Big Ben’s Brawl

How is punching someone almost fifteen times a mistake?

Advertisements
thesuncouk
Ben Stokes really stoked everyone’s anger and disappointment. Image: thesun.co.uk

As many people on Twitter do, everyone had something to say about the whole ordeal. Many people are livid about what he’s done, but some are defending him. Now, I’m about to just mention some comments (not the exact tweets, but along these lines) that had me thinking “what?” Let me know if you agree or not.

 

“Everyone makes mistakes. Don’t be so hard on him.”

– How is punching someone almost fifteen times a mistake? A mistake is buying whole-wheat bread instead of plain brown.

“Hey man, men fight.”

– If so, then he should not be in a place in his life where  everything he does will be put on social media and ruin his reputation. For someone who has been getting into trouble for his anger, he should have known better.

“He was drunk; no wonder he acted the way he did.”

– I’ll come in his defence here and say that he can drink if he wants to. Just don’t act like someone who can’t handle their alcohol.

“It was off the field. It has nothing to do with us.”

– Would things be better if they were on the field? It does have something to do with the fans if it’s caught on camera, or even reported on with significant evidence.

“The guys he hit had a bottle. He was defending himself.”

– This may be because I am a female, but if I saw someone with a bottle coming towards me, I would not fight them. Whether it’s broken or not, it’s still a weapon. Walk away. You don’t need to prove how manly you are when a potential weapon is involved.

These were just some of the comments that I saw online. To be fair, everyone has their opinion on the matter, but sometimes common sense escapes most. From watching the video, he was being held back by the people he was with. Whatever happened, was there a reason to go for fifteen to the guy’s face?

I’ve also read through the Twitter grapevine that Stokes was drinking that night. I will not be that person to say that it was, entirely, the alcohol’s fault. I will say he is within his human right to drink if he wants to, but if he is going to act in an uncivilised fashion, then he has to be dealt with the repercussions. Personally, I am glad he and Hales have been suspended from playing, but why do they still get full pay? Unfortunately, people have to understand that children who look up to them watch and pick up more than you would think from external stimuli. So what do they see when they see two international sports stars causing a ruckus after a night out drinking while still in the middle of a series?

While I was writing this post, Piers Morgan had tweeted saying that he had word from a source that Stokes was standing up for two homosexual men being bothered. If that is true, why did the source wait so long to come forward if they knew a potential saviour was at risk of getting his reputation (or lack thereof) tarnished even further? Why tell, with all respect to him, Piers Morgan of all news people?

He will honestly be very lucky if he does get on that plane to Australia for the Ashes. Ben Stokes really could have controlled the controllables.

Problems with Having Many Players Over 30

We need the selectors to have more faith and more guts in bringing in these young players to play for the country if, Heaven forbid, all our legendary players retire in quick succession.

zeenewsindiacom
These are the greatest, but great doesn’t last forever. Image: zeenews.india.com

Why do South African sports teams have a tendency of fielding a lot of players that are old? This may sound strange, but what I mean is why is South Africa one of the only sports teams to have many players that are older than 30 in the squad? This is not only in cricket; but also in hockey, soccer, rugby, you name it. The SA hockey teams (both men and women) have players that have 190+ caps to their names, while playing overseas in Belgium, Australia or Holland, and are now struggling to find players older than 18 but younger than 25 to play internationally for a good 7-8 years – starting your international career at 18 is still too young, but having many players over 30 in your squad is a problem when they have to retire either voluntarily or through injury. The same can be said about rugby.

If we are to look at cricket specifically, a lot of players in the Proteas have the thought of retirement in their minds, and that’s all good considering how long some have been playing for South Africa. But how many are we talking here? Well, we have Steyn, Amla, du Plessis, de Villiers, Philander, Morkel, Tahir, and Duminy. That’s three players short of a whole squad. Now I understand that these guys bring so much experience into the team, and they have that presence that makes the opposition quake in their boots, but the reality is that they are going to leave international cricket soon (and very soon), and we need players to come in and step up.

Cricket South Africa has had this trend of not bringing in players with the talent into the squad as soon as they can, and will rest key players then give the rookies a chance. Who’s going to guide them going into that series/match? David Miller? Farhaan Behardien? That’s a serious lack of experience. CSA cannot be having players from the domestic side making their debut internationally at 33 when you have a 22 year old opener waiting in the wings. The England T20 squad in the World T20 last year had a young, but extremely experienced side that had players not older than 29, as I heard a commentator say. England is bringing in players (albeit most aren’t even from England) from a young age when they know they will have an impact on the team. Why can’t CSA do the same?

