Welcome to Sports

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Need help?

World cricket

SOLVED
Action

Re: World cricket

@Beetle wrote:
We, in South Africa, play with the Kookabarra, while in England they use the Duke ball. Our bowlers will need to adapt to that kind of ball during the World Cup matches. So, whose to say the current lot are the best for those conditions?

Now that you bring it up, I do find it a bit odd that we haven't used the Duke ball ahead of the World Cup. I've no idea the reasons for not using it, but you'd think us, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka would have wanted to get some practice in with it. I don't know if there's something about South African conditions that means the Duke ball behaves differently here, which would have meant that there's not much point, but I wouldn't have thought so.

 

Paterson and Hendricks have been given one and two games each. Dala also only played 2 ODI games but perhaps he was injured? This was in the first series against Sri Lanka towards the beginning of last year, No player deserves to be judged on so few a number of games. If this were the case then we would never have got to see the talent of Kallis who was pretty ordinary during his first few games. One game is just ridiculous to judge a player on. Nerves? Again, what criteria are the selectors using to promote a player into the International side?

It is a little harsh to judge players on one or two games, so you do have a point there. Although these guys have all played a fair amount for South Africa A, so they're not entirely unknown quantities. And it was a bit of a shoot-out for the final seamer spot in the squad. I think it's pretty clear that the first choice quicks will be Steyn, Rabada, and Ngidi, but who their backup would be was far from clear, which is why they tried out everyone and Nortje came out on top. Ideally, everyone should have been given a few more matches, but eventually you do have to finalise the squad and give the players who are going to the tournament game time.

 

Qeshile, I will admit does seem to have the makings of what could be a very good player and one to watch for the future but I still feel it was wrong to promote him, under these circumstances, to play in the last two T20 matches. Oh, thanks for the correction, re Miller and not Markram. Brain freeze on my part. But again, I just fail to understand the reasoning for his selection here in the first place? Is he being lined up for selection to our upcoming World Cup squad? That would be a bit of a risk considering he's not yet proven himself at the higher level.

Not this upcoming World Cup, but there is the T20 World Cup next year, so maybe they're looking ahead towards that. South Africa does seem to treat T20s as a bit of an experimental side where they try out new players - De Kock, Reeza Hendricks, Morris, Ngidi, Van Der Dussen, and Rabada all first played T20s before moving onto other formats. It's not something that's set in stone as players do make the test and ODI without having played a T20, but it is a way to blood players in a format where there's possibly less pressure, and it brings them into the national team setup, which means that the coaching staff can get a hands-on look at them.

 

So that's why Qeshile and Sipamla were selected, and I don't have a problem with that approach. However, I think the team's interests would have been better served with Miller keeping, and with Qeshile having been selected on the strength of his batting then he should have been given an opportunity to bat.

 

Citanul, thanks for your comments which, as always, make a lot of sense and have in some way also enlightened me regarding certain aspects of my "rant". As you can see from my above comments I still don't entirely agree with you on certain aspects of this discussion but I won't go so far as to say that you are wrong and I am right. Just have, perhaps, two different views on this matter.

Well, from my side I do have to say that when you do go on a rant, you do give your reasons, so I do understand where you're coming from. Obviously, I have a different take on things, so disagree with you on some points, but we both want to see the team winning, and since there's no one perfect route to success there are always going to be differences of opinions (and it would make for a boring discussion if we agreed on everything! Smiley LOL).

Doin' it 4 Tv

Re: World cricket

Citanul, thanks for the reply and after reading your response I do, to an extent, agree with most of your comments although perhaps in some instances not entirely. 

Yes, different bowlers do perform better in one format than they would in another due to their bowling style. Here you mention someone like Philander. A quick look at his ODI stats shows he is pretty much as good, if not better, than quite a few others in this format of the game. Yet we don't see him? But that's off the point. What I'm saying, repeating perhaps, is that if ANY player is a professional cricketer and all he does is play cricket for a living, then he should be able to adapt his bowling, maybe batting too, to meet with whatever conditions he has to play in. We, in South Africa, play with the Kookabarra, while in England they use the Duke ball. Our bowlers will need to adapt to that kind of ball during the World Cup matches. So, whose to say the current lot are the best for those conditions? 

Paterson and Hendricks have been given one and two games each. Dala also only played 2 ODI games but perhaps he was injured? This was in the first series against Sri Lanka towards the beginning of last year, No player deserves to be judged on so few a number of games. If this were the case then we would never have got to see the talent of Kallis who was pretty ordinary during his first few games. One game is just ridiculous to judge a player on. Nerves? Again, what criteria are the selectors using to promote a player into the International side? 

