***Official*** South Africa in New Zealand 2017

[Flem274*]

scaly you're being so restrained considering this is an opportunity to grind your declaration and new zealand axes. go you adorable angry little man, reach for the stars.

 

[NZTailender]

Ignores the fact South Africa weren't really bowling dross either tbf. It's all very well and good to have intent and attack because of a possible final day washout, but the bowling needs to be there to be hit.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

By the close of play on day four, I'm sure they said on the radio that the forecast was for .4 of a mm of rain on day five, or something. So "the forecast for the final day was always bad" isn't true.

 

[Scaly piscine]

By the close of play on day four, I'm sure they said on the radio that the forecast was for .4 of a mm of rain on day five, or something. So "the forecast for the final day was always bad" isn't true.

It was the overnight rain that most of the damage. Once that happened it was a struggle even with no further rain to get the ground fit for cricket. Obviously further rain meant it got called off at lunch.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Ignores the fact South Africa weren't really bowling dross either tbf. It's all very well and good to have intent and attack because of a possible final day washout, but the bowling needs to be there to be hit.

Bowling of that calibre is not going to bowl dross if you're not putting any pressure on them and patting away their weaker deliveries.

As I say, 93 of 20 overs with 6 wickets in hand is not difficult and is essentially what they scored when they were 6/7 down.

 

[jcas0167]

and yet, due to the systematic discrimination throughout the middle-higher levels of cricket, somehow the vast majority of dudes at the top where always white and blacks were always seen as the exception. I'm not saying blacks haven't played cricket - of course they have - but there have been massive social and cultural barriers to them playing higher levels of cricket. I'd love to think there was a way to deal with this issue less ham-handed that quotas, but I don't think there is one.

I believe if you provide opportunities (such as scholarships to strong cricket schools as appears to be the case with Bavuma & Rabada) then talented athletes will rise to the top. After all, that appears to be how those players came through. You could look at the US where black players were for many years unable to play top level basketball or baseball, but once those restrictions were lifted talented athletes started to come through without any quotas.

I also consider that racial discrimination in selection in itself has no place in sport, but that's another philosophical debate.

 

[StephenZA]

I believe if you provide opportunities (such as scholarships to strong cricket schools as appears to be the case with Bavuma & Rabada) then talented athletes will rise to the top. After all, that appears to be how those players came through. You could look at the US where black players were for many years unable to play top level basketball or baseball, but once those restrictions were lifted talented athletes started to come through without any quotas.

I also consider that racial discrimination in selection in itself has no place in sport, but that's another philosophical debate.

Middle class family for Rabada, I believe his father is a doctor. Paid for himself, no scholarships necessary... Bavuma did get a scholarship bet think it may have been pretty limited, unsure though.
Scholarships are available, the problem is identifying those kids when they are young enough and that is very difficult to do as they are not generally exposed to as much cricket as football for many reasons. The new academy structures however are starting to help.

 

[Dendarii]

Middle class family for Rabada, I believe his father is a doctor. Paid for himself, no scholarships necessary... Bavuma did get a scholarship bet think it may have been pretty limited, unsure though.

Isn't Bavuma's father a journalist? So also a middle class background, meaning that he while may not have been able to attend the schools he did without a scholarship, but would probably still have ended up at one with a decent sporting set up which would have got him into the system anyway.

Scholarships are available, the problem is identifying those kids when they are young enough and that is very difficult to do as they are not generally exposed to as much cricket as football for many reasons. The new academy structures however are starting to help.

I wonder how much of the transformation will come as a result of the growing black middle class and therefore more black kids at the top schools rather than development programmes. Those programmes will still have an impact, so they definitely shouldn't stop doing them, but sports teams are also going to become more representative purely as a result of South African society becoming more representative.

 

[SeamUp]

Isn't Bavuma's father a journalist? So also a middle class background, meaning that he while may not have been able to attend the schools he did without a scholarship, but would probably still have ended up at one with a decent sporting set up which would have got him into the system anyway.



I wonder how much of the transformation will come as a result of the growing black middle class and therefore more black kids at the top schools rather than development programmes. Those programmes will still have an impact, so they definitely shouldn't stop doing them, but sports teams are also going to become more representative purely as a result of South African society becoming more representative.

Indeed right on Bavuma. Same with Ngidi/Zondo. Whilst Ntini/Phehlukwayo were about scholarships.

I reckon so. The school system has been the back bone of our system for the majority of South African cricket's success. It is a successful blue print that should continue to be a major part of the development of young cricketers.

If you go to the majority of the best cricketing schools you will find that there are large numbers 'non-white' pupils so it is becoming more representative in that regard.