This past series where SA played England was a disaster; having a middle order change multiple times, batting order collapses where bowlers start doing the top 6’s job in digging us out of trouble, bowlers getting no-ball wickets and no-balls in general, and many other catastrophic moments. Having Heino Kuhn debut may have been based on his scores during the SA ‘A’ tour to England, but he failed to produce the goods when needed. Stephen Cook is making a case for himself to be brought back into the Proteas set up, but is it wise for a 34 year old to replace a 33 year old? Majority of the time, it was senior players that played off-key in the series. Many fans think that SA cricket is in trouble when they see the likes of Amla, du Plessis, or Morkel fluff up during a series. We have many other players that are coming through the system, but whenever SA ‘A’ plays one bad match, many are quick to say our cricket is doomed.

We need the selectors to have more faith and more guts in bringing in these young players to play for the country if, Heaven forbid, all our legendary players retire in quick succession.

My pick of players, whether they’ve played for the Proteas or not, in the next two years to watch out for:

  • Khaya Zondo
  • Lungi Ngidi
  • Wiaan Mulder
  • Aiden Markram
  • Reeza Hendricks (consistency is key)
  • Duanne Olivier
  • Andile Phehlukwayo
  • Jason Smith
  • Dane Paterson
  • JJ Smuts (he’s 28 currently, but still has a lot to offer)

I hope CSA realise this soon, and do not wait until it’s too late to bring these guys in and not have to deal with a gaping hole in the starting eleven.

 

Jennings Didn’t Slip Through the System

All I’m saying is that quota targets can be a good thing sometimes: they help actually discover more talent than you thought you had in the cricket setup

oddreaderscom
Not an issue that Jennings had decided to pursue greener pastures in England. Image: oddreaders.com

Now before you get the idea that I’m a part of the crowd that thought that Keaton Jennings’ century was fantastic against India and that he was set for life, I actually wasn’t. Unfortunately the Corker Yorker blog did not exist at that time, so no views could have been spoken of when it happened.

I’m genuinely someone who tries to play devil’s advocate when it comes to cricket and players making their debuts or coming back into form. I definitely do not believe that because someone scored 50 off 38 balls in one match after a string of ducks and golden ducks is back to their prime state of form. If they can do that for five innings straight (depending on the format), then they are truly back on form. Feel free to disagree though.

The main focus of this short article is to focus very briefly on Keaton Jennings. As most know, he is the son of Ray Jennings who played first class cricket for South Africa. He had captained the South African U19 team in 2011 on a tour to England. He played his last Gauteng game in South Africa in March 2012. When he arrived a month later, he spent the next four years playing domestically until he got his call up. He made his debut for the England squad in 2016 in India where he scored a century in the first innings and a duck in the second.

There was a tweet by Jacques Kallis discrediting the politics in South Africa which had infiltrated into the cricket, which was draining the talent here. He had also stated that “another one had slipped through the system”. Now, Kallis is a legend, but that statement was a little… strange. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if an opening batsman who only averaged around 35 was handed a cap to play for the country, it would have been deemed more an experiment to see how they would fair internationally rather than for his talent. I would have been very surprised to see Cricket South Africa give Jennings one if he stayed. He was not doing anything spectacular here, so his migration to England is not a real loss for SA cricket. We’re still trying to figure out whether or not AB’s coming back to test cricket, and if Duminy’s test days are done.

This test series has not been an easy one for the opening batsmen – both English and South African batsmen have struggled against the new ball, barring Dean Elgar and Alistair Cook. Jennings, however, has only managed to score into double digits twice in the six innings he’s played, often getting nicked off to the slips. He had no idea where his off-stump is, which makes the bowlers, Philander especially, hungry to cash in on his wicket. It looked like Cook didn’t have any faith in him either, as he refused to rotate the strike in the beginning of the first innings in the third test. It was only when Tom Westley had come to the crease, did these two rotate the strike better.

His previous records internationally are just as poor. He’s only scored one 50 and one century in ten innings, with an average of 25.90 and a strike rate of 44.27. That’s his whole international test career! If anyone in the Proteas team, or any other team for that matter had stats like those, they would have been dropped. Many debutants underestimate the massive change from playing domestically to internationally, and their technique is getting uncovered.

