Current world XI to face South Africa?

Given the almost complete dominance we have had over the last two-three years, I think its time to assume South Africa are so comprehensively dominant, that only a compilation of the finest cricketers on world cricket will beat us*. So imagine if you will, the ICC has commissioned a there test Super series to ascertain just how good South Africa are. Who would be in the touring squad? The starting XI? The Water carrier?

*Im fully expecting us to lose in UAE, so I need to proclaim our greatness before we get pegged badly. Doesn't help that Dale Steyn is busy acting in Adam Sandler films.

Not suggesting the SA 2nd team then KG?

Haha, no... maybe... still no. Maybe if the first team are all off to Hollywood, then I can see them scraping a draw

Tours to Asia will be dangerous for SA but this would be my squad to play them:

1. Alastair Cook (Eng)
2. Chris Gayle (WI)
3. Kumar Sangakkara (SL)
4. Kevin Pietersen (Eng)
5. Michael Clarke (Aus)
6. Virat Kohli (Ind)
7. Matt Prior (Eng)
8. Kemar Roach (WI)
9. Saeed Ajmal (Pak)
10. James Anderson (Eng)
11. Junaid Khan (Pak)

Reserves:

Jonathan Trott (Eng)
MS Dhoni (Ind)
Tim Southee (NZ)
Ryan Harris (Aus)
Graeme Swann (Eng)

kingraf wrote:Given the almost complete dominance we have had over the last two-three years, I think its time to assume South Africa are so comprehensively dominant, that only a compilation of the finest cricketers on world cricket will beat us*. So imagine if you will, the ICC has commissioned a there test Super series to ascertain just how good South Africa are. Who would be in the touring squad? The starting XI? The Water carrier?

*Im fully expecting us to lose in UAE, so I need to proclaim our greatness before we get pegged badly. Doesn't help that Dale Steyn is busy acting in Adam Sandler films.

firstly there is no way you would be dominant against england.. You beat us last time because our camp was in disarray.

So the england team would beat you..

no one else is needed

mystiroakey wrote:

kingraf wrote:Given the almost complete dominance we have had over the last two-three years, I think its time to assume South Africa are so comprehensively dominant, that only a compilation of the finest cricketers on world cricket will beat us*. So imagine if you will, the ICC has commissioned a there test Super series to ascertain just how good South Africa are. Who would be in the touring squad? The starting XI? The Water carrier?

*Im fully expecting us to lose in UAE, so I need to proclaim our greatness before we get pegged badly. Doesn't help that Dale Steyn is busy acting in Adam Sandler films.

firstly there is no way you would be dominant against england.. You beat us last time because our camp was in disarray.

So the england team would beat you..

no one else is needed

Hmm, last two test series in England we won, last test series in SA was a draw, could easily have been a win for us had Steyn been fit the whole series.

We aren't doing to shabbily against England these days.  

So you are adding up the last two tests in england but only the last one in SA  - come on at least be consitant!!

and you are also trying to claim a win out of the draw!!!

if you were that good you wouldnt have to use this hyperboyle

2-0

626/2, assuming England were 50% because of "disaray" would have been 626/4. Speaking of camps in disarray, I remember one team had a player who nearly lost an eye in the run-up... Think the Proteas just brushed that off?

Last year England lost two Test series.... We've lost the same amount in seven years.

when are we playing you next?

by the way you have the right to be called the best team.. but if any team is going to beat you its us!!(IMO)

forget about world 11 . its immaterial. you cant make a team out of that. As we should be able to tell its all about the team unit - not the collective parts!

England aren't that brilliant, not since 2011 anyway, so I'd expect a result similar to the one last summer if SA and England were to meet today.

rubbish.

the problem is SA are running scared and we are not playing them till early 2016!! what a joke..

the worlds best need to play the worlds second best..

if we tonk Aus in both series coming up the ashes becomes a little bit less important and we have to wait donkies to play SA!

2015/2016 season mate. We play Australia every summer it seems now, we have them visiting next year and the year after... Pity its pitter patter two game series.

well we also play aus every year.. so what gives?

why arnt we playing more!

Running scared? You beat a team thats lost seven out their last ten, and now we scared?

