Tops or tails: the debate is still raging on

One of the things under scrutiny in the aftermath of the Proteas’ dismal display against Pakistan at the weekend is team selection. People have been going on about the balance not being right, saying the Proteas don’t bat deep enough and that they should rather go with a fi fth specialist bowler instead of splitting the duties between part-timers.

In my book, the team selection is about the only thing they got right on Saturday after messing around to find the right combination for the first four games.

Let’s not beat around the bush here. If the Proteas are going to break their World Cup duck they need to play to their strengths – and that is batting. By a long shot.

That is exactly why I feel playing seven batsmen – with JP Duminy sending down the bulk of the makeshift 10 overs – outweighs the prospect of six batsmen and five specialist bowlers.

The debate really starts heating up when it comes to the so-called all-rounders. Who will add more value? The lower middle order, should they opt for five bowlers, or the bits-and-pieces bowlers, should they go in batsman-heavy?

First of all, let’s get a few things straight. Farhaan Behardien can’t be considered as an all-rounder because his bowling is hardly more effective than that of AB de Villiers and spare me Wayne Parnell and Vernon Philander’s socalled prowess with the bat.

How many times have I seen this week that Parnell or Philander could have added value to the SA tail against Pakistan. I don’t agree.

The seven batsmen who faced Pakistan have scored a combined 58 centuries and their strike rates range between 83.9 and 110.3. If these guys can’t get them over the line, nobody will.

Philander doesn’t even have a double figure average and the batting enigma that is Parnell has a lousy one-day strike rate of 77.3.

Then rather give me Duminy, who doesn’t have the worst economy rate of conceding 5.1 runs to the over with his off-spin, with De Villiers, Rilee Rossouw and Faf du Plessis sending down one, maybe two, overs each.

This debate takes me back to our Test side that was being spoilt with proper lower order batsmen for a long time. Think back to the days when Mark Boucher came in a No 7, followed by Shaun Pollock and Nicky Boje. Impressive, but how good were those sides really?

At the best of times, even when they managed to beat everyone in between series against Australia, they still got a proper klap from the Aussies home and away.

Years later, the tail started at No 8 with Dale Steyn, Paul Harris, Morne Morkel and Makhaya Ntini making up what was initially considered to be too long.

Guess what? That very same tail helped South Africa make history by winning their fi rst Test series in Australia and that very same tail also stayed in tact for the bulk of the time during South Africa’s initial rise to become the world’s best Test side.

There were a few times when the tail showed the batsmen a thing or two, like Steyn’s fantastic 76 in Melbourne, Harris’ gritty 46 in Lahore and an entertaining unbeaten 35 by Morkel in Hamilton, all leading to famous away wins.

You see, the problem during the days of the long batting list was that more often than not the top order – who actually get paid to score runs – did not hold their own and guys like Pollock and Boje had to stop the bleeding.

Once we became a batting-rich entity blessed with thousands of runs flowing from the bats of Graeme Smith, Hashim Amla, Jacques Kallis, De Villiers, Ashwell Prince and JP Duminy, a long tail became acceptable.

So why can’t we put our trust in a long bowling tail to come good this time around?