He may have scored 48 in the third test match against in this series, but that means nothing if he cannot follow through in the next game. Internationally, we don’t know what an inform Keaton Jennings is like.

So, I ask you cricket fans in South Africa, or anywhere else in the world: is Jennings really a loss in South African cricket? All I’m saying is that quota targets can be a good thing sometimes: they help actually discover more talent than you thought you had in the cricket setup. Not everyone agrees with the targets, and that’s fine, but don’t go and state that the loss of a mediocre player is someone who has “slipped through the system”.

 

 

 

 

Devil’s Advocate on Player Selection

With the contrasting conditions in international cricket and domestic cricket, it’s easy to perform well in the latter.

Britain England South Africa Cricket
Let’s take time to think of something before discussing nothing. Image: indianexpress.com

As the strangely open-minded person that I am, I’m always having scenarios play in my head about things that could happen if they went which-ever way. That means that I’ll hear someone’s argument to something I totally disagree on and see that their way of thinking can make sense, in a weird way. Sometimes, this can be a disadvantage in having an opinion and not changing it.

Recently, I was having a discussion on Twitter with two people on where Quinton de Kock should bat in the test format. His attacking nature and ability to score runs when needed is one that is extremely valued and appreciated in the Proteas team. Now these tweeps I was conversing with were sure that he should bat at 4 because of his runs-churning way of playing, but I disagreed. He is too valuable of a player to have higher than 6 if the top order has a collapse, and then has no time to rest before going to keep wicket. Who bats, if Quinny is at 7, after him? Philander? If the top six only manages to get 175-6 in the first innings to put up a total, it will be QdK and Vernon trying to rescue the innings, for sure. But what if QdK was batting higher up and Bavuma went out slightly cheaply? Vernon would end up batting with the tail. I was convinced that he should bat higher up, up until this third test match against England. If we are to place him any higher, the highest should be 5 or 6. Him being an attacking player in a spot where you need to grind it out if the opening pair go out is a little too risky, in my opinion. If a collapse happens and he’s part of the top 4, there is a valuable player gone out.

Another thing I’ve seen amongst Twitter fans is how we (yes, I do it too, but I’ve tried not to) say one thing when things are going well about a certain player/players, but call for his/their head when they play appallingly. Now, I will say that I often eat slices of humble pie to feed a family of sextuplets, hence now I try look at things more objectively. One thing I’ve realised, clearer that ever, is that Sunfoil Series (four-day domestic cricket in South Africa) and international cricket are EXTREMELY difficult. And the reason a lot of the players do well there is because the players in that set up are, with all possible respect, are not international level yet which makes them a lot easier to face… especially if they have been playing for a club for a number of years. Hence the problem we face with Heino Kuhn now. He is extremely talented, and many people were calling for him to play in the test squad as far as last year August against New Zealand for the misplaced two-test series in South Africa. Now that he’s in the squad, he isn’t really making an overly amazing impression; there are calls for the young Aiden Markram to replace him. But, what if he too does not live up to our expectations of him and goes out for less than ten if he debuts in the last match of this series? Should he also get dropped because he’s not good enough? If not, should we not take the same approach when looking at Kuhn and be more patient?

The CSA selectors, bless them, are also now in the firing line for the performances of the team. For example; the selection of Chris Morris over Dwaine Pretorius is one that is being talked about often. Personally, I didn’t have any expectation of him in this series because I know how erratic and expensive he can be. Don’t get me wrong; the guy’s got pace and skill and bowls a mean yorker, good with the bat at the back-end of an innings, but he’s too all over the place when bowling, and expensive. And he also selected because of his ability to bat with the tail. In this series, he’s yet to prove it. What the sad thing is, I had a feeling he would perform like this in the series. So I was secretly hoping de Bruyn would come back in the side, as it wasn’t really fair for him to get the chop in that game or this one. It would have been extremely great for Pretorius to play in this tour, but one cannot guarantee for sure that he would have made many dents in the England batting line-up. We’ll never know, sure, but it’s pretty unfair to assume he would and then fans become disappointed with him and say he’s not international standard if he performs below-par. I am a very big fan of Pretorius, but we cannot be sure he would have been selected in the first eleven, let alone a key player in the line up.

cricbuzzcom1
Good in patches, but Morris is not really good for tests. Image: cricbuzz.com

