Why aren't South Africa a better side?

[Nate]

- Ordinary at playing spin
- Have no attacking spinner
- Captain lacks tactically
- Inconsistent batting line-up based solely on batting depth rather than batting stars (Take Kallis out and it hurts more than Ponting from Aus, Dravid from India (only just mind you), Inzy from Pak etc.)
- Drops catches

Good call, didn`t pause to think about the captaincy or fielding.

 

[Pratters]

Cant believe I missed this 1st time round. Prince has not done anything Domestically in FC since 2003/04.

In FC cricket:

Excellent home series versus Sri Lanka A including this match where he scored 182* and 56*. Season's home FC matches including SA A and Western Province has Prince at a solid 64.5. Above him are these specific players who are not internationals and played at least 4 FC matches:

De Bruyn, Jaarsveld, Duminy. Jaarsveld got his chances. Not sure why Bruyn was dropped but he did get some chances. Duminy is young and would have to perform more to get into the team.

Prince didn't get his chance just after that. He played more FC matches in 2004 and 2004-05 seasons before he got his chance in that season.

This included a tour to Zimbabwe with RSA A in 2004 (2 matches), 3 matches versus New Zealand A in 2004-5, a match versus England A and Domestic FC matches.

The three innings he played versus NZ A containted 43, 103 and 16. 2004/05 domestically he was very poor though. Got confused regarding it some how. My bad. Definitely not a run in 04-05.

He did have two impressive matches in his last few matches leading up to his national selection though - 184 and a 50 in a match which included major South Africa players including captain Smith. May that got him the selection. I don't feel it is colour specifically.

 

[wpdavid]

Well that's a relief then - we can ignore the decline in the quality of white players produced by SA and blame it on those dasterdly non-whites. The fact that they haven't come close to replacing Donald, Kirsten, Cullinan &, in effect, Pollock who's only a shadow of his former self? Apparently irrelevant. Likewise the fact that fixtures like Gibbs & Ntini are worth their place whatever their skin colour. Likewise the fact that there' s been plenty of moderate whites over the last few years as well as the non-whites of a similar standard.

Even to an outside like me, it's obvious that the summary dismissal of most of the non-whites earlier in this thread was simplistic. Personally, I was delighted that Langveldt was ignored for Dale Steyn at the start of England's last tour, especially after CL had skittled us in the previous week's warm-up. Sure enough, the SA attack couldn't hit a barn door and we won the 1st test at a canter. AFAICS Prince & Amla are not obviously lesser players than Dippenaar, Rudolph, Van Jaarsfeld or McKenzie. Take away their boot-filling exercises against Bang and/or Zim, they're all moderate. Ngam actually did really well in is handful of games until injuries kicked in. Zondeki was probably a bit lucky to be picked in 2003, but he gutsed it out with the bat to set up a famous win at Headingly, so he didn't exactly let anybody down. I'll grant you Tsolekile and Ontong, but how many games did they play anyway?

Pratyush was spot on. They haven't found adequate replacements for their best players in the 1990's / early 2000's. Even more importantly, whereas Cronje's side dug in and exceeded the sum of their parts, this lot tend to do slightly the opposite (although they're not too special anyway). And from where I'm sat, the captain doesn't help a lot either.

There's maybe an interesting discussion to be had about why they overachieved in the 1990's. I reckon that starting with a generation who spent much of their careers missing out through SA's isolation probably did alot for team spirit ("NOW we'll show them ..."), and obviously that can't be replicated. But the fact that Cronje was a smarter captain probably had more to do with it.

 

[silentstriker]

SPIN BOWLING

It's really pretty simple. They aren't really any other glaring needs.

People are listing weaknesses, and no, they aren't Australia, but they are solid in batting, fielding and pace bowling.

They need a spinner who can take over in the 4th innings.

You guys have to stop overanalyzing .

 

[Goughy]

Well that's a relief then - we can ignore the decline in the quality of white players produced by SA and blame it on those dasterdly non-whites.

Clueless, offensive and naive.

People should be quiet when they have little understanding of internal works of a situation.

Quotas have weakened SA cricket. Fact. Where are the new Donalds etc, well the current format makes it more difficult for white cricketers to make it.

If you know anything about Donalds early career and anything about the current situation, it would be likely he would not have made it in the present day or would have ended up playing for England.

