SA ODI team: Too many bits and parts players?

After the match on Sunday whereby England once again comfortably completed a runchase against South Africa, HD Ackerman was asked on his opinion regarding the make up of the SA ODI team.

His answer was simple: SA have too many bits players in their squad.

He compared the ODI team when Lance Klusener, Shaun Pollock and Jaques Kallis made up the "bits" players in the squad, and said it was an era where SA were lucky to have three players who could bolw or bat SA to victory.

In his opinion an ODI team made up of many bits players similar to what England had not so long ago is not the way to go.

It is rather more important to have 6 genuine batsmen, all with the capability of winning a match and four bowlers again with the capability of winning a match.

To me that does make sense.

However I think he is disregarding the fact that currently SA is looking to address the imbalance in their ODI squad.

When you look at players such as Robin Pietersen, Wayne Parnell, Ryan McLaren, Albie Morkel (injured), FAF du Plessis and Justin Ontong, they are all players who are still trying to establish themselves in ODI cricket. You may say guys like ALbie Morkel, Justin Ontong and Robin Pietersen have been around for some time, but the truth is they have never established themselves as vital team members.

I am of the opinion it would be more beneficial for SA to look towards their test players and rather aim to establish them in the ODI side. Not that I know a lot about cricket, but ODI's in my view still requires players with technique, it isn't T20 where bang and smash can win you games. It still requires batsmen to build an innings and estabish a sound platform from which to launch in the last 10 overs.

Bowlers such as Steyn, Morkel and Philander should be utilised in the ODI's as they do have time to "work" batsmen out, rather than the current crop of Tsotsobe and Parnell who came into the scene with a bang, but as yet aren't consistent enough.

when you consider the strnegth of south Africa's ODI batting line up, once again the only batsmen who are established are Smith, Amla and de Villiers, and as it has been proven over the last 3 ODI's when they come off, SA scores big, when they fail, SA only has avergae batsmen to follow who seemingly struggle to not only play themselves in, but also struggle to increase or maintain the run rate.

From a captaincy aspect, it also answers the question as to why AB de Villiers holds himself back in the batting order, as there are nobody really that can cloe the innings.

Just some thoughts.

Firstly South African teams with Klusenar, Kallis and Pollock never actually won anything.

Secondly playing ODI cricket in England in September is a unique event. Especially with two new ballls. India struggled last year, yet hammered us back in India a couple of months later.

Thirdly injuries to some key players have had an affect (Albie Morkel plus a fast bowler whose name escapes me atm).

Fourthly the ODI specialists came in to this series very short on cricket. Then we have some of the test players (Smith ) looking seriously out of form.

SA could make some specific changes for English conditions - but the next World cup is in aus and they are looking to keep a settled team.

LT, when you look at South Africa's ODI record of the past year, you will find that they have struggled.

They lost an ODI series vs australia 2-1 at home
Lead the sri Lanka series 3-0, only to lose their last two matches, beat NZ comprehensively 3-0 and have not covered themselves in glory during this ODI series.

Against Australia they used Kallis, Botha, and Boucher.

Since then they have been experimenting with D Miller, C Ingram, D elgar, R Mclaren, Albie morkel, Robin Pietersen, Justin Ontong and FAF du Plessis.

That tells me they are still searching.

I think you are a bit harsh on Tsotsobe. He really has been consistent. Just the last two games has gone wrong. Parnell has lots of potential, but he is still all over the place.

Smith is waisting to many balls upfront in my opinion and it is not like he is going big to get the run rate back up.

Biltong wrote:Against Australia they used Kallis, Botha, and Boucher.

Boucher retired, Botha has illegal action problems and Kallis who seems not to want to play ODIs at least not all the way to the WC in 2015.

The Boucher accident has put too much pressure on ABdV if he is to captain and be your main batsman, you really need another player to keep wicket
Kallis is needed especially in English conditions.
SA should perhaps look at bowling a genuine spinner - though since re-admission there have not really been any of those produced in SA.
I am not a fan of Tsotsobe but he was ranked No1 bowler in ODIs before this series. Philander is not the answer.

LondonTiger wrote:Secondly playing ODI cricket in England in September is a unique event. Especially with two new ballls. India struggled last year, yet hammered us back in India a couple of months later.

Not quite. ODIs around the world have taken on a similar pattern since the rules were changed last October, including in South Africa. India is perhaps slightly different but I'd call it the expception rather than the rule, and even then SA need to rethink their tactics from what they have here.

