Player revolt in sa over quota system ??

[cnerd123]

I understand that. But I don't think international sports arena is the place for it. Picking rubbish black players is not doing anything for anyone. If CSA want more of the black community involved in cricket, then they should employ local training centres and integrate the sport in to the community, rather than the other way around. The Gary Kirsten cricket academy in Khayelitsha would be a great model to follow.

Yea I agree with most of this. However, if Quotas were shown to be effective in engaging minority communities with the sport, then I would be pro-Quotas. My issue with Quotas isn't the sanctity of sport angle you are coming from, but its effectiveness.

 

[TNT]

And what are the ends?

Players picked on merit. If England decided to direct most of its funds into developing cricket in Yorkshire at the expense of other shires and most of the test players came from Yorkshire it would be acceptable as long as players were picked on merit.

 

[honestbharani]

Players picked on merit. If England decided to direct most of its funds into developing cricket in Yorkshire at the expense of other shires and most of the test players came from Yorkshire it would be acceptable as long as players were picked on merit.

The Baggins dislike this post.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't think quotas are an effective measure (ie, if the CSA wanted more black cricketers there are more effective measures to do so), but I dont see anything inherently wrong with policies that favour or proioritise a group of people who have been historically oppressed, which is kind of the point the comic was making.

I'd say Quotas are bad not because of the intention behind them, but because of their lack of effectiveness.

I do. I think it's absurd tbh. I wouldn't have a problem with prioritising resources to train/support said minorities but favouring of international team selection due to any factor other than merit is absolutely ridiculous IMO.

It's not ok to give a lesser player a position in the hope that you'll help that demographic while a better and deserving player misses out, for no other reason than his ancestors weren't oppressed.

 

[jcas0167]

I do. I think it's absurd tbh. I wouldn't have a problem with prioritising resources to train/support said minorities but favouring of international team selection due to any factor other than merit is absolutely ridiculous IMO.

It's not ok to give a lesser player a position in the hope that you'll help that demographic while a better and deserving player misses out, for no other reason than his ancestors weren't oppressed.

Which was the basis of the Gleneagles Agreement - to oppose engagement with teams that were selected on the basis of race.

As a New Zealand fan, one upside of racist selections in SA is it might lead to more promising players seeking to play here instead.

 

[cnerd123]

I do. I think it's absurd tbh. I wouldn't have a problem with prioritising resources to train/support said minorities but favouring of international team selection due to any factor other than merit is absolutely ridiculous IMO.

It's not ok to give a lesser player a position in the hope that you'll help that demographic while a better and deserving player misses out, for no other reason than his ancestors weren't oppressed.

Yea I'm basically in agreement that giving people roles beyond their merit - be it in sports or in education and business - is generally a bad idea. Usually it does more harm to the minority group - in that it there often is backlash from the wider community - than it does good, and it diminishes the overall quality of the team/company/industry.

But the issue with fairness is something I want to address. If instead of quotas, the CSA were to redirect more of their funding and resources to developing cricket in the black/ethnic minority communities at the grassroots level, wouldn't that still be unfair by your reasoning?

Think about it - In order to assign greater resources to the underprivileged minorities, you must take away from the priviliged ones. Isn't in unfair for young white kids to miss out on resources for no other reason than their the fact that their ancestor's weren't oppressed?

At what point is this unfairness acceptable? Its okay to be unfair to white cricketers when they are kids rather than adults? What about U-19 selections? School level? Club cricket?

And what kind of unfairness is okay? Unfairness in resource allocation is fine, but not in terms of quotas and selections? Why?

Any initiative implemented by any governing body in the world to address the inequalities that have arisen due to past oppressions and wrongdoing will inevitably appear to be unfair on those from the formerly oppressing groups. There is no way around this.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yea I'm basically in agreement that giving people roles beyond their merit - be it in sports or in education and business - is generally a bad idea. Usually it does more harm to the minority group - in that it there often is backlash from the wider community - than it does good, and it diminishes the overall quality of the team/company/industry.

But the issue with fairness is something I want to address. If instead of quotas, the CSA were to redirect more of their funding and resources to developing cricket in the black/ethnic minority communities at the grassroots level, wouldn't that still be unfair by your reasoning?

Think about it - In order to assign greater resources to the underprivileged minorities, you must take away from the priviliged ones. Isn't in unfair for young white kids to miss out on resources for no other reason than their the fact that their ancestor's weren't oppressed?

At what point is this unfairness acceptable? Its okay to be unfair to white cricketers when they are kids rather than adults? What about U-19 selections? School level? Club cricket?