I love it when people voice pseudo-authorative opinions on subjects they know so very little about.

 

[wpdavid]

Clueless, offensive and naive.

People should be quiet when they have little understanding of internal works of a situation.

Quotas have weakened SA cricket. Fact. Where are the new Donalds etc, well the current format makes it more difficult for white cricketers to make it.

If you know anything about Donalds early career and anything about the current situation, it would be likely he would not have made it in the present day or would have ended up playing for England.

I love it when people voice pseudo-authorative opinions on subjects they know so very little about.

Any chance of addressing the issues I raised then?

 

[Pratters]

Also, please provide your alternate current South African XI you were going to provide which could show how quotas is the big difference between Cronje's team and current South African team..

 

[Dasa]

Any chance of addressing the issues I raised then?

Impressively measured response there.

 

[Goughy]

Impressively measured response there.

As was mine given the idiocy of his first statement.

 

[Goughy]

Look, there are/have been a number of Indian cricket threads.

I doubt I have ever commented on them (apart to look at certain techniques of players).

I have never commented on team composition, politics, internal situations etc because quite simply I dont know enough about the situation or have the knowledge to make a contribution. Anything I said would be tempered by my lack of involvement and seperation from the topic.

The reason I am a little annoyed is that the respect I give to topics I am divorced from, is not generally given by others.

My knowledge of SA cricket is in-depth, I speak with adminstrators and players and deal with all sorts of situations. When I speak about SA cricket it is with authority.

I find it a little difficult to be questioned by people with only outside knowledge of the subject or based on media reports.

A final thought on the matter, quotas have weakened the core of SA cricket. Less players are being produced because of them. I KNOW they exist and I KNOW the harm they have done. Its not really a topic for discussion.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

To be honest, after reading this thread, I think a few people have missed Goughy's point. I don't think his point is as much "there's better white players in domestic cricket than the black players in the current test side" as it's "the quote system that is in place all the way to junior level is stifling the development of the younger, and frankly better, white players."

 

[Pratters]

My knowledge of SA cricket is in-depth, I speak with adminstrators and players and deal with all sorts of situations. When I speak about SA cricket it is with authority.

I have followed South African cricket closely since 1991. The reason you give is like pooh poohing a person which former cricketers do saying to others 'but have you played cricket?'.

 

[wpdavid]

Look, there are/have been a number of Indian cricket threads.

I doubt I have ever commented on them (apart to look at certain techniques of players).

I have never commented on team composition, politics, internal situations etc because quite simply I dont know enough about the situation or have the knowledge to make a contribution. Anything I said would be tempered by my lack of involvement and seperation from the topic.

The reason I am a little annoyed is that the respect I give to topics I am divorced from, is not generally given by others.

My knowledge of SA cricket is in-depth, I speak with adminstrators and players and deal with all sorts of situations. When I speak about SA cricket it is with authority.

I find it a little difficult to be questioned by people with only outside knowledge of the subject or based on media reports.

A final thought on the matter, quotas have weakened the core of SA cricket. Less players are being produced because of them. I KNOW they exist and I KNOW the harm they have done. Its not really a topic for discussion.

Which is all well & good, up to a point. However, some might argue that, by the same token, there's no point in you contributing to a thread if you don't see it as a topic for discussion. Obviously I wouldn't argue with you about the nitty gritty of SA domestic cricket, beyond the fact that the current system, right or wrong, hasn't prevented deVilliers, Steyn and others coming through, so it's not nearly as obvious as you're making out that Donald & co couldn't have come through. Beyond that, my (and Pratyush's) comments about the test side remain. If they're wrong, feel free to explain why. And please try not to be so rude .....

 

[Nate]

No doubt you know a lot about some key issues in cricket Goughy. But screaming about how smart you are isn`t going to make anyone care. If it`s well argued, that should be all you need to convince others that you`re right.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

Now time for my annual South Africans playing for england joke

South Africa arent a better side t5han what they are, because everytime a decent player comes through the ranks, they bugger off and join england

 

[Pothas]

Look, there are/have been a number of Indian cricket threads.

I doubt I have ever commented on them (apart to look at certain techniques of players).

I have never commented on team composition, politics, internal situations etc because quite simply I dont know enough about the situation or have the knowledge to make a contribution. Anything I said would be tempered by my lack of involvement and seperation from the topic.

