FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / CRICKET /  Fielding and fifth bowler sunk the Boks says Mostert

Fielding and fifth bowler sunk the Boks says Mostert

Started by Mozart40 REPLIES1,947 VIEWS· 25 Mar 2015, 18:54
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
25 Mar 2015, 18:54
#1
25 Mar 2015, 18:54#1
Cricket World Cup 2015Fielding, 5th bowler sunk Proteas2015-03-24 13:42

share this Dale Steyn (AFP) Related Links

Herman Mostert - Sport24

Cape Town - The Proteas suffered yet another agonising Cricket World Cup semi-final defeat when New Zealand beat them by four wickets at Eden Park in Auckland on Tuesday.

As it happened: NZ v SA

It was no doubt a brave effort from the South Africans, and their fans can be proud of the fight they showed after a blistering innings by Brendon McCullum, who got his Kiwi side off to a rollicking start by blasting 59 runs off 26 balls.

By the time he was dismissed, New Zealand had reached 71 off only 6.1 overs, in pursuit of 298 off 43 overs.

However, frailties in the bowling line-up and poor fielding ultimately cost South Africa big time.

McCullum smashed South Africa's premier bowler, Dale Steyn, to all parts and that's where the problem started for the Proteas at this World Cup - bowling.

It's fair to say that Steyn was short of his best at this tournament, his 1-76 off 8.1 overs simply not good enough if you want to win a semi-final. He also failed to defend 12 runs off the final over, after it looked like South Africa would sneak a victory.

But the blame cannot solely be laid on the shoulders of Steyn, who also appeared to be hampered by a hamstring strain.

Wrong selections throughout this tournament put the Proteas bowling line-up under pressure. They went in one bowler short which hampered the balance of the bowling attack.

JP Duminy was the only recognised fifth bowler, while part-timer AB de Villiers had to do a holding role for large parts.

De Villiers tried his level best, but he is at best a part-time bowler - and how on earth do you find yourself in a World Cup semi-final situation with a part-timer bowling with fewer than five overs remaining?!

Questions also need to be asked why a clearly unfit Vernon Philander was preferred to the in-form Kyle Abbott. Philander was off the park for large parts and was smacked to all parts while bowling on Tuesday. Considering Philander's physical state, Abbott would have been the safe and better option.

But having said that, the balance of the SA team was not all right, and the lack of a proper all-rounder needs to be highlighted - here the inclusions of Farhaan Behardien and Aaron Phangiso as squad members need to be seriously questioned.

Lastly, and this may only have been the case in Tuesday's semi-final, but South Africa's fielding let them down badly. Two clear run-out chances were lost when, firstly skipper De Villiers and then wicketkeeper Quinton de Kock, failed to grasp the ball when dislodging the bails.

The panic button was also pushed on the last ball of the penultimate over when New Zealand match-winner Grant Elliott was dropped in the deep after nasty collision between Behardien and Duminy.

Behardien seemingly had the catch covered, only for Duminy to run into him and butcher what would likely have been a ticket to the Cricket World Cup final in Melbourne, while South Africa's failure to hit the stumps directly on several occasions in the end also proved costly in their demise...

SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
25 Mar 2015, 19:30
#2
25 Mar 2015, 19:30#2
What a load of rubbish......Steyn was our worst bowler, not our 5th bowler and Philander was hardly any better......to pint fingers at the 5th bowler is ignorance of the highest level and completely inaccurate  
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
25 Mar 2015, 19:42
#3
25 Mar 2015, 19:42#3
The ignorance is all yours. The fifth bowler ie Duminy was always used when the opposition was vulnerable. And despite that they had to get him off yesterday. The whole strategy was a mess.  
MO
moolaaPro2,380 posts
25 Mar 2015, 20:45
#4
25 Mar 2015, 20:45#4
 Have to agree with Moz here. De Kock's kock-up was the worst error in the field for SA. Nothing wrong with the bounce of the ball; trouble was he completely mistimed the catch and his gloves were already on the way to the stumps before the ball arrived.Cardinal rule: catch the ball first!!
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
25 Mar 2015, 20:52
#5
25 Mar 2015, 20:52#5
 Have to agree with Dave here.  The worst bowler with the worst bowling figures were Dale Steyn - not the fifth bowler.  Mozart is running after another report by a reporter as the basis for his criticism - but that is normal with him since he does not know or most likely does not wish to know what happened in the semi and dsoes not understand cricket as a game.    
So the blame game is on Duminy and AB - not the really atrociously poor bowling of Dale Steyn.  What an absolute idiot have we got here.    
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
25 Mar 2015, 22:59
#6
25 Mar 2015, 22:59#6

