• 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.

CSA confirms guideline on selection quota

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Oh, how badly the poor oppressed white person must have it!

In all seriousness, let's have something other than a knee-jerk response to this confirmation of an existence of a guideline. Look, they're ungainly and annoying and easy to criticise but I for one support any move they make to attempt to give chances to players who were formerly disadvantaged. Sure, they **** up from time to time (Ontong > Rudolph and Philander > Abbott being the two main examples), but overall the selectors accept that it isn't a hard-and-fast rule -- it's a guideline telling them to consider selecting players of colour (and, let's face it, there are enough decent players of colour who make the teams on merit, and plenty more who would come into selection calculations).

I completely agree that the pre-2007 policy (4 players of colour being forced into the XI irrespective of merit) was pretty poor, but this one really isn't that bad when you actually think about it. They've ****ed up here and deserve to be held to account -- assuming the selection of Philander was purely race-motivated -- but overcoming past disadvantage by putting a target in place is hardly evil.

Saying "ideally we'd like to have 4 players of colour in our XI and as such we'll look closely at the development of players of colour to see if they're viable options" is completely different to a hard-and-fast quota that shoehorns absolute shunts into the XI ahead of good players. It isn't even like the selection of Philander was that ridiculous; sure, Abbott had the form, but there's certainly a logic to showing loyalty to the incumbent player who has historically performed well for the country. Hardly like an underserving shunt took the place of Bradman-incarnate.

Think of it this way, how many genuinely underserving selections of players of colour have there been since 2007? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the continued persistence with Tsotsobe, and being obsessed with quick left arm seamers even if they aren't quite good enough has been pretty universal as of late. Not exactly down to his skin tone.
I don't know about you, but if I was the coach of South Africa, I'd find the existence of a guideline that says 'hey Furball, remember not to just stack the team with whites, the coloured blokes are pretty talented as well' would be pretty offensive.

Your 'poor whitey' sentence was ill thought out as well, because it just got harder for talented young white cricketers to get a gig as a First Class cricketer with there only being 30 positions available. And it's no use saying to those players 'well work harder' when there are increased racial barriers against their selection.

I don't buy the 'formerly disadvantaged' argument either. Mandela was elected in 1994. No South African under the age of 21 has directly been disadvantaged by apartheid. Yes, there are obviously still socio-economic conditions that exist as a result; these do not simply disappear overnight when you elect Mandela but we now have an entire generation of South Africans who have grown up in a free, democratic and equal South Africa (in theory.) What's needed is investment in infrastructure, coaching and scholarships - the main reason that cricket is still a white dominated sport is because the best players coming through the schooling system are mostly white. At this stage in history, the transformation policy isn't giving formerly disadvantaged players a fair go, it's unfairly giving players a leg up on the basis of skin colour.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
They've got the right motivation behind the quota, but the quota isn't the way to go about doing things.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
I don't know about you, but if I was the coach of South Africa, I'd find the existence of a guideline that says 'hey Furball, remember not to just stack the team with whites, the coloured blokes are pretty talented as well' would be pretty offensive.

Your 'poor whitey' sentence was ill thought out as well, because it just got harder for talented young white cricketers to get a gig as a First Class cricketer with there only being 30 positions available. And it's no use saying to those players 'well work harder' when there are increased racial barriers against their selection.

I don't buy the 'formerly disadvantaged' argument either. Mandela was elected in 1994. No South African under the age of 21 has directly been disadvantaged by apartheid. Yes, there are obviously still socio-economic conditions that exist as a result; these do not simply disappear overnight when you elect Mandela but we now have an entire generation of South Africans who have grown up in a free, democratic and equal South Africa (in theory.) What's needed is investment in infrastructure, coaching and scholarships - the main reason that cricket is still a white dominated sport is because the best players coming through the schooling system are mostly white. At this stage in history, the transformation policy isn't giving formerly disadvantaged players a fair go, it's unfairly giving players a leg up on the basis of skin colour.
The existence of that guideline is pretty clearly more symbolic than anything else. The magic number is 4, and South Africa were playing 5 players of colour in the group stages who were all there on merit, and didn't immediately implode when the guideline wasn't met due to injuries.

I'm talking about the international guideline, not the domestic quota (which is a hard quota, rather than this target guideline). That one certainly does worry me, because it actively forces certain players to be included ahead of other players without taking talent into account. Very different to having a "ideally we want 4 players of colour" target that isn't actively enforced as a CSA law, as such.

Yeah, poverty is intergenerational and social change is slow. African-Americans certainly aren't equal in the USA, and we're a long time past the abolition of slavery and decades removed from the Civil Rights movement. Women are still overwhelmingly treated like **** despite gaining suffrage, equal pay and anti-discrimination legislation. I don't think many gay teenagers are all that enamoured by homosexuality being removed from a list of psychological conditions when they're still bullied mercilessly by their peers. You're completely right that the players of this generation have grown up in a theoretically free, democratic and equal South Africa, but the pace of institutional change and social change on the ground is far slower, and years of disadvantage can't be outweighed by a proclamation of "you're equal now". It requires long-term investment and for social attitudes to 'catch up' with the legislative change. As South Africa realises, transformation is a long-run game.

You're right in saying that the best players coming through the schooling system are mostly white. Because white people overwhelmingly have access to those schools. Because they have the money to afford it. Because their families weren't officially treated as second class citizens for nearly 50 years, and they're not subject to institutional bias and subtle racism on a daily basis. Without breaking out the dreadfully overused 'p' word, white South Africans certainly are better placed to access the structures that lead to cricketing success.

I'm pretty certain that CSA is investing in all those things you mention, trying to redress inequalities from the ground up. If they aren't, they're complete idiots and ought to be replaced by someone semi-competent immediately. Change occurs from the ground up. Coaching, scholarships and infrastructure are the base components of this guideline -- a target has been set that CSA wishes to reach, and as long as they aren't forcefully implementing a hard quota then I see no issues with that. It strikes me as more of a KPI than a hard-and-fast law -- "Oh, only two players of colour are realistically challenging for selection at the moment, is our grassroots policy working?" or "Hey, we've got eight guys from formerly disadvantaged backgrounds in our extended squad plans, things look to be going pretty well".

I used to be fine with hard quotas, thinking them necessary evils. I've changed my mind on that, because quotas and pure affirmative action cause as much re-stigmatisation of the racial identity in question as they purport to solve, and undermine the actual achievements of those who succeed. Clarence Thomas, the US Supreme Court judge, sees his Harvard law degree as practically worthless because people assume he got it thanks to affirmative action, not because he was actually a ****ing brilliant law student. Similarly, the domestic quota undermines the players of colour (especially black Africans, in this case) who truly deserve their spot, because everyone assumes they only have that spot because of the quota.

I think a key example of this was when Temba Bavuma was selected. Speaking to one particular poster on CricSim, he immediately assumed that he only received the spot because of his skin colour, when he was regularly in the top handful of domestic runscorers in the few years previous alongside old domestic journeymen, first-season wonders and Farhan Berhardien. Realising that Farhan Berhardien was the only other realistic option as far as the statistics went, he admitted that Bavuma did have a genuine case for selection after all. He was there on merit, but people assumed that, because he was black, it must have been the colour of his skin that got him there.

Again, I challenge you to find me one player of colour who plainly did not deserve full national selection post-2007. Philander is one case. One case of a superior white player being held back because of racial politics, because the CSA hierarchy ****ed up and were utterly inept. I don't see how this one case of the guideline going wrong is evidence that CSA shouldn't be setting a target to be reached as a method of measuring the success of its grassroots programs. As long as they aren't artificially forcing themselves to hit it, I take no issue with this guideline's existence.

I certainly do take issue with this specific CSA **** up, though.
 
Last edited:

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Isn't the best way to popularise cricket among the blacks or any segment for that matter, to have your teams win as much as possible by selecting the best teams? Duh.
 

Shady Slim

International Coach
hang on so how many generations back does someone need to have an ancestor of full colour to be considered a person of colour themselves?

like here at high schools you get bonus ATAR points if there is an aboriginal great grandparent or regular grandparent iirc
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
hang on so how many generations back does someone need to have an ancestor of full colour to be considered a person of colour themselves?

like here at high schools you get bonus ATAR points if there is an aboriginal great grandparent or regular grandparent iirc
No you don't.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Isn't the best way to popularise cricket among the blacks or any segment for that matter, to have your teams win as much as possible by selecting the best teams? Duh.
That would also depend on whether said minority feels the team represents them. To Aboriginal Aussies, cricket is basically a closed shop and the Test and ODI side dominating the world for a decade didn't impact on participation rates, even with some Aboriginal reps (Gillespie and Christian). Specific programs targeting talent, Aboriginal cricket carnivals, etc. at the ground level has been the only thing to make Nunga cricketers visible.

No you don't.
Yeah wat. How does crap like this even get started?!
 

Shady Slim

International Coach
No you don't.
you sure?

my cousins are filthy frickin' liars then

they said it allows them to apply for bonus points on the count of being disadvantaged... hardships benefit or something along those lines

closest aboriginal to them in the family tree is one of the grandmothers
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The only program I'm aware of which gives bonus points for hardship is the EAS, specifically for disrupted schooling, etc. If you live in a house with extended (>6 months) financial/illness/etc. hardship, you can apply for bonus points. You don't automatically get points solely on the basis of Aboriginality.
 

Shady Slim

International Coach
yeah all they told me was their score gets scaled up five points on the basis of their partial aboriginality so my info was from them and it appears they don't have the firmest grasp on what the scheme is either - though i am not sure if they got their info from a book, a teacher or a parent

though thanks for clearing that up
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Thought greater opportunities are provided at entry level depending on the socio-economic status of where you live?
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
tbh, very few people ever do have a firm grasp on the real story when it comes to Aboriginal schemes. I'm Aboriginal and I've never heard of (let alone received) 90% of the (mostly ridiculous) stuff people claim I've been entitled to over the years but this takes hold. Where's my free 4WD from the government?!
 

Shady Slim

International Coach
tbh, very few people ever do have a firm grasp on the real story when it comes to Aboriginal schemes. I'm Aboriginal and I've never heard of (let alone received) 90% of the (mostly ridiculous) stuff people claim I've been entitled to over the years but this takes hold. Where's my free 4WD from the government?!
aight fair enough and again thanks for clearing that up
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
There are Indigenous-based concessions, but that's at the uni application level, not the ATAR level. ATAR is a ranking and does not change based on Aboriginality.

Some universities have different admission schemes for Aboriginal Australians, just like they have rural access schemes and socioeconomic disadvantage schemes. They give you bonus points for that specific uni and are subject to approval and testing and whatnot. And of course there are specific Indigenous scholarships. But the ATAR itself never changes.

FTR bonus points are basically a joke anyway. Isn't overly difficult to get +5 for performance in relevant subjects.
 

Top