Really interesting. I think this a good initiative. To grow the sport in SA and achieve Bok-like widespread support we need more black batters. And to become a top batter you don't just need equipment, you need the buy-in of coaches who will give you time; time at the crease in competitive matches and, equally importantly, time in the nets, so you can hit thousands and thousands of balls in your school years.
I completely agree with the '1%ers' in elite sport. This time in the semi-final however, the 1% wasn't as much in selection but in tactics and execution. What has annoyed me over the years is that CSA and their defenders (few) don't accept that their selection policies can compromise winning. They are not ones to question a performance on 1%ers not being nailed. That's a big reason why the WC eludes them. I defended Temba's selection till the India game, but it became clear that a tough call was needed. It was clear in the ENG camp that no player was undroppable, not even Morgan. I don't think SA have embraced that kind of flexibility. Do I think that Reeza had a much better chance to face the seaming conditions on that day? No. But his better form could've been a 1%er.
South Africans will not embrace the Proteas unless they are also winners. Playing an unfit out-of-form player was selfish & reckless- and totally disrespectful to fans & sponsors. What a great chance we had to win the CWC! Witness the Blitzboks & Springboks of course- success; diversity; popularity. Bafana Bafana are nowhere. Hardly anyone bothers to turn up to support. Quotas will not work IMO. It's about good leadership, which football & cricket lack. Why is political interference tolerated in SA & Afghanistan, but Sri Lanka is suspended? To say quotas is not 'political' is nonsense. How awful for a kid picked for U19 and labelled as a quota player. Talk about mental torture for him or her. I see Temba is being 'rested' for the ODI series v India. Why? But he was not rested for the most important tournament on the calendar. Surely his form does not even justify inclusion. Reeza in- great & de Zorzi in for Temba? Rabada however deserves a rest. Lots of bowling talent available. Cheers.
If the out-of-form player in the WC was Bavuma, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick a bit. You seem to be implying that it was quota related, as in the 2015 WC. But there are important differences--and you partly answer the question by pointing out that it was the most important tournament in the calendar.
Aside from that, Bavuma is the captain--thought by quite a few people, as far as I can see, to be a good captain. So there's the extra element he brings from that which might make it worth playing him even if he's not entirely fit, out of form or both. England, for example, have done that with three different captains in three different formats in the last two years; and I'm not entirely convinced that Kane Williamson was fit for every match he played in the WC.
As for SL's suspension, the short answer is that their own board asked the ICC to suspend them. But beyond that, the ICC seem to interpret the rule as prohibiting the WHOLESALE running of cricket in a country by the government, not the imposition of individual politically-motivated policies--which have seen everything from England effectively unilaterally kicking Zimbabwe out of an ICC event because of a government directive to the Bangladeshi PM trying to stop a senior player retiring. The former was the logic behind SL's suspension, and also--wrongly in my view--behind Zimbabwe's in 2019.
There's plenty you can argue about there I think. Personally I think Afghanistan ought to be suspended anyway for breaching an ICC rule which would probably see a new application to be a Full Member refused; and it seems that Pakistani cricket, to name one country that hasn't been suspended, is de facto run by the government. But I can see the difference between the SL case and quotas, regardless of what your opinion on quotas is.
Yes, you make good points, and I recall England picked Stokes when he was unfit too. NZ really missed Kane- but he is a top player who makes a big difference to the team performance. This 'govt control'/ political interference issue appears to be very subjective. Cheers.
Really interesting. I think this a good initiative. To grow the sport in SA and achieve Bok-like widespread support we need more black batters. And to become a top batter you don't just need equipment, you need the buy-in of coaches who will give you time; time at the crease in competitive matches and, equally importantly, time in the nets, so you can hit thousands and thousands of balls in your school years.
I completely agree with the '1%ers' in elite sport. This time in the semi-final however, the 1% wasn't as much in selection but in tactics and execution. What has annoyed me over the years is that CSA and their defenders (few) don't accept that their selection policies can compromise winning. They are not ones to question a performance on 1%ers not being nailed. That's a big reason why the WC eludes them. I defended Temba's selection till the India game, but it became clear that a tough call was needed. It was clear in the ENG camp that no player was undroppable, not even Morgan. I don't think SA have embraced that kind of flexibility. Do I think that Reeza had a much better chance to face the seaming conditions on that day? No. But his better form could've been a 1%er.
South Africans will not embrace the Proteas unless they are also winners. Playing an unfit out-of-form player was selfish & reckless- and totally disrespectful to fans & sponsors. What a great chance we had to win the CWC! Witness the Blitzboks & Springboks of course- success; diversity; popularity. Bafana Bafana are nowhere. Hardly anyone bothers to turn up to support. Quotas will not work IMO. It's about good leadership, which football & cricket lack. Why is political interference tolerated in SA & Afghanistan, but Sri Lanka is suspended? To say quotas is not 'political' is nonsense. How awful for a kid picked for U19 and labelled as a quota player. Talk about mental torture for him or her. I see Temba is being 'rested' for the ODI series v India. Why? But he was not rested for the most important tournament on the calendar. Surely his form does not even justify inclusion. Reeza in- great & de Zorzi in for Temba? Rabada however deserves a rest. Lots of bowling talent available. Cheers.
If the out-of-form player in the WC was Bavuma, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick a bit. You seem to be implying that it was quota related, as in the 2015 WC. But there are important differences--and you partly answer the question by pointing out that it was the most important tournament in the calendar.
Aside from that, Bavuma is the captain--thought by quite a few people, as far as I can see, to be a good captain. So there's the extra element he brings from that which might make it worth playing him even if he's not entirely fit, out of form or both. England, for example, have done that with three different captains in three different formats in the last two years; and I'm not entirely convinced that Kane Williamson was fit for every match he played in the WC.
As for SL's suspension, the short answer is that their own board asked the ICC to suspend them. But beyond that, the ICC seem to interpret the rule as prohibiting the WHOLESALE running of cricket in a country by the government, not the imposition of individual politically-motivated policies--which have seen everything from England effectively unilaterally kicking Zimbabwe out of an ICC event because of a government directive to the Bangladeshi PM trying to stop a senior player retiring. The former was the logic behind SL's suspension, and also--wrongly in my view--behind Zimbabwe's in 2019.
There's plenty you can argue about there I think. Personally I think Afghanistan ought to be suspended anyway for breaching an ICC rule which would probably see a new application to be a Full Member refused; and it seems that Pakistani cricket, to name one country that hasn't been suspended, is de facto run by the government. But I can see the difference between the SL case and quotas, regardless of what your opinion on quotas is.
Yes, you make good points, and I recall England picked Stokes when he was unfit too. NZ really missed Kane- but he is a top player who makes a big difference to the team performance. This 'govt control'/ political interference issue appears to be very subjective. Cheers.