Mozart see what happens when you not have an opening batsman batting at a rate of 64,5 per 100 balls

Forum » Cricket » Mozart see what happens when you not have an opening batsman batting at a rate of 64,5 per 100 balls

Jul 06, 2019, 17:31

The Aussie ODI clearly show that Amla was a real handicap in the batting line-up.   It put the whole limne-=up inder pressure and the score now is 257 for 2 after 42 overs.   That is one reason why any player you support for selection and write lauding contributions on must always be seen as a serious liability


Another example was that SA was 73 for no wickets after 10 overs - the third highest score pf anmu team in any match in the WC,   


Perhaps you should realize that Amla was a serious liability for the WC squad and should NEVER have been in the squad,          

Jul 06, 2019, 23:40

Hilarious, we win a dead rubber match on a placid pitch, with absolutely no pressure and back comes old Tokkie like a bad smell. Nope this would not have been the result if we needed a win to get into the playoffs....Quintie would have been a deer in the headlights and Markham would have been robot man.

Here's the proof, CWC averages for all the games:

Faf......64

Van der Dussen.....62

Amla.....41

DeKock ....38

Miller....34

Markham.....23

Faf who would have been 35 in the final and van der Dussen who is over 30 were the only batsmen to live up to expectations. So much for youth!

Jul 07, 2019, 07:42

Mozart

You are desperate to mislead the site members.   The only significant win by SA the series was yesterday against Australia showed the following strike rates by the top 4 batsmen of SA:-

*    Do Plessis              -    106,58

*     De Kock               -    101,96

*     Van der Dussen    -      97,93

*    Markram                -      91,89

Put Amla's 64,58 in that mix and the game would have been LOST.   You still do not realize that high strike rates determine game outcomes and keep  talking tripe about average runs as the reason for losses while boosting averages by giving Amla a high average based on two minor games where Amla was not out.   His strike rate - even where he was not out - was too low to ensure victories against the stronger teams where Amla failed miserably.

.

       

Jul 07, 2019, 14:00

As I explained to you before Amla's strike rate was much higher absent Afghanistan, where it was more important to just score the runs for our first win.

We lost two games on pure strike rate. Most notably against NZ where Quintie had a strike rate of 67 for his 22 runs......and against NZ where Quintie flopped totally putting his team under pressure.

In spite of a bad concussionAmla was better with the bat than your man De Ock.

Jul 07, 2019, 14:44

You refer to eighteen  months ago or the present year.   Amla went from a strike rate perspective completely sour over the past 10 months and from that perspective was instrumental in losing ODI's SA should have won.

You yourself worked out hat tis series his strike rate was 64,59 and that was more or less in line with what happened this year,   Both Denny and I proved that he should never have been in the WC squad, but you persisted in writing praise songs about him that was totally distorted and would not accept that he was a liability and not an asset for the squad.

Both Amla and Duminy were liabilities for the squad and should not have been in the squad.   If Amla never played in the WC we would have had a much better chance3 to be in the top 4 on the log .  A slow scoring opening batsman waste balls and put a strain on the rest of the batting line-up and that is what Amla's main problem was,         

Jul 07, 2019, 20:59

Absolute nonsense...our path through to the playoffs closed definitively after NZ. So lets see who contributed positively and negatively to those prior games.

England ....de Ock gets a plus/Amla a minus (even though concussion caused that)

Bangladesh...de Ock gets a minus for slow/low scoring.

India they both get minuses

West Indies was a washout.....no contributions mattered.

Afghanistan .....they both get plusses.

New Zealand....de Ock gets a minus, Amla a plus.

..........

So in the matches that counted towards us not making the playoffs.......Ock gets 2 plusses and 3 minuses......Amla gets 2 plusses and 2 minuses and one of Amla's minuses was after he was severely concussed.

Anybody with half a brain can see that de Ock, our supposed trump card, had more to do with us not making the playoffs. And the averages tell that story....Amla was ahead on average, even though Amla was handicapped by concussion and not playing the Bunglies.

Schplottt ou oompie!

Jul 07, 2019, 21:51

Mozart

You are nits and not worth discussing cricket with you. 

Amla get two more minuses - where he got plusses from you.   Afghanistan and NZ,   Bith for batting way to slow at snail pace..

De Kock  - low score yes against BZ - bit for slow batting  - his rate was faster than Amla's.

Just sit in your corner and think up more BS to spread on site

Jul 07, 2019, 23:11

If Amla never came through against NZ we were lost and Afghanistan wasn't a question of scoring fast just getting the runs.

But speaking about NZ I forgot de Ock's disastrous non call against NZ, when standing up to the wickets he couldn't even sense the snick , over ruled the bowler's call against Kane Williams and we never went to the video ump.

Disastrous, the final act that definitively put us out the WC. On a level with his WC exiting non runout last WC.

That gives him a double negative against NZ....so Amla a neutral 2/2....de Ock a WC exiting 2/4. Thanks for motivating this research, I was convinced Quintie was our biggest problem....now I know he was.

Jul 07, 2019, 23:53

Scoring at a strike rate of  67,9 is not coning through to anything in ODI's and when Amla scored at such a low strike rate one has to wonder about your logic,   

In the Afghanistan test De Kock made 68 runs from 72 balls - at a strike rate of   94,4

                                      Amla made  41 rums from 83 balls at a strike rate of   49,4

Amla was not even maintaining anything other than to bat at a sick rate. that could at best be described as useless.   It affected our rating.    Only you would give anybody a plus for that BS,           

Jul 07, 2019, 23:58

It made no difference against Afghanistan....the strike rate was irrelevant. All we needed was to win the match.

Amla 2/2......de Ock 2/4...........why we didn't qualify, quantified.