If we had a fifth bowler, Steyn with a clear hammie pull would not have been forced to bowl the last over. It was like playing a rugby match with no substitute hooker.....stupid stuff.

 

Moolaa what is obvious to you and me has to be denied by these de Kock groupies. Admitting he missed a ball a high school wickie would have taken, thereby  promoting our CWC exit, would pop the bubble.

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 Mar 2015, 02:07
#7
26 Mar 2015, 02:07#7
 This is a farce.  This idiot cannot mention anything - but has to run back to De Kock as part of his argument.  Is De Kock a bowler?   
If Steyn had a hammy problem - why persist with him after his bowling figures before the last over was atrocious enough already?   
The bloody idiot is wrong as per normal.  The huge mistake was to play the iffy Philander - whose injury history was known and who did not play in the  quarterfinals.  If they played the same team as the one in the quarters - there would not have been a fiasco forcing Steyn to bowl the last over.   
So the excuse was that Steyn was injured - and the idiot falls for that one like the sucker he always is.   No real evaluation of facts - nothing.  Just blame De Kock for what went wrong in the game.         
   
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Mar 2015, 03:34
#8
26 Mar 2015, 03:34#8
So who would you have given the last over to Moronic?  
BL
bluebokPro3,977 posts
26 Mar 2015, 09:55
#9
26 Mar 2015, 09:55#9
Good question Moz. They obviously planned to keep our "no.1" strike bowler to bowl the last over, but after the pasting he had taken during the game they (AB) should have kept either Morkel or Tahir for the last over. Before the game even kicked off it was clear that Steyn was not in form, but after he got pounded in his first stint it should have been obvious we needed someone else to close off the innings. I admire AB no end, but he relied on history to dictate who should bowl at the death, and not the circumstances at the time.
Spilled milk, and as they say, hindsight is a perfect science, but an injured Steyn was not who should have bowled that last over. The signs of that were clear early enough in the game for an alternate strategy to have been implemented.     
On the fifth bolwer, nobody can say if that would have made a difference or not. If we had lost another wicket or two we would have been thankful for the extra batter. Impossible to know before the game . 
3K
3ku1Pro2,580 posts
26 Mar 2015, 10:54
#10
26 Mar 2015, 10:54#10
B Mccullum innings was kinda the difference too
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
26 Mar 2015, 11:07
#11
26 Mar 2015, 11:07#11
 Seems to me that a lot of people around here struggle to understand the concept of "the fifth bowler". Figure that out first, and then try and argue the point. I am not too sure whether Mostert, who wrote the article, clearly understand it either. 
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
26 Mar 2015, 12:27
#12
26 Mar 2015, 12:27#12

What rubbsh, the Kiwi's were never vulnerable......the worst bowlers given their status in the game were Steyn and Philander - FACT.

 

The 5th bowler was the least of our problems. Had Steyn alone done his job and fired we would have walked that game - FACT  

CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
26 Mar 2015, 13:16
#13
26 Mar 2015, 13:16#13
Dave, you are wrong, mate. The fifth bowler was exactly one of our main problems and New Zealand knew it and they knew exactly how to go about it.
This piece was, written by ex-kiwi captain Stephen Flemming, was published on 22 March 2015, two days before the game between SA and NZ. Compare that with how the game panned out. Read and learn.
STEPHEN FLEMING: SPIN AND THE FIFTH BOWLER JUST GIVE NEW ZEALAND THE EDGE

" Both teams are playing with confidence and one look at the talent on show on either side means it has the potential to be a classic, says former New Zealand captain

I reckon the ICC Cricket World Cup 2015 semi-final between New Zealand and South Africa is almost too close to call.
 