Part of the problem in this series (and something AB did v NZ too) has been the chopping and changing of the batting order. As I see it Elgar (or Kallis when at full strength) has to come in three to play the Trott role unless the openers last long enough that its time for AB himself to come in. Randomly putting Duminy or du Plessis at three makes little sense when their primary role is surely to take advantage of the last 15 overs. Yesterday both were in and out by the start of the powerplay, leaving a player like Elgar whose unsuited to that role batting in the last 15.

The length of the tail has been a problem but with the need for five bowlers is more important. Albie Morkel at 7 when fit would perhaps alleviate that problem somewhat.

Philander is unsuited to ODIs but in Steyn, Morkel and Tsotsobe SA have a potent one-day bowling attack. Tsotsobe is pretty good in this format and offers some variation as a left-arm option.

I rate Johan Botha quite highly and don't really understand why he's slipped behind Peterson and Tahir in the one-day pecking order. For me he should certainly come in when they play two spinners, and should arguably be number one ahead of Peterson (who admittedly hasn't been that bad of late).

So overall not much needs to change: Amla, Smith, Kallis, de Villiers, Duminy, du Plessis, A Morkel, Botha, Peterson/ Tsotsobe, Steyn, Morkel has the potential to be a very good one-day outfit.

LondonTiger wrote:

Biltong wrote:Against Australia they used Kallis, Botha, and Boucher.

Boucher retired, Botha has illegal action problems and Kallis who seems not to want to play ODIs at least not all the way to the WC in 2015.

The Boucher accident has put too much pressure on ABdV if he is to captain and be your main batsman, you really need another player to keep wicket
Kallis is needed especially in English conditions.
SA should perhaps look at bowling a genuine spinner - though since re-admission there have not really been any of those produced in SA.
I am not a fan of Tsotsobe but he was ranked No1 bowler in ODIs before this series. Philander is not the answer.

Nothing wrong with Botha's action.

He's been signed as captain for South Australia fit the next 2 years, so can't play international cricket.

Except he is banned from bowling the Doosra.

Any way as you have pointed out, he is unavailable to the selectors.

Both of you are wrong. He is in the World T20 squad and I have heard nothing to suggest he won't be considered for ODIs.

Not being allowed to bowl the doosra shouldn't be a major blow for him - he's had to live with that for some time and is pretty effective at bowling darts and regular off-spinners.

Shelsey, Botha's contract with CSA was not renewed, hence his decision to sign with South Australia, although I didn't know he was in our T20 squad.

Shelsey93 wrote:Both of you are wrong. He is in the World T20 squad and I have heard nothing to suggest he won't be considered for ODIs.

Not being allowed to bowl the doosra shouldn't be a major blow for him - he's had to live with that for some time and is pretty effective at bowling darts and regular off-spinners.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/559357.html

There you go Mr know it all...

Biltong wrote:After the match on Sunday whereby England once again comfortably completed a runchase against South Africa, HD Ackerman was asked on his opinion regarding the make up of the SA ODI team.

His answer was simple: SA have too many bits players in their squad.

He compared the ODI team when Lance Klusener, Shaun Pollock and Jaques Kallis made up the "bits" players in the squad, and said it was an era where SA were lucky to have three players who could bolw or bat SA to victory.

In his opinion an ODI team made up of many bits players similar to what England had not so long ago is not the way to go.

It is rather more important to have 6 genuine batsmen, all with the capability of winning a match and four bowlers again with the capability of winning a match.

To me that does make sense.

However I think he is disregarding the fact that currently SA is looking to address the imbalance in their ODI squad.

When you look at players such as Robin Pietersen, Wayne Parnell, Ryan McLaren, Albie Morkel (injured), FAF du Plessis and Justin Ontong, they are all players who are still trying to establish themselves in ODI cricket. You may say guys like ALbie Morkel, Justin Ontong and Robin Pietersen have been around for some time, but the truth is they have never established themselves as vital team members.

I am of the opinion it would be more beneficial for SA to look towards their test players and rather aim to establish them in the ODI side. Not that I know a lot about cricket, but ODI's in my view still requires players with technique, it isn't T20 where bang and smash can win you games. It still requires batsmen to build an innings and estabish a sound platform from which to launch in the last 10 overs.

