South Africa & Quotas

[Richard]

Are you actually South African-bred?

Because it's unusual in my experience for someone who isn't to feel so palpably strongly about the issue.

EDIT: lucky I didn't quote you there! Though I don't see any reason you should feel compelled to edit it out - I for one am glad I read that, it tells you a good deal about quite a few things.

 

[pasag]

EDIT

Yes Goughy, we have to endlessly read on about your expertise, how noone else can say anything on a matter, how everyone should just be quite and listen to you. Well I for one am not going to go around blindly trusting any random person on the internet who claims to be so omnipresent yet rarely shows it.

Whilst I can understand the anger in your response, heaven knows I've written one or two responses in anger in the past few days, perhaps it would be better if you calmly explain to him why he was wrong instead of lashing out.

When I started this thread I had in mind that you'd feature heavily in it, but I didn't expect you to go around telling people to stfu if they had any other opinion that differed from your own.

edit: I see you've deleted your post so i'll delete this one as soon as you read it, unless someone quotes it.

 

[adharcric]

EDIT

Should I pretend that you never typed any of that?

Look, I expressed my opinion regarding this issue based on what I've observed - there have been a few strange inclusions of "colored" cricketers over the years but not as many as one would expect after reading your portrayal of the quota system. You have Peterson, Kruger, Tsolekile - none of whom really lasted long - and then Amla, who you yourself admitted deserved a call-up on merit. You are the expert and I am the outsider, fully agreed. Yet when you respond to my (potentially misinformed) statement with condescending personal attacks rather than a justification of your view, that won't exactly make me agree with you. If you are an expert, you should be educating me rather than attacking me simply because I disagree with you. I expected far better than that from a respected poster like you.

 

[Goughy]

Yes Goughy, we have to endlessly read on about your expertise, how noone else can say anything on a matter, how everyone should just be quite and listen to you. Well I for one am not going to go around blindly trusting any random person on the internet who claims to be so omnipresent yet rarely shows it.

Whilst I can understand the anger in your response, heaven knows I've written one or two responses in anger in the past few days, perhaps it would be better if you calmly explain to him why he was wrong instead of lashing out.

When I started this thread I had in mind that you'd feature heavily in it, but I didn't expect you to go around telling people to stfu if they had any other opinion that differed from your own.

edit: I see you've deleted your post so i'll delete this one as soon as you read it, unless someone quotes it.

On this topic, I fail to see why I should be told others know more when they obviously dont. When it comes down to certain things on this topic it is no longer a matter of opinion, it is fact.

It is difficult to take when people with limited knowledge throw blase statements around about a serious situation.

How many times do you want me to explain? Ive tried the best I can a number of times. Ive obviously failed in that regard as the situation has been addressed on too many occasions already.

 

[Richard]

Yes Goughy, we have to endlessly read on about your expertise, how noone else can say anything on a matter, how everyone should just be quite and listen to you. Well I for one am not going to go around blindly trusting any random person on the internet who claims to be so omnipresent yet rarely shows it.

Whilst I can understand the anger in your response, heaven knows I've written one or two responses in anger in the past few days, perhaps it would be better if you calmly explain to him why he was wrong instead of lashing out.

When I started this thread I had in mind that you'd feature heavily in it, but I didn't expect you to go around telling people to stfu if they had any other opinion that differed from your own.

edit: I see you've deleted your post so i'll delete this one as soon as you read it, unless someone quotes it.

Too late, pal...

I will defend his right to be angry on this issue - quite clearly, it is something some people feel is one hell of an injustice (Kevin Pietersen, for example) and frankly anger is the best response a human-being can muster to injustice. That's likely to be magnified if (like our Goughy and KP) you're particularly closely involved with those perceived to be suffering because of it.

No amount of priority-giving will EVER change the fact that blacks, coloureds, etc. suffered in the past, and putting more injustices in the inverse will not undo the suffering that was incurred. It could, potentially, make matters even worse - the two-wrongs-don't-make-a thingy.

I have virtually no involvement with said issues, but have experienced those close to me being put through similar injustices for no good reason and it IS immensely frustrating. Hell, even reading books on American racism in the 1930s (or watching films like Mississippi Burning) can get my blood boiling! Lashing-out at relatively innocent bystanders is not a totally-un-understandible reaction.

 

[Goughy]

Are you actually South African-bred?

Because it's unusual in my experience for someone who isn't to feel so palpably strongly about the issue.

EDIT: lucky I didn't quote you there! Though I don't see any reason you should feel compelled to edit it out - I for one am glad I read that, it tells you a good deal about quite a few things.

Hell, no. Cant wait to leave to be honest.

