South Africa & Quotas

[Goughy]

I take the point about there being better players, but the same thing can certainly be said about England and almost certainly about nearly every cricketing country.

And aside from David Terbrugge, I'm struggling to think of better white bowlers than Ngam (who looked one hell of a prospect and is certainly not alone in being picked too young - see Jerome Taylor, for example) or Kruger - for example, Kruger was picked at the same time as Steyn and both were equally horrible.

As for Bosman and Petersen, have you never seen any other countries pick average players for ODIs because "he's a big hitter"? Again, for a recent example, see Matthew Prior. Nor was Bosman given longer than he was due, he was dropped when it became apparent he wasn't good enough. Not perminantly, I don't think, but hopefully we won't see him in this World Cup at least.

Right a few points.

-The reason for the poor selections is the issue here not that poor selections are made. When players are picked on race (as in these cases) its hard to have any justification. What is being said by myself, is that the selectors are picking players they do not believe are the best available for political reason. Thats how it is. Anyone can make a selection mistake, it is harder to justify doing it on purpose.

- Ngam had not and still never has taken 5 wickets in an innings in a FC game. 6 years after test debut and 9 years after FC debut. Thats over 40 games. Its a terrible recordHe was not good enough and was fasttracked because of colour.

- There were many good bowlers in SA at the time of Ngams selection. Certainly superior to him at the time. Nel was doing well as a youngster, Elworthy was at the peak of his powers, Willoughby was his consistent and wickettaking best, Nantie Hayward was very quick and dangerous etc. Ngam had done nothing to deserve his place

- It is impossible to compare Kruger and Steyn. Kruger is nearly 7 years older than Steyn and is a journeyman seamer. Steyn was capable of bowling 145 kph + and was the supposed next fast bowling sensation and had a couple of good performances under his belt. I dont doubt that Steyn was picked too early as well but at the time SA's bowling resources were more depleted than 5 years previous.

- Bosman and Petersen failed because they were not good enough. It was obvious and had done nothing to deserve inclusion. The fact that Bosman has gone means another quota player will come in to take his place, play a few games, get dropped etc

 

[Goughy]

I'm sure you know a lot more than me about SA cricket. My point is that them talking about a "target" doesn't mean much if they aren't realistically close to achieving it. For all we know, this may just be some political talk that they are spewing while they continue to realize that the black cricketers who are being given early opportunities just won't cut it at the highest level. You should be worried only if **** happens and not if it's supposed to happen, so to speak.

But it is happening and will continue to do so. These targets are not political speak, they are policy.

Just wait for the WC squad to be announced there will be very average cricketers included.

 

[Richard]

-The reason for the poor selections is the issue here not that poor selections are made. When players are picked on race (as in these cases) its hard to have any justification. What is being said by myself, is that the selectors are picking players they do not believe are the best available for political reason. Thats how it is. Anyone can make a selection mistake, it is harder to justify doing it on purpose.

Aside from the likes of the continued selection of Peterson (who is no better or worse than Richard Dawson and Gareth Batty - bear spin-bowling cupboards mean terrible spinners get in because the "you have to have variety" nonsense) there are few examples of blatantly racially motivated selections that come to mind.

- Ngam had not and still never has taken 5 wickets in an innings in a FC game. 6 years after test debut and 9 years after FC debut. Thats over 40 games. Its a terrible recordHe was not good enough and was fasttracked because of colour.

As for 5-fors - I don't give a damn about em. It's average that counts, give me a bowler who's consistently taking 4\50 over one who's taking 5\80 followed by 1\139 anyday.

- There were many good bowlers in SA at the time of Ngams selection. Certainly superior to him at the time. Nel was doing well as a youngster, Elworthy was at the peak of his powers, Willoughby was his consistent and wickettaking best, Nantie Hayward was very quick and dangerous etc. Ngam had done nothing to deserve his place

Maybe not, but I say it again - have you seriously seen no other countries pick bowlers because "he's young, he's raw but he's quick?" And are you seriously suggesting Ngam didn't look like a prospect in his few Tests? He looked a damn sight better than Harmison has ever looked, and that hasn't stopped him playing 40-odd Tests. And there were many, many better candidates than him, too, in 2002, when he debuted.

- It is impossible to compare Kruger and Steyn. Kruger is nearly 7 years older than Steyn and is a journeyman seamer. Steyn was capable of bowling 145 kph + and was the supposed next fast bowling sensation and had a couple of good performances under his belt. I dont doubt that Steyn was picked too early as well but at the time SA's bowling resources were more depleted than 5 years previous.

