England v South Africa, 1st Test, Lord's, 6-10 July, 2017

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:This is the same (assuming du Plessis plays) South African team that beat Australia in Australia just 7 months back. I actually rate them as favourites to win this series.

Sure, their batting is a bit iffy these days (but so is England's and then some) but any team that has Philander, Rabada, and Morne Morkel as their attack is going to be favourites to win most series.

Except for Cook and Abbott?

Abbott is a sad loss, but Morne is a worthy replacement (assuming it's him that gets the nod) . Their batting is not really weakened by Kuhn coming in for Cook.

Having seen him in the T20s (and yeah, it's only T20s) I'm surprised Dane Paterson isn't in the test squad. He looks pretty useful to me. And he would have enjoyed English conditions. Reminds me of Charl Langeveldt.

Regardless of the merits of Cook, his dropping means SA have to play an uncapped opener.

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:This is the same (assuming du Plessis plays) South African team that beat Australia in Australia just 7 months back. I actually rate them as favourites to win this series.

Sure, their batting is a bit iffy these days (but so is England's and then some) but any team that has Philander, Rabada, and Morne Morkel as their attack is going to be favourites to win most series.

Except for Cook and Abbott?

Abbott is a sad loss, but Morne is a worthy replacement (assuming it's him that gets the nod) . Their batting is not really weakened by Kuhn coming in for Cook.

Having seen him in the T20s (and yeah, it's only T20s) I'm surprised Dane Paterson isn't in the test squad. He looks pretty useful to me. And he would have enjoyed English conditions. Reminds me of Charl Langeveldt.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Cricket/Proteas/richards-uncertain-about-sas-transformation-plan-20170702

Barry Richards questions the transformation policy.

Nothing to see there. Bitter old Barry. This period is a mere footnote in the history of fighting past wrongs which denied Indigenous Africans' from participating in social, economic,political and sporting spheres.

Yeah, but it smacks of the appalling Govt "affirmative action" I used to have to swallow at work, which guaranteed any woman a better than even chance of snaring a job over a male, regardless of talent. The number of useless dribblers that got promoted then shunted sideways due to incompetence had to be seen to be believed. Some of my more talented work peers and managers were women, but they proved themselves worthy. Many others didn't.

I agree with Richards' "merit" issue. Not only does your best side not get chosen, but it also causes morale and personality dramas within the team, e.g. the Justin Ontong affair.

skully wrote:Yeah, but it smacks of the appalling Govt "affirmative action" I used to have to swallow at work, which guaranteed any woman a better than even chance of snaring a job over a male, regardless of talent. The number of useless dribblers that got promoted then shunted sideways due to incompetence had to be seen to be believed. Some of my more talented work peers and managers were women, but they proved themselves worthy. Many others didn't.

I agree with Richards' "merit" issue. Not only does your best side not get chosen, but it also causes morale and personality dramas within the team, e.g. the Justin Ontong affair.

It seems he is also concerned that there are blurred lines of colour in the non-white world which clouds the issue further.

Red wrote:

skully wrote:Yeah, but it smacks of the appalling Govt "affirmative action" I used to have to swallow at work, which guaranteed any woman a better than even chance of snaring a job over a male, regardless of talent. The number of useless dribblers that got promoted then shunted sideways due to incompetence had to be seen to be believed. Some of my more talented work peers and managers were women, but they proved themselves worthy. Many others didn't.

I agree with Richards' "merit" issue. Not only does your best side not get chosen, but it also causes morale and personality dramas within the team, e.g. the Justin Ontong affair.

It seems he is also concerned that there are blurred lines of colour in the non-white world which clouds the issue further.

QdK.

For me, the best bit in Bazza's statement is the simple phrase "It's a difficult one".

Because it is.

On the one hand, there's little point anyone arguing significant pools of talent and potential were denied chances in the past (this is just talking cricket alone, before looking at politics and any notions of fairness in society!) - were barely even given a start, indeed.

On the other, you can easily argue that some - not that many, I think, but it stands out - have got as far as the top level who, making all allowances for external (social) and internal (psychological) pressures, debilitating nerves given the situation, inadequate man management too perhaps, have shown no signs of meriting that position. I think of Martin McCague, the wrong Pattinson.