Qeshile, I will admit does seem to have the makings of what could be a very good player and one to watch for the future but I still feel it was wrong to promote him, under these circumstances, to play in the last two T20 matches. Oh, thanks for the correction, re Miller and not Markram. Brain freeze on my part. But again, I just fail to understand the reasoning for his selection here in the first place? Is he being lined up for selection to our upcoming World Cup squad? That would be a bit of a risk considering he's not yet proven himself at the higher level. 

Citanul, thanks for your comments which, as always, make a lot of sense and have in some way also enlightened me regarding certain aspects of my "rant". As you can see from my above comments I still don't entirely agree with you on certain aspects of this discussion but I won't go so far as to say that you are wrong and I am right. Just have, perhaps, two different views on this matter. 

Action

Re: World cricket

I think I'm going to end up disagreeing with you on some of these points...

 


@Beetle wrote:
On another topic which has possibly been mentioned before. By me? I have thought it ridiculous that the selectors have been picking so many different bowlers across the three formats. These are PROFESSIONAL cricketers and should, in my opinion, be able to adopt their bowling to meet whatever criteria are required across the three formats. Here is a list of the bowlers that have been used since January 2018. You tell me if you think it was necessary to give them all game time. Morkel, I know has retired so needed to be replaced while one or two others may have been injured at some time or other. But don't you think the numbers are excessive. 

Quicks
Philander, Steyn, Rabada, Phehlukwayo, Ngidi, Morkel, Olivier, Morris, Paterson, B. Hendricks, Nortje, Dala, Pretorius, Sipamla

Spin

Tahir, Maharaj, Shamsi, Phangiso, Duminy

Others 

Markram, Mulder, Elgar, Bavuma, De Bruyn, Smuts, R. Hendricks. 

Once upon a time it was an honour to be awarded an international cap but these days it seems they are given out simply because someone shows a bit of promise? It's not that I think all, or any, of the players are bad but surely one needs to have a settled squad from one format to another. Also, like I said at the beginning, these players only play and practice cricket so should not be out of place playing in any format. Cannot bowl a slower delivery? Go out and practice it in the nets. They have the time. A batsman may be slightly different in changing their style of batting from a test match attitude to a T20 one perhaps but shouldn't have any major difficulties in adopting to a 50 over ODI game.

I'm no expert on this, but I do think there are differences in the different formats, especially between red ball and white ball cricket. My understanding is that the two types of ball behave differently, and there's also the fact the pitches are prepared differently. So certain bowlers can be effective in one format but not in another e.g. Philander relies on line and length and a bit of movement which works in test cricket but makes him a bit too predictable for ODI cricket, and Olivier relies on pace and bounce which ODI pitches don't offer.  It's bit more than not being able to bowl a slower ball - it's an entire style of bowling which can mean that a bowler isn't so effective in a certain format, and that's not something that can necessarily be changed.

 

And while I can't comment on whether the number of bowlers used in the past 15 months is more or less than in the past, we are building towards a World Cup, so some of the selections have basically been tryouts for the squad, and bowlers like Paterson and Hendricks have been given a chance but been found wanting and it's very likely they won't play for South Africa again.

 

Another gripe I have is with the selection of some "promising" 20 year old to keep wicket for the Proteas in the last two T20 matches we played. In the first Markram was the wicketkeeper and performed alright as far as I could see. We get told that he was keeping wicket so that the Proteas could have another option of using him as the backup keeper to Q de K. No problems whatsoever with that. But then they go and pick this 20 year old for the next two games? What makes matters even more bizarre, to me anyway, is that according to Mike Huysman when commentating on the game, this 20 year old keeper has NEVER PLAYED T20 cricket at Franchise level. So, on what grounds was he selected? Promising keeper? Excellent batsman? Well, if he's never played Franchise T20 cricket then how do they know how good a batsman, in this format, he is? Anyone able to give me valid reasons for this please do so? What's happened to Klaasen IF we were wanting to have someone else keep wicket? Vali?

Klaasen hasn't really been able to tranfer his domestic form to international level, so it's understandable that they've moved on from him. I will agree with you that if they're looking to have Miller (not Markram) as the backup keeper at the World Cup then he should have been given some time behind the stumps, and that it's not the best thing for him not to have played any domestic T20s (although didn't you claim a professional cricketer should be able to adjust from one format to another?).