You already play too much! Weve played 38 tests in the last five years vs your 70 odd!

because you play all that one day stuff!

thats why we never get to play you at test. We keep the test brand up. you just dont play it enough! its a sad state of affairs tbh. As the top team you need to do more for test cricket.. The fact that you only play so little tells us its you that dont play us enough. Off course we would play you more if you allowed it!!

its not our fault, the current Sri Lanka series was supposed to include three tests, but they scuppered it ib favour of more ODI's (in which they are beating us like an unloved child). People just dont want to play us... more lucrative tours elsewhere

so those 3 tests make the difference -what about the other 30 odd test difference. come on stop blaming others..

Stop whinging, SA needs to sort it out. like an england v sa isnt lucrative!! its sell outs- if you cant sell out at home- then do something about it or just come here!

Why do the saffers only get 3-4 tests when they come here? Ludicrous.

we are doing something.. we are bringing Australia in back-to-back seasons.. Then we going to Sri Lanka and India in 2015. Its getting better

Many teams are wary of playing test cricket because they care about money to much- yet don't have the motivation to promote it better . The odi stuff is quick easy money.. lets do that instead. simple

I agree, but we arent exactly world leaders in ODI either, we just arent getting cricket matches at the moment

We should all play each other on a rota system and be done with it!

mystiroakey wrote:We should all play each other on a rota system and be done with it!

I thought we did?

really. so we play aus every year and sa every 3 years!

we play twice the test matches other top teams do!

Who invented the rota system? seems to be doing a great job!

But it's only because of the world cup as to why we are playing the Aussies so quickly. Normally the big boys tour us every four years, and vice versa. It's the number of matches played whilst doing so, that needs looking at.

We also playing aus again in 2015!!

and sa in1015/ 2016!

sa play half the tests we do..


this doesnt add up

mystiroakey wrote:We also playing aus again in 2015!!

and sa in1015/ 2016!

sa play half the tests we do..


this doesnt add up

Didn't realise that? The saffers have toured here every fours years on average since they came back, like the Aussies do, but thing's have gone astray.

SA only plays maximum 3 series tests most of the time. Now and then we will play a four test series against England.

I can't remember that we ever played a four test series against anyone else since 1992.

The problem is england and Australia have the ashes, SA is seen as a second cousin far removed.

If you count test series we have played a similar number of series though.

Trouble being, is that are more touring sided now. Even the West Indies only get three, whereas they use to get five or six. Sri-Lanka also only got one or two against us, and now they have three.

Get rid of Bangladesh, and lets get a five match series vs South Africa  

I think there should be a standard format for all test series.

Minimum 4 tests, and there must be a rotation system inllace that ensures you play every test nation (might have to qualify that though)
In a cycle.

7 series every 2 years. the top 6 in the rankings play 5 tests, the others only get 3 tests unless they play each other then they get 5!

and yes perfect rota systems.. all odis etc can be organised around them between individual nations, but the test schedule becomes the king and the ICC uphold that

4 tests against Bangladesh? Don't think I could last. For me three tests are fine. Thing is, we could sit here now and say we'll give five to South Africa and only three to Pakistan, but in a few years time, Pakistan may be the better team.

I would seriously consider getting rid of Bangladesh if it was down to me. Have they actually improved since they earned test status?

What I don't get is the fact that there are usually a three day break between limited over matches, so a five match series can take 2 weeks.

A test match is over 5 consecutive days, why can limited overs cricket not be?

It provides an extra week for an additional test anyway.

Stella wrote:4 tests against Bangladesh? Don't think I could last. For me three tests are fine. Thing is, we could sit here now and say we'll give five to South Africa and only three to Pakistan, but in a few years time, Pakistan may be the better team.

I would seriously consider getting rid of Bangladesh if it was down to me. Have they actually improved since they earned test status?

schedules are done every 5 years based on the last 5 years round robin positions(everyone at that point would have played everyone home and away. top 6 get 5 tests against each other , when they play the bottom 4 its only a 3 test series.

Biltong wrote:What I don't get is the fact that there are usually a three day break between limited over matches, so a five match series can take 2 weeks.

A test match is over 5 consecutive days, why can limited overs cricket not be?

It provides an extra week for an additional test anyway.

Travelling time?

travelling time around oz probally takes it toll, around england no dramas at all

mystiroakey wrote:

Stella wrote:4 tests against Bangladesh? Don't think I could last. For me three tests are fine. Thing is, we could sit here now and say we'll give five to South Africa and only three to Pakistan, but in a few years time, Pakistan may be the better team.