Both teams are playing with confidence and one look at the talent on show on either side means it has the potential to be a classic.
 
Everywhere you look there are potential head-to-heads that set any cricket fan’s pulse racing – from Brendon McCullumand Martin Guptill versus Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel to Hashim Amla and AB de Villiers against Trent Boult and Tim Southee. Or how about David Miller and JP Duminy battling with Daniel Vettori, or New Zealand’s middle order against Imran Tahir?
 
But two areas I think the Black Caps have the advantage are in the spin department and also the fifth bowler conundrum.
 
With no disrespect to Imran Tahir, who has taken wickets for South Africa during this tournament, and JP Duminy, whose hat-trick against Sri Lanka in the quarter-final was a real surprise, New Zealand really do have a trump card when it comes to slow bowling thanks to the presence of Vettori. 

That was never better illustrated than by the job he did in the match against Australia at the venue for this latest match-up – Eden Park.
 
No-one expected spin to be a factor, least of all on a ground with tiny straight boundaries and on a pitch that did not offer any real purchase, but Vettori bowled superbly against Michael Clarke’s men.
 
And although Boult and Mitchell Starc took the bowling headlines that day in New Zealand’s one-wicket win, Vettorireally helped turn the tide in favour of his side with a brilliantly controlled spell.
 
His quality could be key once more, especially as there appears little or nothing to choose between the two line-ups of fast bowlers with Steyn and Morkel up against Boult and Southee. What a match-up that is.
 
The issue of the fifth bowler is a potential Achilles heel for South Africa and I, for one, will be fascinated to see how New Zealand go about trying to exploit it.
 
In the quarter-final Duminy was able to operate with no pressure because Sri Lanka felt unable to attack him after losing early wickets, but if New Zealand have wickets in the bank when he, or even AB de Villiers, comes on to bowl then the tables might be well and truly turned.
 
There is a school of thought that says the Black Caps should play Steyn and Morkel if not with caution then with just a little more care than they have shown in their approach in other matches in the tournament, safe in the knowledge that they have that fifth bowler to attack later on. (This is the general school of thought, according to Flemming)
 
But I just do not think that will be the way New Zealand will go about things. Brendon McCullum made that pretty clear in his post-match comments following the quarter-final against the West Indies. He said the side has had success going hard, the fans have loved that approach and with an unbeaten run so far in the tournament the mood music from the camp seems to be ‘if it isn’t broken then don’t try to fix it.’ (This was what Flemming thought that NZ would do, and what happened in the end? They went hard at Steyn because they knew that SA did not have enough runs. Exactly what I said elsewhere. They had the freedom to attack our strengths, which is often a good tactic in  sport, i.e. to work on the weaknesses but to go after the strengths of the opposition and see what happens. That had that freedom because they knew that we failed to set them a massive target.)

The issue of what to do at the toss is one that may tax both captains and it is one that I am torn about too.
 
I said earlier in the tournament, especially after the New Zealand – Australia match, that Eden Park was a bowl-first venue as, with the small boundaries, even if you concede a huge score you are still very much in contention to chase it down.
 
That remains the case but, on the flip side, this is a winner-take-all match and chasing any sort of score to get through to a World Cup final for the first time can create its own pressure.
 
And you can add to the mix, too, the fact that South Africa’s two defeats in the tournament have both come chasing, against India and Pakistan, the latter at the venue for this match.
 
On balance, if I was McCullum I think I would look to bowl first and unleash Boult and Southee on South Africa in an attempt to put them under pressure. With those short boundaries, the side batting first can always fall into the trap of going too hard too early thinking it needs a mammoth score, something Australia was guilty of, and so bowling first can still be an advantage. (Again. Exactly what happened.)

For both sides this match presents the possibility of reaching uncharted territory, as neither has been to a World Cup final before. That is another element to this fascinating encounter and from New Zealand’s perspective they have to be careful not to be too pumped up.
 
There will be an incredible atmosphere – we got a taste of it during that match against Australia – and with that will come the temptation to be overly aggressive as the adrenaline flows.
 
