***Official*** South Africa in England

[Briony]

It'd be far more accurate to say that Kent poached McLaren from whichever SAfrican franchise he was playing for last year. They were only able to do that because of a ruling which has now been regarded as errant.

If McLaren goes back to SA he'll be going back where he belongs.

It's SA's fault that he went to Kent in the first place. They have a flawed selection policy, hence lose some of their best talent. Rudolph is another. Young Kieswetter and Malan who represented them at under 19 level have also committed their futures to England. It seems there's a lack of patriotism among SA cricketers or maybe they just see how much better off KP has been since he made the decision to defect.

Flintoff probably is the world's best slipper. Hayden is good as well.

 

[Richard]

Huh? I don't follow.

I believe all-rounder is just an abbreviation of all-round cricketer. Saying that its meaning has now evolved to mean only batting and bowling is a technicality, and it's one for the linguists to debate. Not me.

Nah - an all-round cricketer to me describes taking into account everything you could wish for - bowling, fielding, batting, captaincy, off-field squeaky-cleanness - the ole kaboodle.

All-rounder, to me, is simply someone roughly equal in batting and bowling skills. It refers to nothing else. Not wicketkeeper-batsmen, not good fielders - nothing but batting and bowling.

 

[Richard]

It's SA's fault that he went to Kent in the first place. They have a flawed selection policy, hence lose some of their best talent. Rudolph is another. Young Kieswetter and Malan who represented them at under 19 level have also committed their futures to England. It seems there's a lack of patriotism among SA cricketers or maybe they just see how much better off KP has been since he made the decision to defect.

So then - how does that make taking something back which is yours poaching?

Regardless of the reasons McLaren and others are lost to SA (and it's certainly not a black-and-white case) to attempt to lure him (and maybe Rudolph) back is simply taking back what should never have been lost.

And but for an errant understanding of a ruling (ie, the Kolpak one), virtually none of this would ever have happened. Though Kieswetter has British ancestry and Malan happened by chance to have been born in Britain.

 

[Briony]

So then - how does that make taking something back which is yours poaching?

Regardless of the reasons McLaren and others are lost to SA (and it's certainly not a black-and-white case) to attempt to lure him (and maybe Rudolph) back is simply taking back what should never have been lost.

And but for an errant understanding of a ruling (ie, the Kolpak one), virtually none of this would ever have happened. Though Kieswetter has British ancestry and Malan happened by chance to have been born in Britain.

The last two did play junior and first class cricket in SA though so again it is an indictment on them to lose so many players. Roy also has British ancestry but you don't see him jumping ship.

To me the definition of a good all-rounder, or a bona fide all-rounder, is one who could maintain is place in the side by virtue of his ability in both disciplines - batting and bowling. Most very good all-rounders seem to be good fieldsmen anyway.

 

[Richard]

The last two did play junior and first class cricket in SA though so again it is an indictment on them to lose so many players. Roy also has British ancestry but you don't see him jumping ship.

Again - what has this to do with the fact that there's precisely nothing wrong with offering a reward to a player to try to reverse his decision to jump ship?

To me the definition of a good all-rounder, or a bona fide all-rounder, is one who could maintain is place in the side by virtue of his ability in both disciplines - batting and bowling. Most very good all-rounders seem to be good fieldsmen anyway.

Such players are once-in-a-blue-moon. For mine, you can get good all-rounders and poor all-rounders. Dougie Brown was certainly an all-rounder, but he wasn't good enough to play international cricket as a specialist with either discipline.

 

[Richard]

And BTW, with this tour now finished, shouldn't this thread be un-topped? Ditto the Aus-Ban one?

Always wanted to see what CC would look like without a single topped thread.

 

[Briony]

My point about Roy is that SA seems to have much more trouble than us hanging on to its players. The English carrot was dangled in front of Roy but he preferred to be loyal to us. South Africans don't seem to be a very patriotic lot and playing for their country isn't as important as for players of other nations. It's a shame because it affects the balance of world cricket. Imagine if KP was playing for SA. He would probably be captain right now and the Proteas' leading batsman.

 

[BoyBrumby]

My point about Roy is that SA seems to have much more trouble than us hanging on to its players. The English carrot was dangled in front of Roy but he preferred to be loyal to us. South Africans don't seem to be a very patriotic lot and playing for their country isn't as important as for players of other nations. It's a shame because it affects the balance of world cricket. Imagine if KP was playing for SA. He would probably be captain right now and the Proteas' leading batsman.