Indeed they were - so the likes of Kruger, Zondeki, Botha, etc. were picked.
Who would you have had instead in 2005\06? Bearing in mind that Terbrugge was injured by then and Hayward is a proven failure in ODIs.

- Bosman and Petersen failed because they were not good enough. It was obvious and had done nothing to deserve inclusion. The fact that Bosman has gone means another quota player will come in to take his place, play a few games, get dropped etc

Well, unless de Villiers finally starts performing as a ODI opener?

 

[Goughy]

Seven seems like a big number (out of 15) but when you look at the squad of 30 and the vast number of 'coloured' cricketers you can't argue with most of their selections, especially cricketers like Alfonso Thomas whose not there by colour but through sheer weight of performance. Bosman aside, Johan Botha is easily the worst selection and his ****ing white.

There are other question marks, but Im with you. I dont like the Botha selection

Fair play to Alfie as well. I may not rate him particularly but deserves his inclusion due to weight of numbers. He didnt have a great MTN domestic series though (10 @39) and I may have pumped for Tweedie who is equally as unglamerous as Thomas but consistently does better domestically than, is roughly the same age as and has a career list A average that is 10 runs better (22 compared to 32) instead.

 

[Goughy]

As for 5-fors - I don't give a damn about em. It's average that counts, give me a bowler who's consistently taking 4\50 over one who's taking 5\80 followed by 1\139 anyday.

On a completely seperate topic to the discussion in hand.

Wow, I really forgot how little you understood about this game.

I know you know a 5wi does not stop at 5 wickets. It goes on and upwards, obviously.

To win Tests and FC games (as we were talking about) you need guys that are capable of running through teams. Dominating the opposition. They dont have to do it all the time (as there are other bowlers in the team) but they must be able to win games for their captain.

The nature of the game is that you eill have good days and bad days. Everyone will take 0 in an innings at some point. However, the good ones take advantage of their better days and take a bagfull.

A good bowler must run through opposition on occasion. Thats why they are good. They can take wickets and in bunches.

Show me 1 good specialist test bowler that has never taken 5 or more wickets in an innings (let alone FC)?To prove your point I want to see someone (minumum preferably with a couple more examples) with 0. Not 1 or 2 or 3 fifers, zero. All I can think of is Mike Hendrick and he took less than 100 Test wickets and had 30 5+ FC innings.

For bonus points, show me 1 good specialist test bowler that has never taken a fifer at any FC level as well. Just like you were defending Ngam over.

Its how bowlers win games. Good bowlers are the main actors rather than the bit part players you hanker after.

Top 20 Bowlers
Tests - Most 5 Wickets in an Innings

M Muralitharan
SK Warne
RJ Hadlee
A Kumble
GD McGrath
IT Botham
Wasim Akram
SF Barnes
DK Lillee
Imran Khan
N Kapil Dev
MD Marshall
Waqar Younis
CEL Ambrose
CA Walsh
CV Grimmett
AA Donald
Harbhajan Singh
LR Gibbs
FS Trueman

Not many bad bowlers on that list.

Being able to destroy a batting lineup when you are on form is what being a good bowler is all about.

 

[Richard]

On a completely seperate topic to the discussion in hand.

Wow, I really forgot how little you understood about this game.

I know you know a 5wi does not stop at 5 wickets. It goes on and upwards, obviously.

To win Tests and FC games (as we were talking about) you need guys that are capable of running through teams. Dominating the opposition. They dont have to do it all the time (as there are other bowlers in the team) but they must be able to win games for their captain.

The nature of the game is that you eill have good days and bad days. Everyone will take 0 in an innings at some point. However, the good ones take advantage of their better days and take a bagfull.

A good bowler must run through opposition on occasion. Thats why they are good. They can take wickets and in bunches.

Show me 1 good specialist test bowler that has never taken 5 or more wickets in an innings (let alone FC)?To prove your point I want to see someone (minumum preferably with a couple more examples) with 0. Not 1 or 2 or 3 fifers, zero.

For bonus points, show me 1 good specialist test bowler that has never taken a fifer at any FC level as well. Just like you were defending Ngam over.

Its how bowlers win games. Good bowlers are the main actors rather than the bit part players you hanker after.