I can understand why CSA would not field more than one debutant in the eleven as opposed to Australia and England. However, what may work for other countries may not work us, too. You want to field your best eleven with players that have faced against tough opposition. With that being said, I get that you would want to see how new players fair in the international circuit, but when I think of that, I think immediately back to the Sri Lanka 3-match T20 series. We gave more than four guys a debut in each team, with Lungi Ngidi being the only permanent prospect to play for South Africa. We lost that series 2-1, and deservedly so. In those games, we had players pay poor shot selection, dropped catches, and missed run-outs. It may not seem like a valid example because of the cries for international T20 series to be scrapped, but it’s still something to think about in terms of selecting many debutants in a match/series. CSA should think a little more in terms of what they want from the team when selecting one, apart from just winning. Do they want to just win to heighten our chances at moving to number 1 in rankings, or do they want that to happen while given guys the experience they need for the future?

This article is not meant to pick and choose a side in the way things are being discussed, but more to say let’s look at both sides of the story before we cast major judgement. If the pros out-weight the cons, then great; if not, then okay.

Get Over Those Players Who Have Taken Kolpak Deals

We need to move on from this, and forget about these players that have left us like a selfish boyfriend in a relationship.

Cricket - Sunfoil Test Series - 2nd Test - South Africa v Sri Lanka - Day 4 - Newlands Cricket Ground
Can we please stop using Kolpak as an excuse. Image: iol.co.za

This is a subject I have been avoiding with all my might when Kyle Abbott and Rilee Rossouw took their deals with Hampshire earlier this year because it made me absolutely livid as to how these guys just gave up their pride in playing for their country. But personally, these players are dead to me; undeserving of their segment in SA Cricket Magazine’s Saffas Abroad, so this is my saying that I do not like or follow these players anymore. As well as others who have gone the Kolpak route.

One thing that I have noticed with many people who follow South African cricket is that every time the Proteas lose, all blame goes towards the transformation targets as the infamous Kolpak players who are doing well in England. Bar Rossouw (to an extent) and Abbott, the rest of the players who have taken these deals had not been as explosive as they were before their Proteas call-up. First class cricket and international test cricket are two completely different formats in the skill and mentality that is needed to play it. That is something a lot of players, and fans sometimes, do not understand.

Stiaan van Zyl was a specialist opener for South Africa in late 2015 but had scored only one century which was against the West Indies, and ever since then had been not a great batsman internationally, only averaging 26.33. He signed his Kolpak deal late 2016 to play for Sussex for three years. The opener position therefore opened and Stephen Cook took that position… but not for long as his form also dropped. David Wiese: another player who when playing for the Proteas didn’t really make his presence felt like at domestic level. These are just some of the players that have signed Kolpak, but I feel like we’re not really missing these guys in the international setup. Domestically? Maybe. However internationally? It’s questionable. When these players had their shot for the Proteas (I understand you cannot fire from day one, and that is great) but over a period of time, you cannot be having below average performances for the team.

As I said previously, one thing I have noticed particularly amongst SA fans, past players etc is that whenever South Africa performs well in games, there is not one word muttered about transformation or Kolpak players and how they are missed in the winning team. But the minute things go pear-shaped for the Proteas, the obvious blame (not JP or Behardien) goes towards how transformation targets are enabling players to go Kolpak, and that the players in said match that are in the squad are not picked based on merit, and therefore sending SA cricket to the dogs. We know transformation targets and Kolpak signings are a thing, but do not use it as a scapegoat for a team that is in transition with captain debates and possible coach changes.

Kolpak deals have happened, and may still happen. If we keep using this excuse for our lacklustre performances, we will not move forward with the players we have now. If we keep on going on about how we miss Rossouw and Abbott in whatever squad, are we not giving the indication that the squad is extremely incomplete without them in squad? We have played well without both. A squad’s performance should not ever be based off only two players. The deals and targets never get spoken about when we win, so why bring it up when we lose? It’s a similar thing I had said in a previous article, coincidentally about current-Kolpaker Kyle Abbott, that if he was in the squad for SA vs New Zealand in the semi final of the Cricket World Cup in 2015 we would have won. No one knows if we would have won, and there is nothing we can do. And I really do understand that these two were extremely talented prospects for our team, but they’ve made their decision, and are gone forever. We need to move on from this, and forget about these players that have left us like a selfish boyfriend in a relationship. Let’s focus on what we still have.