I feel strongly about the situation because

a) People dont want to know and put their head in the sand (always magnifies my feelings)

b) Its not good for SA cricket with the quotas at all levels and ages cutting the talent available to franchises and the national team.

c) Ive seen too many people negatively affected by it. Children crying because they are told they are not selected because they are white and young pros have their careers take a severe beating due to the opportunities not being there.

d) It is being implimented and backed by more extreme ANC leaders with no interest in cricket or Cricket SAs well being but on points scoring.

 

[pasag]

On this topic, I fail to see why I should be told others know more when they obviously dont. When it comes down to certain things on this topic it is no longer a matter of opinion, it is fact.

It is difficult to take when people with limited knowledge throw blase statements around about a serious situation.

How many times do you want me to explain? Ive tried the best I can a number of times. Ive obviously failed in that regard as the situation has been addressed on too many occasions already.

.......

I don't see why your opinion of a situation is fact. No matter how many times you say it, it wont make it so. If you were so well versed in the matter it wouldn't be hard to rattle off a quick response at the most telling him why he's wrong. Lashing out at him, even though you've deleted it was a disgrace imo.

Funny thing was, I saw adharcric’s post and I was looking forward a detailed explanation of the SA system to prove him wrong from yourself. How wrong I was.

And I know exactly how you feel, there's a topic or two where I have easily the most expertise over anyone on CW, but if I went around telling people to shut up every time they voiced their opinions on the said topic, I'd come off as a prick, which I did and which you certainly did.

 

[Richard]

Hell, no. Cant wait to leave to be honest.

I feel strongly about the situation because

a) People dont want to know and put their head in the sand (always magnifies my feelings)

b) Its not good for SA cricket with the quotas at all levels and ages cutting the talent available to franchises and the national team.

c) Ive seen too many people negatively affected by it. Children crying because they are told they are not selected because they are white and young pros have their careers take a severe beating due to the opportunities not being there.

d) It is being implimented and backed by more extreme ANC leaders with no interest in cricket or Cricket SAs well being but on points scoring.

That third one is what I'd imagined had the strongest influence on your ideas on the matter.

 

[adharcric]

Priceless.

Maybe I should not have edited this and left my original response up. It was a lot longer and nowhere near as polite as the below.

The 1st post roughly talking about the great knowledge of the subject certain people bring to the table that are sitting thousands of miles away and have no interaction with the SA system in the slightest. Its incredible that they have any understanding given how divorced they are...oh wait. The arrogance they possess to accuse myself (coach, player, cricket administrator, sports developer in SA) someone with a massive indepth knowledge on the subject of exaggeration. Obviously implying that they know more about the topic.

You know what, at the end of the day it doesn't matter what people like yourself think (and you certainly dont have to post it). We are at the coal face of SA cricket development and making strides in improvements. We are also knowledgable about certain issues. Its a shame yourself and others are ignorant about things and refuse to learn, but hey we will just keep on keeping on and continue making a substantial investment in cricket in SA.

Wow. Just because I'm not an "expert" on this subject, I have no right to express my view on it? If you have any sense of humility, you (as an expert) should be educating me on this subject. You think I'm being arrogant? If you were offended by me calling your views "exaggerated", rest assured that it's not a personal attack but rather my observation based on my limited knowledge of SA cricket. Finally, you accuse me of "refusing to learn". FFS, that's what I'm trying to do here: learn about something I'm not an expert on. If you think it's a waste of time to spread your supreme knowledge to the ignorant, go for it. By the way, I'd like to apologize for any insulting tone you might have found in my original post ... of course, that might not make a difference seeing as my other post didn't.

 

[pasag]

Too late, pal...

I will defend his right to be angry on this issue - quite clearly, it is something some people feel is one hell of an injustice (Kevin Pietersen, for example) and frankly anger is the best response a human-being can muster to injustice. That's likely to be magnified if (like our Goughy and KP) you're particularly closely involved with those perceived to be suffering because of it.

No amount of priority-giving will EVER change the fact that blacks, coloureds, etc. suffered in the past, and putting more injustices in the inverse will not undo the suffering that was incurred. It could, potentially, make matters even worse - the two-wrongs-don't-make-a thingy.

I have virtually no involvement with said issues, but have experienced those close to me being put through similar injustices for no good reason and it IS immensely frustrating. Hell, even reading books on American racism in the 1930s (or watching films like Mississippi Burning) can get my blood boiling! Lashing-out at relatively innocent bystanders is not a totally-un-understandible reaction.

I agree he has the right to be angry, but on an internet forum as a matter of fact in any method of communication, a cool level headed response is always a million times greater than a petty outburst and I feel an apology is due imo and mo only

 

[adharcric]

It seems this is a sensitive issue for you and you have plenty of personal experience with it. In that case, I understand that you are so incensed at it.
Nevertheless, you should be educating me on this by now.