Top 20 Bowlers
Tests - Most 5 Wickets in an Innings

M Muralitharan
SK Warne
RJ Hadlee
A Kumble
GD McGrath
IT Botham
Wasim Akram
SF Barnes
DK Lillee
Imran Khan
N Kapil Dev
MD Marshall
Waqar Younis
CEL Ambrose
CA Walsh
CV Grimmett
AA Donald
Harbhajan Singh
LR Gibbs
FS Trueman

Not many bad bowlers on that list.

Being able to destroy a batting lineup when you are on form is what being a good bowler is all about.

And you can say the same thing about the top wicket-takers and top averages lists.

FCOL, am I saying that Ngam is unquestionably going to be a Test-class bowler of the top echleon? No, I've long since given-up on him. I'd be interested to know how many people who ended-up having good Test careers hadn't taken a First-Class 5-for before they were picked, I'm absolutely certain there will have been a few. Because that's what I'm talking about - 2000\01, not now.

As for not-knowing-about-this-game - I'd think it'd be pretty straightforward to say you don't need bowlers who're going to take 5, 6 and 7-fors if you've got a decent attack. Hell, you're not going to get the chance if the rest of the attack are sufficiently good. To take a 7-wicket haul, for instance, almost invariably requires the rest of the attack to bowl utter nonsense or at very least be unlucky with dropped catches etc.

Bowling teams out is about attacks taking 10 wickets cheaply, not one bowler taking X number.

Oh, and if you consistently take 3-50-odd or 4-70-odd, you're one hell of a lot more than a "bit-part bowler".

 

[Goughy]

As for not-knowing-about-this-game - I'd think it'd be pretty straightforward to say you don't need bowlers who're going to take 5, 6 and 7-fors if you've got a decent attack. Hell, you're not going to get the chance if the rest of the attack are sufficiently good. To take a 7-wicket haul, for instance, almost invariably requires the rest of the attack to bowl utter nonsense or at very least be unlucky with dropped catches etc.

And thats the bit Im talking about not understanding this game.

Good bowlers, on a good day will take lots of wickets. All bowlers on a bad day will take zero wickets. If you are relying on all of your bowling team to perform and take wickets everyday then you have no chance.

What is essential is an attack to have a number of bowlers capable of turning it on when on a good day and covering the slack of those unlucky or having a bad game.

The Aussies have been great because they have had McGrath and Warne that are capable of destroying you on their own and taking turns doing it. They dont need everyone firing to be a success. 1 man can carry the load and bring the victory home.

 

[James90]

As for not-knowing-about-this-game - I'd think it'd be pretty straightforward to say you don't need bowlers who're going to take 5, 6 and 7-fors if you've got a decent attack. Hell, you're not going to get the chance if the rest of the attack are sufficiently good. To take a 7-wicket haul, for instance, almost invariably requires the rest of the attack to bowl utter nonsense or at very least be unlucky with dropped catches etc.

Total rubbish. Laker's 19 wickets were taken with Tony Lock bowling at the other end.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Total rubbish. Laker's 19 wickets were taken with Tony Lock bowling at the other end.

TBF quite a few contemporary reports suggest that Laker's 19-90 was almost as much Lock's failure as Laker's success. Lock, always a temperamental soul, lost his rag somewhat and ended up pushing the ball through at medium pace on perhaps the ultimate sticky dog.

 

[Craig]

Let's try and get it back on topic.

So judging by the posts a white player in SA has to be scoring runs like Ponting or taking wickets like Clark or Warne just to get a gig over a guy who is rubbish but has a different skin colour.

I'm probably totally wrong and I don't claim to be an expert on South Africa, but isn't this 'reverse discrimination' that Hingston once mentioned really one big hypocriscy? I sort of feel happy that the stories I have been told of life back in the Old Country from expats haven't all been a load of crap...

 

[TT Boy]

Let's try and get it back on topic.

So judging by the posts a white player in SA has to be scoring runs like Ponting or taking wickets like Clark or Warne just to get a gig over a guy who is rubbish but has a different skin colour.

Clearly evident in the selections of Morne Morkel and Dale Steyn…

 

[Richard]

And thats the bit Im talking about not understanding this game.

Good bowlers, on a good day will take lots of wickets. All bowlers on a bad day will take zero wickets. If you are relying on all of your bowling team to perform and take wickets everyday then you have no chance.

What is essential is an attack to have a number of bowlers capable of turning it on when on a good day and covering the slack of those unlucky or having a bad game.

