Langeveldt
Soutie
A far better argument, Piscine..Scaly piscine said:
Thats all it takes Neil, a bit of intelligence..
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* England in South Africa Thread
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
Thats all it takes Neil, a bit of intelligence..
tooextracool
International Coach
papps footwork might not be the best, but hes commonly considered to have the michael vaughan footwork, which consists of that one step forward one step back routine that sets you up to play a shot from the front foot or backfoot. i dont think papps is a poor player at all, and while we dont know yet whether he can convert whatever potential he has into runs, id say that his ODI average of 51 suggests that hes certainly not as poor as you're making him out to be.Neil Pickup said:
tooextracool
International Coach
yes cronje was an excellent captain, personally i'll never understand how such a talented team with such a talented captain didnt manage to defeat australia and become the number 1 team in the world in the 90s.Pratyush said:
SpaceMonkey
International Debutant
£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££tooextracool said:
Marius
International Debutant
It was all in fun you poephol. Abusing players from opposing teams is all part of international cricket, and part of going to the ground to watch the games. As long as I don't abuse him about something really personal (say like mocking Glenn McGrath because his wife's got cancer) its fine in my book. And he could actually retailate. I've seen many players engage in banter with the crowd, and have never "put their careers on the line". And I'm sure Pietersen was expecting it. Stop being so uptight. I'm sure what Pietersen got from me was extremely mild in comparison with what he's going to get when he fields near Bay 13 when he plays at the SCG.Swervy said:
Marius
International Debutant
Linky-Doo
Caught out again
As Kevin Pietersen reminds us, English cricket's relationship with white southern Africa has been a sorry tale
Steve Busfield
Tuesday February 1, 2005
The Guardian
South African Kevin Pietersen made his international debut in his homeland at the weekend. Except he was playing for England. Pietersen is following in a long and often ignoble tradition of white South Africans who have plied their sporting trade for England: Allan Lamb, Robin Smith and Tony Greig for the cricket team; Zola Budd in the Olympic athletics team.
The difference between Pietersen and Lamb and Smith is that the latter two played for England while the country of their birth was banned from international sport, thus depriving them of the ultimate sporting challenge. Pietersen has turned his back on the land of his birth because, he says, non-white players are being given an unfair advantage.
After four years of county cricket the Durban-born batsman is now qualified to play for, and indeed is playing for, England.
Clive Rice, one of many white South Africans plying their trade in the English county game and the man who brought Pietersen to England, recently told the Daily Telegraph of his unhappiness with his home country's United Cricket Board: "It's apartheid in reverse. White players are being driven out of our country in droves."
A quick glance at the South African cricket team would reveal that most of the team is white, despite the supposedly iniquitous efforts of the new regime. In fact, there is a great deal of dispute about whether there is a quota system in South Africa, or whether there is just an attempt to make small redress for the apartheid past by favouring the non-white player if two cricketers of equal talent are vying for a place in the team.
The disenchanted white minority may think they have already been forgiven by the rest of the world for the decades of disgrace, but the rest of us have longer memories. It would be inconceivable, in the short time since the end of apartheid, for all inequalities to have been overcome. There is still a long way to go before young non-white players have equal opportunities of facilities, coaching and training.
South Africa's white cricketers seem scarcely able to comprehend how the rest of the world views their attitudes. When Hansie Cronje, their former captain, was implicated in a match-fixing scandal he was banned for life. A short time afterwards the world cup was held in South Africa and the team dedicated their performance to Cronje (who had died in a plane crash in the interim). How the rest of the cricket world laughed when South Africa, after dedicating their cause to a cheat, were dumped out of the competition in the first round.
Just as upsetting as the attitude of white South African cricketers, however, are the actions of the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB).
When South Africa was banned from international competition, several rebel tours were arranged by English cricketers. I remember being at Old Trafford in 1989, the day England were about to lose the Ashes to Australia. News of a rebel tour to South Africa leaked that day and several members of the England team were included. Each was booed as he came out to bat. Those who went were banned for short periods. But after his ban was served, John Emburey, a cricketer of ordinary talents, was forgiven. Indeed, he twice stuck two fingers up at the international boycott of white South African sport and was twice brought back into the English national team.
