I trust you have changed your mind regarding Rillee Rossouw?
This lad is a class act. Told you he was a big hitter
Captain30,741 posts
29 Jan 2015, 01:11
#1
29 Jan 2015, 01:11#1
Denny
Started by Saffolk 13 REPLIES406 VIEWS· 29 Jan 2015, 01:11
Coach57,555 posts
29 Jan 2015, 07:00
#2
29 Jan 2015, 07:00#2
Dave
Rillee is an excellent player - but I rather see him as number 3 or 4 in the batting line-up - not as an opener.
Rillee is an excellent player - but I rather see him as number 3 or 4 in the batting line-up - not as an opener.
Coach57,555 posts
29 Jan 2015, 07:00
#3
29 Jan 2015, 07:00#3
Dave
Rillee is an excellent player - but I rather see him as number 3 or 4 in the batting line-up - not as an opener.
Rillee is an excellent player - but I rather see him as number 3 or 4 in the batting line-up - not as an opener.
Captain30,741 posts
29 Jan 2015, 11:19
#4
29 Jan 2015, 11:19#4
He is good enough to open but we don't need him to open unless de Kock starts to fail there......time will tell, but one certainty is that Rillee has to start in the side ahead of useless Berhardien.
We have some serious hitters in Miller, Rossouw, AB, de Kock and Amla in that side....not that Faf and JP are slouches when it comes to hitting the ball. Just wish Stiaan v/Zyl had been in the squad ahead of Berhardien and de Lange ahead of Abbott
Coach57,555 posts
29 Jan 2015, 11:41
#5
29 Jan 2015, 11:41#5
Dave
This time I agree with you totally, One only has to look at the bowling figures of Van Zyl and Abbott yesterday to realise who is the more effective bowler of the two.
I would much rather have Rillee Rossouw starting ahead f Bhardien and split the 10 overs for the fifth bowler between Duminy, De Villiers, Faf and Rossouw. The runs these four may give away would be no more than what Behardien would give away - and we would have a top class batting line-up that could further off-set any run deficiencies stemming from the fifth bowler problem.
As to the other possibility - they should use Parnell if one of our bowlers get injured or have o be rested.
As to the fifth bowler I think they should use them by letting each o the four bowl 2 consecutive overs. Batsmen take an over to assess the bowling and would not score a lot of runs in the first over bowled by each. The problem always is with the second over of the part-time bowlers - but that could be split as well.
I think after two months off De Kock needed to bat a few times - ie in the run-up matches - before he will recover his batting ability fully . I am sure he will be back to his best by the time of the opening match.
This time I agree with you totally, One only has to look at the bowling figures of Van Zyl and Abbott yesterday to realise who is the more effective bowler of the two.
I would much rather have Rillee Rossouw starting ahead f Bhardien and split the 10 overs for the fifth bowler between Duminy, De Villiers, Faf and Rossouw. The runs these four may give away would be no more than what Behardien would give away - and we would have a top class batting line-up that could further off-set any run deficiencies stemming from the fifth bowler problem.
As to the other possibility - they should use Parnell if one of our bowlers get injured or have o be rested.
As to the fifth bowler I think they should use them by letting each o the four bowl 2 consecutive overs. Batsmen take an over to assess the bowling and would not score a lot of runs in the first over bowled by each. The problem always is with the second over of the part-time bowlers - but that could be split as well.
I think after two months off De Kock needed to bat a few times - ie in the run-up matches - before he will recover his batting ability fully . I am sure he will be back to his best by the time of the opening match.
Captain30,741 posts
29 Jan 2015, 16:49
#6
29 Jan 2015, 16:49#6
No way could you give the bowling to Faf, AB or Rossouw as they are crap. JP can bowl 10 without a problem. He goes at 5 an over on average which is fine for your fifth bowler.
I don't see the issue at all, in fact I rate JP as a bowler
Pro9,374 posts
29 Jan 2015, 17:35
#7
29 Jan 2015, 17:35#7
AB de Villiers has only bowled 16 overs in his entire ODI career. Has an economy rate of 6.56 and has only taken three wickets. Two o0f them in the same game. No way that you can even begin to think of him sharing any of the bowling in the CWC. He is, at best, someone who you use just to do something different for a few overs to see if you cannot pick up a quick wicket. That was how he was used in the view overs that he has bowled in ODIs. Graeme Smith even brought himself on from time to time, and got a few wickets.
