Pietersen playing for South Africa?

[Goughy]

One thing I should probably make clear, that is different to England, is that the main Club league feeds dirrectly into the Provincial team.

So that any performance in Club cricket directly influences your involvement at Franchise or Provincial level and is also why the teams are stacked with young players with FC experience and expectations.

 

[Bracken]

Lehmann is the only one with an average in the 50s to miss-out on a decent Test career. Jacques is pretty likely to, and Rogers has only attained such an average very recenty.

Law and Love averaged only in the late 40s, not the 50s, in their Australian First-Class careers.

Law I'll give you, but Love averaged just shy of 52 in Australia before he played his first test (and over 67 over the three years immediately preceding). He then played a handful of tests averaging 45 or so, and got dropped after scoring a century (albeit against Bangladesh, and I agree with your distaste for Bangladesh 'test' stats).

After being dropped, he averaged 58 in his next Australian season, and yet didn't get another look in. Martyn was seen as the incumbent, and regardless of Love's results he was always just babysitting the spot until Martyn returned from injury. That's just the way that the Australian set-up worked at the time.

Since the episode with Taylor, and until the 2005 Ashes, Australian selectors definitely favoured stability over form, to the detriment of the second rung of players. A good domestic record was no guarantee of a test spot. Their test results gave them that luxury.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Really, career averages aren't completely relevant to whether or not a player should be selected. If a Law/Lehmann/Jaques etc. averages 50+ over a few years, then that's more important than the fact that their career average may only be 45 because of a rough introduction.

 

[AussieDominance]

Firstly I know a number of guys that played with and against him in Junior Rep and at Provincial level. They all said he was a talented batsman (though they wouldnt have guessed how good) and that his bowling was pretty poor

Secondly, you have to understand how important this game was.
http://www.pcboard.com.pk/Archive/Scorecards/68/68811.html

After that he was told to stop pretending to be a batsman and concentrate on his off-spin. He was told that no matter how good he was he would not bat up the order. Batting KP at 9 was a joke that got old very quickly and he tired of it. The guys in Natal had no idea what they were doing. He was a batsman but there was no place for him as one so he was forced to play as an off-spinner. Noone considered him a bowler that could bat a little despite him being played as such.

There have been many indications (not least Clive Rice offering a contract virtually sight unseen as a batsman) that he was highly regarded as a batsman.

Clive Rice = Legend

Stayed at the guys house tbh.

 

[GIMH]

Clive Rice = Legend

Stayed at the guys house tbh.

 

[wpdavid]

Top level club cricket is dominated by young players. Virtually noone plays after the age of 25 unless they a 'made' player.

Its just the culture that the young guys try and make it (playing top quality club cricket and Province 'B' games) and when they realise they are either not good enough or not going to get the opportunities then they stop playing. Simple as that and something I struggle to understand.

Few (if any) continue playing once they reach a certain age and do not have a place cemented at a franchise.

They drift into business etc and have to work for a living and probably need to work Saturdays.

The club I played for (one of the best in SA and multiple times national champions) was full of FC players and promising youngsters. The club ran 4 teams and at 28 I was the oldest club member.

Most of the guys ranged from 18-22.

Now that is what would have happened to KP. If he was considered a marginal talent (quotas or no quotas) he would have played a few FC games and disappeared from cricket.

Its amazing the guys you speak to and it turns out the were FC cricketers. They quit all aspects of the game in their early 20's and move onto the business of surviving.

Another issue is potential burn-out. Guys stop playing because they have had enough. Its high pressure cricket from 11 yrs old here and as soon as it becomes clear they are not going to get a full-time Franchise contract they quit and have better things to do.

I hope that makes sense. The quota issue is a different one and just makes more of these players disappear from the game as they are denied opportunities. However, it murkys (sp?) the water rather than changes the culture.

It certainly does. Thanks for taking the time to explain all that.

 

[marc71178]

He said Rice, not Roebuck.

 

[Richard]

TBF, I don't think too many would object to Peter giving Rodgie a lashing or two...

 

[Richard]

Really, career averages aren't completely relevant to whether or not a player should be selected. If a Law/Lehmann/Jaques etc. averages 50+ over a few years, then that's more important than the fact that their career average may only be 45 because of a rough introduction.

Couldn't agree more.

I think that's what I said earlier in the thread. Certainly it's what I meant to say.

