• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

What shoul SA do when their ENG exports come running back to SA?

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Don't get me wrong Richard, I don't disagree with how poor he was in those games. But three abysmal Tests in your first thirteen is forgiveable
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Not in my book, for a wicketkeeper, it's not. For a batsman or bowler it certainly might well be, but as I say, wicketkeeping (in fact fielding in general) is a completely different discipline to batting or bowling, and one where it's expected that the person get it right the vast majority of the time. Whereas no-one has ever remotely come close to expecting a bowler to bowl what he's trying to bowl near enough every delivery, nor a batsman to pick the right shot for every delivery he faces.

In my book a wicketkeeper who has 3 abysmal Tests in 13, at any given point in their career, has had a shocking period.

As I say, if the summer of 2009 marks the start of a new phase in Prior's career, super, I'm sure all England fans should be grateful. But I think anyone who adjudged him as aught but poor before then is being extremely generous to wicketkeepers (not just him). As I say - it's no coincidence that you'll have to dig pretty deep to find cases of a wicketkeeper who has done that badly that often.
 
Last edited:

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
but as I say, wicketkeeping (in fact fielding in general) is a completely different discipline to batting or bowling, and one where it's expected that the person get it right the vast majority of the time. .

In my book a wicketkeeper who has 3 abysmal Tests in 13, at any given point in their career, has had a shocking period.
Isnt 77% 'vast majority of the time'?
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Isnt 77% 'vast majority of the time'?
It's not really vast enough, considering how bad he is when he's having a shocker. I'm all in favour of Prior remaining in the side, but if we were told that he's going to perform that badly in 23% of tests he plays for the rest of his career, I'd get him out of the side for sure.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
wicketkeeping (in fact fielding in general) is a completely different discipline to batting or bowling, and one where it's expected that the person get it right the vast majority of the time. Whereas no-one has ever remotely come close to expecting a bowler to bowl what he's trying to bowl near enough every delivery, nor a batsman to pick the right shot for every delivery he faces.
Surely you can't seriously mean this? Do you really mean that a Test bowler can't be expected to bowl near enough what he wants to near enough every delivery? I would expect them to do so. And yet when they're out of form, and/or under pressure, it can happen a lot. Think about the number of thigh-high full tosses all of England's bowlers bowled in the 2nd Pro20 game the other day. It's not much to ask that a bowler pitches the ball the vast majority of the time, but they failed even to do that. It happens.

Luckily for bowlers and batsmen, bad form is self-limiting. A bowler is taken out of the attack; a batsman is dismissed.

In Prior's case we're talking about 3 games out of 13 (which is to ignore, of course, the 5 most important matches of the lot). And what we're really talking about is maybe half a dozen dropped catches (I haven't counted) and a few more clumsy takes in the course of literally thousands of deliveries. And it so happens that a couple of those drops were particularly expensive, but that's no reflection on his keeping (let's not forget golden boy Craig Kieswetter's two dropped catches this season which cost over 500 runs between them.)

Anyhow if any of this sounds as though I reckon that Prior is, has ever been, or ever will be, a top-class keeper, that's not what I mean. All I'm trying to say is that he has been treated pretty harshly for the mistakes that he made.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Surely you can't seriously mean this? Do you really mean that a Test bowler can't be expected to bowl near enough what he wants to near enough every delivery? I would expect them to do so. And yet when they're out of form, and/or under pressure, it can happen a lot. Think about the number of thigh-high full tosses all of England's bowlers bowled in the 2nd Pro20 game the other day. It's not much to ask that a bowler pitches the ball the vast majority of the time, but they failed even to do that. It happens.

Luckily for bowlers and batsmen, bad form is self-limiting. A bowler is taken out of the attack; a batsman is dismissed.

In Prior's case we're talking about 3 games out of 13 (which is to ignore, of course, the 5 most important matches of the lot). And what we're really talking about is maybe half a dozen dropped catches (I haven't counted) and a few more clumsy takes in the course of literally thousands of deliveries. And it so happens that a couple of those drops were particularly expensive, but that's no reflection on his keeping (let's not forget golden boy Craig Kieswetter's two dropped catches this season which cost over 500 runs between them.)