Bowlers such as Steyn, Morkel and Philander should be utilised in the ODI's as they do have time to "work" batsmen out, rather than the current crop of Tsotsobe and Parnell who came into the scene with a bang, but as yet aren't consistent enough.

when you consider the strnegth of south Africa's ODI batting line up, once again the only batsmen who are established are Smith, Amla and de Villiers, and as it has been proven over the last 3 ODI's when they come off, SA scores big, when they fail, SA only has avergae batsmen to follow who seemingly struggle to not only play themselves in, but also struggle to increase or maintain the run rate.

From a captaincy aspect, it also answers the question as to why AB de Villiers holds himself back in the batting order, as there are nobody really that can cloe the innings.

Just some thoughts.

Good observation...however I see more than a deliberate selection bits and pieces players.......
an attempt from SA to try new fringe players and combinations.....without pressure and in a relaxed mind frame knowing that the big prize was won.
If they bring a full strength team....i.e simialr to one that played in tests......and with the likes of Albie fit...
they will be fine and a handful for the English.

I won't read too much with concern in the results.....inspite of the trials and relaxed approach they may end up a 2-2 result against a full strength and intense Eng

Gerry SA wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:Both of you are wrong. He is in the World T20 squad and I have heard nothing to suggest he won't be considered for ODIs.

Not being allowed to bowl the doosra shouldn't be a major blow for him - he's had to live with that for some time and is pretty effective at bowling darts and regular off-spinners.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/559357.html

There you go Mr know it all...

Interesting.

The article does say that he is committed to SA in the long term, but it seems interesting that he can do that whilst rejecting his contract.

KP_fan wrote:

Biltong wrote:After the match on Sunday whereby England once again comfortably completed a runchase against South Africa, HD Ackerman was asked on his opinion regarding the make up of the SA ODI team.

His answer was simple: SA have too many bits players in their squad.

He compared the ODI team when Lance Klusener, Shaun Pollock and Jaques Kallis made up the "bits" players in the squad, and said it was an era where SA were lucky to have three players who could bolw or bat SA to victory.

In his opinion an ODI team made up of many bits players similar to what England had not so long ago is not the way to go.

It is rather more important to have 6 genuine batsmen, all with the capability of winning a match and four bowlers again with the capability of winning a match.

To me that does make sense.

However I think he is disregarding the fact that currently SA is looking to address the imbalance in their ODI squad.

When you look at players such as Robin Pietersen, Wayne Parnell, Ryan McLaren, Albie Morkel (injured), FAF du Plessis and Justin Ontong, they are all players who are still trying to establish themselves in ODI cricket. You may say guys like ALbie Morkel, Justin Ontong and Robin Pietersen have been around for some time, but the truth is they have never established themselves as vital team members.

I am of the opinion it would be more beneficial for SA to look towards their test players and rather aim to establish them in the ODI side. Not that I know a lot about cricket, but ODI's in my view still requires players with technique, it isn't T20 where bang and smash can win you games. It still requires batsmen to build an innings and estabish a sound platform from which to launch in the last 10 overs.

Bowlers such as Steyn, Morkel and Philander should be utilised in the ODI's as they do have time to "work" batsmen out, rather than the current crop of Tsotsobe and Parnell who came into the scene with a bang, but as yet aren't consistent enough.

when you consider the strnegth of south Africa's ODI batting line up, once again the only batsmen who are established are Smith, Amla and de Villiers, and as it has been proven over the last 3 ODI's when they come off, SA scores big, when they fail, SA only has avergae batsmen to follow who seemingly struggle to not only play themselves in, but also struggle to increase or maintain the run rate.

From a captaincy aspect, it also answers the question as to why AB de Villiers holds himself back in the batting order, as there are nobody really that can cloe the innings.

Just some thoughts.

Good observation...however I see more than a deliberate selection bits and pieces players.......
an attempt from SA to try new fringe players and combinations.....without pressure and in a relaxed mind frame knowing that the big prize was won.
If they bring a full strength team....i.e simialr to one that played in tests......and with the likes of Albie fit...
they will be fine and a handful for the English.

I won't read too much with concern in the results.....inspite of the trials and relaxed approach they may end up a 2-2 result against a full strength and intense Eng

Full strength? So Pietersen, Broad and Swann are not part of a full strength England? Both teams are fielding slightly weakened sides in this ODI series.

Fists of Fury wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Biltong wrote:After the match on Sunday whereby England once again comfortably completed a runchase against South Africa, HD Ackerman was asked on his opinion regarding the make up of the SA ODI team.