At best, the ECB has sent out mixed messages about Zimbabwe. I am not arguing that Robert Mugabe is a good guy, but the global cricketing view is that Zimbabwe should continue to feature on the international fixture lists. Only England has failed to fulfil fixtures in Zimbabwe (during the 2003 World Cup). The most recent tour went ahead only after much indecision.
Could England's ambiguity be driven by the fact that the schism in Zimbabwe's national side has been between the white players and the non-white players (with the honorable exception of Henry Olonga), with the white players being the excluded. That England's current coach is a white Zimbabwean must surely complicate matters.
Going all the way back to Basil D'Olivera, English cricket's relationship with white southern Africa has not stood up to rigorous investigation. Mike Marqusee spent a whole book (Anyone But England: Cricket, Race and Class) detailing the common interests of those who run sport and business in England. The recent life and times of the businessman son of a British prime minister gives a flavour of how that world links in to southern Africa.
But back to Pietersen, who claims that his switch in nationality is linked to the Englishness of his mother, conveniently ignoring that his father was an Afrikaner, that he played for Natal and that his transfer only came after the "quota" incidents.
The English cricketing authorities know all of this. To be charitable we could suggest that the ECB is merely driven by the desire to get the best players. And maybe I am clinging to outdated notions of nationality and patriotism. Wouldn't the ECB be sending out a much better message to the world by telling Pietersen he is a fine young player, who should be playing for his country and that that country is the new South Africa?
Add some more spice to the Pietersen debate...
Caught out again
As Kevin Pietersen reminds us, English cricket's relationship with white southern Africa has been a sorry tale
Steve Busfield
Tuesday February 1, 2005
The Guardian
South African Kevin Pietersen made his international debut in his homeland at the weekend. Except he was playing for England. Pietersen is following in a long and often ignoble tradition of white South Africans who have plied their sporting trade for England: Allan Lamb, Robin Smith and Tony Greig for the cricket team; Zola Budd in the Olympic athletics team.
The difference between Pietersen and Lamb and Smith is that the latter two played for England while the country of their birth was banned from international sport, thus depriving them of the ultimate sporting challenge. Pietersen has turned his back on the land of his birth because, he says, non-white players are being given an unfair advantage.
After four years of county cricket the Durban-born batsman is now qualified to play for, and indeed is playing for, England.
Clive Rice, one of many white South Africans plying their trade in the English county game and the man who brought Pietersen to England, recently told the Daily Telegraph of his unhappiness with his home country's United Cricket Board: "It's apartheid in reverse. White players are being driven out of our country in droves."
A quick glance at the South African cricket team would reveal that most of the team is white, despite the supposedly iniquitous efforts of the new regime. In fact, there is a great deal of dispute about whether there is a quota system in South Africa, or whether there is just an attempt to make small redress for the apartheid past by favouring the non-white player if two cricketers of equal talent are vying for a place in the team.
The disenchanted white minority may think they have already been forgiven by the rest of the world for the decades of disgrace, but the rest of us have longer memories. It would be inconceivable, in the short time since the end of apartheid, for all inequalities to have been overcome. There is still a long way to go before young non-white players have equal opportunities of facilities, coaching and training.
South Africa's white cricketers seem scarcely able to comprehend how the rest of the world views their attitudes. When Hansie Cronje, their former captain, was implicated in a match-fixing scandal he was banned for life. A short time afterwards the world cup was held in South Africa and the team dedicated their performance to Cronje (who had died in a plane crash in the interim). How the rest of the cricket world laughed when South Africa, after dedicating their cause to a cheat, were dumped out of the competition in the first round.
Just as upsetting as the attitude of white South African cricketers, however, are the actions of the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB).
When South Africa was banned from international competition, several rebel tours were arranged by English cricketers. I remember being at Old Trafford in 1989, the day England were about to lose the Ashes to Australia. News of a rebel tour to South Africa leaked that day and several members of the England team were included. Each was booed as he came out to bat. Those who went were banned for short periods. But after his ban was served, John Emburey, a cricketer of ordinary talents, was forgiven. Indeed, he twice stuck two fingers up at the international boycott of white South African sport and was twice brought back into the English national team.
