Random Cricket Thread (International Cricket)

[Making_Splinters]

Well, if South Africa have any real intention of changing the status quo and mending 50 years of damage then they are going to have to front up and take the knocks that come their way.

[Dr Cricket]

Well, if South Africa have any real intention of changing the status quo and mending 50 years of damage then they are going to have to front up and take the knocks that come their way.

Doing this way won't help and how would South Africa being awful in cricket help the status quo change and really cricket should have nothing to do with the politics of the nation.

If icc actually follows the rules SA would be banned considering having a quota is illegal.

[Making_Splinters]

It's not really about politics though, it's about creating a country where there are roughly equal opportunities for people regardless of their race. That's an idea that transcends politics.

As detailed above, the only way you can re-balance a system that has been pushed so far out of tilt is by manually forcing it back the other way, a methodology that is common place across a wide range of fields.

If you take the stand point that all discrimination is wrong, like myself and Sussex seem to do, then there is an issue where even without an outside current influence the historical legacy maintains and unbalanced system. This is not an issue that is limited to sport, or to South Africa in any way, shape or form. As outlined previously, there are numerous examples within the UK where this happens and by and large people are completely fine with the idea that it needs dealing with through positively discriminatory practice. Yet doing the same thing in South Africa regarding addressing the legacy of apartheid seems to be controversial.

If you are going to take the "cricket should have nothing to do with the politics of a nation" line, I assume therefore that the international ban on sporting tours to South Africa during apartheid was wrong and we should celebrate the rebel tours as the true champions of cricket? I think not.

[Dr Cricket]

Do it in domestic cricket what is the need for them to do it in the international format which is not only wrong it is illegal.

What are the government going to do when 6 players of colour or 2 black people are not close enough for a call up play 6 crap cricketers.
How are the government going to make the lower class richer or get more cricket to the masses.
Where are 30-40 international quality colour players going to come from.

Csa should have been left and allowed to do the good work they were doing.

[Dr Cricket]

In other news channel 191 is showing the Ireland vs Pakistan game or the hd version can be found on the you tube channel or sky sport website.

[Making_Splinters]

So you are fine with domestic quotas, but not international ones?

That really doesn't make much sense to be honest.

[Dr Cricket]

So you are fine with domestic quotas, but not international ones?

That really doesn't make much sense to be honest.

it does considering having quatas in domestic or grass root levels help black players come through and then the best get selected for the national team.

Might have to copy and paste one of my earlier post from last year that would explain what Csa were trying to achieve.

It makes sense that they do everything to make black players come through the system and then the best get selected.
Really not sure what quatas in the national teams are trying to achieve considering if they is any good coloured players they get selected.
SA selectors have always been fair or picked players fairly.

Believe one of the Csa people putted it like this they aim was to get black kids playing cricket and give them a head start and then when in the system the best get selected or survive to the national level.
Really I am a firm believer that the best 11 or 15 should get selected for the national team and if you have issues with the make up of the classes or colour of the national team then you try to fix the issues of why it is occurring.

How does quota system make black cricketers better in SA they won't get better overnight and certainly not without funding or work.
Really can't see how the quata system will make black cricketers Since all it really is a sideshow for the government to use that black players can make it.

What Csa did before was so much better where their priotised producing black players and when they were in the system they picked the best ones for future honurs since they know selectors are not racist and would pick the best team irrespective of the colour.

[Dr Cricket]

Anyway it is clear we both agree that it would take time for the result to get better and that quota isn't helpful, we just disagree on how SA can overcome the social and racial differences.
Anyway was nice discussing this with you and Sussex.

[sussexpob]

SA selectors have always been faired or picked players fairly

I think in the last 20-30 years there have been times where quotas have existed on the national team, but have been tried to downplayed. This is nothing new, just a more extreme and stated policy. South African black players have always got more opportunities over their white counterparts of similar skills.

Of the top of the head, Andre Nel was left out of the 2008 tour to India on the fact there were too many white people. And I believe one white player pulled out the tour in protest and was replaced by Zondeki.

