True, but Hamza really should be there ahead of him, for example.
I know you weren't. I think they probably committed themselves to giving him first go. It was probably projected the wrong way by Boucher or maybe he wanted to for Temba's confidence.
He was, and he batted at 3 in the first ODI against Australia with Malan opening. So it does make the notion of Bavuma being a shoe-in as an ODI opener a bit puzzling.
It's a problem we've had for a long time. We've just got too many batsmen best suited for the top order. So the question really does need to be asked as to why we're not developing those middle order players.
That's only four, so not enough. And they're all bowlers, which isn't the most helpful state of affairs when it comes to getting the numbers right.
What are the quota requirements? Thought it was 4.
Six non-white, of which two need to be black African.
Official targets are 54 % players of colour and 18 % black players, across the year. Based on all international formats.
It is taken seriously, but it is also a target.
Rugby is different. 15 players start and if one player makes a mistake then another is there to back him up. Then there are substitutes so besides the money the opportunities are there in the sport. Far more than cricket. You look at the schools represented for rugby and there aren't as wide a variety as you think.
It is a tough issue. You want batsman to play innings of substance but the cameos at 5/6 are so crucial. We had for so long with guys like Cronje/Rhodes who were said to be limited for test cricket but still averaged mid 30s against arguably the best bowling generation depth wise. ODI cricket was their game though.
It being a target is what I'm not entirely clear about. What happens if they don't happen to meet the target? While there would obviously be problems if they were to pick an all-white team, so far there seem to have been no repercussions for not quite reaching it.
That's where he's batted most recently for the Cobras, although his scores haven't been great, so I guess the jury's still out on that.
I agree. That is my frustration. People look at rugby and feel it is doing a better job that cricket. But I feel that cricket has tried a lot harder than rugby in transformation, but gets less credit. I still think there is fundamental problems in both in maximising talent. What I don't understand is why cricket gets lambasted all the time when really it has done a better job to try be more inclusive than most other sports in the country, on a smaller budget under greater pressure.
Not meeting the target means the government can officially do things like strip CSA of sport association status. Prevent CSA from applying for WC etc. And the consequential monies. However the likelihood of this occurring is very low, unless an absolute disregard for transformation was done. Even the target % is largely self imposed. Rugby gave themselves a 50 % quota. Cricket gave themselves a higher % with greater restrictions.
I honestly didn't know it was happening until a few weeks back.
Nothing wrong with this...
I've never really got the hate of him. Maybe I don't listen enough but he has a very good voice on the mic and is more than knowledgeable enough not to embarrass himself.