I would seriously consider getting rid of Bangladesh if it was down to me. Have they actually improved since they earned test status?

schedules are done every 5 years based on the last 5 years round robin positions(everyone at that point would have played everyone home and away. top 6 get 5 tests against each other , when they play the bottom 4 its only a 3 test series.

So, under your rules we may only play Australia in three tests if they dropped out of the top six? Money may not like that.

Stella wrote:4 tests against Bangladesh? Don't think I could last. For me three tests are fine. Thing is, we could sit here now and say we'll give five to South Africa and only three to Pakistan, but in a few years time, Pakistan may be the better team.

I would seriously consider getting rid of Bangladesh if it was down to me. Have they actually improved since they earned test status?

well, that is why I say is has to be qualified, Bangladesh shouldn't play test cricket against the top teams.

Perhaps a distinction is necessary.

Have the top 8 teams play 5 day tests against each other. Lets say a cycle is four years, if you aren't part of the top 8 you play 3 day matches and you can expand the number of teams,

Tier one.
SA
England
OZ
India
Pakistan
NZ
SL
West Indies.

Tier two.
Zimbabwe
Bangladesh
Ireland
Afghanistan
And a few more.

After the four year cycle the 8th placed team must play promotion relegation against the top team in tier two, if the lose they move down and the tier two team moves up.

Stella if bangladesh were forced into playing test cricket then they would either have to play ball or get kicked out- If they play ball then they will get better

Stella wrote:

Biltong wrote:What I don't get is the fact that there are usually a three day break between limited over matches, so a five match series can take 2 weeks.

A test match is over 5 consecutive days, why can limited overs cricket not be?

It provides an extra week for an additional test anyway.

Travelling time?

Accpeted, but why not play two or three matches at thie same venue?

In theory there is a future tours program established by the ICC which means all teams should play each other home and away within a certain number of years.

In practice it doesn't work.

India don't want to play Bangladesh or Zimbabwe because there is no money involved, for a long time they refused to play Pakistan because they didn't like each other.

Pakistan can barely play at home, because of the risk of getting blown up there.

Sri Lanka can't afford to play test cricket so have had to cancel numerous matches.

In fact, most countries apart from England and to an extent Australia want to play more ODIs than tests because that's the more popular form of the game, hence where the money is, so screw everything else. England only want to play tests because that's how they make their money, it is not out of some kind of moral duty to the sport.

South Africa can't play lengthy series against Australia anymore because both sides want to play at home on boxing day.

Extra test matches/series or ODIs are exchanged for voting the correct way on the ICC executive board. This is open practice (e.g. we know India threatened Sri Lanka with pulling out of an ODI series unless they backed India in a vote, but let's not pretend it's only India either) but nobody seems to mind.

As with everything run by the ICC it is a shambles, because each and every country who has a say in anything works purely in their self (financial) interest, so the ICC can decide nothing. Were the board members of the ICC forced to resign from their national boards, or at least forced to act in the interests of the game globally rather than their national interests, things could be very different.

There is a genuine issue with the financial viability of test cricket - in half of the test playing nations it is a crippling cost. In only 2 countries does it run at a profit (possibly South Africa also for the major series).

Rather than simply state "test cricket is the pinnacle, countries should play more tests" there should be a genuine debate as to how to make it more popular without losing its essence. Some rather obvious suggestions include day-night test cricket, and perhaps coloured clothing, or at least numbers on the backs of shirts.

Something to bear in mind is, those fans of ODIs/T20s would not necessarily translate into test fans, were ODIs/T20s to cease - it is more likely they would stop watching cricket entirely. In that sense, the narrative of making the various formats compete against each other, and therefore that it is because of too many ODIs/T20s that people don't watch tests anymore, is damaging - that tens of thousands of people turn up to watch T20s or ODIs is good for cricket, and doesn't harm test cricket. What harms test cricket is that no one watches it, and that is what needs to be addressed.

Of course one way to encourage more people to follow test cricket and hence expand its appeal would be to open it all up a bit, thus increasing the potential fan base... Strangely nobody at the ICC seems keen on this idea...

We seem to have veered completely off topic.

Biltong wrote:

Stella wrote:

Biltong wrote:What I don't get is the fact that there are usually a three day break between limited over matches, so a five match series can take 2 weeks.

