South Africa v Australia, 1st Test, Cape Town, 9-13 November, 2011

JGK: I'm torn between thanking you for woofing him permanently, and screaming at you to wash you fukking mouth out

Warner and S Smith to open in the next Test then?

"Flailing balls"

That is a bit of a problem.

Can probably add Paine to that list too.

Henry wrote:

JGK wrote:

PeterCS wrote:Seriously though:

Why for example is Hilfenhaus not in SAf?

I know why Katich, Khawaja and Krejza aren't there.

But maybe they should be. Hell, even Kallum Ferguson or Nilethan Koulter-Nile (a better Wozzie Mitchell?) might have a bit more clue than a couple who played that last Test.

Khawaja is there. surely he'll play for Marsh in the next test.

Another problem for Aus is that their three best performing players- Marsh, Watson, and Harris, are all chronic crocks.

Can add Paine to that list too.

JGK wrote:

taipan wrote:Well basically Smith, Amla, Kallis and AB would walk into the England top 6. So where does that leave Clarke?

So no room for one of Cook, Trott and Peitersen? I'm not sure about that.

Well given the fact that 2 of them are Saffie anyway, but I would have taken Cook(on present form) and Trott.

taipan wrote:

Big Dog wrote:I think the future of Australian Test Cricket lays with the new selection panel. They can go one of two ways. Start making some bold but necessary cuts or revert to type & just keep making excuses for retaining the same dead wood ala Hilditch & co.

So where to BD?

Cut Ponting, Hussey,Hughes, Haddin and Mitch. Drop Watson down the order. What then?

Start introducing some up & comers. Probably won't help in the short term but they need to do it for the long term. They can probably persevere with Ponting & Hughes for a while longer but i'd send Haddin & Johnson home now.

India > Australia? Well, I'm glad we'll be able to find out soon. I don't think so at all. Aus have a competitive pace attack, Ind don't. They struggled to beat NZ at home, had struggled against WI in the last Test. Plain and simple.

As for four of SA walking into England's top six - no.

Cook
Amla
Trott
Kallis
KP
Bell

I think ABDV is better than Bell, but it's doubtful anyone can be displaced on Bell's current form.

Amla doesn't open.

Well done, Red. Well done. **golf clap**

I rate him better than Smith, even out of position.

Brass Monkey wrote:India > Australia? Well, I'm glad we'll be able to find out soon. I don't think so at all. Aus have a competitive pace attack, Ind don't. They struggled to beat NZ at home, had struggled against WI in the last Test. Plain and simple.

As for four of SA walking into England's top six - no.

Cook
Amla
Trott
Kallis
KP
Bell

I think ABDV is better than Bell, but it's doubtful anyone can be displaced on Bell's current form.

Noice Dan. So you pick Amla out of position so he can't compete with Trott at 3. And then move KP dowm one so he can't compete with Kallis at 4.

I contend that

Cook
Smith
Amla
Kallis
AB
Trott

Is a far more balanced and better line up.

No, no, no... You get me all wrong. For my number three spot, I chose Trott because he averages more. As in per innings, he will get more runs, so dictates their averages. Sort of 52 to 43. So, in essence, the bloke who will get more runs got chosen in my composite line up. Funny criterion, that one. BUT, it's one I'll probably stick with. Especially as Trott is much less of a FTB. Saying this, Amla pisses on Strauss so he gets the gig.

Ultimate FTBs like Smith don't deserve a spot.

KP can play anywhere and certainly sh!ts all over AB. So no, I won't pick AB ahead of KP.

Oh so you play players out of position to suit for argument.

Suddenly Smith is a FTB despite all his 4th innings scores. Fair enough.

The idea that Pietersen wouldn't get in a combined team is silly. He would be one of the first names on the team sheet.

Gary 111 wrote:The idea that Pietersen wouldn't get in a combined team is silly. He would be one of the first names on the team sheet.

Yep, almost as silly as saying Smith wouldn't be picked.

Is it only a few months ago that the poms here were howling for KP to be dropped. Mind you they were saying the same about Cook and Bell.

How time flies.

taipan wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:The idea that Pietersen wouldn't get in a combined team is silly. He would be one of the first names on the team sheet.

Yep, almost as silly as saying Smith wouldn't be picked.

Is it only a few months ago that the poms here were howling for KP to be dropped. Mind you they were saying the same about Cook and Bell.

How time flies.

Only the bonkers ones were.

It would be worth picking Smith and Pietersen just for the dressing room banter. Maybe Red could be the team manager?

.

taipan wrote:Oh so you play players out of position to suit for argument.

Suddenly Smith is a FTB despite all his 4th innings scores. Fair enough.

Not really. Players don't have to stay in the same position all career. In fact, I've heard of one or two changing. You're a bit silly to think that it has to be directly head to head - a number four must replace a number four.

Suddenly is a FTB? When have I ever said any different. He has improved in the last few years, though, definitely. I'd still prefer Trott, Kallis, Amla, Cook, KP, ABDV and Bell ahead of him. As previously said, I probably still rate most of the your line-up ahead of Bell and Cook, but on current form they would simply be 'undroppable'. Do I need to post their last year's stats? And yes I know how good it has gone for AB and Kallis in the last year-odd.

Get over it. Stop acting so menopausal.

taipan wrote:Yep, almost as silly as saying Smith wouldn't be picked.

Is it only a few months ago that the poms here were howling for KP to be dropped. Mind you they were saying the same about Cook and Bell.

How time flies.

'the poms here'? Trev?

I was saying very many things about Bell and Cook. You know what they said in return? Runs. Runs against everyone. Were they the most convincing runs I've ever seen? No, I don't think so. Were they runs? Yes. Couple of thousand-odd or more between them, with a shitload of centuries. So they've shut me up and I've got to accept that they are currently indispensible in the world's number one Test side, as judged through a large time period and a very large 'sample' of Tests.

Keep pulling on your scrote if you like, but for the time being you'll have to forgive people for not bowing down to SA, who've played their first Test in over 300 days recently.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Keep pulling on your scrote if you like, but for the time being you'll have to forgive people for not bowing down to SA, who've played their first Test in over 300 days recently.

And got bowled all out for 90 by Shane Watson....

Gary 111 wrote:
And got bowled all out for 90 by Shane Watson....

Aye gaz, Taips where was the might of Shark & Smith when Shane Pedestrian was tearing you a new arsehole?

Brass Monkey wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:
And got bowled all out for 90 by Shane Watson....

Aye gaz, Taips where was the might of Shark & Smith when Shane Pedestrian was tearing you a new arsehole?

sh!t Dan, I must have hit a nerve here as you are getting all worked up.

Had decided to leave this alone as it comes don to a difference of opinion in the end, so we will end up going in circles.

I'm fine thank you.

I thought you were the one who just couldn't stand that some wouldn't accept four batsmen from your side (who hadn't even played FC cricket for 10 months) would walk into a line-up who'd been scoring runs for fun in the meantime.

Brass Monkey wrote:I'm fine thank you.

I thought you were the one who just couldn't stand that some wouldn't accept four batsmen from your side (who hadn't even played FC cricket for 10 months) would walk into a line-up who'd been scoring runs for fun in the meantime.

No, because I would have picked them as they are better players. But as I said, matter of opinion.

What Danny is trying to say, is that Ian Bell is in the form of his life...

™