Yeah good point. You don't always require to be a successful cricketer or big name to be a successful coach. Let's hope he does good things for SA cricket.vic_orthdox said:I guess everyone outside of Australia (and a lot of people in Australia) would have been saying the same thing about John Buchanan. Hopefully he's a good influence on the group. Seems like me must have a way about him.
Hence SA's tragic 14 match winning streak?Pratyush said:He cant do worse than Jennings in all probability
South Africa havent done too well in the past 6 months. The clean sweep in the Windies is great and the side may look to turn it around but its been a poor recent history as far as South African cricket goes.Langeveldt said:Hence SA's tragic 14 match winning streak?
I've heard of Mickey Arthur, but probably don't know enough to reliably tell you about him here... A bit of a dark horse tbh..
Well if England seriously are touted as "Ashes contenders" (Although I find that totally absurd), we shouldn't be too upset with a 2-1 loss to them in the tests? If they are that good?Pratyush said:South Africa havent done too well in the past 6 months. The clean sweep in the Windies is great and the side may look to turn it around but its been a poor recent history as far as South African cricket goes.
As far as I remember (could be wrong) Jennings was the coach in India too. Maybe not in Sri Lanka but you may be satisfied with Jenning's performance. I am not and thought the team could have played better over all.Langeveldt said:Well if England seriously are touted as "Ashes contenders" (Although I find that totally absurd), we shouldn't be too upset with a 2-1 loss to them in the tests? If they are that good?
My point was that even as a coach, he's not well known.Jono said:Yeah good point. You don't always require to be a successful cricketer or big name to be a successful coach. Let's hope he does good things for SA cricket.
I don't really think Jennings can take too much of the blame - the problems were Smith's lack of form, the fact that Nel was injured for 4\5ths of the series, the fact that Steyn was selected (not much to do with Jennings AFAIK) ahead of 6 or 7 better-qualified candidates, the fact that the only Test Boje didn't play in was the only Test he'd have been any use in, and the fact that Rudolph was forever preferred to De Bruyn.Pratyush said:As far as I remember (could be wrong) Jennings was the coach in India too. Maybe not in Sri Lanka but you may be satisfied with Jenning's performance. I am not and thought the team could have played better over all.
England deserved to win the series and I am not discrediting them but South Africa should have fought better. Smith's captaincy has a lot of blame to take for the field placings for one but the coach must take part of the blame too.
Richard said:I don't really think Jennings can take too much of the blame - the problems were Smith's lack of form, the fact that Nel was injured for 4\5ths of the series, the fact that Steyn was selected (not much to do with Jennings AFAIK) ahead of 6 or 7 better-qualified candidates, the fact that the only Test Boje didn't play in was the only Test he'd have been any use in, and the fact that Rudolph was forever preferred to De Bruyn.
Plus the fact that Tsolekile started the series.
Jennings lost the series in India, which is not exactly either a surprise or a discredit, and presided over a Test-series defeat at home, which is.Pratyush said:South Africa havent done too well in the past 6 months. The clean sweep in the Windies is great and the side may look to turn it around but its been a poor recent history as far as South African cricket goes.
More "rounded"? Whatever that means.Swervy said:oh and that England on the whole are a more talented, more rounded team as well
well they certainly have a better balance in the side than SA doRichard said:More "rounded"? Whatever that means.
More talented? Certainly not.