Around 2001 or 2002 Jacques Rudolph was told he would debut in a test game only for the South African board to come in at the last minute and tell the coach they had to pick Ontong because he was black. Ontong remarkably played 30 odd internationals in ODI's, where he averaged worse than most tailenders at a pedestrian pace. Rudolph ended up averaging 3 times more than him at a quicker pace, but didnt play a significant amount of ODIs more at the end. KP left as he was subject to a quota. About the time of the Rudolph/Ontong affair, Ashwell Prince had a good run of games where he didnt register a 50, yet they still kept picking him. Its doubtful many test teams would have gave Prince that many opportunties, after about 15 tests I believe he only registered a score against a Zimbabwe team in their last game before being stripped of test status.... and that was the worlds poorest team picking the first 11 men who said they would tour, as a result the scores in that series meant nothing. Prince looked hopelessly outclassed, but the message was "hes black, keep him there".

[Dr Cricket]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/southafrica ... 79057.html

A black African quota has been passed in South Africa, under which franchises will have to field at least one player from the country's majority race group, and amateur teams, two. Those franchises who have more than one black African in 70% of their matches will be reimbursed an amount equivalent to the average contract cost of the qualified players. The new policy will take effect from October 16, 2013.

"These new requirements are incentive based, not quota based," Haroon Lorgat, the CSA chief executive, said. "We have a very talented population. We have all embraced the need to accelerate transformation."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/southafrica ... 76327.html

The lack of black African players has stood out most starkly in the Test team, which has not fielded a black African since January 2011. Arendse said the national selectors mentioned they get criticised for not picking black African players but their hands are tied because "they only have a handful to choose from". So CSA has taken it on themselves to "broaden the pool of black African players".

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/ ... 7XD7pgrLIU

He went further and threatened an end to support from government, while adding that “the quota system is unsustainable and counterproductive”.

The most telling part of the report was the assessment of schools. Facilities are a massive problem across both primary and secondary school level. Rugby has over 1,300 "primary schools in jurisdiction participating", while cricket has just over 1,500. Playing facilities available to those schools are badly lacking, though. Rugby has just 813 while cricket has 905.

That means the average number of facilities per school for rugby, football and cricket is less than one, restricting the number of teams and league competitions that can be accommodated and is counterproductive to any footprint and participation increase exercises.

At secondary – or high school – level, rugby, football and cricket were the only codes to provide data for secondary schools in areas of jurisdiction who participate. Cricket has 1,044, rugby 1,147 and football 3,000, but the number of facilities available to schools are pitiful, as mentioned previously. This poses the same problem as with primary schools. However, at secondary level, the problem is coupled with the declining number of teachers involved in organising sport. In short, SA sport at school level is collapsing.

Let’s face it, most of the elite sportsmen are only coming from a handful of schools. Those are privileged schools with good facilities, with feeder schools, where kids are coached from a very young age. The participation and facilities in the jurisdiction of the sporting codes is disconcerting, and can only be improved by a concrete effort from both the sporting bodies themselves and the various government departments.

fraction of millions that are spent on the SA Sports events, could send three Black Africans to a top cricket school like Wynberg for a year. R57,600 could send three kids to Paarl Gym, a top rugby school, for year. R16,500 sends one child to school at Grey College for a year. Those are just some figures from some of South Africa’s notable “sporting” schools.

Sure, sporting bodies can, should and will do more to encourage transformation. But let’s not kid ourselves – the government is equally responsible for what happens at grassroots level, and to pay lip service to what needs to be done is no good if money bleeds on unnecessary and dubious expenses.

Quotas won't change anything unless black players are getting produced.

[sussexpob]

If you take the stand point that all discrimination is wrong, like myself and Sussex seem to do, then there is an issue where even without an outside current influence the historical legacy maintains and unbalanced system. This is not an issue that is limited to sport, or to South Africa in any way, shape or form. As outlined previously, there are numerous examples within the UK where this happens and by and large people are completely fine with the idea that it needs dealing with through positively discriminatory practice. Yet doing the same thing in South Africa regarding addressing the legacy of apartheid seems to be controversial.

Not that I can agree with it in the UK, but there is a difference between percieved "positive action" and "positive discrimination". Positive action being that when two people are equal, you pick the person that is more vulnerable. Thats different to quotas, because you are basically saying with a quota that you accept any dross, as long as they satisfy type.