You have to match demonstrable fairness with demonstrable skills. As with any equality policy, promote people too much on dogma and too little on talent, and you risk a counterproductive effect (I don't mean that ugly word & concept "backlash" - ! - I simply mean you do scant justice to justice.)

On the other hand - yes, back to that first hand again - return to something like a Cecil Rhodes concept of merit, and you sell sport, society, individuals, and the whole bloody system short.

So Baz is right - it IS a difficult one.

But surely it should also be a matter of common sense. Give every opportunity as widely as humanly possible, promote and coach and foster and educate all to optimum standards that funds/resources allow - and yes, certainly give extra assistance (and funding) to socially neglected areas and individuals - but don't load them or reward them with positions they are in no position to acquit adequately.

As far as I'm concerned, it's quite simply a case whereby two wrongs don't make a right.

Promote the hell out of back and "coloured" talent in school etc. Give them scholarships, give them choice, nurture them, give them opportunities they might otherwise not have. But then trust that what you're doing at the lower levels is enough to bring the black and coloured talent through naturally at the top level.

If they were to scrap the "targets" right now, how much would this current team change? Honestly not a lot. Perhaps Bavuma would be replaced by a Rossouw or a de Bruyn, and Simon Harmer would be challenging Maharaj as the spinner. But that's really about it.

[quote="PeterCS"]For me, the best bit in Bazza's statement is the simple phrase "It's a difficult one".

Because it is.

On the one hand, there's little point anyone arguing significant pools of talent and potential were denied chances in the past (this is just talking cricket alone, before looking at politics and any notions of fairness in society!) - were barely even given a start, indeed.

On the other, you can easily argue that some - not that many, I think, but it stands out - have got as far as the top level who, making all allowances for external (social) and internal (psychological) pressures, debilitating nerves given the situation, inadequate man management too perhaps, have shown no signs of meriting that position. I think of Martin McCague, the wrong Pattinson.

You have to match demonstrable fairness with demonstrable skills. As with any equality policy, promote people too much on dogma and too little on talent, and you risk a counterproductive effect (I don't mean that ugly word & concept "backlash" - ! - I simply mean you do scant justice to justice.)

On the other hand - yes, back to that first hand again - return to something like a Cecil Rhodes concept of merit, and you sell sport, society, individuals, and the whole bloody system short.

So Baz is right - it IS a difficult one.

But surely it should also be a matter of common sense. Give every opportunity as widely as humanly possible, promote and coach and foster and educate all to optimum standards that funds/resources allow - and yes, certainly give extra assistance (and funding) to socially neglected areas and individuals - but don't load them or reward them with positions they are in no position to acquit adequately.[/quote]


Surely that is the nub of it. If you put money and resources into the grassroots, especially the previously disadvantaged, eventually those who are passionate and talented will emerge.

If you promote simply on skin colour to redress the wrongs of the past, you may be doomed to create more injustice.

Furthermore, it means those who are perceived to be part of the quota system, will always remain under a selection cloud, regardless of their ability and reasons for being picked.

It risks a culture of entitlement, with those part of the expedited group, not needing to work as hard to warrant selection.

As has been seen, it also creates a situation where those believing they're compromised by these policies, are possibly going to seek alternatives.

The weirdest thing perhaps out of all of this, is that only five spots in the test team are available to one group based on their skin colour. This seems contradictory to the reasons why SA was excluded from test cricket in the first place. Similar skin colour criteria exists in the domestic system.

Surely another question is for how long is it necessary to persist with this? We are already one generation into the 'new South Africa'.

Faf to miss the Lord's test btw.

Henry wrote:As far as I'm concerned, it's quite simply a case whereby two wrongs don't make a right.

Promote the hell out of back and "coloured" talent in school etc. Give them scholarships, give them choice, nurture them, give them opportunities they might otherwise not have. But then trust that what you're doing at the lower levels is enough to bring the black and coloured talent through naturally at the top level.

If they were to scrap the "targets" right now, how much would this current team change? Honestly not a lot. Perhaps Bavuma would be replaced by a Rossouw or a de Bruyn, and Simon Harmer would be challenging Maharaj as the spinner. But that's really about it.

It has SFA to do with cricket or fairness. What has happened is that the ANC lackeys at CSA have failed dismally to promote cricket at grassroots level. To hide this from their masters and make the general populace happy the quota has been pushed. Very few of the players coming through came through grassroots but from exclusive private schools.

This is a purely political move.