 

[Jono]

And I know exactly how you feel, there's a topic or two where I have easily the most expertise over anyone on CW, but if I went around telling people to shut up every time they voiced their opinions on the said topic, I'd come off as a prick, which I did and which you certainly did.

I'll never debate about masturbation with you again.





Just trying to lighten the mood

 

[Richard]

I agree he has the right to be angry, but on an internet forum as a matter of fact in any method of communication, a cool level headed response is always a million times greater than a petty outburst and I feel an apology is due imo and mo only

Hmm...

I'm a pretty outburst-ish type myself (and have had one very similar exchange to this) so I don't neccessarily feel that a cool-headed response is always for the best.

If you do, full kudos to you for being able to practice such a thing.

 

[Goughy]

.......

I don't see why your opinion of a situation is fact. No matter how many times you say it, it wont make it so. If you were so well versed in the matter it wouldn't be hard to rattle off a quick response at the most telling him why he's wrong. Lashing out at him, even though you've deleted it was a disgrace imo.

And the point of a detailed response would be what? Ive tried on a number of occasions with little result. The point as well, is that it isnt my opinion I am mentioning. That is why I call it fact, because that is what is happening. There is little opinion from myself just (I was hoping) insight into how things are run and done.

When a policy like this is implimented, arguing over a certain player is opinion or whether they were included purely for their colour is opinion. That the system exists, how it is implimented, that white players have to be left out etc is fact.

.......

And I know exactly how you feel, there's a topic or two where I have easily the most expertise over anyone on CW, but if I went around telling people to shut up every time they voiced their opinions on the said topic, I'd come off as a prick, which I did and which you certainly did.

Its quite obvious Im quite angry at the moment and feel strongly about the subject and I certainly was not complimentory in my post but I certainly I did not stoop to calling anyone a prick.

 

[pasag]

Hmm...

I'm a pretty outburst-ish type myself (and have had one very similar exchange to this) so I don't neccessarily feel that a cool-headed response is always for the best.

If you do, full kudos to you for being able to practice such a thing.

I don't always, I wish I did. As I said, I replied in a similar poor style a couple of days ago and it was a disgrace and so is this. From what I've read you're one of the best posters in this regard where people 'attack' you - I've seen that a few times in the past few days - and you just respond to the topic at hand without going down to their level.

And the point of a detailed response would be what? Ive done it on a number of occasions with little result. The point as well, is that it isnt my opinion I am mentioning. That is why I call it fact because that is what is happening. There is little opinion from myself just insight into how things are run and done.

When a policy like this is implimented, agruing over a certain player is opinion or whether they were included purely for their colour is opinion, that the system exists, how it is implimented, that white players have to be left out is fact.

Lol and again, if your not prepared to give a detailed response,, an argument or a rebuttal, ignore the post, make a witty one-liner whatever. Abusing him however, is definitely not something that is expected from a member as respected as yourself. Furthermore I am not so stupid as to blindly follow whatever some random person on the internet tells me as to what is happening there. I do trust you though, but for you to expect that people should take what you say as fact, end of conversation is dire to say the least.

Its quite obvious Im quite angry at the moment and feel strongly about the subject and I certainly was not complimentory in my post but I certainly I did not stoop to calling anyone a prick.

Yes, in your response which you conveniently deleted, you came off as a prick. That's the way I see it and I make no apologies for calling it that way. Perhaps you should step away from the computer and comeback later when you're not in such a foul mood, before you do any more damage. Just some advice which you are more than welcome to dismiss.

I'll never debate about masturbation with you again.




Just trying to lighten the mood

 

[Richard]

I don't always, I wish I did. As I said, I replied in a similar poor style a couple of days ago and it was a disgrace and so is this. From what I've read you're one of the best posters in this regard where people 'attack' you - I've seen that a few times in the past few days - and you just respond to the topic at hand without going down to their level.

I do seem to get credited with such a thing quite a bit (SJS used to say that a lot), which does sometimes surprise me a little. Maybe it's because I'm more inclined to "anyone who thought X was clearly a dunce of the highest order" rather than "you're a dunce of the highest order for thinking X".

As I mentioned, though, I do occasionally fly off the handle if the discussion moves to something beyond cricket, which is hugely important but not as important as various other social injustices. There was one for me in that Hansie Cronje Movie thread, and one for Goughy here. At least he can't be accused of taking yet another thread off title-topic the way I so often am.

 

[Goughy]

My final thoughts on the matter.

I have learnt a lot from listening to people on here.

