*Official* England in South Africa 2019/20

[Adders]

Mate the quota system has been in play for SA cricket since the late 90's in some form. It is what it is and I don't know why but it always irritates me immensely hearing privileged white folks from outside of South Africa bitching about it.

Throughout the time of quotas SA has managed to stay in the top tier of test sides pretty much the whole time. So to say this system is going to drag SA's cricket team down to Zimbabwe levels is just bollocks.

 

[mr_mister]

It's never been as strict as this before though. I'll say no more since you've brought out the p word

 

[Adders]

P word ??

 

[honestbharani]

Privilege, I assume

 

[Spark]

In what world was Olivier not fighting for one bowling spot anyway

 

[Daemon]

Abbott's been the biggest loss by far. Quality bowler in Tests and ODIs. Even then his was not a case of quotas (unless we believe the WC semi theory) but rather not being able to crack the team in the presence of Philander, Steyn, Morkel and Rabada.

 

[mr_mister]

In what world was Olivier not fighting for one bowling spot anyway

He would have known Philander was close to retirement I assume

 

[sunilz]

More than quota, pound to rand exchange rate is to be blamed for current woes of SA cricket team . It is like every good RSA cricketer has 2 options
1. National cricket team
2. County cricket through kolpak route.

 

[Dendarii]

Abbott's been the biggest loss by far. Quality bowler in Tests and ODIs. Even then his was not a case of quotas (unless we believe the WC semi theory) but rather not being able to crack the team in the presence of Philander, Steyn, Morkel and Rabada.

The World Cup semi-final has been confirmed to be a quota thing. But by the time Abbott went Kolpak he was a regular in the ODI side (Philander didn't play too many ODIs after that), and the reason he went that route was as you said because he had those four bowlers ahead of him in the pecking order.

 

[Gnske]

Mate the quota system has been in play for SA cricket since the late 90's in some form. It is what it is and I don't know why but it always irritates me immensely hearing privileged white folks from outside of South Africa bitching about it.

Throughout the time of quotas SA has managed to stay in the top tier of test sides pretty much the whole time. So to say this system is going to drag SA's cricket team down to Zimbabwe levels is just bollocks.

White people talking about privilege is a crime against the Buzzfeed Magna Carta isn't it?

Shut this thread down.

 

[Adders]

Ok

 

[wpdavid]

I would go same top seven, with Curran, Bess, Wood, Archer. Broad to miss out as he’s played the first three. Think Bess is important to hold one end & allow the seamers to rotate. They might opt for the same side though.

I suspect your last point is what will happen. Broad is playing unless he has injury that we don't know about; averaging under 20 for the series and that 5 for 1 spell last time we played here.

 

[TT Boy]

Forecast looks pretty ****.

 

[StephenZA]

So if the match is rained off does it still count as Rabadas match ban?

 

[Dendarii]

So if the match is rained off does it still count as Rabadas match ban?

Isn't the way that it works that it's a ban for one test or two ODIs? So if the test doesn't count then he wouldn't be allowed to play the first two ODIs.

 

[wpdavid]

Cricinfo reckon that Archer's replacing Wood; back-to-back tests may not be the best idea for the latter. And that Woakes may replace Bess if it looks as lively as people expect it to be.

 

[StephenZA]

Isn't the way that it works that it's a ban for one test or two ODIs? So if the test doesn't count then he wouldn't be allowed to play the first two ODIs.

But he has not been selected for the ODI's? Does that then count as his ban?

Basically do they just assume that the ban counts if the team plays the match and the man did not play, regardless if everybody knew he was not playing anyway?

 

[NUFAN]

Thank god we arent playing 4 day Tests.

 

[Dendarii]

But he has not been selected for the ODI's? Does that then count as his ban?

Basically do they just assume that the ban counts if the team plays the match and the man did not play, regardless if everybody knew he was not playing anyway?

I think it still counts because as far as I know the only thing that's binding is the team announced at the start of the match. Just because he's not in the squad doesn't mean that he couldn't be picked. So even though we know it's not going to happen, he would technically be available for selection, so the ban would apply to those matches, or at least that's how I understand it.

 

[ImpatientLime]

anyone else see pietersen's take on archer?