Any chance of addressing the issues I raised then?Originally Posted by Goughy
Any chance of addressing the issues I raised then?Originally Posted by Goughy
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..
Impressively measured response there.Originally Posted by wpdavid
As was mine given the idiocy of his first statement.Originally Posted by Dasa
If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there will be edits
West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma
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.
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."
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?'.Originally Posted by Goughy
Originally Posted by Goughy
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 .....
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.
Jesus brings life eternal
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
This Weeks Samit Patel Fact - Has been mentioned in 32 of my posts
The Rifles - Whats your verdict? www.myspace.com/therifles
Winner of Cricket Webs Shane Warne Award - 4-11th Feb
RIP Mr Woolmer, We are all poorer for your loss.
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?Originally Posted by Goughy
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.
"Youre known for having a liking for men who look like women."
"FFS I'm sick and tired of having to see a bloke bend over to pick something up or lean over and see their arse crack. For christ's sake pull your pants up or buy some underpants you bogan because nobody want's to see it. And this is a boat building shed (well one of them) not a porn studio."
And neither do hundreds against Australia, West Indies and New Zealand?Originally Posted by Goughy
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..
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.Originally Posted by Goughy
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.Originally Posted by Goughy
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.Originally Posted by Goughy
Not top class, but he is test quality IMO, remeber his performance vs England @ capetown..Originally Posted by Goughy
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.Originally Posted by aussie
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)