We saw that from McCullum against Australia. He had his foot on the opposition’s throat and rather than get his side over the line he went for one big shot too many, paid the price, and the side almost passed up the chance of that win. Aggression is fine, especially as it has served New Zealand so well in this tournament, but there must be an element of control with it.

Here we are at the back-end of the season and it seems like a lifetime ago that these two sides met at the start of the summer in a one-day series that South Africa won pretty comfortably. But a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then and I am sure there will be no negative thoughts about those losses within the New Zealand camp now.
 
After all, they came at a time when the Black Caps were still feeling their way into the season after a winter break and, in any case, a win over South Africa, albeit in a warm-up match ahead of this tournament, will have shown the side that de Villiers’ men are human.
 
As the captain that led New Zealand to the semi-finals but no further in both 1999 and 2007, what advice would I give McCullum as he attempts to go one better? Just keep doing what you are doing is the simple answer.
 
The aggressive style of cricket the team is playing is a joy to watch and the way the side looks for wickets rather than containment remains the best way to go.
 
The first hour will be crucial in shaping the destiny of the match and if one side or the other can grab the initiative then it will be mighty hard for the other team to seize it back.
 
From my point of view, I hope the side that does the grabbing is New Zealand. "





Read and learn. 


SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
26 Mar 2015, 13:35
#14
26 Mar 2015, 13:35#14

Oh what utter rubbish......on the day Steyn and Philander failed, so don't give me the crap that is was down to our 5th bowler......utter shit.

 

Yes the 5th bowler was targeted fair enough, but the blame lies with Steyn and Philander as they failed miserably on the day......our strike bowlers, who neither struck nor kept the run rate down.

 

I don't give a toss what Flemming said 2 days before

CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
26 Mar 2015, 13:44
#15
26 Mar 2015, 13:44#15
 @Dave. Yeah right. What does Flemming know in any case? Has the fool ever been to a cricket match, let alone played in one, or even captained a NZ side that beat SA in a CWC match? Has he even ever played in a CWC? What would he know about beating SA in CWC competitions after all.
Oh wait.
Match Date:16th February, 2003Printable ScorecardVenue:The Wanderers Stadium, JohannesburgMatch Conditions:Overs: 50   Balls per Over: 6Toss:South AfricaResult:New Zealand won by 9 wickets [Duckworth-Lewis]Man of Match:S P Fleming
Match Date:14th April, 2007Printable ScorecardVenue:National Cricket Stadium, St. George's, GrenadaMatch Conditions:Overs: 50   Balls per Over: 6Toss:New ZealandResult:New Zealand won by 5 wicketsMan of Match:C D McMillan
You should get rid of that chip on your shoulder, mate.
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
26 Mar 2015, 13:57
#16
26 Mar 2015, 13:57#16

So are you stupid enough not to agree that Steyn and Philander failed on the day.

 

What Flemmig said 2 days before had stuff all to do with Philander and Steyn failing on the day and has no relevance to their form on the day. We all know the 5th bowler would be targeted, we did not expect our premier bowlers to fail.

 

If we are to blame bowlers, then it starts with Steyn, followed by Philander and then the 5th bowler...........FACT.......more so as the first two are specialists. 

 

I am as usual 100% right.....Steyn and Philander cost us that semi if we are to blame anyone.......plus the missed run-outs and botched catch.....and I'd say Faf's strike rate was a contributor as was the 5th bowler, plus Amla and de Kock failing.

CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
26 Mar 2015, 14:16
#17
26 Mar 2015, 14:16#17
 Yeah, yeah, yeah. I have not said that Steyn and Philander did not play a role. You, on the other hand, are blaming all on those two, negating the failure of QDK (yet again), the balls up decisions of our captain, the fielding, etc, etc, etc. 
You call any bullsh!t "FACT" because that is your opinion. Had we had made a decent start with our batting, and had we had enough runs on the board, NZ would probably not have come out all guns blazing, like they did. All of that, however, are "ifs" and "buts". The only fact is that Flemming predicted the way that NZ would set off their batting spell  and that was exactly what happened. 
Now go play outside and try not to make a fool of yourself.
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
26 Mar 2015, 15:01
#18
26 Mar 2015, 15:01#18

So what part of my above did you not get.

