[mali007]

Originally Posted by Fazal
And ofcourse there are counter points...

1. That doesn't tell Khalis would be a bad choice. It only tells that SA had more choices and evaluated that Smith is a better choice in long term.

2. It also tells that SA went for young and experinced over older and experienced player as Smith would provide them long term more ceiling.

3. SA didn't shied away with the concept 'Smith us young and not ready yet" and made a brave move. And they are rewarded for that.

4. SA didn't have a situation where they were stucked with non-performing experienced player. But still they made a bold decision (even though they had other options)

5. Sakib already showned in other level (local, team-a, warmup-games, national preparetion teams) that his team surprisingly do better than their strong opponents. I understand that these are not the same as national games. But Sakib will not get that experince from a bubble.

6. These u-19 trained players are much more prepared to lead than our pre-19 team players. That give them advantage over Ash/Mashrafee/etc.

7. Its not only SA who went for young inexperienced but talented players. Pakistan and India took the same route. ZIM took the same route with TAIBU before politics screw up the plan.

Good explanation -------- guys read it and judge yourself!!