 

[hendrix]

Indeed right on Bavuma. Same with Ngidi/Zondo. Whilst Ntini/Phehlukwayo were about scholarships.

I reckon so. The school system has been the back bone of our system for the majority of South African cricket's success. It is a successful blue print that should continue to be a major part of the development of young cricketers.

If you go to the majority of the best cricketing schools you will find that there are large numbers 'non-white' pupils so it is becoming more representative in that regard.

Sport is a middle class and up pursuit for 95% of the world.

It's not the case here in NZ so it's difficult for us to understand that.

 

[straw man]

There've been a few NZ season-ending reviews floating around on stuff and NZ Herald and elsewhere, striking a mostly positive note based on the up-tick in performance seen in the final test.

If we'd won the final test vs SA I'd feel like the season was a success that stands on its own, however without that result then that optimism requires looking deeper for possible signs of future success. I feel a little more sceptical. We have a habit of finishing the season feeling like the problems in the side are ironed out, there's a few new faces performing and that it's now safe to optimistically forecast continuous improvement for next season, which forgets that we are famously slow starters to every new season and that quite often problems we thought the side (or selectors) had solved re-emerge.

I don't know about other fans, but what I want from this side is that they re-approach the heights of performance they reached around 2014-2015, and hopefully then go on to exceed those. With that in mind I think we'll look back at this season as one of two things, either;
- a step on the road where Williamson's leadership was consolidated and the team developed so that it really starts to go somewhere; or,
- just an ok season where we trod water, beat less fancied opponents, competed against more fancied opponents in patches, but mostly didn't get above our station and won't next year either.

Right now I'm not sure, does the XI or the larger squad look better now than it did at the start of the season (in which I include the India tour)? Perhaps slightly.

Leadership:
- I think Williamson is starting to become comfortable with captaincy. As he becomes more sure of himself, will we see more of a certain Williamson style emerge? Will he be a conservative Alastair-Cook-like captain or something different? Will that work with the resources NZ have at their disposal?
- Hesson does stuff, I guess.
- Selectors keep making funky picks and have done a lot of chopping and changing, which can be bad for team culture if not managed very well. That CDG was successful in the last test will probably embolden them to do that more rather than less. While ignoring that weird selections have imo probably cost us competitiveness at times this season. Selection is a major area of concern for next season.

Tests:
↑ : Raval a huge positive. Latham off the 'problem' list having shown his class in the last test too.
↓ : Taylor awful in India and missed a lot of cricket with various injuries. Side looks so much stronger with him in it, however it's hard to count on his presence with the way things have been going for him.
-- : Still trying to fill McCullum-shaped hold. Nicholls scored a top hundred though could easily move back into 'problem' territory next season. I hope he doesn't. Neesham one step forward one back. Santner did ok at times though needs a lot of work on batting to be a 6.
↑ : Watling's return to form with the bat very important for that lower order.
-- : Spin bowling direction is unclear. At least there are some options.
-- : CDG has earned himself more home tests but balance will need a rejig for tours (if we have any :/). His presence at 8 in the test side feels like an irritating speck of grit against my skin - maybe we'll get a pearl?
↑ : Boult excellent, Wagner and Southee pretty good, pleased Henry had success too, so depth looks good. A few decent hopes around domestics too. I really hope Williamson has learned a lesson about overbowling his seamers. Don't injure Boult.

Limited overs:
↑ : Guptill is better now than he ever has been
↓ : Still picking Ronchi ffs.
↓ : Haven't even debuted another domestic keeper ffs.
-- : Middle order soft like butter. Still. Even softer if Taylor is injured.
↑ : Neesham played a few good innings and gets a cautious positive review, though I feel could easily slip back to mediocrity next season.
-- : CDG played one of the only effective innings-finisher innings of the season. We seriously suck at this, though that was already true at the start of the season.
↑ : Santner plus Sodhi (and sometimes Patel) are now excellent limited overs options. Would like to see more from both with bat to make it easier to pick both of them.
↓ : Henry exposed on very flat pitches. Southee exposed repeatedly though beats Henry on roads. Ferguson not an answer to death bowling problems right now.
-- : Boult outstanding. Still.

A tentative positive all-up in my view, though I don't think we can really assess this season until we see if the moderate improvements seen are further improved, maintained or were just a blip that is forgotten.

 

[Stefan9]

Middle class family for Rabada, I believe his father is a doctor. Paid for himself, no scholarships necessary... Bavuma did get a scholarship bet think it may have been pretty limited, unsure though.
Scholarships are available, the problem is identifying those kids when they are young enough and that is very difficult to do as they are not generally exposed to as much cricket as football for many reasons. The new academy structures however are starting to help.

