Amla, Boucher and Waite do not belong in the best ever Test team.

Barry zRichards career began in 60s and he should have made his debut in the 66/67 series.

Clay,
The main problem is the lack of Denis Lindsay who is an automatic inclusion in a best ever South African test team. But the best one from each decade would be:
1920s Faulkner bat 9. ,
1930s Nourse bat 5. ,
1949 Tayfield bat at 10. ,
1955 Goddard bat 2. ,
1960s G Pollock bat 4. ,
1970s B Richards bat 1 ,
1980s M Procter bat 7. ,
1990s S Pollock bat 8 ,
2000s J Kallis bat 3. ,
2010s D Steyn bat 11 ,
2020s de Kock wk bat 6. ,
Denis Lindsay is an absolute lock in for my best ever team and Q de Kock does not feature as even a reserve.
Others I would want to include as reserves are Eddie Barlow, Peter Pollock, Graeme Smith, AB de Villiers, Colin Bland, and Donald (only as a reserve because of his reputation).

I am watching FIFA World Cup at the same time. Soccer just doesn’t have the same complexities and stats as cricket. Also I can comprehend more than one sport at a time including cricket, rugby, football, netball (win for Australia). The football final now down to Australia: England versus Spain. I have my prediction but believe posting it could backfire.

Hi Ace, as has been stated by others, Kallis is over hyped. He won’t make the side as a bowler. There are also many better batsmen. He is not an attacking batsman but rather an accumulator of runs, which is fine if you are playing for a draw. His SR is a very low 46 which rules him out of the best ever South African test team. If he bats at 3 he will become an impediment to a batting partnership between South Africa’s two greatest batsmen who are Richards and Graeme Pollock. At 3 you need a batter with the same tempo and strike rate of Richards 75 and G Pollock 104. South Africa has that ideal batting all rounder in Eddie Barlow who has a SR of 75 and an average of 45. He is also an effective bowler, probably a better bowler than Kallis. So he is the number 3 for the team and he was also an opening batsman. Kallis is not a number 3. Moving Kallis to the middle order just moves the problem of his low SR. There are other better batters for 5 and I have chosen Colin Bland who has much higher SR with a batting average of 50. No place for Kallis or AB except as reserved.

Correction: Barry Richards SR was 72 which is better than Graeme Smith on 60 SR.

Hi Micko,
I picked Shaun Pollock for 90s, Kallis for 2000, and Steyn for 2010. I didn’t select Donald or de Villiers or Philander. There is no way that either Donald or philander belong in the best ever SA team. I have given my reasons for excluding Donald. I have done another review of batters focussing strike rate. Kallis strike rate is a hopeless 46. AB de V is not much better at 55. My best team new qualification requirement is 60 for the top 6 batters. On that basis my team is:
1. Barry Richards 72 SR. ,
2. Graeme Smith 60. ,
3. Eddie Barlow 75. ,
4. Graeme Pollock 104. ,
5. Colin Bland 197. ,
6. Denis Lindsay 100. ,wk
7. Trevor Goddard. 95. ,
8. Mike Procter
9. Faulkner or Shaun or Peter Pollock
10. Hugh Tayfield
11. Dale Steyn. ,
Kallis, and AB don’t fit into the batting tempo of this team led by the openers, G Pollock and Denis Lindsay. That was the key difference between the 60-70 SA cricketers and the post 92 cricketers. It’s a difference of strike rate and attacking cricket. NONE of the post 92 batsmen measures up to those of 1970. Okay one exception: Graeme Smith on 60 which is fine for an opening bat. But the middle order need to be at least 75 and AB de V is only 55. The team with Kallis on 46 and AB on 55 is a team playing for a draw with Australia. The 65-70 team thrashed Australia because they had attacking batsmen with high strike rates. This was no accident. Look up the Fezelas which was in effect a cricket academy. My best ever team also has bowlers who can bat. The SA team of 1970 was the best ever team assembled at any one time and would have beaten any other cricket team in history. With the addition of Tayfield it would beat a composite all time Australian team. The only players from post 92 who can add value are Graeme Smith and Dale Steyn. Any others such as Kallis, AB from the modern generation will weaken the best ever team.

Mike, the expected batting partnerships will be:
Richards R and G Smith L ,
Richards R and Goddard L ,
Richards R and G Pollock L ,
G Pollock L and Kallis R ,
G Pollock L and Lindsay R ,
G Pollock L and AB de V R,
And then GP with four right arm bowlers. Throughout the innings will be a R + L combination similar to 1970.

Mike,
You are almost right with your selection. You have got Goddard at 3 and that’s a good option, which means that Kallis can be switched after G Pollock so that Kallis doesn’t hold up the most important batting partnership of Richards and Pollock. Denis Lindsay also has to be in the team as WK. Donald doesn’t belong in the first or even second team. So your team adjusted by me is: Richards, G Smith, T Goddard, G Pollock, Kallis, AB de V, Lindsay, Procter, Faulkner, Tayfield, Steyn. This side can bat to 11 and has a much higher batting average than the best Australian test side.
The bowling line up is Procter, Steyn, Goddard, Kallis, Tayfield and Faulkner. That is 6 bowlers. Bringing in Donald only weakens the side and reduces the batting average by at least 37 to 50 to 100 runs. Lindsays average at 6 and 7 is over 50 and for the 66/67 series it was 86 batting average when none of the other batters from either side achieved anything significant.

Good enough recommendation. I am convinced on Miller!

Lindsay was the cricket equivalent of Gary Player, Naas, and Bruce Fordyce.