Congratulations, Proteas. You Played Yourselves.

But hey, it’s not like South Africa were going to get a round of applause for winning the Champions Trophy because it’s not a World Cup title anyway.

cricketcountrycom
South Africa’s hope of qualifying for the semi-finals being destroyed. Image from: cricketcountry.com

Well, let’s get this out of the way first:

A team cannot choke in a match that they were not going to win in the first place. A team chokes in a match when they were on the verge of victory, only to miss a run out by a centimetre, or to not score that one run needed for a series-levelling victory. See The Popping Crease speak more about the matter of choking in matches. Again, first and last time I ever use that word on this blog. This is just for clarity’s sake.

South Africa did not choke against India on Sunday. The batting was abysmal and too slow to score runs upfront with some useless run-outs. From that batting innings, the bowlers were given nothing to defend. When that last over had commenced, all they needed was a run a ball to win. But they made things difficult for themselves in not doing so.

South Africa, however, did choke against England in the second match of the ODI series when Chris Morris failed to hit four runs off the last two balls.

Australia could have won the match against England as they had three early wickets, but the bowlers, including everyone’s beloved Mitchell Starc, could not take three more wickets after the first three to place England on the back-foot. They choked.

Sri Lanka needed three more wickets against Pakistan to win the match, and effectively go through to semi-finals. I wanted Sri Lanka to go through to the semis now that South Africa were knocked out, but congratulations to Pakistan on coming back from that performance against India in their first game. The Lankans failed to take the last three wickets needed, and Pakistan cruised to the low 237 total set by Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka choked in that game.

Why is it only a choke when South Africa is involved? If Australia and India are in a final with the Aussies needing two more runs to win with one ball remaining, and Travis Head on 78 and Matthew Wade on 44 at the crease. A full toss is bowled by Jasprit Bumrah to Head begging to be hit for a six, but he bunts it for a dot-ball and India win. Does that not qualify as a choke?

 

I understand that in life, and in cricket, there can only be one winner most times. Someone has to lose, and that’s fine. What I have a problem with is when you lose dismally. South African media and fans are sick and tired of hearing “it’s just one of those games where we don’t know what went went wrong, but we have to go back to the drawing board for the next tournament”. We’ve been hearing that post 1998.

Now that South Africa is out of this tournament, Kagiso Rabada and AB de Villiers have lost their number one rankings in bowling and batting respectively. Am I mad? Not really. It’s a time for introspection, reflection, and actual preparation for the next ODI series and tournaments. Will South Africa lose their number one ranking after this tournament? Most likely, but I will be surprised if they don’t.

AB is not captain material, and here is why I think so. You cannot go into a media conference saying that the opposition is a team you’ve played multiple times before, so you know what they are capable of. You never know what teams have cooking up their sleeves to win a match, and I would think as a captain AB would get that. You cannot claim that you are a good captain just because you feel that you are.

Great that you think you can lead and that you feel like you’ve got great leadership qualities, but if ex-players and commentators are questioning your leadership styles after each match and tournament, then there’s a real problem. Asking another player to help you with field placements as well as who should bowl next is just not on. You cannot be a captain who picks and chooses when and which format and series you want to play.  You should be with the team throughout all obstacles and victories.

Some people have leadership skills and some don’t. That’s all good and well, but in saying that, the best player on the team does not always make for the best captain. That’s cool, too. But if you feel that there is a need for you to keep justifying why you are a good captain, people are not really sure who you are trying to convince.

The team is completely different under Faf’s reigns than under AB’s. Fearless and ruthless compared to the timid and cautious team in the Champions Trophy is a big contrast for a team that is number one in the world. The best cricket we saw from the Proteas was when Faf was in charge.

But the problem is; most people could see the cracks in this team as far back as the ODI series against New Zealand.

So what is the actual problem within the Proteas camp? Is it coaches? Is it the captain? Is it mental? It is NOT quotas. Has the passion dissipated from the players? Should we expect the player performance be similar to that of the Tri-Series in the Caribbean last year?

But hey, we shouldn’t worry; the Proteas are to play in a T20I 3-match series later this month against England with AB as stand-in captain for Faf. So surely, AB will be back in full swing come that series because it’s T20s, right?

A Look In the Past, and to the Hopeful Future

We want you to win; we just want to see that you want to as well.