Jul 08, 2019, 00:50


Total non-thinking at its worse. as as per normal.   Strike rate ALWAYS make a difference on the log - so think again before you write BS on site,    Amla was the exact reason why we did not qualify,  A disaster in the NZ ODI and almost one in the Afghanistan game with a strike rate of LESS than 3 out of 6 balls faced.   Every other match he played in Amla also buggered up badly,  

If you carry on like that you will soon prove the mon is made of green cheese,

Be assured of the fact that if Amla played against Australia - we  would have lost badly.  There would be nobody who missed catches like Amla did in one ODI,    And the fact is the run rate was established by De Kock and Markram and that resulted in setting  a target the bowlers could defend.    .     

Jul 08, 2019, 06:11

Mozart

Read the following from news24 carefully:-

5 Cricket World Cup 2019 flops

Hashim Amla (South Africa)

One of South Africa's most dependable players in the last five years, Amla scored just 203 runs in his seven World Cup outings.

The opener did hit two half-centuries but one came in a losing cause and the other was delivered in a consolation win after the Proteas had fallen out of the semi-finals race.

Amla's woes often put Faf du Plessis' side in trouble in the first 10 overs and the rest of the batting did little to make up for it.

He remains a cherished figure in South Africa though and when he scored an unbeaten 80 against Sri Lanka, veteran commentator Harsha Bhogle wrote on Twitter: "So happy to see Hashim Amla get runs. One of the greats of our era."

So was De Kock the real loser that caused SA to flop as you stated?   The comment is  100% correct and that fifty he got in a losing cause was at a strike rate of 59 - just over 3 runs for every 6 balls faced.   That will always be a losing game and a negative,    When you raved in a praise-song about this game - you made a fool of yourself.

Amla's strike rate in the Sri Lanka game was 76 - the highest he got in the series,   A strike rate below 80 by a top order batsman is a dead loss for any team and the fact is that his average of 64,58 is what one calls a serious flop,  If he did play against Australia the first ten overs problms would have been repeated and even magnified,,      

Jul 08, 2019, 06:19

Let me help. You said Amla is the reason we didn't qualify. That means we can trace our non qualification to Amla.

You mention strike rate as making a difference. Wrong, it made no difference independent of match results. It would only have made a difference if we were tied for fourth place. We weren't, we were tied with the Bunglies and placed 7th because of a better run rate.........it had no effect on our qualification.

Secondly you keep mentioning Afghanistan.....once again, we won that match....so run rate never mattered.

Thirdly.....the only matches we lost before not qualifying because of run rate were against the Bunglies and NZ. De Ock failed in both matches and his run rates were low. Amla never played againt the Bungles and his run rate against NZ was better than de Ock and Faf.....and better than 4 out of the 8 NZ batsmen....ie his run rate wasn't the issue against NZ, deOck's failure to appeal against Williamson was.

Read and learn.

Jul 08, 2019, 08:08

Anybody who claims strike rates made no difference to ODI outcomes must be totally idiotic - I hope that is not what you really think.    Listen when you write BS at least think before you write.  

I hope you would understood when the above quote made made the following statement abourt Amla:-

Amla's woes often put Faf du Plessis' side in trouble in the first 10 overs and the rest of the batting did little to make up for it.

Just something else - I hope nobody picks up what you wrote above on the internet - theywill LTAO.   Read and learn. 

    

Jul 08, 2019, 08:08

Anybody who claims strike rates made no difference to ODI outcomes must be totally idiotic - I hope that is not what you really think.    Listen when you write BS at least think before you write.  

I hope you would understood when the above quote made made the following statement abourt Amla:-

Amla's woes often put Faf du Plessis' side in trouble in the first 10 overs and the rest of the batting did little to make up for it.

Just something else - I hope nobody picks up what you wrote above on the internet - theywill LTAO.   Read and learn. 

    

Jul 08, 2019, 15:19

The reporter never bothered to check his facts.....just went with the usual fake news. The facts say Amla 2/2.....de Ock 2/4.

And as a keeper Ock is about as threatening as a long hop.....no presence, no vibe, no pressure on opposing bats. Just loser body language.

He was the final act taking us out of 2 WCs.....hopefully there isn't a third.

Jul 08, 2019, 16:48

So the real facts he checked is fake news why your BS is real news.  The real assessments of player performances put De Kock at 5,5 and Amla at 4,5 - so everyone else is wrong and your BS correct? 

Jul 08, 2019, 16:56

Because those numbers were never normalized for the game context.

Jul 08, 2019, 17:53

No Mozart

Your only effort was to try and defend the failing Amla from criticism - so you tryy and invent your owns tory about the situation on a basis which is totally deluded.  

Jul 08, 2019, 17:53

No Mozart

Your only effort was to try and defend the failing Amla from criticism - so you tryy and invent your own story about the situation on a basis which is totally deluded.  

Jul 09, 2019, 14:10

Markram finally made 30 odd and De Ock wasn't out in the first few overs.......on what a commentator just said was the best batting pitch of the tournament, in a match with no pressure.

And Tokkie thinks this is a world beating pair.....thick as a brick.

Jul 10, 2019, 02:39

And Amla was not out in the early overs.   De Kock was twice the batsman Amla was   But you had a brain fart and do not realize where the main problem was,. Your attack on De Kock was immature  and not to be expected from anybody with thinking abilities,

So was Amla part of a world beating pair?   Was his strike rate acceptable?     Let me add that you are the first person I came across who claims that the strike rate of batsmen  is not important and to be considered as a factor in the shorter versions of the game of cricket, 

You are not thick as a brick - but totally taken over by prejudice and consequently worse than any brick could be,   

 
You need to Log in to reply.
Back to top