All-time SA WC Squad

[Nostromo]

Rachael, with the greatest respect to your oft quoted statistics, I think they can sometimes be misleading. Gary Kirsten might have decent ODI figures, but somehow, I cannot see him as an inspirational ODI batsman that crowds queue up to watch. Rahul Dravid too has a 70+ strike rate in ODIs, but apart from a few good 'finishes', he is not really my idea of a limited-over batsman. Someone like Afridi, Dhoni or Gibbs might fail 4 or 5 times before they play that innings, but it is usually worth waiting for. I believe that the reason we now have something silly like 20/20 cricket is because of the gradual flatlining of the 50-over match.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Nostromo

Gary Kirsten might have decent ODI figures, but somehow, I cannot see him as an inspirational ODI batsman that crowds queue up to watch [...] Someone like Afridi, Dhoni or Gibbs might fail 4 or 5 times before they play that innings, but it is usually worth waiting for.

No one in world cricket is more watchable than Dravid: he is supremely elegant in his strokeplay - seemingly never off balance, with all the time in the world and delightful timing. The complete antithesis of Kirsten, really: the latter was never as aesthetically pleasing in his strokeplay.

With that said... the interest of cricket as a spectacle lies in the contest between bat and ball... and it's entirely feasible for less than elegant strokeplay to be facinating... so I've never had an issue with watching Kirsten bat: he had the class to make the contest interesting... unlike Afridi and Dhoni, who simply lack class to even survive a genuine contest between bat and ball.

This all time SA XI has Ntini opening with Pollock, Donald coming on at first change and Klusener and Kourie doing the rest. One hope the opponent would have a similarly good line-up: perhaps McGrath opening with Lee, backed up by Lillee, Warne, Symonds and the Waugh brothers, or Ambrose, Garner, Marshall, Roberts and Sobers aided by the odd over from Viv.

Against bowling that good... Kirsten would offer far, FAR greater entertainment than most... because unlike sloggers like Dhoni and Afridi, he'd be happily batting with every expectation of carrying his bat to post a a big score rather than returning to the pavillion with ducks quacking across TV screens!

[Nostromo]

OK Rachael, we'll agree to disagree. Somehow, I cannot bring myself to consider cricket like a well written computer programme. I prefer the excitement and uncertainities that go with the game. If Gary Kirsten & Rahul Dravid are your idea of highly exciting ODI batsmen that people hold their breaths to watch, then we must be watching different games.

[Maranello]

I think it depends on the pitch, the conditions and the opposition, doesn't it? I can certainly imagine scenarios where Afridi or Dhoni (or Boucher and Kemp, to give it a South African flavour) would out-score Kirsten or Kallis. However, these scenarios would be rather rare, as the likes of Boucher or Kemp need 'proper' batsmen to set the stage for them in the first 40 or 45 overs.

But still, there are scenarios, however hypothetical, where I can imagine leaving out Kirsten. However, comparing Dravid with Kallis/Kirsten or Afridi/Dhoni is sacrilegious.

[PaceHitta]

I think the main entertainment value will be our big hitter Klusner... his games are not far off from Kirsten, but a higher average about 41 and a strike rate at about the 90 mark

Though when Gibbs is on fire ...its beautiful watching him stroke the ball around the ground...and within a team like that I think his stats would of benefited. Clive Rice would not let him slump!

[Nostromo]

Originally Posted by Rachael

No one in world cricket is more watchable than Dravid: he is supremely elegant in his strokeplay - seemingly never off balance, with all the time in the world and delightful timing.

I could not agree more, but you left out the key phrase......in a Test match.

[Rachael]

Dravid bats with the same grace and elegance in ODI cricket as he does in Test cricket: he doesn't suddenly start playing ugly swipes and ungainly heaves.

In terms of watchability, cricket always has been - and always will be - built around the bowling: when the bowler turns to run in, the most dramatic development possible is a wicket.. and any decent bowler carries both that threat AND a proven ability to deliver balls that can make almost any batsman look like a muppet. If you have THAT then you have the basis for interesting cricket.

In terms of the batting... the most interesting innings in ANY form of the game is where the batsman exhibits the class to make the out-fielders scrabble off nearly every ball: there's little to be said for watching five dot balls and a slogged-six, followed by four dot balls, a miscued heave picked up just inside the boundary and a thump down the ground that brings four - that's six an over... but nine dot balls and some off-balance, long handled and out of control willow-wielding doesn't return anything one can savour.

I'd rather watch Lara frustrate bowler and captain by lofting the ball over an infielder for two in order to get the field set back and then nudging singles... perhaps scoring just 10-11 off those 12 deliveries, but scoring off almost every ball and forcing field change after field-change from exasperated opponents.

Kirsten was capable of creating that sort of spectacle. I don't think the likes of Dhoni and Afridi are.