And what kind of unfairness is okay? Unfairness in resource allocation is fine, but not in terms of quotas and selections? Why?

Any initiative implemented by any governing body in the world to address the inequalities that have arisen due to past oppressions and wrongdoing will inevitably appear to be unfair on those from the formerly oppressing groups. There is no way around this.

It could still technically be construed as "unfair", but not to the same degree, and it doesn't have as immediate and obvious an effect as quota-based selection does.

Similar to ICC funding nations that don't earn as much on their own to help keep World cricket competitive. Technically "unfair" but India and Australia don't need any more money lets be honest.

Are welfare payments for the unemployed considered "unfair" because rich people have to pay a lot of taxes?

There are likely supremely talented South African youngsters that wouldn't get the same development opportunity as white counterparts due to socioeconomic status, exposure to facilities and coaching etc. If that's the case then favouring quotas in that manner is fine IMO, even if some people might think it "unfair".

but say you get two 30 year old players, one black, one white who are available for selection, you can't go and pick one player who is definitively not as good as the other because of their race, because at this stage of their careers previously mentioned factors are irrelevant and non-merit-based selection should be illegal IMO.

 

[Dan]

The problem then also becomes that guys like Rabada and Bavuma get branded 'quota players', assumed to only have got their gig because of quota assistance. It can denigrate their achievements, given they actually make the side on merit.But as we see elsewhere, and on here, whenever Bavuma gets picked the discussion always turns to quotas.

 

[cnerd123]

It could still technically be construed as "unfair", but not to the same degree, and it doesn't have as immediate and obvious an effect as quota-based selection does.

Similar to ICC funding nations that don't earn as much on their own to help keep World cricket competitive. Technically "unfair" but India and Australia don't need any more money lets be honest.

Are welfare payments for the unemployed considered "unfair" because rich people have to pay a lot of taxes?

There are likely supremely talented South African youngsters that wouldn't get the same development opportunity as white counterparts due to socioeconomic status, exposure to facilities and coaching etc. If that's the case then favouring quotas in that manner is fine IMO, even if some people might think it "unfair".

but say you get two 30 year old players, one black, one white who are available for selection, you can't go and pick one player who is definitively not as good as the other because of their race, because at this stage of their careers previously mentioned factors are irrelevant and non-merit-based selection should be illegal IMO.

Again, mostly agree, but with regards to the last bit - should there be a situation where it is very clear/definitively proven that the best way to engage a minority community with a particular activity/area of interest/walk of life (such as Cricket) is by Quotas that promote people beyond their merit -and for the sake of the argument lets say that every other initiative has been tried and has failed, and that this is the only way forward and is guaranteed to work- would you still be against them?

 

[Stefan9]

The problem then also becomes that guys like Rabada and Bavuma get branded 'quota players', assumed to only have got their gig because of quota assistance. It can denigrate their achievements, given they actually make the side on merit.But as we see elsewhere, and on here, whenever Bavuma gets picked the discussion always turns to quotas.

It comes up with bavuma cause there are players with higher averages that people feel if the side is picked purely on merit would be ahead of him.

Never comes up with radaba because he has proven himself at the franchise level and his odi/t20 performances.

I understand that. But I don't think international sports arena is the place for it. Picking rubbish black players is not doing anything for anyone. If CSA want more of the black community involved in cricket, then they should employ local training centres and integrate the sport in to the community, rather than the other way around. The Gary Kirsten cricket academy in Khayelitsha would be a great model to follow.

That would require CSA to actually do some work.

Ofc if the ICC was a strong organisation they would never allow sides to play with this political interference going on...

 

[kykweer.proteas]

CSA made the decision to push the new quota requirements in overdrive when we were the no1 test cricket team in the world, ALSO for administrators to play some politics, absolutely no thoughts of long term effects.

There is absolutely no doubt that the strength of our domestic cricket has gone to the dumps, even amateur cricket has been affected even worse by the quota requirements (7/11 players of colour required).

No one can deny that players of colour need a chance to prove themselves, but the way it is being done is doing more damage than harm and only the administrators get to look good.

Back on topic, the report was exclusive to an Afrikaans newspaper as far as i can tell, so there needs to be more sources to back it up, but where there is smoke there is fire. Firdosa Moonda is not likely to comment on it.

Kwota-rebellie | Netwerk24

(pop it into google translate)

 

[harsh.ag]

Always been against, always will be. Redistribution of resources is as far as I would ever go on such a topic. Because you want to make sure when a kid takes up a sport, one thing has to be clear in his mind, he will get selected if he is good enough. That is a ideal that spurs like nothing else.

 

[cnerd123]

Always been against, always will be. Redistribution of resources is as far as I would ever go on such a topic. Because you want to make sure when a kid takes up a sport, one thing has to be clear in his mind, he will get selected if he is good enough. That is a ideal that spurs like nothing else.

Same question to you then::

Should there be a situation where it is very clear/definitively proven that the best way to engage a minority community with a particular activity/area of interest/walk of life (such as Cricket) is by Quotas that promote people beyond their merit -and for the sake of the argument lets say that every other initiative has been tried and has failed, and that this is the only way forward and is guaranteed to work- would you still be against them?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Again, mostly agree, but with regards to the last bit - should there be a situation where it is very clear/definitively proven that the best way to engage a minority community with a particular activity/area of interest/walk of life (such as Cricket) is by Quotas that promote people beyond their merit -and for the sake of the argument lets say that every other initiative has been tried and has failed, and that this is the only way forward and is guaranteed to work- would you still be against them?

Ignoring the fact that it would be impossible to definitively analyse whether such Quotas "worked" or not (and it's almost certain that they actually don't), yes, I would still be against them.

 

[harsh.ag]

Same question to you then::

Should there be a situation where it is very clear/definitively proven that the best way to engage a minority community with a particular activity/area of interest/walk of life (such as Cricket) is by Quotas that promote people beyond their merit -and for the sake of the argument lets say that every other initiative has been tried and has failed, and that this is the only way forward and is guaranteed to work- would you still be against them?

If magic exists, then yes I would believe in magic.

 

[cnerd123]

The thing is, I can actually envisage a situation where the best course of action would be some sort of inventive for clubs to pick minority cricketers - not necessarily quotas, but those could work too.

SA cricket currently isn't in such a situation, so it's basically irrelevant, but if it were then I wouldn't be against quotas at all. I'd actually encourage them.

 

[kykweer.proteas]

The thing is, I can actually envisage a situation where the best course of action would be some sort of inventive for clubs to pick minority cricketers - not necessarily quotas, but those could work too.

SA cricket currently isn't in such a situation, so it's basically irrelevant, but if it were then I wouldn't be against quotas at all. I'd actually encourage them.

A majority of black people have absolutely no interest in cricket, so your pool to select from is already much smaller than the actual population, only in the western cape (cape town region) there is a significant amount of coloured players, so already implementing this quota procedures country wide puts non Western cape teams at a slight disadvantage, especially in Johannesburg where football is enormous, where every black kid growing up wants to be a soccer player.

A lot has been said about the Bavuma 100, but i think its significance pretty much hits a wall after people who already watch cricket and maybe his home town, the rest of the country will be pretty much oblivious.

For black players to thrive, Cricket has to compete with football... not may countries in the world is winning that fight.

 

[Oduodu]

Kykweer proteas

Thanks for the link.

Google translate made a few errors:


But that's what I was talking about:

Thanks

Which ever way you look at it this could be trouble. But I suppose that most white players will accept whatever happens as they will be without jobs if they push through on this. Perhaps a few lucky ones will go overseas like hardus because I think that was already on the cards.

 

[kykweer.proteas]

Kykweer proteas

Thanks for the link.

Google translate made a few errors:


But that's what I was talking about:

Thanks

Which ever way you look at it this could be trouble. But I suppose that most white players will accept whatever happens as they will be without jobs if they push through on this. Perhaps a few lucky ones will go overseas like hardus because I think that was already on the cards.

Roelof van der Merwe already left to go play in/for the Netherlands because of this. He was the third highest run scorer in last years first class cricket season, @ 55

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...most_runs_career.html?id=9169;type=tournament

Ironically in 2008 the Quota system got scrapped, which lead to the proteas going to No1, with the Proteas at No1, the quotas are reintroduced with a vengeance,

 

[Oduodu]

Yes that true. The black communities in sa for the most part doesn't care about cricket like they do soccer . That s why I harp on about the broadcasting of cricket in sa : there is just no way black kids in sa saw themba bavuma make hid 100 because as far as I know there is no sabc 3(on which the cricket is broadcasted) in the black townships. I hope I am wrong and there is . I am very certain that in the eastern cape there definitely no sabc 3 available to watch the cricket on. These are the poorest of the poor people in sa. Perhaps can show in what townships the have sabc 3?? If the matches are overseas you must pay R800 rand per monty for the full bouquet of dstv to watch it.

The world cup was the exception.

If this broadcasting thing isn't sorted out then how will black kids see cricket when it is played by black players in sa ?? Then how will the image of cricket be transformed their minds eye ??