Time for a certain Protea skipper to go?

Forum » Cricket » Time for a certain Protea skipper to go?

Jan 04, 2020, 12:16

So where are we today in the first innings of the second test and who failed again:-

*    Pieter Malan - out for 5 runs - should never have been in the squad in the first instance

*    Hamza is a gamble - can bat - but can he last?   Out for 5 runs.  

*    Du Plessis - out for 1 run.   He now made 50 runs in three innings for an average of 16,6 runs per innings.   Clearly time for him to opt out. His eye-hand co-ordination is gone.  

Jan 04, 2020, 12:48

and  his replacement would be????????

Jan 04, 2020, 15:56

OK, here we go again. Another three to five years of pissing and moaning about Malan, Hamza and Faf.

Expect them to be added to the list of Graeme Smith, Amla and “boring” Kallis.

Jan 04, 2020, 17:21

This is about cricket dimness,  

I am also unhappy with De Kock on his showing today - yet his average in the three innings were 49,67

Van der Dussen's is  40 and Elgar's 36.   

Is that good enough?       

Jan 04, 2020, 18:55

"This is about cricket dimness, "

My apologies. Although, I am sure that all three of the guys mentioned were cricket players.

"I am also unhappy with De Kock on his showing today - yet his average in the three innings were 49,67

Van der Dussen's is  40 and Elgar's 36."

Who mentioned De Kock, Van der Dussen and Elgar? Or is it just your usual obfuscating kicking in again?

Jan 04, 2020, 19:24

Hahaha.....so Wanker, Elgar and Dussen get no mentions today?

Jan 04, 2020, 19:40

What a pathetic batting performance again.

What the fuck was Malan thinking - why play it?

Rassie has 9 lives and still gets out playing like he had just got to the crease

de Kock has no brains - all talent no game awareness

Pretorious is just fucking useless

SA were poor against the spinner who offered nothing - as KP said, Rassie fucked up by not taking an average spinner on putting pressure on Elgar to score in the end

Hamza better start producing otherwise he must piss off

Faf is utterly useless these days - at 35 he needs to piss off

Jan 04, 2020, 19:41

All we were missing was another flop from Markram. The only young talent I see is Nortje.

Jan 04, 2020, 22:50

Markram is soooo gifted but hell knows what has happened to him

Our batting side has to be the worst line up in decades

Jan 04, 2020, 22:57

Because you never saw any of the other players I mentioned playing and I have.  They are talented and can build a career as an international player and the duds cannot.  

I did mention Elgar - he did make runs this innings - after six flops one good innings is not the answer.   The fact is one flop om every four innings is acceptable.  so lets say 5 good innings out of 7 is acceptable - six flops out of seven is NOT.   He had one good innings in an India test followed by 4 flops and then 2 flops in the first England test,

It is always clear that the players who did that should be on he way out,   As to Du Plessis he was even worse.                    

Jan 04, 2020, 23:25

I'm not sure how anyone can compare, Graeme Smith, Amla and Kallis to Hamza and Malan, it's probably meant as a funny.

Laughing Graphics

Jan 04, 2020, 23:43

We restrict England to 260 odd and we find ourselves 50 odd short with Rabada, Nortje and Vern to try get close

It’s beyond pathetic when you think England’s most dangerous bowler was not even playing

Imagine what the score would have been if Rassie had succumbed to one of his many lives

I have no faith in any of our bats walking to the crease other than de Kock to smack it around a bit at 6

Jan 04, 2020, 23:48

Our batting side has to be the worst line up in decades 

And will continue to be if changes aren't made......that's obvious, although I suspect and I've said as much several times....we simply don't have the cattle, even though some here have said we do.....well then, where the Hell is it?????