 

[Richard]

Law I'll give you, but Love averaged just shy of 52 in Australia before he played his first test (and over 67 over the three years immediately preceding). He then played a handful of tests averaging 45 or so, and got dropped after scoring a century (albeit against Bangladesh, and I agree with your distaste for Bangladesh 'test' stats).

After being dropped, he averaged 58 in his next Australian season, and yet didn't get another look in. Martyn was seen as the incumbent, and regardless of Love's results he was always just babysitting the spot until Martyn returned from injury. That's just the way that the Australian set-up worked at the time.

Since the episode with Taylor, and until the 2005 Ashes, Australian selectors definitely favoured stability over form, to the detriment of the second rung of players. A good domestic record was no guarantee of a test spot. Their test results gave them that luxury.

Obviously if an incumbant does no wrong you're no way going to leave them out. That's not good or bad selection - it's just pretty glaringly obvious.

Sure, Love was unlucky. As had Lehmann been (and, heck, Law, Cox, di Venuto and a load of others, too). But I didn't realise he'd done quite so well, TBH.

I'll give you 2 Australians who achieved what Pietersen did and never had a decent Test career.

 

[Prince EWS]

Obviously if an incumbant does no wrong you're no way going to leave them out. That's not good or bad selection - it's just pretty glaringly obvious.

And nowhere did Bracken (really wish he'd get himself a name that didn't make me sound like I'm referring to an opening bowler..) say it was a bad decision. He was simply pointing out that a player with first class statistics similar to that of Kevin Pietersen could have quite easily found himself not getting a proper run in the Australian team. He never tried to argue to effectiveness or justification of it... just that it could have happened. And his point regarding Love goes a long way to backing up his original point.

I'll give you 2 Australians who achieved what Pietersen did and never had a decent Test career.

And given Pietersen is not three people, it's then completely possible that he wouldn't have made the side.

 

[Richard]

You might want to replace the name at the top of your first quote there...

I honestly think Pietersen would have had a good chance at playing for Australia if he did what he has in England - scored First-Class runs at an average in the 50s from the age of 22.

The line-up might have been reasonably settled between 1989 and 2007, but there were changes of personnel in that time, unavoidably. And lesser batsmen than Pietersen had extended Test careers in that period. So I reckon it's pretty likely he'd have got a shot, and taken his chance.

 

[pup11]

TBH, A player of Pietersen's caliber would walk into most of the teams in world cricket with ease, he doesn't have too many weakness against either fast-bowling or spin-bowling which is always a great asset to have.



Though i think his temperament and concentration levels are not as high as you would expect from a player of Pietersen's calibre.

 

[Bracken]

And nowhere did Bracken (really wish he'd get himself a name that didn't make me sound like I'm referring to an opening bowler..) say it was a bad decision. He was simply pointing out that a player with first class statistics similar to that of Kevin Pietersen could have quite easily found himself not getting a proper run in the Australian team. He never tried to argue to effectiveness or justification of it... just that it could have happened. And his point regarding Love goes a long way to backing up his original point.

And given Pietersen is not three people, it's then completely possible that he wouldn't have made the side.

Yeah, what he said...

And you can blame the name on my father. Call me Andy if my surname bothers you.

 

[GIMH]

Hahaha, always makes me laugh when somebody's username just turns out to be their real name, after somebody has made reference to them choosing a Cricketer's name. Happened with irfan the other day IIRC

 

[Richard]

Nah, I didn't really think he was impersonating Irfan Pathan!

People on here too often use cricketers names, though. So much better to just use XIsMyHero, TBH...

 

[GIMH]

Ah yeah but he thought you thought it was the same, so the end effect was the same

But of course, choosing your favourite newsreader, and tagging IsMyHero on the end is the way forward, tbh

 

[Richard]

At the time, though, he was your fave cricketer.

EDIT: And you never know - James being the nice type he is might even rename you to "Martyn Corrin" or something if you wanted. I always thought pasag would do well to become Zac Gelman, too, given that pasag was just random tapping of keys on the keyboard. But Gelman tells me he's against name-changing...

 

[GIMH]

I'm quite happy with my username tbh. If I was ever to request a change, it would be a la New Kids on the Block when they amde a comeback ie GIMH

LOL

 

[Richard]

Yeah, I thought you were happy enough with it.

But, well, for some people where their username reprisents something that has ceased to be, I'd be all for change.