Maybe a positive action approach would work here. A compromise for people like me. But it assumes that all stakeholders are equal, which is hard to judge. And when you are making guesses at quality or qualification, it possibly ends up with discrimination when the margins become wider. (say picking a black lad averaging 25 instead of a white lad averaging 20).

[Dr Cricket]

SA selectors have always been faired or picked players fairly

I think in the last 20-30 years there have been times where quotas have existed on the national team, but have been tried to downplayed. This is nothing new, just a more extreme and stated policy. South African black players have always got more opportunities over their white counterparts of similar skills.

Of the top of the head, Andre Nel was left out of the 2008 tour to India on the fact there were too many white people. And I believe one white player pulled out the tour in protest and was replaced by Zondeki.

Around 2001 or 2002 Jacques Rudolph was told he would debut in a test game only for the South African board to come in at the last minute and tell the coach they had to pick Ontong because he was black. Ontong remarkably played 30 odd internationals in ODI's, where he averaged worse than most tailenders at a pedestrian pace. Rudolph ended up averaging 3 times more than him at a quicker pace, but didnt play a significant amount of ODIs more at the end. KP left as he was subject to a quota. About the time of the Rudolph/Ontong affair, Ashwell Prince had a good run of games where he didnt register a 50, yet they still kept picking him. Its doubtful many test teams would have gave Prince that many opportunties, after about 15 tests I believe he only registered a score against a Zimbabwe team in their last game before being stripped of test status.... and that was the worlds poorest team picking the first 11 men who said they would tour, as a result the scores in that series meant nothing. Prince looked hopelessly outclassed, but the message was "hes black, keep him there".

Blacks or coloured players might have gotten more chances or given more games to perform but they generally been fair selection, although they been a few exception and most of those exception been because of the government making it clear they need 3 or 4 coloured players in the team or squad.

if they was no outside interference think the selectors would pick the best 11 irrespective of the colour of the players although still think talented black players might get a few extra games but the key point is talented, duds like ontong won't play but people like prince, Bavuma, Rabada etc will get the extra games to perform like their abilities suggest they can.

Black players will always get more chances since them doing well resonates more with the country, bavuma scoring a century meant a lot to the country last year and that won't change.

I have no issues with that but players should get picked on cricketing merits and not political reasons.

Bavuma showed classes and probably was good enough to be selected on cricketing merits.

[Making_Splinters]

If you take the stand point that all discrimination is wrong, like myself and Sussex seem to do, then there is an issue where even without an outside current influence the historical legacy maintains and unbalanced system. This is not an issue that is limited to sport, or to South Africa in any way, shape or form. As outlined previously, there are numerous examples within the UK where this happens and by and large people are completely fine with the idea that it needs dealing with through positively discriminatory practice. Yet doing the same thing in South Africa regarding addressing the legacy of apartheid seems to be controversial.

Not that I can agree with it in the UK, but there is a difference between percieved "positive action" and "positive discrimination". Positive action being that when two people are equal, you pick the person that is more vulnerable. Thats different to quotas, because you are basically saying with a quota that you accept any dross, as long as they satisfy type.

Maybe a positive action approach would work here. A compromise for people like me. But it assumes that all stakeholders are equal, which is hard to judge. And when you are making guesses at quality or qualification, it possibly ends up with discrimination when the margins become wider. (say picking a black lad averaging 25 instead of a white lad averaging 20).

Well, the clearest example would be in Higher education where there was a move to provide lower offers to students who met a set of criteria - sorry, given additional consideration - in fact there are now courses on offer from some Universities which are extended by a year just for students who would not meet the entry requirements for the standard course if the come from a set background.

I think the biggest issue with simply adopting a positive action standpoint is that players are not coming from a level playing field, especially batsmen. If you've had access to training and coaching to a high standard from youth due to the school you went to you are going to be better than an equally talented player who has not due to their background. If you follow that through you'll find that domestic performances will be lower until the disadvantaged player has had time to catch up by which time there stats will be much worse.

[GarlicJam]

Obsession with your sport can sometimes be plain ridiculous.

Morrison plays for Barton Cricket Club in County Durham

[Dr Cricket]

Bangladesh confident of England touring today.
Looks like a very tough decision for Ecb.