Thousands.. But economic refugees from Zimbabwe don't really count.. There are loads of Brits in South Africa, but in general more whites leave SA than move there.. Economic reasons/Crime, etc. Think many are on one year working visas elsewhere..
Because their longer-term OD records are poor, and van der Wath was poor in the ODIs he played.
Well you can't disagree that their records are poor - that's just the way things are. You can say you think what you happen to have seen is more important, but I think that's a dangerous game as you well know - the whole is a far more reliable thing than odd selected points.
His batting doesn't often come-off though. And it's not like every game was loaded against bowlers. van der Wath went around the park far too often.
Because there were any number of better all-rounders at the time he played - Pollock, Klusener, Boje, Hall, to name a few.
Well as I've said several times for mine that's bad selection policy. If I pick a ODI side I pick it with the next World Cup in mind, as if a player disappears 1 year before the tournament that gives you less time than if he goes 2 years before.
Trouble with Hall was that while he was better-than-average at the death, he was often quite poor in the middle - a time that should be far easier to bowl at. It's a double-edged sword. Yes, I'd much prefer him (and Langeveldt) bowling at the end than Nel or whoever else, because Nel and Ntini are capable of bowling well at the start and in the middle. But there's only so many places you can afford.
Halls death bowling in that final over vs Lancashire in the 2003 C&G Trophy semi-final is still something i rememeber as if it was only yesterday.
Such a cruel reminder so long after the eventHalls death bowling in that final over vs Lancashire in the 2003 C&G Trophy semi-final is still something i rememeber as if it was only yesterday.
Yes, Lancashire helped a bit by losing their heads, but a double wicket maiden? With a run-out also? I dare anyone to beat that!
Must have slipped my mind
Well you can't disagree that their records are poor - that's just the way things are. You can say you think what you happen to have seen is more important, but I think that's a dangerous game as you well know - the whole is a far more reliable thing than odd selected points.
Yes he went around the park, but never once while he was bowling it seemed to me if he if weren't for the situation in SA he wouldn't make a good ODI bowler. AFAIC he just ran into a Aussie batting line-up in tremendous form, i can't believe this is a debate you are way too picky this is a man that would make almost every ODI in the world ATM.
During the 2005/06 season SA's best ODI was something like:
Not really. A new player could suddenly find form before the WC & have a great tournament. Look at AUS Martyn left the crucial #4 spot 6 months prior to the WC & Clarke came up & well the rest is history.
I'm saying that their long-term domestic records are far more important than the fact I might have once or twice seen them bowl well. Because though I happened to catch 2 occasions when they bowled well, the majority of time things have been different.
Not even close. If he did, he'd get slapped round the park and wouldn't be in such a side for very long. It's not like van der Wath only got hit by Australia - he went around the park against everyone he bowled at.
Maybe he wasn't, but he should've been if van der Wath was - he's always been a far better cricketer than van der Wath in the one-day game and that remains the case even now. I can't believe anyone can suggest van der Wath is fit to lace Klusener's boots as a batsman and while Klusener's bowling has been disappointing for years, it's not like van der Wath's has ever been much better.
So you're saying that it's preferable to hope that things click into place rather than giving maximum chance for them to be put into place?
No, I prefer to play percentages myself.Van Der Wath is in england now under the kolpak ruling. And he was a good batsman but crap bowlerI'm saying that their long-term domestic records are far more important than the fact I might have once or twice seen them bowl well. Because though I happened to catch 2 occasions when they bowled well, the majority of time things have been different.
Not even close. If he did, he'd get slapped round the park and wouldn't be in such a side for very long. It's not like van der Wath only got hit by Australia - he went around the park against everyone he bowled at.
Maybe he wasn't, but he should've been if van der Wath was - he's always been a far better cricketer than van der Wath in the one-day game and that remains the case even now. I can't believe anyone can suggest van der Wath is fit to lace Klusener's boots as a batsman and while Klusener's bowling has been disappointing for years, it's not like van der Wath's has ever been much better.
So you're saying that it's preferable to hope that things click into place rather than giving maximum chance for them to be put into place?
Stewart, BTW, always felt himself capable of playing to 2003 - and sure enough, he did. However, after that one he abdicated himself, because this time he knew that his time was done in ODIs.
Gees ... sorry richard I was just trying to join into a conversation I didn't deserve to be spoken to like that. Obviously you shouldn,t be a moderator if you speak like that
I'm not a moderator. I don't think I was "speaking like that" either really TBH. As for joining in a discussion, it's just a bit strange for someone with 50-odd posts to be digging a thread that hasn't been posted in for 3 months to say that. If it was a thread whose last post was a week ago, less odd.