The Aussies have been great because they have had McGrath and Warne that are capable of destroying you on their own and taking turns doing it. They dont need everyone firing to be a success. 1 man can carry the load and bring the victory home.

And if you get the chance when you're good enough, you'll do so.

How many First-Class games had Ngam played in up to 1999\2000? I'd bet not that many. Therefore it's perfectly conceivable that he'd not had a real chance to bowl well enough with the rest being poor enough not to take a 5-for.

Of course good bowlers will take lots of wickets sometimes - find where I said you need to rely on all your bowlers to take all the wickets all the time? I said that's the ideal situation. And I said if that happens, you won't get many bowlers taking 5-fors nor will you need to.

However, IN TIME good bowlers WILL play sufficient numbers of games to have days when they carry the attack. Therefore, they'll take 5-wicket bags.

 

[Richard]

Total rubbish. Laker's 19 wickets were taken with Tony Lock bowling at the other end.

Have you missed the fact that near enough everyone said Lock was going totally wrong and firing it in too flat?

 

[Poker Boy]

Hmmm, seven non-whites out of 15? The interesting point is IMO there are eight whites who are certainties - Smith, AB, Pollock, Kallis, Nel, Kemp, Hall and Boucher. Abandon hope all other whites? To be fair Gibbs, Ntini and Prince are certainties too and you could pick Robin Peterson as a spinner who bats so the quota won't weaken the First XI (but if they pick, say, Bosman - who is not good enough IMO - to fill a quota they better pray they don't get injuries)

 

[nightprowler10]

Total rubbish. Laker's 19 wickets were taken with Tony Lock bowling at the other end.

TBF quite a few contemporary reports suggest that Laker's 19-90 was almost as much Lock's failure as Laker's success. Lock, always a temperamental soul, lost his rag somewhat and ended up pushing the ball through at medium pace on perhaps the ultimate sticky dog.

A better example would be that test where Sarafaz (the original) took 9 wickets against Australia with Imran bowling at the other end.

 

[nexxus]

To be an idjit, and totally bring up something that was mentioned on the 1st page. There's nobody who can take a look at Amla's 1st class record and say he didn't at least deserve a fair shot at the side.

I don't think that squad is far off the best SA can produce. My only hope is that that Ontong doesn't somehow finnagle his way into the squad.

 

[Goughy]

To be an idjit, and totally bring up something that was mentioned on the 1st page. There's nobody who can take a look at Amla's 1st class record and say he didn't at least deserve a fair shot at the side.

I don't think that squad is far off the best SA can produce. My only hope is that that Ontong doesn't somehow finnagle his way into the squad.

Funnily enough, I actually agree with you about Amla and test cricket. He deserved his opporunity now and worked hard for it. When it was first given to him I dont think he was ready but I have little issue with his current selection.

Despite improving, I think we can all agree he should not be close to the ODI side (and isnt)

 

[wpdavid]

I can't believe someone's brought up this one again after the fun & games in its previous appearance. Anyway, here's a few thoughts ...

Dunno about Ngam's domestic record, but in the few tests he played before injuries kicked in he was tremendous. You couldn't really say he didn't justify his selection, tbh.

For all the fuss about the non-whites who supposedly didn't deserve selection, there's been a fair few whites who've been thoroughly moderate as well, so I'm not 100% convinced about all these deserving candidates who never got a look in. Even now, if Nel is one of the best quicks available to SA, then standards really can't be that high.

Without denying the existance of quotas, which would be plain daft, the word does get overused: i.e. any nonwhite who doesn't immediately perform like Ponting or McGrath. Prince is a good case in point - regularly rubbished by one or two guys, but pretty crucial to the side now.

Occasionally there's just duff selections. Obviously Langveldt should have been picked ahead of Steyn in 2004/5, and that probably cost SA the series against England. Selectors don't always get it right, and it's not always political, even in SA. Which isn't to deny the political interference that undoubtedly exists. But, in reality, they've been able to regularly pick enough nonwhites on merit to get them to their targets and, beyond that, the standard of players coming through of all hues seems to be much of a muchness. Yes, of course there was Ontong being picked for a dead rubber ahead of Rudolph. And, hand on heart, I couldn't argue with Langveldt about Tsolekile & Peterson, but beyond that the situation in tests isn't nearly as bad as some would paint it.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Is Langeveldt one of these people who is 'coloured'?

 

[TT Boy]

Is Langeveldt one of these people who is 'coloured'?

Yeap, his a 'cape coloured'.