Captain30,741 posts
29 Jan 2015, 18:05
#8
29 Jan 2015, 18:05#8
Faf has not bowled in ages and we are yet to see Rossouw bowl. All I know is that Berhardien is a pie chucker on par with AB as a bowler.
As a bat he is useless
Coach57,555 posts
29 Jan 2015, 18:42
#9
29 Jan 2015, 18:42#9
Ceradyne
There is no way that Bhardien is a better bowler than De Villiers. I would rather go into a game with a top batsman who is a bits and piece bowler than with a player who is a poor batsman and a bits and piece bowler like Behardien. The bugger is and remains useless.
The alternative is to reduce the batting line-up to 6 batsmen and play Parnell, but the latter is not a very dependable player - he has more off days than on days. Behardien is in fact no batsman - so why have him if he is not even a half-decent bowler either. By playing him we have to reduce the batting line-up to 6 players - which is not acceptable as well. Normally with Kallis around we always had a batting line-up of 7 - now suddenly we want to reduce that to cater for a poor player like Behardien.
I still say use Duminy as a bowler and if things go wrong, use any of the other three players mentioned to bowl one or two overs to make up the ten overs required from the fifth bowler.
There is no way that Bhardien is a better bowler than De Villiers. I would rather go into a game with a top batsman who is a bits and piece bowler than with a player who is a poor batsman and a bits and piece bowler like Behardien. The bugger is and remains useless.
The alternative is to reduce the batting line-up to 6 batsmen and play Parnell, but the latter is not a very dependable player - he has more off days than on days. Behardien is in fact no batsman - so why have him if he is not even a half-decent bowler either. By playing him we have to reduce the batting line-up to 6 players - which is not acceptable as well. Normally with Kallis around we always had a batting line-up of 7 - now suddenly we want to reduce that to cater for a poor player like Behardien.
I still say use Duminy as a bowler and if things go wrong, use any of the other three players mentioned to bowl one or two overs to make up the ten overs required from the fifth bowler.
Captain30,741 posts
29 Jan 2015, 19:14
#10
29 Jan 2015, 19:14#10
Here are the fact JP goes for 5 an over......that is not an issue.....problem solved.....the side that should start all the big games should be:
1. Amla 2. de Kock 3. Rossouw 4. AB 5. Miller 6. Faf 7. JP 8. Philander 9. Steyn 10. Morkel 11. Tahir
Its non negotiable. Open for debate is the batting order .......Beehardien is too shit to even be considered.
Parnell is useful and has bowled well in his last two games......he is the best of the bench
Coach57,555 posts
30 Jan 2015, 03:22
#11
30 Jan 2015, 03:22#11
Dave
Agree - pity is that neither Stiaan van Zyl - nor Harmer is in the squad - then alternatives would have been possible. And the selection of Abbott a head of De Lange remains inexplicable BS.
Agree - pity is that neither Stiaan van Zyl - nor Harmer is in the squad - then alternatives would have been possible. And the selection of Abbott a head of De Lange remains inexplicable BS.
Captain12,893 posts
31 Jan 2015, 03:17
#12
31 Jan 2015, 03:17#12
Class hey?....n aaah I'm not in the habit of using the term loosely.
Captain30,741 posts
31 Jan 2015, 16:31
#13
31 Jan 2015, 16:31#13
I see pure class in this lad he is going to go down as an achiever by the time he retires.
Once he learns to play a measured innings at the start which is what he talks about, his talent will see him score plenty of international runs.
Once he learns to play a measured innings at the start which is what he talks about, his talent will see him score plenty of international runs.
Captain12,893 posts
31 Jan 2015, 23:42
#14
31 Jan 2015, 23:42#14
I see a player who has potential as a middle order batsman...not as an opener as I've previously stated which has been proven to be the case. One swallow does not make it summer and one swallow it was if you look at his average of 29.76% which factors in plenty of poor performances in between two centuries.
I'm not about to wet myself on his second ton considering it has to be one of the smallest boundaries in world cricket assisted by the bog ordinary fast bowling attack of the Windies.
Centuries from Protea batsmen in the now concluded series was like the common cold.
Not surprising in that Holder, their best on the world ranking list sits at #61 and their next best sits on 64.
I hope Riley does well, I'm far from knocking him but to say he's a class act and a big hitter....nope, don't think so...well, not yet.
When I think of big hitters, of our own there was Klusener, Kemp, Boucher and in the current squad there is David Miller, from around the world there was Sehwag from India and there is Chris Gayle from the Windies.....clearly Riley does not match any of them as a big hitter and any player who has a low average like he has cannot be described as a class act.
— END OF THREAD —