 

However, Qeshile isn't just "promising" - he's one of the form batsmen in the country right now. He averaged over 50 in the 4-day tournament, scoring 7 fifties in 10 matches, and in one day matches this season he's averaging 46 at a strike rate of 110, which suggests that he wouldn't have a problem in T20s.  If the intention is to pick the best players for the national team then there's absolutely no question that he has to come under consideration for selection given the season he has had.

 

Admittedly I would have preferred him to get another season of domestic cricket under his belt before being selected for the national side, but if the selectors feel that a player is ready then why delay selecting him? Kallis, Boucher, Ntini, De Villiers, De Kock, and Rabada are some of the best players that South Africa has ever produced, and they were all selected at a similar sort of age to Qeshile, so it's not without precedent to back a young player and it's certainly not unjustified in his case.

BoxOffice

Re: World cricket

We watched the match live and to me it was very clear that Ashwin never intended bowling that ball. Jos was focused on what was going to happen at the other side and did not pay attention of what he was doing.  

Cricket has always been supposedly the gentleman's game but then the perception of how a gentleman should behave have changed over the years.

Explora 2A (primary) Explora 3A Secondary SLNB LMX501  Samsung S9   Samsung Tab
Doin' it 4 Tv

Re: World cricket

From what I saw of this incident Buttler was well within his crease when Ashwin was into his delivery stride. Buttler continued with his movement up the pitch and it was then that Ashwin ran him out. Laws need to be looked at for incidents such as this one. It's one thing when a batsman is backing up and is constantly stealing a yard or two but this wasn't the case here. Or at least not in my opinion from the one viewing of the incident that I saw. 

On another topic which has possibly been mentioned before. By me? I have thought it ridiculous that the selectors have been picking so many different bowlers across the three formats. These are PROFESSIONAL cricketers and should, in my opinion, be able to adopt their bowling to meet whatever criteria are required across the three formats. Here is a list of the bowlers that have been used since January 2018. You tell me if you think it was necessary to give them all game time. Morkel, I know has retired so needed to be replaced while one or two others may have been injured at some time or other. But don't you think the numbers are excessive. 

Quicks
Philander, Steyn, Rabada, Phehlukwayo, Ngidi, Morkel, Olivier, Morris, Paterson, B. Hendricks, Nortje, Dala, Pretorius, Sipamla

Spin

Tahir, Maharaj, Shamsi, Phangiso, Duminy

Others 

Markram, Mulder, Elgar, Bavuma, De Bruyn, Smuts, R. Hendricks. 

Once upon a time it was an honour to be awarded an international cap but these days it seems they are given out simply because someone shows a bit of promise? It's not that I think all, or any, of the players are bad but surely one needs to have a settled squad from one format to another. Also, like I said at the beginning, these players only play and practice cricket so should not be out of place playing in any format. Cannot bowl a slower delivery? Go out and practice it in the nets. They have the time. A batsman may be slightly different in changing their style of batting from a test match attitude to a T20 one perhaps but shouldn't have any major difficulties in adopting to a 50 over ODI game. 

Another gripe I have is with the selection of some "promising" 20 year old to keep wicket for the Proteas in the last two T20 matches we played. In the first Markram was the wicketkeeper and performed alright as far as I could see. We get told that he was keeping wicket so that the Proteas could have another option of using him as the backup keeper to Q de K. No problems whatsoever with that. But then they go and pick this 20 year old for the next two games? What makes matters even more bizarre, to me anyway, is that according to Mike Huysman when commentating on the game, this 20 year old keeper has NEVER PLAYED T20 cricket at Franchise level. So, on what grounds was he selected? Promising keeper? Excellent batsman? Well, if he's never played Franchise T20 cricket then how do they know how good a batsman, in this format, he is? Anyone able to give me valid reasons for this please do so? What's happened to Klaasen IF we were wanting to have someone else keep wicket? Vali?

Then, while I'm on a roll here, why were some players allowed to leave a tournament that the Proteas were playing in to go play IPL? The CAPTAIN of the side plays in the first T20 game against the Sri Lankans and then he's allowed to leave? Surely, being the captain he has a DUTY to see out the series rather than run away to collect the money? Likewise a few others. Rabada, Q de K, Tahir etc. Sorry but this is just not on in my book. Highly disgusted and quite frankly losing all interest, and respect, for the Proteas and all concerned with them. 


Action

Re: World cricket

I don't have a problem with "Mankad" dismissals in general.  The laws state that the non-striker shouldn't leave their crease before the ball is bowled, so if they have then the bowler has every right to dismiss them.  I don't buy the notion that it's against "the spirit of the game", and I don't think I've ever seen a good argument as to why it would be.

