch

In article <barnard.721565317@ford>, barnard@ford.ee.up.ac.za (Etienne Barnard) writes:
> 
> 
> The best explanation I can find for the South African team selection
> is "age before beauty". Half the top order played their best
> cricket the best part of ten years ago; the last time Henry performed
> consistently for more than three consecutive matches was ... wait, has
> he ever?
> 
> I know of only one South African batsman younger than 30 with arguable
> international class; yet he was unceremoniously dumped despite a more
> consistent run of success than any batsman in the team (including top
> scores in both innings' for the President's XI). [OK, make that one
> batsman besides Hudson.]
> 
> In all, one has to say that the choice of this weak team bodes ill for
> the future -- no top-order batsman younger than 30 with a first-class
> average above 35, an opening bowler (Schultz) who has captured 5
> wickets in an innings only twice in his career, a spinner who surely
> does not have a sub-30 bowling average over the past five years
> (against the world's worst players of spin) ...

> 
> People like Barlow have been quite critical of the lack of foresight
> in choosing this mixture of geriatrics and unproven "talent"; the
> South African Cricket Board has done most other things well, and I
> hope that some long-term thinking about team choices will soon enter
> into their policy-making.
> 
> As for bowlers such as Matthews and De Villiers (who have probably
> been the most successful non-West-Indian bowlers in the local
> competitions so far) -- there is a feeling that pacier bowlers of
> lower quality (Jack, Schultz, Bosch) will be more successful against the
> Indian side. Whether this is true, only the future will tell.

True, only the future will tell. The problem of prejudging a team is that
you may have to eat your words later.....on the other hand you may able
to bask in the glory of your forecasts.

The thing I like about Omar Henry is that he has the ability to take
wickets, not that this always happens, but if it does it could be deciding.
A spinner like Rundle for example is extremely economical, and so is useful
in OD games to put pressure on the batsmen, but he does not take many wickets.

As for the massive age "thing", what about players like Gooch or Lamb or Dev?
They're all quite 'old' but to leave them out of a team would be insanity. Like
my father always says (can't believe I'm actually paraphrasing my old man),
when Graeme Pollock was still playing in his thirties he would have been an
automatic choice for any international team because he still had the timing and
pure talent that some test players never have. Some players do deteriorate as
they get older...granted, but some have justifiably long carreers. Remember
there is still going to be plenty of opportunity for the youth with doors
opening now.

Anyway you can't complain about there being too many "oldies" in the team and
then also complain about Schultz's inclusion, after all you don't get much more
youthful than that....and surely he deserves his position. He took not one or
two or three, but FIVE wickets agianst the INDIAN TEAM.....what better
criterion?

As for Mathews, I really hope he is successful and I think his chances are good
as it was just as much line & length and (Pringle's) swing that beat the
Indians previously - so speed may not be a major factor. The bottom line is :
stray off the off stump and you can kiss your averages goodbye!

I am also not convinced that the team is the best one, but it is an interesting
one. Besides, there'll also be lots of time to get our selection policy sorted
out (& Peter vd Merwe kicked out I hope).

Hope Kuiper gets chosen for the ODIs though....


James
--Quot homines tot sententiae--