A test match is over 5 consecutive days, why can limited overs cricket not be?

It provides an extra week for an additional test anyway.

Travelling time?

Accpeted, but why not play two or three matches at thie same venue?

Equal opportunities. We have a few grounds in England all wanting revenue from internationals.

Also, no one should be forced to play test cricket if they don't want to... if New Zealand and Sri Lanka (say) don't want to play test cricket anymore, then don't force them, and stop this ridiculous linking of full membership status to test status (which is why NZ, SL and Bangladesh feel they have to play tests still - otherwise their funding via the ICC would be cut by a factor >10)

We seem to have veered completely off topic

We're just trying to work out how many tests we will need to play for this saffer vs ROW game   

in england we can get from ground to ground in no time. not a problem..

if you just book them in in a way to minimize travelling time its going to take no time..

lords to the oval- they can all stay in the same hotel- then off to cardiff. a couple of hours!! then on to manc land - a couple of hours, etc etc

Mike Selig wrote:In theory there is a future tours program established by the ICC which means all teams should play each other home and away within a certain number of years.

In practice it doesn't work.

India don't want to play Bangladesh or Zimbabwe because there is no money involved, for a long time they refused to play Pakistan because they didn't like each other.

Pakistan can barely play at home, because of the risk of getting blown up there.

Sri Lanka can't afford to play test cricket so have had to cancel numerous matches.

In fact, most countries apart from England and to an extent Australia want to play more ODIs than tests because that's the more popular form of the game, hence where the money is, so screw everything else. England only want to play tests because that's how they make their money, it is not out of some kind of moral duty to the sport.

South Africa can't play lengthy series against Australia anymore because both sides want to play at home on boxing day.

Extra test matches/series or ODIs are exchanged for voting the correct way on the ICC executive board. This is open practice (e.g. we know India threatened Sri Lanka with pulling out of an ODI series unless they backed India in a vote, but let's not pretend it's only India either) but nobody seems to mind.

As with everything run by the ICC it is a shambles, because each and every country who has a say in anything works purely in their self (financial) interest, so the ICC can decide nothing. Were the board members of the ICC forced to resign from their national boards, or at least forced to act in the interests of the game globally rather than their national interests, things could be very different.

There is a genuine issue with the financial viability of test cricket - in half of the test playing nations it is a crippling cost. In only 2 countries does it run at a profit (possibly South Africa also for the major series).

Rather than simply state "test cricket is the pinnacle, countries should play more tests" there should be a genuine debate as to how to make it more popular without losing its essence. Some rather obvious suggestions include day-night test cricket, and perhaps coloured clothing, or at least numbers on the backs of shirts.

Something to bear in mind is, those fans of ODIs/T20s would not necessarily translate into test fans, were ODIs/T20s to cease - it is more likely they would stop watching cricket entirely. In that sense, the narrative of making the various formats compete against each other, and therefore that it is because of too many ODIs/T20s that people don't watch tests anymore, is damaging - that tens of thousands of people turn up to watch T20s or ODIs is good for cricket, and doesn't harm test cricket. What harms test cricket is that no one watches it, and that is what needs to be addressed.

Of course one way to encourage more people to follow test cricket and hence expand its appeal would be to open it all up a bit, thus increasing the potential fan base... Strangely nobody at the ICC seems keen on this idea...

We seem to have veered completely off topic.

does this not beg the question that countries should have players specialise in test or limited overs cricket and have two squads?

Have your test team concentrate on tests alone and then have your limited overs team concentrate if kimited overs cricket, the two teams can have entirely different touring schedules.

Stella wrote:We seem to have veered completely off topic

We're just trying to work out how many tests we will need to play for this saffer vs ROW game   

If the veering off topic becmoes an interesting debate I am all for it.

mystiroakey wrote:in england we can get from ground to ground in no time. not a problem..

if you just book them in in a way to minimize travelling time its going to take no time..

lords to the oval- they can all stay in the same hotel- then off to cardiff. a couple of hours!! then on to manc land - a couple of hours, etc etc

Lords and the Oval then fine. But what about change of hotels. You couldn't possibly play a ODI game in Old Trafford on Monday, travel to say Edgbaston to play a game the next day.

mate - some of my engineers work in manc land one day- london the next, birmingham the next, cardiff the next, southampton the next.