 

However, there may be a bit more to this incident.  I haven't seen the footage, but I've read some comments that Ashwin paused in his delivery, by which time Buttler had left his crease.  I know that there are spinners who do sometimes pause when they get to the stumps, although I don't know if Ashwin is one of them.  If he's not, then Buttler may have had every expectation that the ball would have been delivered at the moment he left the crease, so maybe shouldn't have been out.

BoxOffice

Re: World cricket

The Ashwin Jos Butler incident generated a lot of controversy. Here are  my 2 cents  worth on it all. 

 

41.16 Non-striker leaving his/her ground early: If the non-striker is out of his/her ground from the moment the ball comes into play to the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the bowler is permitted to attempt to run him/her out.

Ashwin sold Jos Butler a “dummy” is what some would call it in rugby circles.


Looking at this screen shot it is clear that Jos was still in his ground a fraction of a second before Ashwin pulled out to run him out.
The Tv Amp correctly gave him out in that he was out of his ground when the bales were lifted but had he had more time to ponder the regulations he would/should have asked for footage that also covered the delivery “attempt” and the position of the non striker at the moment the ball would have been released. Had he done so he may have made a different decision or maybe not.

You be the judge.

 

Jos Butler.jpg

Explora 2A (primary) Explora 3A Secondary SLNB LMX501  Samsung S9   Samsung Tab
Showmaxed

Re: World cricket

and here we go again!Mad.jpgMad.jpgMad.jpg

Think it's time to get into tennis instead.

Showmaxed

Re: World cricket

There's more at stake with this week's test than meets the eye, as the synopsis explains;

EEK!.jpg

 

Important SL cricket test.jpg

.

Highlighted
Action

Re: World cricket


@Beetle wrote:

Firstly, irrespective of anything else, I think lots of credit must be given to the Sri Lankan batsman. Perara. We may not have bowled well but he still needed to put the ball away. So, congratulations to him on a superb innings.

That was a once in a career, maybe even once in a generation innings.  People are talking about it as one of the best ever, and it definitely warrants that accolade.

 

Everything Perera tried came off, and on another day things wouldn't have gone his way.  But that doesn't let the South African team off the hook as there are some questions which need to asked about team selection.

 

However, Sri Lanka should never have been able to reach the target.

Yep, this is a problem.  When you're picking a team with five frontline bowlers but you aren't able to contain the opposition then that points to the decision to go with that team balance being the wrong one.

 

Philander is not a number 7 batsman, and they needed to have gone with only four batsman, no matter how hard a decision it may have been.  Obviously, you can never say for certain what would have happened if they'd played the extra batsman, but we would have been more likely to have put the game out of Sri Lanka's reach.

 

The extra batsman is also important given how ours are struggling at the moment (Amla in particular).  All of the focus this summer has been on the bowlers because of what they've done, especially Olivier, and because we whitewashed Pakistan the problems with the batting appear to have been overlooked.  I have seen comments from the bowlers about how different it is to have a bowler as the head coach, but could too much focus have been placed on the bowling and not enough on the batting because of Gibson being a former fast bowler?

 

I know that different formats perhaps require different players but do we really need to use as many players as we've been using for Test, ODI and T20 matches? Surely, after the past season or two, we should have settled sides for these three formats? Winning of an International cap shouldn't be given out as cheaply as it is being done so at the moment. Selectors are trying to give as many players a chance as possible but are overdoing it. Should decide who they think is the best players and pick them. Then give those players a decent run in the side and only then if they don't come off replace them with someone else.

I'm going to disagree with you here as I'm not sure that we are in fact using too many players.  The test side is fairly settled at the moment - there's really just one batsman's spot available (when they decide to play seven batsmen), and that's as a result of them having given De Bruyn a run and now they appear to be looking for someone else after he hasn't performed.

 

I will accept that the ODI side isn't so settled, but this is a World Cup year and they do need to figure out who's going to be in the squad, which has necessitated them trying out a number of players.  But as it stands, the squad is probably close to being finalised, but there may still be a bit of chopping and changing of the match day team just to give everybody some game time.

 

As for the T20 side, that appears to be used as a bit of a feeder into the ODI side, picking players who have performed domestically to see just how they go at a higher level.  It also has the benefit of giving the test players a bit of a break, and can be used to get the transformation numbers right as that's something which has to be factored as it's not going to go away (so there's no use in complaining that quotas shouldn't be there).  But even though they're using the T20 side in that way, there do appear to be regulars, so it is a settled team to some extent.

 

Thankfully this is only a cricket thread and not a rugby one as well. Would be even more rants from me regarding the Stormers humiliation. End of rant. 

Did you really have to bring that up, Beetle? Smiley Mad