Anyhow if any of this sounds as though I reckon that Prior is, has ever been, or ever will be, a top-class keeper, that's not what I mean. All I'm trying to say is that he has been treated pretty harshly for the mistakes that he made.
OK, first a few of things: I am making absolutely no claims about Kieswetter's merits or demerits as a wicketkeeper, I know next to nothing about how good or otherwise he is. My comments have purely been aimed at Prior's wicketkeeping in itself. And his bad wicketkeeping in those matches was more than merely a few missed chances - in the lattermost Test in fact I don't off the top of my head recall any drops at all, just a whole load of utterly straightforward takes being missed. And also, the reason we "ignore" the 5 most important matches of his career (and in fact the 2 before that as well which most people have not-surprisingly brushed-over) is because my comment related to his wicketkeeping up to this summer - that of this summer is completely irrelevant to the point I'm making.

So, anyway... yes, I do mean what I said. Wicketkeepers are expected to take the ball cleanly far more regularly than bowlers are expected to bowl the ball they're trying to. Think about it - even the very best bowlers probably bowl 1-2 bad deliveries in a fair percentage of spells, and even the not-quite-so-bad deliveries may conceivably constitute an error on the bowler's part (only he after all knows what he intends to bowl, we can just make the fairly safe presumption that no bowler ever deliberately bowls a leg-stump Half-Volley). However, the very best wicketkeepers routinely go through entire days', even matches', play without making a single fumble, and for a merely decent wicketkeeper to do it is far from unheard-of; for a merely-decent bowler to go through a whole 5-6-over spell without bowling a bad delivery is most unusual.

Wicketkeeping, and fielding, is expected to be of a higher standard than bowling, and batting. Equally, I'd be surprised if an average, decent, middle-of-the-road Test batsman in standard, acceptable nick goes more than about 30-odd deliveries at a time without playing an ill-advised shot (and remember such a shot won't get you out even close to all the time, sometimes it'll just be a thick edge or a swish-and-miss).
 
Last edited:

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
the reason we "ignore" the 5 most important matches of his career (and in fact the 2 before that as well which most people have not-surprisingly brushed-over) is because my comment related to his wicketkeeping up to this summer - that of this summer is completely irrelevant to the point I'm making.
Well technically you're right, but it's important to recognise that the point you're making itself involves an artificial dissection of Prior's record. You have left out of account the '09 Ashes (and for good measure you're not even credited that with being evidence of significant improvement). It reminds me of "Apart from 2004, Steve Harmison has always been crap", or perhaps "Apart from 708 specific deliveries, Shane Warne has never been a penetrative Test bowler". Yes these things are true, but the things you choose to leave out can tend to make the subsequent discussion quite misleading.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Well technically you're right, but it's important to recognise that the point you're making itself involves an artificial dissection of Prior's record. You have left out of account the '09 Ashes (and for good measure you're not even credited that with being evidence of significant improvement). It reminds me of "Apart from 2004, Steve Harmison has always been crap", or perhaps "Apart from 708 specific deliveries, Shane Warne has never been a penetrative Test bowler". Yes these things are true, but the things you choose to leave out can tend to make the subsequent discussion quite misleading.
I don't think so. My very first post on the matter, and in fact several subsequent ones, have said that it is possible that Prior is improving (\has improved) and that if he has, great, because he's apparently a pretty damn good batsman, and if he can\has become an acceptable Test wicketkeeper, England have a very useful player indeed on their hands.

All I'm saying is that those who think he's never been all that bad really are kidding themselves. Prior in the summer of 2009, against both West Indies and Australia, did indeed keep wicket quite acceptably. But one summer's work alone is not enough to convince me of improvement. That is not to say there has certainly not been any, because there may yet have been. All I'm doing is urging caution and not jumping to over-excited premature conclusions - Prior may indeed have improved, but last summer may also have been a flash-in-the-pan; we must wait to see, we do not yet know which is the case.

Part of the urging caution is pointing-out how until last summer Prior was awful. And I take issue with someone who suggests that he was not awful until last summer. It's something that always gets on my nerves TBH. The way, sometimes, when someone becomes good \ very good \ excellent, people will say that they were never that bad ITFP. Well, some people were, and Prior is certainly one of them.

BTW it's "apart from a few months in early 2004", not "apart from the entire 2004" for Harmison, oh yes siree.
 