 

Yes the 5th bowler was to blame but Steyn and Philander were far more to blame and that is a FACT.....that is the only point I wish to make you stupid idiot who knows stuff all about cricket

 

Owned again as per usual  

CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
26 Mar 2015, 15:22
#19
26 Mar 2015, 15:22#19
 FACT....... FACT....... FACT. Your facts are stuffed, mate. If your blue eyed QDK made 50 of 50, we would have had enough to win the match. If our captain did not keep bowling Steyn when he had the hamstring issue, we could probably also have won the match. Then again, if your auntie had balls, she would have been your uncle. The fact is that the rot in the game started when we could not get past an average of 6 runs per over at the start of the game. We managed that in exactly two over in the first five, and from there on our run-rate slipped. Those are the kind of facts that you are searching for, mate. Not the fact where we lost after  a boundary off the second last ball. 

SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
26 Mar 2015, 16:17
#20
26 Mar 2015, 16:17#20
Are you saying that it is not a FACT that Steyn and Philander bowled poorly, hey idiot? 
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
26 Mar 2015, 17:43
#21
26 Mar 2015, 17:43#21
I don't give a sh!t about your so-called "facts" p@epol. 
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
26 Mar 2015, 18:07
#22
26 Mar 2015, 18:07#22

Just as I thought......too much of a fucking yellowbelly to answer the question for as per usual you have been exposed for the useless ignorant idiot that you are. You are such easy pickings - FACT

 

OWNED 

CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
26 Mar 2015, 19:33
#23
26 Mar 2015, 19:33#23
 You exposed bugger all you tool. You got the reasons for the loss horribly wrong, which is why I haven't even bothered to answer it. Think about it P @epol.
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
26 Mar 2015, 20:20
#24
26 Mar 2015, 20:20#24
 Steyn had a terrible start to the game, but got back into it at the end of the game, bar a few balls. Philander was a complete liability for the whole WC. Abbott should have played in his stead. De Kock should not have been there so short after his injury, or he should have batted at 5 or 6. Berhardien was a quota, as was Parnel and the other pasengers. It cost us a chance to really compete for the WC. I love my country,  but if things don't start changing very soon, I'm doing the chicken run.
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
26 Mar 2015, 21:01
#25
26 Mar 2015, 21:01#25
 Funny thing is. in the early stages of the CWC, Steyn was ranked no.3 and Tahir no4. At this stage, Steyn is no2 and Tahir dropped a place. Yet Steyn took less wickets than him?
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
26 Mar 2015, 21:10
#26
26 Mar 2015, 21:10#26
 Tahir's spot on the rankings will always be hampered by his economy rate because he just never was an economical bowler. He is and has always been a wicket taker. The commentators and pundits over here (in the UK) always have high regard forhim as a wicket taker. Even at times when he was slated in South Africa.
Rob Key who is always very pro SA, always says that Tahir would be the first in his ODI squad if he has to select the bowlers. Rob is always a big admirer of our players. 
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
26 Mar 2015, 21:30
#27
26 Mar 2015, 21:30#27
 His economy was not too shabby in the WC IIRC. Sure it was better than Steyn's?
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Mar 2015, 23:45
#28
26 Mar 2015, 23:45#28
A proper fifth bowler meant the clearly hampered Steyn would not have had to bowl the last over. I fail to see why that is so hard to grasp. If your top two bowlers are struggling that hardly makes the case for not having a fifth bowler.....quite the opposite.
BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
27 Mar 2015, 01:34
#29
27 Mar 2015, 01:34#29
 Dawie...... " I am as usual 100% right "

We made two crucial errors, one opening with Bambi de Kock, who should've gone for zilch if Ronci took a regulation catch ( who the hell had the idea that he could handle Boult ?) & playing Philander instead of Abbott, although the selectors can probably be excused for that selection cos of orders from em that must be obeyed, namely Sports Minister, the Dishonourable Fo kilile Mbalula .


BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
27 Mar 2015, 07:51
#30
27 Mar 2015, 07:51#30
 Two main reason Proteas lost:The Rain Political interference re selections
I could add luck and there would be the usual squeals. Lets give these hapless kiwis some credit also.  
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
27 Mar 2015, 07:52
#31
27 Mar 2015, 07:52#31
 Sorry, the third main reason was the failure to get Kallis into the squad.
PA
PakieCaptain17,321 posts
27 Mar 2015, 09:04
#32
27 Mar 2015, 09:04#32
The rain, D/L, Philander, Kallis...all these are speculation, none of which guarantees a win if rectified.

In the game that actually took place we lost because we were offered two chances to dismiss the NZ match winner, and botched them both. I would back us to win every time defending 12 runs in the final over against a tail-ender on 0 as opposed to a top order batsman on 78.
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
27 Mar 2015, 09:35
#33
27 Mar 2015, 09:35#33
 That's the crux Pakie.
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
27 Mar 2015, 11:16
#34
27 Mar 2015, 11:16#34
Vlagshit you have been exposed.......the main reason we lost was because of Steyn and Philander and that is a FACT.......I am 100% correct   
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
27 Mar 2015, 12:09
#35
27 Mar 2015, 12:09#35
Really, P@epol? What about the other balls-ups that you, yourself, mentioned earlier? One thing that I have come to learn is that whenever you end a remark with "........FACT" then, 9 times out of 10, it is bullsh!t. The 10th time it is normally dodgy as well. 
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
27 Mar 2015, 13:51
#36
27 Mar 2015, 13:51#36
 Snapster Steyn and Philander really did under perfrom. Philander should not have been picked and beeer harden is a joke of a selection as was Phangiso ahead of Harmer. Had Harmer been in the squad it would have provided options he is WAY ahead of Phangiso as a player.But if the rain had not interfered we would surely have seen De Villiers have scoringa lot of runs and we would have won the game.
One day cricket is full of risks and the better side does not necessarily win. Hence  its no use thinking such a close lose means anything.
Beeno sane, calm and perfectly logical.



MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
27 Mar 2015, 14:20
#37
27 Mar 2015, 14:20#37
 Philander was the second least expensive bowler and he took the brunt of McCullum. The fifth bowler.....the combination of AB and Duminy was the most expensive bowler. Those are the facts.
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
27 Mar 2015, 15:10
#38
27 Mar 2015, 15:10#38

Well yes we expect the 5th bowler to be the most expensive, that's a given.....what we don't expect is two of the worlds premier bowlers to get their arses kicked.......you spot the problem here?

 

Had two of the worlds premier bowlers performed on the day we would have walked the game.....what part of this very fact do you clowns not get?

 

Are you really this stupid?

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
27 Mar 2015, 15:21
#39
27 Mar 2015, 15:21#39

Big on the insults again Dave? Let me help you structure your thinking. We lost this game on two levels.

 

1) After a big total we should have walked it. But McCullum launched a huge attack on our opening bowlers and they wilted. Still Philander came back and had economy numbers which would have won the match. Steyn our bowling hero in so many matches was struggling physically. And here is where we missed  another sea mer to provide protection.

 

 

2) Having conceded all those bowling woes, we could still have won the match if Rossouw made a better throw to AB, if de Kock made a simple run out, if Duminy hadn't clattered into Behardien.

 

 

 

So now back to our selection debate. What would we have changed if we had any sense. We would have dropped de Kock and played Abbott as the fifth bowler. That would have cost us no runs....we only lost 5 wickets. And it would have solved the fifth bowler performance. It would also have provided an alternative to Steyn as he was breaking down....and assured competence behind the stumps at the death. 

 

 

SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
27 Mar 2015, 15:29
#40
27 Mar 2015, 15:29#40

Actually no Moz you will find you started with the insults by calling me a 'loser'.

 

As for the selections......no the side was spot on.....but only if Steyn and Philander had not been selected under injury clouds.

 

So if they were carrying injuries, they should not have been selected in the first place.

 

Given de Kock's batting performance against Sri Lanka, his selection was spot on  

↓ LOAD MORE (page 2 of 2)

More from Cricket