There are many subjects I dont touch as I have limited or no knowledge of them.

Learning from other members about issues (as an example) such as the lack of access to club cricket, equipment and coaching as an explanation for why India is unable to exploit its huge population is all part of the education process and this board has taught me a lot.

I would never be so presumptous to call out and challenge (for example an Indian forum member in the above example) on a topic I knew little and was gaining additional information from listening to.

I wouldnt call into question posts on topics without an indepth, or at least working, knowledge on the topic myself.

There are so many things, just sitting back and reading, I can learn from here. As such I feel it is appropriate to limit critical comments to those areas I feel I can contribute to or know about, and listen and learn at other times.

I may be vocal in a number of areas, but I certainly do not post across all threads as there are a lot other forum members that know far more about many topics than me and as such I feel it is always best to respect and listen to their more local knowledge.

I understand I came off as aggressive, to which I probably regret at a later stage, but I dont understand the process of expressing an contradictory opinion on a topic when little is know to a poster about about the subject.

The 1 thing I will apologise for is that the post seemed to be explicitly directed at an individual forum member. That wasn't the intent. My reply was prompted by that post but it was intended to address a group within the thread rather than a specific individual.

 

[adharcric]

Do you still remember my original post?

A quota system is clearly in action in South Africa but I think it's impact is being exaggerated in here.

That was clearly an opinion and I expected you to respond with a proper argument as to why your view is the reality and not an exaggeration. It turns out you were enraged because I was terribly wrong and this is a sensitive issue. I apologized, acknowledged my ignorance, apologized again, acknowledged that I understand your anger, apologized again and yet you don't seem to be influenced one bit. Am I wasting my time waiting for a reasonable response from you?

EDIT: I fully agree with your approach of not butting in where you are not an expert and that's the approach I adopt as well. I merely questioned your views because you previously didn't give me any reasoning when I questioned you earlier in this thread. I have my areas of expertise and my sensitive issues but I don't (or at least try not to) erupt on those who are ignorant and merely question my views.

 

[Richard]

I'll never debate about masturbation with you again.





Just trying to lighten the mood

Jono, you naughty boy, how dare you type such a word on this forum...

.... see also ....

 

[Goughy]

Do you still remember my original post?

That was clearly an opinion and I expected you to respond with a proper argument as to why your view is the reality and not an exaggeration. It turns out you were enraged because I was terribly wrong and this is a sensitive issue. I apologized, acknowledged my ignorance, apologized again, acknowledged that I understand your anger, apologized again and yet you don't seem to be influenced one bit. Am I wasting my time waiting for a reasonable response from you?

All of those black players were given a chance but most of them (Ontong, Peterson, Ngam, Zondeki) aren't in the World Cup scheme of things.
Amla and Prince are only in the test side and Duminy is in neither. Do you really think they'll drop established players just to achieve that "target"? I don't.

Smith, de Villiers, Gibbs, Kallis, Kemp, Boucher, Pollock, Ntini, Nel, Langeveldt, Hall
Those eleven are certain selections IMO. Bosman > Dippenear according to you, but that was due to the latter's CT failures. Which other black players will suddenly pop in?

You are quite free to think what you want, you would be wrong though.

It doesnt matter which non-white players pop in. The fact is they will.

It pointless me debating what is fact.

After re-reading the thread, I will certainly state that my response reads incredibly aggressive there. Unlike the one this morning, it was not meant to be.

I used short, to the point sentances to try an convey a message of 'its already done' and there is nothing that can be done to change it, rather than being nasty. In SA targets are mandated and they are met apart from in the most extreme circumstances.

To be more expansive.

The targets that are set will be met. If it means leaving out a better white player for a lesser non-white then so be it. The players will be found from somewhere. Obviously it would help everyone and make life easier if there were enough non-white players good enough, but that is unlikely to be the case by the time of the WC.

As with the 30 man squad there are 14 non-whites. Of those 30, 7 will go. This was mandated in a target 2 years ago and will be met (to within 1 either way)

I know the word target will mean just that to most. But in SA it is quota without using the word quota. In the same way governments changed the name of their Ministry for War to The Ministry for Defence a number of years ago, it just sounds better and less aggressive.

In SA sports, targets are met. There is no exception unless there are very special circumstances. So the targets for non-whites in Franchise cricket are set and then met, as they are in junior cricket and as they are in national cricket.

I guess the misunderstanding revolves around the word target. However, SA sports targets are not like the ones we say eg My target is to lose 10 lbs by Easter etc. The targets are defined and expected to be met with no regard for the impact on standard.

The word target is used but it is really hardline quotas by a different name and being ushered in through the backdoor.

I hope that explains things a little. There is a lot to more the subject though