Cook and Irvine would make the second SA team and probably also Bacher over Amla. Khoury was more suited to ODI. Jennings was over rated by his fellow Transvalers. Donald belongs in third or fourth eleven as I have noted. You can have only one number 11 in each team and I prefer Steyn and then Adcock in second eleven.

Sheek, I am not trying to “boost” Lindsay as you say. He needs no boosting. He completely dominated the 66/67 series (both as batsman and in dismissing the Aussie batters) more so than the combined efforts of Pollock and Richards did in 70. Lindsay was a bigger star in 66/67 than the combined Richards and Pollock In 70. Lindsay was number 1 for most of my life and it was about Lindsay that I and work colleagues spoke during that first SA World Cup in Aus and we compared Wessels very unfavourably with Lindsay in 67. You probably weren’t conscious in 66/67 because Lindsay was huge.

Good I am inclined to accept your word on Miller but then again he was not included in Bradmans best ever team and Bradman played with him in the end of his career.

According to Bradman it was Barry Richards and Arthur Morris. I bow to his expertise.

Exactly correct von byes. The greatest wk of all time is Denis Lindsay.

None of 3 to keep wicket. It’s a case of memory loss.

I have posted a much stronger all rounder team in Richards and Pollock on basis that they both have at least one test wicket and more Fc.

Your opinion team: drop Amla much too weak strike rate, bring in Lindsay as wk and as top order number 6 batter. I understand you are too young to remember DL but AB is not a contender for wk. Lindsay is one of five incl Procter who are the locked in core. AB is optional in the side as a specialist bat and reserve wk. Drop Donald , he can’t bat. Bring in S Pollock or Goddard or P Pollock. Goddard is the best bat but P Pollock is fast. S pollock probably third choice in between PP and TG. We don’t want two tail end batters : it’s a choice between Steyn or Donald, one of them not both. Steyn is better. Donald makes third team.

Kallis is the batting all rounder and sixth bowler. It’s a choice between Kallis and Barlow or else another specialist batter. But selected on batting. Bowling is a useful bonus. It’s important to differentiate between batting all rounders and bowling all rounders. BoARs ideally need bowling ave in low 20s. BatAR need batting ave ideally over 40. Those all rounders who have both averages in low thirty’s are neither fish nor fowl and are a weakness in both respects but some of these are still highly acclaimed in some countries.

Sheek, you were close to getting it right. Only two completely wrong: Donald and Boucher who can be dropped to third or fourth teams. Procter is locked in as first choice bowler and Lindsay locked in as Batsmen and as wk. That will also improve the batting by about 50 and considerably improve the bowling and wicket keeping. Your SA team would lose to Australia. SA with the two changes will defeat Australia. Five locked in players and six others to choose from 12. For the six bowlers the two sets are Procter (locked in) and Tayfield (locked in) + two of S Pollock/ T Goddard/ A Faulkner + Steyn / P Pollock/ A Donald + Kallis / Barlow. Batters to consider at 5 are AB de V/Nourse / Bland who is also the greatest ever fielder and run out expert.

Hi Sheek please see the scoresheet I have posted. Yes it is hypothetical but it is the representation of known facts and the quantification of those facts on the scoreboard. Also bear in mind that B Richards + Pollock is = to having B Richards + Tendulkar in the same team or even better because bit is L + R. When in history has any other country had two top 6 world best ever batsmen in the same team? Bradman only included 5 but he said Pollock was the best left handed bat and that makes Pollock the 6 batter if he had chosen 6 instead of 5.

I haven’t forgotten about Shane Warne. Graeme Pollock, Richards and Lindsay are very good players of spin. Richards is the most “complete” batsman in history which means he has no flaws to be exposed by spin. Graeme Pollock is similarly skilled. Lindsay as an immaculate wk anticipated every ball from his own bowlers and used that same skill in batting. Graeme Smith will be out before he faces spin. Kallis while not an attacking batsman was a very good defender and took no risky shots. AB de V, I have scored 0 and let’s say he was bowled by Warne. SA 7-11 bat order have all scored below their average.

South Africa 1st innings: ,
Richards. 180. ,
Smith. 40. ,
Kallis. 40. ,
G Pollock 220*. ,
AB de Villiers 0.
Lindsay. 50. ,
Procter 30. ,
Faulkner. 20. ,
Pollock. 20. ,
Tayfield. 10. ,
Steyn. 0
Total 610 all out ,
Based on history
You know what happened to Simpson and Lawry. The other Aus bats won’t achieve their averages. The weak Aus tail will collapse. Your bowling line up is no threat to Richards (he previously smashed Lillee in his triple century) or Pollock. Lindsay is an excellent wk. The SA bowling of Procter and Steyn is lethal. Pollock will contain the batsmen. You only have Lillee as a threatening fast b and he has been effective with the other SA batters and even bowled AB for 0. But pollock and Richards are effective against spin and fast bowlers. It is a win by an innings. Even using batting averages its a win by 80 runs but that doesn’t take into account synergy of Richards Pollock partnership or the weak Aussie tail. Bradman is stranded on not out.

Sheek, you should be familiar with this score card. Parachuting Don Bradman into your team is not going to save it and i would prefer to have avoided his involvement. Explanations can be found in history:
Lawry 20 b Procter ,
Simpson 20. b Steyn. ,
Bradman 120*. not out. ,
Chappell 30 c Lindsay b Procter. ,
Border 30 c Lindsay b Steyn. ,
Gilchrist 40 c Lindsay b Pollock. ,
Miller 20 c Lindsay b Procter. ,
Warne 5 b Procter. ,
OReilly 0 b Procter. ,
Lillee 0 b Procter. ,
McGrath 0 b Steyn
Total 285 all out