The reason I am a little annoyed is that the respect I give to topics I am divorced from, is not generally given by others.

My knowledge of SA cricket is in-depth, I speak with adminstrators and players and deal with all sorts of situations. When I speak about SA cricket it is with authority.

I find it a little difficult to be questioned by people with only outside knowledge of the subject or based on media reports.

A final thought on the matter, quotas have weakened the core of SA cricket. Less players are being produced because of them. I KNOW they exist and I KNOW the harm they have done. Its not really a topic for discussion.

Can i ask if you think that the currrent system is actualy helping black south african players? and how long untill there will be more black players than white in the south african team if there wasnt any sort of discrimination?

 

[Slow Love™]

The original question had nothing to do with quotas, seeing as sideshowtim was happy to name a side that he thought looked great on paper (including the black players), but underperformed. Personally, in answer to that question, while a class spinner would help, I don't think it's the difference so much as a generally negative approach (to tests in particular) and the frequent impotence of the bowling attack in general besides Ntini.

I realise that since then, the debate's moved on a bit. IMO, it would be a bit of a no-brainer that quotas will have had an impact on the quality of players coming up through the ranks. I think maybe a few nerves were tweaked when Goughy mentioned the subject - perhaps understandably so 'cause he seemed to regard them as quite egregious. Personally, as they are in place to redress a longstanding power imbalance that was artificially enforced by law (and by a minority), I don't have a massive problem with them, particularly at the lower levels. I'm constantly impressed at how some South Africans (and non South Africans) seem to have so easily purged themselves of guilt or memory at what the situation was like in South Africa for the greater part of the twentieth century. I don't think the quotas need to stay in place forever (in fact, there should always be some target or standard at which they cease to be needed), but neither do I find them to be some inexplicable outrage or ironic hearkening back to the apartheid days, only in reverse.

However, by the same token, I reckon it's a bit strange to argue that entrenched quotas, where blacks may well be elevated over more capable white players, wouldn't have affected standards somewhat. I think that the idea behind quotas would be that it's a necessary "sacrifice" to redress a structure that was deliberately imbalanced.

 

[Langeveldt]

Ranking over 40th for 2 years in a row does not qualify as a good run.

And neither do hundreds against Australia, West Indies and New Zealand?

I'm surprised that someone with your knowledge and general arguing skills is so quick to play the race card.. Yes Quotas do have an effect on SA cricket, but it's nowhere near as black and white as you imply..

And of all the cricketers that we've so called lost to England, only one has turned out to be world class..

We have a white population of only 5 million, thats about the same number of people historically playing cricket as New Zealand.. I think the successes of the 90's spoilt us, and we are settling down to a more rightful position.. Not that I like it, but it's not some kind of outrage really..

 

[aussie]

Prince- Debuted far too early and was not ready. Was given every oppotunity and groomed to be an important player. Given special treatment within SA cricket to be groomed to fill one of the quota places. Still not in the top 8-10 batsmen in SA

I agree that he debted far to early i remember him vs Australia in 2002 & even though i think he made runs initially he didn't look up to standard with his style of batting, but surely on current form his is one of the top 10 batsmen in South Africa.

Amla- Debuted far too early and was not ready. I actually rate him but I know your opinion

You sure about this, he debuted vs England in 2004 i think and i remember the commentators saying how along with DeVilliers at the time he was one of the young guns coming through and was scoring runs domestically.

Ngam- Debuted far to early and not good enough.

Again, i remember when SA went to the windies in 2001 there was big talk about him and how fast he was, i think his problem was that injuries messed him up.

Langeveldt- Decent player, not top class or real test quality

Not top class, but he is test quality IMO, remeber his performance vs England @ capetown..

 

[wpdavid]

(Ngam) Again, I remember when SA went to the windies in 2001 there was big talk about him and how fast he was, i think his problem was that injuries messed him up.


(Langveldt)Not top class, but he is test quality IMO, remember his performance vs England @ capetown..

Looking at the stats for the 3 tests that Ngam did play, he's been a real loss to SA. Against NZ & SL he averaged about 17, including numerous good batters, so you couldn't really argue against his selection.

As for Langveldt, his non-selection at Port Elizabeth after he'd demolished England in the previous week's warm-up may well have cost SA the series. Still, not complaining about that one.