• 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.

My SA first class cricket concerns

Justo

U19 Debutant
ok

there shoudnt be a shortage of batsmen bowlers of colour to pick from.

still anyone able to try and explain why south africa folded against pakistan ??
South Africa folded against Pakistan because Pakistan were the better team on the day. While Pakistan are far from a great team when things click they can pretty much destroy any team.

South Africa on the other hand while a strong team really lack for quality depth past their big 3 (Ab, Amla and Steyn). It doesn't help that the teams balance is also quite poor leaving the side typically either a batsmen or bowler short (or both if they select Parnell). With De Kock and Duminy both returning from injury and not really hitting their strides the depth issues are magnified as well.

While South Africa remain a strong contender in the World Cup I personally wouldn't put any money on them winning the tournament. In the knockouts they're probably only one Ab and Steyn failure away from elimination.
 

Oduodu

School Boy/Girl Captain
South Africa folded against Pakistan because Pakistan were the better team on the day. While Pakistan are far from a great team when things click they can pretty much destroy any team.

South Africa on the other hand while a strong team really lack for quality depth past their big 3 (Ab, Amla and Steyn). It doesn't help that the teams balance is also quite poor leaving the side typically either a batsmen or bowler short (or both if they select Parnell). With De Kock and Duminy both returning from injury and not really hitting their strides the depth issues are magnified as well.

While South Africa remain a strong contender in the World Cup I personally wouldn't put any money on them winning the tournament. In the knockouts they're probably only one Ab and Steyn failure away from elimination.
totally agree

the sa batters looked completely out of their depth against pakistan. we are supposed to be one best countires when it comes to playing fast bowling yet irfan and co just applied so much pressure. i heard shaun pollock say the other day that the pitches are slower than what they used to in sa. so batsmen may have a false sense of security and when they get to really fast wickets they simply dont know how to deal with it. stroke making is not that esy whe the wickets are quick like they are in australia.
 

Oduodu

School Boy/Girl Captain
Well there you have it: sa is reducing there 6 sides for super rugby to 4. Jean de Villiers spoke the other night with cobus wiese and Jean indicates that there was just not enough players. The quality of sides was too low as the y were uncompetitive. So what now about inclusivity/representivity of players of colour?

Wouldn't more players of colour get exposure if there were 6 sides? Or is it just aboit money now?
 

Marius

International Debutant
Well there you have it: sa is reducing there 6 sides for super rugby to 4. Jean de Villiers spoke the other night with cobus wiese and Jean indicates that there was just not enough players. The quality of sides was too low as the y were uncompetitive. So what now about inclusivity/representivity of players of colour?

Wouldn't more players of colour get exposure if there were 6 sides? Or is it just aboit money now?
Um, yes.

Why must SANZAAR give SA rugby extra teams so players of colour get opportunities?

And I'm not sure about the point you're trying to make actually.
 

Oduodu

School Boy/Girl Captain
Spellings is not my thing$

Apooloogies.


Bonus points are always welcome.

THe Point is its about money.

Actually if the rugby is so poor that no one wants to watch it which is evidenced by the poor showing of spectators then why do we continue with 4 day first class matches that no one goes to watch? Who pays for the salaries staff upkeep of the ground? Shouldn't we reducing the number of franchises to four so that we have more competitive cricket that people will go and watch it ? Why must whoever pay for cricket no one wants to watch? Then at least we might attract more sponsorships deals and money and 4 day cricket might be televised on supersport again.

But since cricket doesn't have the following and size of mark that rugby has ( here in sa at least) no one cares.

I think the big thing about rugby is that supersport is losing a ****load Of money due to no one watching the games on TV due to the low standard of rugby. That's why Australia wanted sa out of sanzar.

If cricket at 4 day level want to grow the same thing needs to happen. Better quality cricket that is televised.

That what I have been saying since the world cup.

That's the point: rugby has suffered the same problem as cricket (now here in sa) BUT because it doesn't have the money making value (not caring whether the paying rugby public got something worthy of their support and love for their game ) that rugby has no one really bothers.

So its just about televising rights that's it.

Where does sanzar get the money that is paid so sa ? Probably from selling television rights . And when the rugby sucks no one watches and advertisers doesn't want advertise anymore .

So its about money. Cricket here in sa must attain the same level of quality to justify it being televised.
 

cnerd123

likes this
4 day cricket for a Test playing nation is like training and sparring sessions for a pro boxer. It doesn't exist to make money. It exists to sharpen up the national team so that they can go out and win games of cricket, and winning lots at international level is what makes people want to tune in and watch you, and that's what makes you money. Without a strong domestic cricket system, your will struggle to produce new talent, and your existing talent won't have a place to go to outside of international games that will keep them sharp or challenge them to improve.

I'm going to play out the boxer/international cricket team analogy now, not because it needs explaining, but because I like it:

Very few people care to watch the pro boxer train and spar. Boxers can't monetise the training and sparring. It costs them money to do it - pay a gym, a coach, potentially pay for training partners, pay for equipment and medical care. And that's on top of regular daily costs. Training is basically a sinkhole for money for them with no real return.

Boxers only earn their money by fighting real fights. That's what the fans pay to watch. Fighting as much as possible ensures the boxer earns as much as possible.

The catch, however, is that people don't pay money to watch boxers who suck. It's the best boxers* who earn the most money. To have a large fanbase of people willing to see you fight, you must be worth watching. You must be a good boxer.

