Australia in South Africa Oct-Nov 2011/12

[AnshtheDj]

Right on. I'm not worried about Hussey retiring at all. Short term, Ferguson won't have the dressing room influence or experience under pressure, but he's got all the skills to be that middle over worker and finisher that Hussey is.

Amen to that!!!

 

[stefan]

Waiting for an exciting test series..hope CSA finds a sponsor for it. The test series between SA and AUS are always the "marquee" events in international cricket and it would be saddening if the series continues without any corporate sponsorship.

Test series has a sponsor. Castle Lager continues to sponsor the team and test cricket, they are now the odi and t20 team sponsors as well.

The international odi , international t20, domestic 50 over and t20 have no sponsors though because of the financial scandal.

 

[AnshtheDj]

Test series has a sponsor. Castle Lager continues to sponsor the team and test cricket, they are now the odi and t20 team sponsors as well.

Thanks for the update man..that's what shocked me when i didn't see usual South African cricket sponsors like MTN and Castle Lager in the current series against AUS, then I got to know on CricInfo,about the financial problem CSA is in (one more ugly off-shoot of T20 riches).

Zimbabwe, with all the hyper-inflationary situation in their country are having a sponsored series against NZ currently. Even while watching ZIM play against the Kiwis on TV, I saw Castle Lager adverts on Bill-boards and boundary skirtings and I was like, WTH is up with these guys ?

Good to know regular backers of South African cricket are coming back to the party and I'm now like bracing myself up for 1st test on 9 Nov.

 

[War]

Former South African players and officials discuss the country's progress | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Oh my what a timely article about forced coloured player selection in SA team. It would be great if more SA posters was here on PC to discuss

This statement however is not true:

"I don't think that anyone can honestly say that we lost any series to any opponent due to certain black players being selected ahead of certain white payers in terms of the transformational targets which were in place"

Enver Mall defends the policies of transformation.

I can recall the 2009/10 home series vs England, when Ntini when he clearly passed his peak was held on just to play his 100th test, instead of picking the form white player in Fridel De Wet.

Given how S Africa thrashed England in he final test of that series, when all their players where fit, i've always been of he estimation that if they had dropped Ntini earlier they would have won that series.

Same thing can be said about the 2010/11 home series vs India when Tsotsobe was preferred over De Wet or McClaren again. S Africa lacked a lethal 3rd/4th seamer in that home series to back up Steyn/Morkel - like what England during their 4-0 drubbing on IND a few months ago.

If they did chances of victory would be better.

Now in the current series vs Australia, picking Philander and Tsotsobe over McClaren and De Wet or even Van Der Wath may potentially cost them again.

 

[6ry4nj]

I can recall the 2009/10 home series vs England, when Ntini when he clearly passed his peak was held on just to play his 100th test, instead of picking the form white player in Fridel De Wet.

Given how S Africa thrashed England in he final test of that series, when all their players where fit, i've always been of he estimation that if they had dropped Ntini earlier they would have won that series.

Same thing can be said about the 2010/11 home series vs India when Tsotsobe was preferred over De Wet or McClaren again. S Africa lacked a lethal 3rd/4th seamer in that home series to back up Steyn/Morkel - like what England during their 4-0 drubbing on IND a few months ago.

If they did chances of victory would be better.

Now in the current series vs Australia, picking Philander and Tsotsobe over McClaren and De Wet or even Van Der Wath may potentially cost them again.

Picking someone to complete 100 Tests is a very different thing to picking someone due to a racial quota.

I do agree that it may well cost the team from time to time when they use these quota policies. The same criticism could be levelled at policies of blooding new players in preference to aging stalwarts. Both are cases of looking to the future of the game, with long-term goals in mind that override day-to-day tactical considerations.

Apartheid is over, and sports that are 'whites-only' due to a 'colour bar' in the allocation of resources and opportunities - should have no place in South Africa's future.

 

[MUFC1987]

I can recall the 2009/10 home series vs England, when Ntini when he clearly passed his peak was held on just to play his 100th test, instead of picking the form white player in Fridel De Wet.

Given how S Africa thrashed England in he final test of that series, when all their players where fit, i've always been of he estimation that if they had dropped Ntini earlier they would have won that series.

Hang on a second. De Wet played in the first test, in place of Steyn, when England held on by a wicket. He missed the second when England thrashed South Africa, played the 3rd, in place of Ntini when England again held on by a wicket and missed the last (through injury I think?) when South Africa produced that Green top and did us twice.

Therefore, he only missed one Test when Ntini was picked ahead of him and England thumped South Africa by an Innings, so I doubt he would have made too much of a difference to be honest.

If you really want to try to make a point like this, at least get the facts right to back up what you're trying to say.

 

[aussie1st]

So down to Siddle v Copeland with Siddle the early front runner with that early wicket.

Both Siddle and Copeland were getting swing according to cricinfo, Siddle getting it going both ways.

 

[ferg512]

It would have to be Siddle now you would think, tight and taking wickets I thought that was Copelands job

 

[Garson007]

Australia is thumping SA A. Not looking too good.