To be fair, Symonds did actually play over here as a non-overseas player at one point (Jaques too as it goes) but it was obvious where both players' real loyalties were.

We aren't short of Aussies playing as non-overseas up here either (Pattinson, Ambrose, Geraint Jones, Stewie Law, Paul Horton, Jason Gallian, Dirk Nannes, Michael Di Venuto & Jim Allenby off the top of my head), obviously nothing like the number of yarps, but that's because for an Australian to be registered as non-overseas he has to hold an EU passport, whereas South Africans can (or could, things are a bit up in the air just now) register as Kolpaks on their SA passports. I bet if Aussies could do the same we'd be similarly inundated.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I bet if Aussies could do the same we'd be similarly inundated.

Soon

 

[Swervy]

Huh? I don't follow.

I believe all-rounder is just an abbreviation of all-round cricketer. Saying that its meaning has now evolved to mean only batting and bowling is a technicality, and it's one for the linguists to debate. Not me.

hehe...welcome to the odd world of Richard's use of the English language.

 

[GIMH]

*Points at the commentary box where Shaun Pollock used to be*

Like the SA ODI team, i am still yet to get over his retirement...


But seriously, Fisherman Symonds is the best ODI all-rounder when you take fielding into consideration. Well, definitely better than Oram. Debateably better than Flintoff.

Depends how we define allrounder I suppose. I've always seen it as somebody who is an international class bowler and batsman and bowls in the frontline 4 or 5. Symonds is the best fielder in the world, though Oram is quite the gully (no idea wrt Flintoff, GIMH will asure me of his fielding prowess no doubt ).

In short, Symonds is too wierd a player to fit in any category so he's excluded.

Kidding (slightly), good player but his category sorts fits inbetween allrounder and batsman who bowls a bit.

Flintoff is one of the best slippers you're likely to see.

Yeah, as Rich has said, Flintoff is awesome at slip. Not the athletic fielder that Symonds is, but as Steve Harmison once said, he has "buckets for hands" at slip, and the value of that should not be underestimated. Symonds is awesome and I'll admit he slipped my mind when considering the top ODI all-rounders; that being said I wouldn't change my mind. Flintoff>Symonds in ODIs tbh. Very good ODI bat and the world's best ODI bowler, whereas Symonds is a very good ODI bat and a handy bowler, who adds a lot in the field.

 

[GIMH]

Regardless of the fact we've won 1 Test against Aus there since 1899 or whenever it is, no-one is ever going to seriously suggest not playing an Ashes Test there. If they do they need to have their loyalties questioned. You can't put it down to much more than coincidence - and the fact that in recent years we've not won that many Tests against them anywhere.

Similarly, I think the "they've bad memories from there" is overrated. You can say someone has bad memories of having lost any game anywhere - apart from the fact most professional cricketers aren't going to be worried by that, there's going to be not-a-few players who weren't even involved in such defeats (be it to Bangladesh or in a Test) in the next series. I really don't think the "they'll have bad memories" should be given the slightest of consideration in handing-out the Tests - the only thing that should matter is the quality of the facitilies and capacity at the ground.

And as I've said before - Lord's' lack of results would be very different if lost play could be made-up. It's probable to certain that the last 5 before the most recent one against SA would've had results had a full 450 overs been played. And who knows - with better weather to prepare the wicket for the most recent game, maybe there'd have been a result there too.

Yeah, for sure some of those Lord's games would have had results but for the weather. My point was aimed at them getting two Tests a year, I would never ever ever suggest that we should take the Ashes away from the home of cricket. Just that there are seven Tests a year and we should play them at seven different venues. Really really ****s me that Lord's gets two.

 

[aussie]

I see SA coach is trying to get back some of the Kolpak players. From a cricketening perspective i'd hope he he is successful, since the situation is pretty irritating. The ODI team would definately look powerful with something like:

Smith
Gibbs
Kallis
De Villiers
Kemp
Boucher
Morkel
Van Der Wath
McLaren
Botha
Steyn

Immediate Back-up from Hall, Nel, Dumminy, Amla

 

[The Masterplan]

Are you crazy

 

[Richard]

I see SA coach is trying to get back some of the Kolpak players. From a cricketening perspective i'd hope he he is successful, since the situation is pretty irritating. The ODI team would definately look powerful with something like:

Smith
Gibbs
Kallis
De Villiers
Kemp
Boucher
Morkel
Van Der Wath
McLaren
Botha
Steyn

Immediate Back-up from Hall, Nel, Dumminy, Amla

Van der Wath and McLaren are both players with a notable preference for the First-Class game over the one-day. Neither are very good at OD cricket and van der Wath has already been a failure in ODIs. Also he's played in the ICL so his international days are over and he's said as much. Likewise, Hall will never play again and frankly it's a good thing - he was never that good (like McLaren and van der Wath, much better in the longer format) and he's too old for WC2011 now too.