How do you become a good boxer? You spend a lot of time training.

You put the money and the time in to train and spar at the gym, with the coaches, the training partners, the equipment, so that when you do go out and fight, you put on a performance that enhances your reputation. This then increases your fanbase, and thus how much you can earn from future fights. The training and sparring doesn't directly earn you the money. You don't do it because it turns a profit. You do it so to strengthen your skills so that when you go and fight, you perform well, and that performance earns you the money.

Investing in your domestic structure is the same as a boxer investing in their training. You invest for good pitches, good coaches, and you try and ensure the best non-national talent also stays in the system and keeps playing. Because this is the breeding and training ground for your national talent. And if this is strong, then your national team talent is strong. And when that is strong, you will win lots of matches. And when you win lots of matches, you get more fans, more sponsors, your TV rights are worth more, and overall you make more money.

You don't use domestic cricket to turn a profit.

*yes I know the best boxers don't always make the most money don't start nitpicking me on this
 

Oduodu

School Boy/Girl Captain
***** that is a fine reply. Thnk you.

Yes you need to grow your talent. That's for sure. And first class sides need to play to prepare you for test cricket. The problem is test cricket isn't making money like it used to . So less money to share lower down.

*****

My big concern is when kids are no longer exposed to the game . Where are the days when children watched cricket with their parents? Or went to watch a game with their parent at first class level? Only if the cricket is good enough that someone will pay to watch it will kids Learn to love the game. Players leave sa as kolpak players to go and play in England simply because they also have to make a living. They have to prepare for their old age. Its a job like any other . The 4 day games must aspire to this level of quality . Its where love for the game Is bred. But for people to stay in south Africa and make a living in cricket here is impossible at the moment because of the lack of income. If we have fewer sides then we would have less players leaving to play overseas . Its as simple as that . More sponsorships would come. And more importantly it could be televised as marketable product. That is something that needs to happen.

The players would be better prepared.

At t20 and list a. Level we would have full houses. At moment we don't get full houses at domestic t20 and list a matches. And that s really the problem.
 

cnerd123

likes this
I don't have the answers, but just going off what we know about sports in general, love for the game starts with accessibility. It should be easy for a kid to play and watch cricket. Usually we rely on the parents - they're usually the ones who, through being a fan of the sport themselves, introduce their kid to it. But if you want to find new audiences, you need to make the game accessible for them.

How do you do this? Well there are several way. But you bring up watching FC cricket at a ground. Well, in that case, surely you would want more FC cricket teams playing in more grounds around the country, not less? I mean, what does a kid know about the difference between watching high and low quality cricket? As long as the kid has fun at the ground, they'll enjoy it. Having more more matches in more locations makes the game more accessible, and thus its more likely that a kid will be exposed to it and become a fan of it.

Could be several reasons why people don't attend games regularly now, but I doubt that would be resolved by having less cricket happening. And ultimately what matters is sheer numbers. Its better to have 50 games at 20% attendance than 5 at 100% IMO. If you reduce cricket to sell out stadiums you aren't attracting anyone new - the people attending those 5 sold-out games are the ones who made time in their schedule to attend cricket - they're already fans of the game. The ones who cbf and who will only attend if convenient and nothing better to do are the ones you want to attract. More dates in the schedule makes it more likely they show up to come watch.

Plus more clubs playing = more opportunities for young players to get involved with a club. If you concentrate all top level cricket to fewer locations, you stunt the development of the game in other regions, and make it harder for a young prospect to break into top flight cricket. The teens and early 20s are where most players have to decide between committing their life to cricket or pursuing another form of employment. If you don't have space in your domestic cricket structure for players of that age bracket, you're going to lose them.
 

StephenZA

Hall of Fame Member
SuperRugby is not the same as a domestic tournament, it is an international franchise competition. Can not compare a reduction to 4 SuperRugby franchises to what is going on in SA domestic cricket.
 

Marius

International Debutant
SuperRugby is not the same as a domestic tournament, it is an international franchise competition. Can not compare a reduction to 4 SuperRugby franchises to what is going on in SA domestic cricket.
Exactly, it's apples and oranges.
 

Dendarii

International Debutant
Well there you have it: sa is reducing there 6 sides for super rugby to 4. Jean de Villiers spoke the other night with cobus wiese and Jean indicates that there was just not enough players. The quality of sides was too low as the y were uncompetitive. So what now about inclusivity/representivity of players of colour?

Wouldn't more players of colour get exposure if there were 6 sides?
They would, but so would more white players. I don't know what the Kings' racial breakdown is, but if it's more or less the same as the other Super Rugby teams then their presence in the competition isn't really boosting transformation.
 

Oduodu

School Boy/Girl Captain
Its only because of the money involved - it similar to the ipl . The Only reason the tournament (superrugby) exists is because of the wealth of talent that ensured the level of rugby was great. That has stopped due to a lot of sa players leaving to play in Europe because they get more money their and a lively hood. Exactly the same thing happened in sa cricket people left to make lives elsewhere. The only differences is that the egg golden goose is that much bigger.
 
Last edited:

Oduodu

School Boy/Girl Captain
Any ways the decline of the national side rugby side has been evidence to the permanent leaving of talent. People got Europe and Japan and they stay there up setup their financial security which not possible in sa. Not like overseas anyway. Let's see if the national side improves when the 4 team system has been inplace a few years.
 

Top