 

[stefan]

Australia is thumping SA A. Not looking too good.

What we can take from it is that prince has to play ahead of jp.

 

[War]

Hang on a second. De Wet played in the first test, in place of Steyn, when England held on by a wicket. He missed the second when England thrashed South Africa, played the 3rd, in place of Ntini when England again held on by a wicket and missed the last (through injury I think?) when South Africa produced that Green top and did us twice.

Therefore, he only missed one Test when Ntini was picked ahead of him and England thumped South Africa by an Innings, so I doubt he would have made too much of a difference to be honest.

If you really want to try to make a point like this, at least get the facts right to back up what you're trying to say.

Ntini should have been dropped long before that series, since throughout 2009, he was he decline for an entire year. (I can show you a breakdown of Ntini's career peak and decline if you wish to have further clarity on what i'm saying).

In the first test of that series with Kallis not being able to bowl and Steyn injured. Ntini should have been dropped for McClaren.

SA dominated that test, but due to bad selection (quota influenced), they didn't pick a strong enough bowling attack to compensate for the lack of Steyn and Kallis.

In the second test after De Wet impressive 1st test bowling and Steyn back (although not 100%), Ntini was again chosen ahead of De Wet.

As Ian Bell scored his career reviving Hundred that, SA bowling was basically Morkel, a dud spinner in Harris and Kallis - given that Ntini was bowling crap and Steyn was not bowling 100% due to him still carrying effects of that injury.

Finally in the 3rd test they got rid of Ntini and they dominated the test. But crucially on that final day De Wet got injured, which aided ENG in hanging on for another draw.

In the fourth test when the Saffies finally selected their best XI (bowling attack), they smoked ENG on a greentop.

 

[MUFC1987]

I'm not interested in arguing who should have played and who shouldn't and how history would have been re-written. I was just pointing out that you were wrong when you said that they picked Ntini over De Wet and that affected the series result. Because, unless you're seriously saying that the one test that did happen, when South Africa lost by an Innings, De Wet would have taken England out twice on his own, for less than the poor showing that the SA Batsmen put up? If you're saying that, then I give up totally.

However, if you're not, then you're agreeing with me correcting you and you putting the results down again, really was a waste of time, as it has nothing to do with what I pulled you up on.

You can't just re-write history and change facts to suit your argument, that was my point.

 

[aussie1st]

It would have to be Siddle now you would think, tight and taking wickets I thought that was Copelands job

Seems they switched roles! Just need to pray Siddle doesn't do his usual one good spell 4 bad spells. We know he has all the talent in the world and as showed today he can swing the new ball and we know he can get seam movement, good bouncer and reverse swing all at above 140km/h and when he wants to hit 150km/h.

It's annoying how Johnson only swings the ball here and at Perth, he is another we have to pray about.

Lyon is probably safe since Copeland didn't do much unless the selectors are thinking Cummins for Lyon.

 

[Rehan_24]

Fingers crossed for test series. Wants to see Ponting making centuries

 

[War]

I'm not interested in arguing who should have played and who shouldn't and how history would have been re-written. I was just pointing out that you were wrong when you said that they picked Ntini over De Wet and that affected the series result. Because, unless you're seriously saying that the one test that did happen, when South Africa lost by an Innings, De Wet would have taken England out twice on his own, for less than the poor showing that the SA Batsmen put up? If you're saying that, then I give up totally.



However, if you're not, then you're agreeing with me correcting you and you putting the results down again, really was a waste of time, as it has nothing to do with what I pulled you up on.

You can't just re-write history and change facts to suit your argument, that was my point.

No re-writing of history on my part. Since at the time many ENG fans reckoned ENG were lucky to escape that series with a 1-1 result.

The first statement I made which reference specifically to the 2nd test of that series which ENG won, by saying that "Ntini was held on just to play his 100th test, instead of picking the form white player in Fridel De Wet" - in response to the cricinfo article point of:

"I don't think that anyone can honestly say that we lost any series to any opponent due to certain black players being selected ahead of certain white payers in terms of the transformational targets which were in place"

Was just very vaguely said and that's my bad. Since I didn't mean as you put "that the one test that did happen, when South Africa lost by an Innings, De Wet would have taken England out twice on his own, for less than the poor showing that the SA Batsmen put up?

I am not discrediting ENGs win in anyway, since it wasn't our fault that SA didn't pick their best team. But De Wet should have certainly played in that second test.

However, as the cricinfo article states, the situation in that 2009/10 series, with Ntini clearly proved otherwise. Ntini was kept on too long pass his peak given he was a black icon instead of dropping him on merit before the series for the form white players. Then when the certain key players in the bowling armoury (Steyn/Kallis) got injured simultaneously during that series, the situation got worse. Thus highlighted the inaccuracy with the cricinfo article's point.

So basically given that SA were one-wicket away from victory in 2 of the opening 3 tests without their best attack, when SA finally got their best bowling attack 100% fit for the final tests and thrashed us - its pretty clear if they had selected on merit in 1st and 3rd tests (along with better luck with injuries in this test) - its not inconceivable to suggest IMO that SA would have defeated our test side that was in transition ATT.