Kemp though is a big loss and I'd love to see him back. Sadly, he too has played ICL so won't be playing for SA again. While Kolpak contracts can be backed-out of, the ICL is a bridges-burnt situation. Once you've made that decision, there's no going back.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, for sure some of those Lord's games would have had results but for the weather. My point was aimed at them getting two Tests a year, I would never ever ever suggest that we should take the Ashes away from the home of cricket. Just that there are seven Tests a year and we should play them at seven different venues. Really really ****s me that Lord's gets two.

Well it was oft no different in the days when we had six a year, remember. I don't particularly like it but apparently MCC do and it's quite important for them. So they won't be giving the two up just because it'd be better for other grounds.

What's best for the game overall is a difficult question. One should not underestimate the importance of a strong MCC to the game in this country, quaint though it may seem. Though it goes without saying that being deprived of a Test per season in places like Nottingham and to a lesser extent Manchester where it's become something they're used to has a huge dampening effect on the area.

 

[Richard]

Soon

Nah. You seem to have missed it judging by some of your recent posts, but the Kolpak ruling has been amended - it no longer applies to labour but purely to trade, as was originally intended. Soon the overseas-player-playing-as-a-non-overseas-player should be a thing of the past (apart from those who have EU passports).

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Nah. You seem to have missed it judging by some of your recent posts, but the Kolpak ruling has been amended - it no longer applies to labour but purely to trade, as was originally intended. Soon the overseas-player-playing-as-a-non-overseas-player should be a thing of the past (apart from those who have EU passports).

Umm i guess i must have. I knew they were talking about amending the law with the EU regulators but never knew it had actually gone through.

 

[Richard]

My point about Roy is that SA seems to have much more trouble than us hanging on to its players. The English carrot was dangled in front of Roy but he preferred to be loyal to us. South Africans don't seem to be a very patriotic lot and playing for their country isn't as important as for players of other nations. It's a shame because it affects the balance of world cricket. Imagine if KP was playing for SA. He would probably be captain right now and the Proteas' leading batsman.

To be fair, Symonds did actually play over here as a non-overseas player at one point (Jaques too as it goes) but it was obvious where both players' real loyalties were.

That's just the point though - although they may have played as non-overseas players, when forced to make the choice (as England selectors wisely did promptly in both cases) they had no doubts. This is wholly different to the likes of McLaren and Rudolph (Trott and Pietersen is more debateable as they both have British heritage and had accomplished nothing of note in SA before moving) who have originally been hoping to (and in the latter's case succeding in) play for South Africa then switching allegiances.

We aren't short of Aussies playing as non-overseas up here either (Pattinson, Ambrose, Geraint Jones, Stewie Law, Paul Horton, Jason Gallian, Dirk Nannes, Michael Di Venuto & Jim Allenby off the top of my head)

Many of these cases have little in common, whereas there are a number of former SAfricans who've deliberately left SA behind and aimed for England qualification. None of the above Australians fit such a category.

None of Geraint Jones, Ambrose, Gallian or Horton are really Aussies - they may have been born there but their schooling and growing-up has been done as much as or more than over here. All have or may well in future represent England.

Nannes and Allenby simply have British passports of convenience and will obviously never play for England (or Australia) - they're not good enough for either. Pattinson should also fit that category, but well... thanks to the infinite wisdom of the England selectors, he doesn't.

Law and di Venuto are ageing Aussies who've finished their state careers and have utilised British citizenship-claiming and an EU passport respectively to aid their counties by playing as non-overseas players. Were they younger and still with aspirations to play for Australia again, they'd not be doing so.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

None of Geraint Jones, Ambrose, Gallian or Horton are really Aussies - they may have been born there but their schooling and growing-up has been done as much as or more than over here. All have or may well in future represent England.

I was under the impression Gallian was a u19 star for Australia and they were pretty pissed off when he switched to England. Bet they arent that bothered about it now mind I'd say as he learnt his cricket in Australia that makes him Australian myself. It wasnt the English system that produced him, just made him ****