***Official*** South Africa in England

[Richard]

If you're referring to overcoming adversity with regards to leaving cricket South Africa, he's not done anything a lot of other Kolpaks have done.

Hmm, no Kopak-contract players have yet done what Pietersen did - and Pietersen came to the UK well before the Kolpak ruling (which was made in late 2004). The only other South African in recent times to qualify for England is Jonathan Trott, and I can't remember whether he's an ex-EU-passport player or like Pietersen half British half South African.

Most Kolpak players have no interest in qualifying for England and simply want the high wage-packed that county cricket offers. There's nothing wrong with this of course because money talks and to turn it down is borderline insanity, but it doesn't serve either country's cricket well.

I think McLaren and Rudolph may be on the road to England qualification, but they're not there yet and we wait to see whether they will do.

 

[Richard]

Oooh, that's going against your grain for sure.

The line following the one you bolded shows it's not TBH.

 

[zaremba]

An example was in his first Test, really; the side was in absolute disarray but with him being in the position to be England's saviour, he looked the only player in charge. Just get the feeling he loves the contest so much that when the game or series is no longer in doubt, he loses his motivation a little.

This may be right. However I don't think it matters much. The time to show your character and produce great performances is when the result is still in doubt, so that your contribution has a chance of having a decisive effect. And it is here - in the difficult but not yet hopeless situations - that KP has shown his quality.

p.s. hats off for the casual use of the word "comorbid" btw!

 

[Richard]

Followed by a big leg-side wide, shocking over. Is it the case that South Africa can't drop him - because if they did they wouldn't be meeting their quota?

Both Steyn and Morkel should be dropped long before Ntini TBH.

 

[Uppercut]

Averages 45 in the second innings, not too shabby. 4 out of 14 centuries came in the second dig, but as people often say, the first innings is where you score centuries. And his average is still 42 against sides other than Australia & South Africa. Sure, most players who can average 50 against the Aussies should be averaging maybe 55 against others, but tbh give me a player who consistently averages 45-50 in a series and then ups his game against the best, because otherwise we'll have no chance.

Oh he's really good, of course you want him in your team. But he isn't one of the mentally toughest around- otherwise he'd be averaging 70. Being one of the mentally toughest and also one of the most talented and skilful (which he undoubtedly is) is a recipe for things more incredible than Pietersen has achieved.

 

[Richard]

This may be right. However I don't think it matters much. The time to show your character and produce great performances is when the result is still in doubt, so that your contribution has a chance of having a decisive effect. And it is here - in the difficult but not yet hopeless situations - that KP has shown his quality.

While I (and I presume anyone else) would obviously agree that performance when the result is still open to doubt is infinitely more important than when it's effectively decided, the very best players - which Pietersen undoubtedly, rightly, has ambition to be - must perform under all circumstances. If he drops off when the series or match is decided, he loses something, however small, from his CV.

 

[Perm]

I can't fathom how Hashim Amla is playing an ODI game, surely the selectors don't actually rate him as a limited overs batsman? I know he's in the team because of the tennis elbow that Smith picked up, but he shouldn't be in the squad at all. Yet again we see national selectors picking players who aren't suitable to one form of the game but are included because of their prowess in another.

One good season in 2006/07 forms the basis of Amla's claim for an ODI place, and it was only a solid season (430 runs at 43, strike rate of 86) in the context of domestic performances. His brother Ahmed has a better case for an ODI place than he does, but so do several others.

 

[Richard]

Amla is also perhaps the 6th or 7th middle-order batsman to be manufactured into an opener to ensure the opener de Villiers bats in the middle.

 

[GIMH]

Nice this from Prior. Having 4 or 5 balls in a row earlier that he couldn't get out from seem to have kicked him on

 

[Uppercut]

While I (and I presume anyone else) would obviously agree that performance when the result is still open to doubt is infinitely more important than when it's effectively decided, the very best players - which Pietersen undoubtedly, rightly, has ambition to be - must perform under all circumstances. If he drops off when the series or match is decided, he loses something, however small, from his CV.

The problem is, when England really, really needed him to perform in that series, he didn't- first he hit 15 off 4 and edged Kallis behind when England had two days to bat out, then he slogged the non-spinning spinner to mid-on when South Africa were there for the taking. Compare to Smith's two centuries- a match-saving one when the situation looked almost hopeless with six and a bit full sessions to bat out, and an incredible match-winning one of which not much more needs to be said. Couple this with the fact that Smith's really a quite limited test batsman- nowhere near the class of KP- and which player is mentally tougher starts to look blatantly obvious.