At best, the ECB has sent out mixed messages about Zimbabwe. I am not arguing that Robert Mugabe is a good guy, but the global cricketing view is that Zimbabwe should continue to feature on the international fixture lists. Only England has failed to fulfil fixtures in Zimbabwe (during the 2003 World Cup). The most recent tour went ahead only after much indecision.
Could England's ambiguity be driven by the fact that the schism in Zimbabwe's national side has been between the white players and the non-white players (with the honorable exception of Henry Olonga), with the white players being the excluded. That England's current coach is a white Zimbabwean must surely complicate matters.
Going all the way back to Basil D'Olivera, English cricket's relationship with white southern Africa has not stood up to rigorous investigation. Mike Marqusee spent a whole book (Anyone But England: Cricket, Race and Class) detailing the common interests of those who run sport and business in England. The recent life and times of the businessman son of a British prime minister gives a flavour of how that world links in to southern Africa.
But back to Pietersen, who claims that his switch in nationality is linked to the Englishness of his mother, conveniently ignoring that his father was an Afrikaner, that he played for Natal and that his transfer only came after the "quota" incidents.
The English cricketing authorities know all of this. To be charitable we could suggest that the ECB is merely driven by the desire to get the best players. And maybe I am clinging to outdated notions of nationality and patriotism. Wouldn't the ECB be sending out a much better message to the world by telling Pietersen he is a fine young player, who should be playing for his country and that that country is the new South Africa?
Add some more spice to the Pietersen debate...
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Not sure it does add much to the Pietersen debate, I didn't really see what the article was getting at - Pietersen IS half English and half South African as it says, it's not up to other people to decide what overall nationality he is and which country he should play for.
Neil Pickup
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's a truly dismal article that goes nowhere and says nothing new.
tooextracool
International Coach
australia may not have been without talent, but IMO SA had a better and deeper batting line up, a better pace bowling lineup(donald, de villiers,pollock, mcmillan and klusener in their primes is quite a fearsome bowling attack) and clearly better fielders. the only area where australia were better was in the spin department, and while that did end up making a significant difference, i think it took a lot of underperformance on SA's part to keep losing to themwpdavid said:
Swervy
International Captain
i am all for a bit of banter...but you were swearing at him (no matter what language..it does beg the question 'if the player cant understand what you are saying, why bother saying it?')..and your choice of words here 'ABUSING' the player.Marius said:
Just because people elsewhere do it, doesnt make it right.
The guy made a decision to come to England and play cricket. He is a professional and was trying to earn a living from playing the game...if South Africa didnt offer him as much of an opportunity to earn that living (in retrospect, he would have breezed into this SA team maybe a year or two ago) and he serves his qualifying period in England, then I just cant see what the big deal is..and I am fairly sure that if SA had a strong team and had just whipped England instead of the other way round, you lot really wouldnt be that bothered about Pietersen at all.
I might be wrong, but all this just sounds like sour grapes to me
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
That is a very good seam attack, but how often would they all have played together? I thought that Pollock replaced de Villiers and Klusener replaced McMillan, but I may have remembered that incorrectly. As for the batting lineups, I can see that SA's was deeper, but I reckon the Aus top 6 was better.tooextracool said:
Purely from an English viewpoint, Australia looked a much better side than SA during the 1990's. Aus always won series against us very comfortably - in fact we only won one test in the 1990's when the Ashes were still up for grabs. Against SA, OTOH, series were generally very tight. SA have yet to win a series in England since their readmision, whereas Aus have managed that four times on the trot. If you're saying that SA underperformed against Aus, then they must also have underperformed against England, and there comes a point when you just have to conclude that SA just weren't as good as the Australians.
Last edited:
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Rain is predicted, so it may not start at all.Mr Casson said:
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
England's ODI series in WI was pretty badly weather-hit as well, they seem to take the weather with them. The forecasts have been very unreliable so far tho so hopefully this'll be another one they get wrong.Mister Wright said: