World Cup 2015 (IV)

Australia has also suffered from a quota system. Our selectors insist on selecting a quota of useless qunts to try to give the opposition some chance.

lardbucket wrote:SACB is strenuously denying that this selection was a quota selection. They thought Philander was a better player for the conditions; possibly in the same way that Australia picked Clarke over Bailey, and Watson over Marsh.

Quota selection is poor. I am not convinced that Philander's selection was a quota selection; when he had been their star player for the preceding 2 years.

And why scapegoat the man who bowled 8 overs for 52 as a "quota selection", whilst overlooking the fact that Steyn conceded 76 off his 9?

The rain helped out NZ (and thereby Australia) big time in this case. So did the dropped dolly catch and the two appallingly bungled run outs. Or are you saying, taips, that these things happened mainly because Philander's selection destroyed team morale? If so, how is he supposed to come back from that?

Well that would, wouldn't they. He was clearly unfit and Abbott had been superior all tournament.

He has not been the star of the ODI team.

Steyn's figure have no bearing on the situation. He also had to bowl the power play and death overs.

There are rumours of senior players not wanting to play because of the situation.

If it was a quota decision, team morale has been destroyed so have no idea how he comes back from that. Maybe he should have done a Langeveldt.

lardbucket wrote:a) I don't think you have to have been a 'bleeding heart liberal' to despise apartheid; and b) I've yet to see anyone condone quota selection.

And I have yet to see anyone suggest boycotting SA because of racial selection policies.

taipan wrote:

lardbucket wrote:SACB is strenuously denying that this selection was a quota selection. They thought Philander was a better player for the conditions; possibly in the same way that Australia picked Clarke over Bailey, and Watson over Marsh.

Quota selection is poor. I am not convinced that Philander's selection was a quota selection; when he had been their star player for the preceding 2 years.

And why scapegoat the man who bowled 8 overs for 52 as a "quota selection", whilst overlooking the fact that Steyn conceded 76 off his 9?

The rain helped out NZ (and thereby Australia) big time in this case. So did the dropped dolly catch and the two appallingly bungled run outs. Or are you saying, taips, that these things happened mainly because Philander's selection destroyed team morale? If so, how is he supposed to come back from that?

Well that would, wouldn't they. He was clearly unfit and Abbott had been superior all tournament.

He has not been the star of the ODI team.

Steyn's figure have no bearing on the situation. He also had to bowl the power play and death overs.

There are rumours of senior players not wanting to play because of the situation.

If it was a quota decision, team morale has been destroyed so have no idea how he comes back from that. Maybe he should have done a Langeveldt.

rumours, if, auntie, balls, uncles ... exactly

taipan wrote:

lardbucket wrote:a) I don't think you have to have been a 'bleeding heart liberal' to despise apartheid; and b) I've yet to see anyone condone quota selection.

And I have yet to see anyone suggest boycotting SA because of racial selection policies.

Well, it's barely 4 days since SA lost their semi-final, and already we have unsubstantiated rumours that a selected player - probably one of the first players selected for the squad - was only selected in the final in order to fulfil a quota, and that this was a significant contributing factor to the loss.

Looks like scapegoating to me.

And weren't you around in 1970?

And the Justin Ontong selection in Aus some years ago. There are many substantiated cases of racial selection and nothing has been said?

1970?

embee wrote:

taipan wrote:Stories now emerging that Abbott was selected for the semi and political pressure forced Philander in.

sympathies on that one , taips

a shame you cant pick your best team based on merit for a gilly semi final  

That's actually scandalous. It seems the disbelief expressed by many of us after the side was announced for the semi was well justified. Abbott, I dare say (as probably many in SAf are saying), could easily have been the difference in SAf making and not making the Final. Without blaming Verny, I doubt Abbott would've went for 18 in his first over. Given the Sheep won off the 2nd last ball, a tightish 1st Abbott over would've been very telling.

Skully ... that's a bit illogical. Philander's first over cost them the game? Why not those last overs from Steyn, who was even more expensive?

And how could you NOT choose Philander on a NZ wicket in a tournament where swing was the deal breaker?

It was just a great performance on the day by NZ.

PHILANDER'S Recent ODI results certainly look good enough to have earned him selection:

10*, 2/34 South Africa v U.A.E. Wellington 12 Mar 2015 ODI # 3633

0/19, 0 South Africa v India Melbourne 22 Feb 2015 ODI # 3610

2/30 South Africa v Zimbabwe Hamilton 15 Feb 2015 ODI # 3601

2/59, 57 South Africa v New Zealand Christchurch 11 Feb 2015 Other OD

1/24, 13* South Africa v Sri Lanka Christchurch 9 Feb 2015 Other OD

3/27 South Africa v West Indies East London 21 Jan 2015 ODI # 3587

2/69 South Africa v West Indies Johannesburg 18 Jan 2015 ODI # 3583

4, 3/44 South Africa v West Indies Durban 16 Jan 2015 ODI # 3579


15 - 320 odd seems more than reasonable.

Big Dog wrote:Australia has also suffered from a quota system. Our selectors insist on selecting a quota of useless qunts to try to give the opposition some chance.

We were as surprised as Aus at the selection of Doherty

Apparently he mixes a fabulous drink, almost as good as Ray Bright.

taipan wrote:And the Justin Ontong selection in Aus some years ago. There are many substantiated cases of racial selection and nothing has been said?

That WAS a quota selection, and plenty was said. Terrible for all, for Rudolph, for Ontong, for South Africa.

1970?

There was plenty of criticism worldwide of South Africa's racially based selection then. You'd just finished saying that you hadn't seen any, so I thought perhaps you'd forgotten.

lardbucket wrote:

taipan wrote:And the Justin Ontong selection in Aus some years ago. There are many substantiated cases of racial selection and nothing has been said?

That WAS a quota selection, and plenty was said. Terrible for all, for Rudolph, for Ontong, for South Africa.

1970?

There was plenty of criticism worldwide of South Africa's racially based selection then. You'd just finished saying that you hadn't seen any, so I thought perhaps you'd forgotten.

By that logic Black on white racism is acceptable.

You're completely missing the point. Deliberately?

lardbucket wrote:And how could you NOT choose Philander on a NZ wicket in a tournament where swing was the deal breaker?

Because Abbott was in great form and Verny hadn't played since SAf's first game because of a dodgy hammy - which later took him off the park). I said so at the time. It was ridiculous.

Anywho, I've had my say. No skin off my nose.

lardbucket wrote:You're completely missing the point. Deliberately?

No, I am just ignoring your facetious remark. You are well aware I am discussing the present but it appears you have no argument left to offer.

Let's see ... one bowler has significantly more ODI experience, swings the ball miles both ways, and has an ODI average of 23. Our other bowler has played fewer ODIs, doesn't swing the ball as much, and goes at 32 runs per wicket.

And the first guy bats well.

Who shall we choose, on merit?

taipan wrote:

lardbucket wrote:You're completely missing the point. Deliberately?

No, I am just ignoring your facetious remark. You are well aware I am discussing the present but it appears you have no argument left to offer.

Don't be an idiot. It's a disgrace that, based on no more than unsubstantiated rumour, you are prepared to propagate the slander that Philander's selection was just "a quota selection", inferring that he would not have been selected on merit.

His figures (posted above) compare favourably to Abbott's, his style is suited to NZ wickets, he wasn't even the bowler who copped the main brunt of the Kiwi bats ... but his selection is somehow a major reason why you didn't make the final.

I don't believe Philander was a quota selection. I'm not defending quota selections; any selection based purely on race is abhorrent.

lardbucket wrote:

taipan wrote:

lardbucket wrote:You're completely missing the point. Deliberately?

No, I am just ignoring your facetious remark. You are well aware I am discussing the present but it appears you have no argument left to offer.

Don't be an idiot. It's a disgrace that, based on no more than unsubstantiated rumour, you are prepared to propagate the slander that Philander's selection was just "a quota selection", inferring that he would not have been selected on merit.

His figures (posted above) compare favourably to Abbott's, his style is suited to NZ wickets, he wasn't even the bowler who copped the main brunt of the Kiwi bats ... but his selection is somehow a major reason why you didn't make the final.

I don't believe Philander was a quota selection. I'm not defending quota selections; any selection based purely on race is abhorrent.

And that still has fark all to do with 1970.

And read what I actually wrote. I have never claimed it was major reason, only a contributing factor as I have stated at least twice.

taipan wrote:you have no argument left to offer

I'll argue with you a bit more if you like. You have baldly asserted that Philander's selection was a quota selection. I disagree with you, and contend that his past performances easily justify his selection, and indeed compare favourably with those of his competition. His selection might well have been a mistake, but to dismiss it as a quota selection is where I think you've gone too far. Your board also denies that it was a quota selection. So ... prove it if you can ... 'they would say that, wouldn't they' might have been OK from Christine Keeler, but perhaps you should do better.

lardbucket wrote:

taipan wrote:you have no argument left to offer

I'll argue with you a bit more if you like. You have baldly asserted that Philander's selection was a quota selection. I disagree with you, and contend that his past performances easily justify his selection, and indeed compare favourably with those of his competition. His selection might well have been a mistake, but to dismiss it as a quota selection is where I think you've gone too far. Your board also denies that it was a quota selection. So ... prove it if you can ... 'they would say that, wouldn't they' might have been OK from Christine Keeler, but perhaps you should do better.

Um, where did I baldly state that? The fact is that in my opinion, which I have been stating for over two years, is that Philander should not be in the ODI team. That is based on this bowling style which I think is not suited for ODI's.


The SA board are very close to government appointees and I do not believe a word they say. You will recall that they issued a denial in the Ontong incident as well.

And I think you might find it was Mandy Rice-Davies.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/southafrica/content/story/857057.html

The link includes denials of 'quota selection' from the SACB head, from AB de Villiers, and the coach Domingo. All lying?

Domingo's comments on Philander, whose record in NZ is second only to his record at home, are telling; and they were made repeatedly during the tournament.

Repeat: NOT a quota selection.

Mandy yes, not Christine; either way you get the drift.

Domingo is clueless at the best of times.

So AB is lying?

quote from before the match:

"Vernon is a wonderful bowler who has performed well for us over the years," Domingo said at the time. "He has a good record in New Zealand and if there is anything in the wicket to exploit, we know he is the person to do it."

lardbucket wrote:So AB is lying?

Only he will know that. It will all be sorted out one way or another when the dust settles.