His answer was simple: SA have too many bits players in their squad.

He compared the ODI team when Lance Klusener, Shaun Pollock and Jaques Kallis made up the "bits" players in the squad, and said it was an era where SA were lucky to have three players who could bolw or bat SA to victory.

In his opinion an ODI team made up of many bits players similar to what England had not so long ago is not the way to go.

It is rather more important to have 6 genuine batsmen, all with the capability of winning a match and four bowlers again with the capability of winning a match.

To me that does make sense.

However I think he is disregarding the fact that currently SA is looking to address the imbalance in their ODI squad.

When you look at players such as Robin Pietersen, Wayne Parnell, Ryan McLaren, Albie Morkel (injured), FAF du Plessis and Justin Ontong, they are all players who are still trying to establish themselves in ODI cricket. You may say guys like ALbie Morkel, Justin Ontong and Robin Pietersen have been around for some time, but the truth is they have never established themselves as vital team members.

I am of the opinion it would be more beneficial for SA to look towards their test players and rather aim to establish them in the ODI side. Not that I know a lot about cricket, but ODI's in my view still requires players with technique, it isn't T20 where bang and smash can win you games. It still requires batsmen to build an innings and estabish a sound platform from which to launch in the last 10 overs.

Bowlers such as Steyn, Morkel and Philander should be utilised in the ODI's as they do have time to "work" batsmen out, rather than the current crop of Tsotsobe and Parnell who came into the scene with a bang, but as yet aren't consistent enough.

when you consider the strnegth of south Africa's ODI batting line up, once again the only batsmen who are established are Smith, Amla and de Villiers, and as it has been proven over the last 3 ODI's when they come off, SA scores big, when they fail, SA only has avergae batsmen to follow who seemingly struggle to not only play themselves in, but also struggle to increase or maintain the run rate.

From a captaincy aspect, it also answers the question as to why AB de Villiers holds himself back in the batting order, as there are nobody really that can cloe the innings.

Just some thoughts.

Good observation...however I see more than a deliberate selection bits and pieces players.......
an attempt from SA to try new fringe players and combinations.....without pressure and in a relaxed mind frame knowing that the big prize was won.
If they bring a full strength team....i.e simialr to one that played in tests......and with the likes of Albie fit...
they will be fine and a handful for the English.

I won't read too much with concern in the results.....inspite of the trials and relaxed approach they may end up a 2-2 result against a full strength and intense Eng

Full strength? So Pietersen, Broad and Swann are not part of a full strength England? Both teams are fielding slightly weakened sides in this ODI series.

KP I agree....but we all know we cannot count on him playing for Eng....he might...but never may.
Not having Broad is an undisguised blessing as I have maintained consistently throuhg the series.....for reasons clearly announced many time over.
Swann's absence is not felt.....Tredwell has been adequate in results.

Their absence hasn't been felt, but that only serves to highlight England's strength in depth compared to South Africa's.

It doesn't mean that those absent players do not form part of England's strongest team, though.

Fists of Fury wrote:Their absence hasn't been felt, but that only serves to highlight England's strength in depth compared to South Africa's.

It doesn't mean that those absent players do not form part of England's strongest team, though.

yes we both agree.....Tredwell has matched Swann ins results.

I dunno whether to look at that as the depth that Tredwell brings.....or shallowness of Swann.

Perhaps too small a sample to make a decisive call.

Not sure it is all about strngth in depth though Fists. apart from the settled players nobody seems to get and extended run to settle down.

Elgar has been brought in based on some good form in the domestic limited overs matches. (4 matches)

FAF du Plessis inspite of playing 25 matches in the last 2 years has not really yet caught fire, after a fifty on debut, he has only mustered 2 other fifties since.

Justin Ontong makes an appearance every 3 years or so, have no idea why he is still considered.

Ryan McLaren after an initial period of selection in 2009 and 2010 were only recalled recently and he has never really performed.

I can go on looking at players such as Ingram or Miller and the like, but for whatever reason nobody sees to get enough time to settle and prove themselves worthy, so you have a constant element of experimentation that has been ongoing for a number of years now.

In my view you need to give players enough time to prove themselves and also not chop and change all the time.

When you look at elgar as a prime example, he has averaged 80 with the bat in the domestic limited over game, he seems to be struggling to increase his runrate in england, and you would most likely find he is gone by the next ODI series, replaced by Ingram or Miller, and so it continues.