Last edited:

Langeveldt

Soutie
I hope England pay for their reliance on overseas talent for many years to come, but I don't see it happening.. If nothing else matters you just have to look at the economic situation of being a professional sportsman in Africa as opposed to England, there will always be a steady stream I think.. As for what should SA do, well why would it ever be a problem?
 
Last edited:

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Fact is the amount of foreign players we have in our does make ENG a bit of laughing stock to other nations & it further highlights the underying factor that our youth system is weak here. England aren't producing enough local talent right now & i'm not how that problem can be fixed in the coming years.
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Fact is the amount of foreign players we have in our does make ENG a bit of laughing stock to other nations & it further highlights the underying factor that our youth system is weak here. England aren't producing enough local talent right now & i'm not how that problem can be fixed in the coming years.
Thats obvious by watching school sports in either country in the space of a few years.. The difference is scary..
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Fact is the amount of foreign players we have in our does make ENG a bit of laughing stock to other nations
Foreign-raised players maybe, but foreign-born merely makes a laughing-stock of those who might attempt to laugh at it. The UK is a popular destination of migration and someone who's lived in England from the age of 6 having been born in South Africa (such as Andrew Strauss) is no more or less British than someone born there. Foreign-born, UK-raised players playing cricket for England has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the cricket system and everything to do with the country at large.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Foreign-raised players maybe, but foreign-born merely makes a laughing-stock of those who might attempt to laugh at it. The UK is a popular destination of migration and someone who's lived in England from the age of 6 having been born in South Africa (such as Andrew Strauss) is no more or less British than someone born there.
Yea anyone who doesn't call who doesn't call him English is an ass. Thats like saying Hussain & Cowdrey are Indian. KP, Morgan, Trott fall into this category.

Foreign-born, UK-raised players playing cricket for England has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the cricket system and everything to do with the country at large.
It is a part of our culture yea. But foreigners see it as "England got to depend on immigrants to come in for them to get talent in their sports" & its true. As i've said before, cricket for example is seen soo much as posch sport, black people are not interested & majority of the Asians dont want to represent us. Added to fact that coaching at youth level is way below the standards of other countries.

So i can see us plucking immigrants for a while yet, unless we improve our grassroots.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Why do people call Strauss and to a lesser extent Prior "South African"? They are English, they just were born in South African.

However, Trott & Pietersen playing for England is a farce.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
No more than Kepler Wessels playing for Australia was, or Sammy Guillen and Grant Elliott for New Zealand, or Brendan Nash for West Indies, or several other cases. There has always been the odd instance of a player making a conscious decision to switch his allegiances.

Whether this should be allowed, and whether much longer residence qualifications should be imposed, is a moot point and one that can be questioned for a long while, but there's no good reason to single-out England in terms of "imports". It's not even a case of any one team importing players - the players make their own choices of where they want to go.
 
Last edited:

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
No more than Kepler Wessels playing for South Africa was, or Sammy Guillen and Grant Elliott for New Zealand, or Brendan Nash for West Indies, or several other cases. There has always been the odd instance of a player making a conscious decision to switch his allegiances.

Whether this should be allowed, and whether much longer residence qualifications should be imposed, is a moot point and one that can be questioned for a long while, but there's no good reason to single-out England in terms of "imports". It's not even a case of any one team importing players - the players make their own choices of where they want to go.
\_/ about his appearences for Australia - he's South African.

Whilist I can see where you are coming from, the big question is, would Pietersen play for England if it wasn't for apartheid? (and yes, I know he's a recent player, but racial quotas may have well not been added if it wasn't for apartheid).
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
If it wasn't for Apartheid the whole of South African history of the last 60 years would be completely and totally different and whether Kevin Pietersen would have switched allegiances is a minor matter to the point of complete irrelevance. It'd be far more appropriate to say merely "but for racial quotas".

Either way it's important to note that Pietersen may lay the blame for his failure to kick-on in South Africa squarely at the door of racial quotas but I don't quite believe that. Certainly they played a part, but he's not the first nor last seriously promising batsman to be ignored and only selected as a fingerspinner - that even, briefly, happened to Jean-Paul Duminy in the national side. Sometimes it seems South African coaches and selectors just struggle initially to identify a special talent. If anyone had realised how good Pietersen was going to become when he went to England, there is no way anyone would have failed to accommodate him. People just did not realise how good he was.
 

Top