Cricket World Cup
Farhaan Behardien and JP Duminy trying to grab the chance at getting form in batting. Image by dnaindia.com

As heartbreaking as this subject is for South African fans, it does need to be spoken about, as that is what we are currently remembered for: falling under pressure short of making the semi finals, or winning the final match.

Indeed, they definitely need get that monkey off of their back and just finally win another ICC trophy and be rid of their “chokers” tag. Personally, I hate using that word, so this is the first and last time I use it on my blog.

 

Tuesday 24 March 2015

Seeing that the tournament was in a country where the time-zone are a far bit ahead, I did not get to watch the match… I was asleep when it started, then at school throughout the day during the match. But I do remember hearing about the final over from a friend who was live-streaming the game on his phone. After that match-winning six was smacked into the stands, there was a morose atmosphere around my school, with most of my friends who love cricket on the verge of tears. It was my busiest year; my final year of high school with stress being a massive factor in my daily emotions, but nothing had stressed me out more than waiting to hear what the result was for that match.

So what happened in that semi-final against New Zealand two years ago? Almost everything a team did not want to happen.

– There was rain which reduced the allotted overs to 43 thanks to that blasted Duckworth/Lewis system

– Our best bowler in the line up, Dale Steyn, conceded 12 runs in the last over… the number of runs New Zealand needed to win

– MISFIELDS GALORE:

  • de Kock missed stumping of Grant Elliott, who was unofficially deemed New Zealand’s hero for his efforts with the bat
  • AB missed a Corey Anderson run-out
  • de Kock missed a chance to run out Elliott
  • who can forget that collision involving JP Duminy and Farhaan Behardien going for a catch of Elliott’s bat
  • AB missing the stumps to get New Zealand’s former captain Daniel Vettori

– From what I understand from reading the comments of the extremely upset South Africans after we lost that match is de Kock was slightly out of touch the entire tournament, but maybe we were looking for someone to blame and be the scapegoat

– Some guy who’s now taken a Kolpak deal was benched for Vernon Philander even though he was not fully fit from an injury. I will soon give my views on the transformation targets in South African cricket in another post.

Control things that can be controlled, they say. 99 percent of the atrocities that happened that day could have been controlled. We cannot state that because Kyle Abbott didn’t play, we lost the game. We can say that as much as we would like, but no one knows what would’ve happened if he played. You have to make do with what you have in the squad sometimes. The things we could have controlled in that game did not come into play and that is what we should say whenever we want to give the reason as to why we were knocked out of a tournament or lose a match.

 

Saturday 11 June 2017

Seeing that Sri Lanka managed to upset India on Thursday to win by 7 wickets, India will definitely be looking to bounce back from that loss. South Africa’s best friend, the Duckworth Lewis system, had returned in granting Pakistan a win over us by 19 runs. Poor top-order batting had brought the team down to 118-6 with David Miller contributing 75 not out to get us to 219-8 at the end of the 50 overs. When fielding, Morné Morkel (3-18) was the only bowler to take wickets and not give away many runs. And to make matters worse, Kagiso Rabada had started quite well in the bowling innings to an unpredictable Pakistan side chasing 220, only for it to be ruined by Wayne Parnell to leak one too many runs in the next over he bowled. If I could have altered our starting eleven, I would have definitely benched Parnell and put in Andile Phehlukwayo for his big match temperament. A touch expensive at times, but not as bad as Parnell, and he’s great with the bat too.

With AB slightly in doubt for the must-win match against India on Sunday due to a hamstring niggle, SA will definitely need to bring their A-game to the clash and show their fans and their opponents why they are the number one side in the world. As a side of this fantastic ranking, you cannot just hope because you are on top you will win every game. My request to the team is a simple one: play with the passion your fans feel for you, not because of your status and ranking. We want you to win; we just want to see that you want to as well.

With that being said, I think my starting XI for South Africa would be the same as it was against Pakistan, but taking out Parnell for Phehlukwayo, with Morkel opening with Rabada. Depending on other players’ fitness as well, I would really like to see Dwaine Pretorius get a shot. If de Villiers is unavailable, one could push Miller, Duminy and Morris up by one then slot Pretorius at number seven.

My predicting eleven for Sunday’s game:

  1. de Kock (wk)
  2. Amla
  3. du Plessis
  4. de Villiers* (if available)
  5. Miller
  6. Duminy
  7. Morris
  8. Phehlukwayo
  9. Rabada
  10. Morkel
  11. Tahir