Prince out of place in limited overs cricket

[Nostromo]

I like Ashwell Prince as a Test cricket batsman, but I think his style can be something of a handicap in the limited overs game. He is too stolid in his approach and can get stuck-in without hitting out or getting out. This can be a disadvantage if South Africa are chasing a big target. I feel that the ideal limited overs SA team should have Boucher at No:5, followed by Kemp, Pollock and Hall. The much needed spinner Robin Peterson can then come in at 9 followed by Nel & Ntini.

[Aussie-Yank]

I would say South Africa's thinking with Prince is to have a stable bat at one end while the other batsman can make the runs.

I would place him alongside of players such as Hodge - very slow and looks like a waste when getting out in the 30's as he used up alot of balls to get there - but if he is still there at or near the end you suddenly see that his scoring is all of a sudden a run a ball score.

[Vrock]

I don't think Prince quite has the same ability as Kallis (within the South African side) or a Paul Collingwood to be rated as a top middle order nurdler. Certainly Kallis also has some excellent aggressive strokes as well which makes him even better. Although Prince doesn't have quite the class of Kallis he adds stability that allows for Boucher, Kemp and Pollock to really let lose at the end.

[Nostromo]

My view is that in a 50 over match, each team has to have ONE stable type batsman who can knuckle down if things get hairy at the start of the innings. One is essential, but two might be too many. For example, India have their Dravid, England their Collingwood and so on. SA certainly have Kallis to fill in that role and so Prince is not really necessary.

I have other reasons for thinking thus. Boucher is a great player of spin bowling (he handled Muralitharan better than most) and the chances are that coming in at No:5 (after Smith, DeVilliers, Kallis & Gibbs) would usually be in the middle of an innings when the run rate is being slowed down by the spinner. Boucher can help to keep the score moving. Furthermore, Kemp is being used these days mainly as a batsman and so it would be more appropriate for him to come in at No:6 than No:7. Pollock is more than good enough for No:7 and Hall for No:8. This would leave SA room to cover their Achilles Heel - lack of a top spinner - by introducing Peterson at No:9.

[butchering lee]

i think the main problem with omitting prince from the squad (not the team) is that there are too many form players in the line-up. if gibbs, de villiers and smith are generally struggling - like they were in the not too distant past - then prince would be necessary to hold one end (even with kallis at the other) and protect the late order boshing.

If they play peterson as the allrounder, he is superfluous (even a liability) as you say but i doubt the selectors would pick both for the same match.

i think, vrock, that he is capable of becoming as effective a middle order nurdler as the collingwoods of the world.

[Nostromo]

=butchering lee: I think the main problem with omitting prince from the squad (not the team) is that there are too many form players in the line-up. if gibbs, de villiers and smith are generally struggling - like they were in the not too distant past - then prince would be necessary to hold one end (even with kallis at the other) and protect the late order boshing.

I agree to that. I certainly would not omit Prince from the whole squad. His skills, as you say, would be required if Kallis is unavailable. In that case, the team would still be left with 5 specialist bowlers - Pollock, Ntini, Nel, Hall and Peterson, with the added option of Smith. But I for one feel that including Kallis and Prince in the same starting 11 out of choice would reduce, rather than increase the team's flexibility.

If they play Peterson as the allrounder, he is superfluous (even a liability) as you say but i doubt the selectors would pick both for the same match.

I would play Peterson simply as a specialist spinner - something which SA desperately need. The fact that he can bat at No:9 ahead of Nel & Ntini and score some runs is an added bonus and nothing more.

I would much prefer to see Mark Boucher in the No:5 position for 1-day cricket - the place where Prince now bats. Also, if Boucher is unavailable, Prince would not be the logical replacement. In that case, Loots Bosman should be brought in to open with Smith with DeVilliers batting at No:5 and keeping wickets as well.

[mikesiva]

Originally Posted by Nostromo

I like Ashwell Prince as a Test cricket batsman, but I think his style can be something of a handicap in the limited overs game. He is too stolid in his approach and can get stuck-in without hitting out or getting out. This can be a disadvantage if South Africa are chasing a big target. I feel that the ideal limited overs SA team should have Boucher at No:5, followed by Kemp, Pollock and Hall. The much needed spinner Robin Peterson can then come in at 9 followed by Nel & Ntini.

There were those who said Shivnarine Chanderpaul would never be a good ODI batsman....

I think Prince may surprise a few doubters in ODI cricket, in much the same way he surprised them in Test cricket!

[Nostromo]

Originally Posted by mikesiva

There were those who said Shivnarine Chanderpaul would never be a good ODI batsman....

I think Prince may surprise a few doubters in ODI cricket, in much the same way he surprised them in Test cricket!

It is possible, but his demeanour suggests otherwise. Chandrapaul always looked as though he wanted to lash out if he could, while Prince comes across as the epitome of solidity and getting stuck-in. The matter is probably academic now - after Prince's elevation the the chair of the Players' Committee or whatever. You can't possibly omit him from the politically correct SA team.