 

[GIMH]

It's not like Pietersen has never played a match-saving century though,and countless teams we have seen him hit a big score when wickets have been falling all around him.

Anyway, decent start this. This is what you want from your openers.

 

[Richard]

The problem is, when England really, really needed him to perform in that series, he didn't- first he hit 15 off 4 and edged Kallis behind when England had two days to bat out, then he slogged the non-spinning spinner to mid-on when South Africa were there for the taking. Compare to Smith's two centuries- a match-saving one when the situation looked almost hopeless with six and a bit full sessions to bat out, and an incredible match-winning one of which not much more needs to be said. Couple this with the fact that Smith's really a quite limited test batsman- nowhere near the class of KP- and which player is mentally tougher starts to look blatantly obvious.

What must be remembered is that it's not like his edging Kallis was due to over-aggressive batsmanship, and his playing the shot at Harris was no more than an extension of what he'd been doing for the previous hour - just that it didn't come-off. Would you have said he should've been playing differently all innings? Or are you just saying "you should play aggressively when it comes-off and shouldn't when it doesn't" (ie, hindsight is everything)?

While Smith's two innings, like it or not, both involved a crucial Umpiring let-off.

On another note, SA's ODI bowling post-Pollock is currently utter crap. This is depressing.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

But back to what matters, the cricket, for me he's someone who scores an awful lot of his runs in the first innings of matches when the pressure is off-

You do realise that everyone is going to score more runs in the first innings than in the second innings, because the pitch is by and large easier and they have more time in which to score? Ponting averages 63 in the 1st innings against 48 in the 2nd, Chanderpaul averages 54 in the 1st innings and 40 in the 2nd, Mohammad Yousuf 64 and 42, Graeme Smith 52 and 43. Pietersen averages 54 and 45, does that look terrible in comparison now? How people miss common sense like this is beyond me.

 

[Richard]

Right then Morne, how many no-balls and wides can you avoid?

 

[Richard]

You do realise that everyone is going to score more runs in the first innings than in the second innings, because the pitch is by and large easier and they have more time in which to score? Ponting averages 63 in the 1st innings against 48 in the 2nd, Chanderpaul averages 54 in the 1st innings and 40 in the 2nd, Mohammad Yousuf 64 and 42, Graeme Smith 52 and 43. Pietersen averages 54 and 45, does that look terrible in comparison now? How people miss common sense like this is beyond me.

Also it's just slightly irritating how often people move between saying second-innings and first-innings runs are most important. I've heard stupid calls like only first-innings runs should be counted in your average; then you hear people saying second-innings runs are by far the most important.

Simple truth of the matter is there's no hard-and-fast rule, just like there isn't with whether bowling without any support is easier or more difficult. The best thing is just to treat overall tallies of first-innings and second-innings runs as the same thing.

 

[Richard]

This is shocking stuff.

 

[stumpski]

Looks as if Bell has taken to heart the criticism of his batting in the first match. 50 for him, 77 off ten.

 

[Uppercut]

You do realise that everyone is going to score more runs in the first innings than in the second innings, because the pitch is by and large easier and they have more time in which to score? Ponting averages 63 in the 1st innings against 48 in the 2nd, Chanderpaul averages 54 in the 1st innings and 40 in the 2nd, Mohammad Yousuf 64 and 42, Graeme Smith 52 and 43. Pietersen averages 54 and 45, does that look terrible in comparison now? How people miss common sense like this is beyond me.

I meant the first innings out of 4 tbh. In the 4th innings of matches, he averages 43, compared to Smith's 53, as an example. That is stand-out mental toughness. Smith excels when the pressure to win or save the game is on. Pietersen isn't mentally weak, but he's not "possibly the mentally toughest player around". I'd say the same were someone to suggest Tendulkar was, for similar reasons- with his talent, supreme mental toughness would make an average of over 70 at least.

But thanks for ending your post with a derogatory statement. It really backs up your argument very well.

 

[Days of Grace]

Rubbish Ntini taking some rubbish tap from rubbish Bell ere.

 

[GIMH]

You do realise that everyone is going to score more runs in the first innings than in the second innings, because the pitch is by and large easier and they have more time in which to score? Ponting averages 63 in the 1st innings against 48 in the 2nd, Chanderpaul averages 54 in the 1st innings and 40 in the 2nd, Mohammad Yousuf 64 and 42, Graeme Smith 52 and 43. Pietersen averages 54 and 45, does that look terrible in comparison now? How people miss common sense like this is beyond me.

Pietersen more consistent and averages more in the second dig than everyone except Ponting (Y)

This is awesome. How many times have we seen Ian Bell reach a half-century before 10 overs have gone?