Neuro surgeon to be exact. His family is upper middle class if not higher

 

[StephenZA]

I wonder how much of the transformation will come as a result of the growing black middle class and therefore more black kids at the top schools rather than development programmes. Those programmes will still have an impact, so they definitely shouldn't stop doing them, but sports teams are also going to become more representative purely as a result of South African society becoming more representative.

So the growing black middle class of SA is an important factor... but overall the economic issues of SA are having a huge impact.

White middle class is approx ~2.5% of the country now with a total white population of ~8%; black middle class is estimated to be ~5% now with a total black population of ~80%. So there is a larger black middle class that will start to come through... but without the identification and growth of players in that 75% black population that is largely in poverty we going to get know where fast. Academies are best equipped to deal with that more than the current schooling in those areas; which when they have textbooks should be focusing on academics rather.
https://businesstech.co.za/news/business/134749/black-vs-white-middle-class-in-south-africa/

How middle class is determined in SA
https://businesstech.co.za/news/ban...eed-to-know-about-south-africas-middle-class/

 

[SeamUp]

Neuro surgeon to be exact. His family is upper middle class if not higher

Definitely. There is middle class and then there is upper-middle class and if you can send your son to St Stithians (Rabada), St Davids (Bavuma), Hilton (Ngidi) you are super rich.

 

[Marius]

and yet, due to the systematic discrimination throughout the middle-higher levels of cricket, somehow the vast majority of dudes at the top where always white and blacks were always seen as the exception. I'm not saying blacks haven't played cricket - of course they have - but there have been massive social and cultural barriers to them playing higher levels of cricket. I'd love to think there was a way to deal with this issue less ham-handed that quotas, but I don't think there is one.

Obviously there was discrimination against blacks playing cricket. And remember, black and white people couldn't even play sport against each other, and only whites could represent the national team, so of course there were barriers to them playing at a high level, I don't think anyone is arguing against that.

But how does saying that there have to be two blacks - on average - in every SA XI, help a kid living in the middle of the Transkei afford a bat or get coaching, prprovide a cricket team in Soweto with decent facilities so that they can play the game?

 

[Neil Young]

Obviously there was discrimination against blacks playing cricket. And remember, black and white people couldn't even play sport against each other, and only whites could represent the national team, so of course there were barriers to them playing at a high level, I don't think anyone is arguing against that.

But how does saying that there have to be two blacks - on average - in every SA XI, help a kid living in the middle of the Transkei afford a bat or get coaching, prprovide a cricket team in Soweto with decent facilities so that they can play the game?

It may not help with that particular scenario. What do you see as an answer there?

 

[Marius]

It may not help with that particular scenario. What do you see as an answer there?

I think franchises and unions should be judged by how many coaching sessions they've held in disadvantaged areas, affluent clubs should be encouraged to donate used kit etc. to disadvantaged people and so on.

There should also be some sort of encouragement so that people from previously disadvantaged communities get playing opportunities, but they shouldn't be in the form of hard quotas.

 

[straw man]

But how does saying that there have to be two blacks - on average - in every SA XI, help a kid living in the middle of the Transkei afford a bat or get coaching, prprovide a cricket team in Soweto with decent facilities so that they can play the game?

I think franchises and unions should be judged by how many coaching sessions they've held in disadvantaged areas, affluent clubs should be encouraged to donate used kit etc. to disadvantaged people and so on.

There should also be some sort of encouragement so that people from previously disadvantaged communities get playing opportunities, but they shouldn't be in the form of hard quotas.

I think quotas, despite the inescapable problems inherent in the idea, can be effective as a small part of a larger suite of measures to try to improve upon a (highly) unequal situation. The bulk of the measures though should be in the form of the things like the above i.e. that address the deeper and more fundamental issues that lead to the inequality at the higher level.

However such measures require imagination, patience, organisation and willingness to engage with all parties. Much easier to just decree a quota instead i.e. the lazy politician's solution.

 

[Quaggas]

I think franchises and unions should be judged by how many coaching sessions they've held in disadvantaged areas, affluent clubs should be encouraged to donate used kit etc. to disadvantaged people and so on.

There should also be some sort of encouragement so that people from previously disadvantaged communities get playing opportunities, but they shouldn't be in the form of hard quotas.

Agree in principle,but the main issue is motivation, role models, "I want to be like Mike" etc.So a certain amount of forced representation is probably a good idea to encourage full blown investemnt by the youngsters themselves. Utterly useless if not accompanied by opportunities, of course.