Well yeah, I'm not as familiar as you are with South African politics, other than I know that Zuma is a corrupt qunt, but it seems like the ANC has just about used up all its good will since apartheid ended. The South African economy is on its knees, and the divides between rich and poor are as large as ever.

Could there be a political change soon?

Henry wrote:Well yeah, I'm not as familiar as you are with South African politics, other than I know that Zuma is a corrupt qunt, but it seems like the ANC has just about used up all its good will since apartheid ended. The South African economy is on its knees, and the divides between rich and poor are as large as ever.

Could there be a political change soon?

It's just that we have more rich now. The government has totally raped the country. I have to laugh when I read the piddling little Aussie corruption claims on this board.

So the chat is that the experienced JP Duminy will take on the mantle of anchoring the batting order at six.

We are indeed lucky that the veteran of 45 tests will take on this pivotal role. The inexperienced newcomers will take comfort that he will be supporting him.

Surely de Bruyn should bat at six.

I'm looking forward to this. Even with Snorkel getting another gig, the yaapy attack is stronger. Poms to lose the series.

taipan wrote:So the chat is that the experienced JP Duminy will take on the mantle of anchoring the batting order at six.

We are indeed lucky that the veteran of 45 tests will take on this pivotal role. The inexperienced newcomers will take comfort that he will be supporting him.

If Duminy can't cut it at five, then he shouldn't be in the team. The number six spot should be for a newcomer like de Bruyn.

It looks like England will play both Moeen and Dawson. FFS, if we're going to pick two spinners, can't at least ONE of them be a specialist?? Very odd selection. Has Jack Leach already had his files stamped??

Also, they pick TRJ in the squad despite him averaging 37 with the ball this season. Meanwhile Craig Overton is doing much better on the supposedly dead flat Taunton pitch, and has similar if not greater batting ability than TRJ, yet he doesn't get a look in. Go figure.....

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:So the chat is that the experienced JP Duminy will take on the mantle of anchoring the batting order at six.

We are indeed lucky that the veteran of 45 tests will take on this pivotal role. The inexperienced newcomers will take comfort that he will be supporting him.

If Duminy can't cut it at five, then he shouldn't be in the team. The number six spot should be for a newcomer like de Bruyn.

It looks like England will play both Moeen and Dawson. FFS, if we're going to pick two spinners, can't at least ONE of them be a specialist?? Very odd selection. Has Jack Leach already had his files stamped??

Also, they pick TRJ in the squad despite him averaging 37 with the ball this season. Meanwhile Craig Overton is doing much better on the supposedly dead flat Taunton pitch, and has similar if not greater batting ability than TRJ, yet he doesn't get a look in. Go figure.....

Last year Duminy batted at 4 and was heralded as the new saviour as he got two scores of 50 plus in single series, for the second time in his career.

Jpd averages low 30s with the bat and high 30s with the ball. Not great but numbers Mere Marsh dreams about. Maybe we could arrange a swap. You can have Reeks ffs as a bonus - he's widely admired for his skills and leadership (in the otherwise vacant space inside Kjnr's noggin).

Australia has rarely selected all players on merit. Every Ox team has always been afflicted with an over rated Dubber or two. More recently there has been a Wozzie duffer as well.

England a shoo-in for this series. SA is in transition, has injuries, their last two captains back home, one may have played his last test, and also has some dubious selections, perhaps somewhat forced.

England should beat SA for the first time in quite a while on home soil.

Well that's sealed it. South Africa may as well start popping the champagne now......

Henry wrote:Well that's sealed it. South Africa may as well start popping the champagne now......

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

I can't believe that a side with so many talented players in their potential squad can be crucifying itself with internal ructions. On paper, the best Test side SAf can put on the field should shit on ALL other Test sides.

I really can't believe how so many in the media are saying England are favourites. Like I said before, this South African team beat Australia in Australia only 8 months ago. And they've won their last four test series. They also tend to play better away from home than they do at home.

England on the other hand think they're a lot better than they really are. We lost to Bangladesh in the winter, remember, before we got mauled by India. That was after losing to Pakistan last summer, when nobody fancied the Paksters to get anywhere near us.

England are ranked five in the world, and our new captain has started his brave new world by selecting Garry Balance and Liam Dawson. Hmm.....

That's no the worst logic I've seen posted here, Trev. C'mon England!!!!