Jan 04, 2020, 23:56

There were problems with the pitch and that will only get worse over the next two days.    I think somebody should give de Kock a serious talking to.  His disdain for some of the England bowlers is evident and that includes their spin bowling and also with Curran as a medium pacer,  

He took out the spin-bowler and Stokes out of the attack and they replace the latter with Curran of whom he hit 14 and 16 runs in two overs in the first test.   That is why he played reckless shots against the Curran bowling and he got out twice because of that.


Jan 05, 2020, 00:00

I wonder if he's lost interest in playing alongside a bunch of no hopers?

Jan 05, 2020, 00:20

Well there are a few early 20 year olds averaging over 50 in first class cricket so let’s give them a go - we have nothing to lose given how shit we are at present

Jan 05, 2020, 00:35

Ja I'm ok with that it's the commonsense thing to do but I still wouldn't get my hopes up.....I suspect our cricket lacks depth in talent.

Jan 05, 2020, 00:45

We won’t see it happen we seem to think it’s good to give 30 year olds debuts

Jan 05, 2020, 00:50

And then give them an extended run......

Jan 05, 2020, 01:35

Sure let's have more Malan, Hamza and Markham. When those youngsters fail, pick more of them! Seriously Denny are you  really sure an extended run for deer in the the headlights players like Malan and  Hamza, makes sense?

Jan 05, 2020, 01:48

Malan is 30

There is no questioning Markram he is pure class - Amla and Kallis struggled when they started test cricket. Markram is as talented if not more talented than Amla

I’m not convinced by Hamza at all - he flatters only to deceive too often

Jan 05, 2020, 06:52

Dave I'm being sarcastic, my comment is meant as an extension of your post..

"We won’t see it happen we seem to think it’s good to give 30 year olds debuts"..... and then they're given an extended run.....

which further exacerbates the situation.

Jan 05, 2020, 07:27

I have heard these arguments since time immemorial. Choose the best players now....the guys who are likely to win the next test. That's the team whether it be comprised of youngsters or thirty year olds.

Picking a bunch of young players who are not capable or ready is just going to destroy their confidence. Pick them when they are better than the incumbent and have a fighting chance of succeeding.

And it's going to destroy the team, the young players who have got potential aren't going to develop that potential in a losing team. Yes Faf is going through a bad patch.....but unlike the young newbies he has demonstrated with a 40 test average that he could cut it at test level. 

Before we discard that resource we ought to be sure it's permanent and not a slump. We appear to have nobody knocking down the doors.

Jan 05, 2020, 09:40

Heck Mozart - coming from you it is rich.   The best players that should have been selected based on performance were  never selected by either Meyer nor Coetzee,   They picked reputation players with no regard to performance virtually all the time.   Since when is your support of players depending on performance?

Must have been a new development - since as recently as June this year you supported the selection of Amla - despite the fact that the bottom fell out of his performances  over the last 18 months,   

Nobody argues about performance being the norm for selection  - but when the cupboard is near to empty and the candidates are dubious - why pick a 30 year-old ahead of a 23 year old.  At least the 23 year old will have a better chance to develop as a test cricketer than a 30 year old - whose test career will be short and further development as a player verging on failure.  

Believe me - there are young quality cricketers still around.   Verreyne broke every batting record of Kallis at the school where both went to and he is a class act in the making,  Why not him ahead of the failing Du Plessis?        



Jan 05, 2020, 19:41

Oh do stop talking nonsense Wanker....at the WC a few months ago, Amla with an average of  40.16, Dussen at an average of 62.2 and Faf with an average of 64.5 ......were clearly better than de Ok with an average of 38.12.

Our three oldest bats had our best WC averages. Amla much to your chagrin never failed and Faf was our best batsmen

Jan 05, 2020, 20:00

Amla was not out twice batting at a snail pace that is totally unacceptable in ODI's,    He was directly responsible to losing two matches because his strike rate was too low leaving batters lower down to try and make up the deficit,

Amla was going backwards rapidly over the last two years and only the really ignorant did not want to see it.    A faster batsman could have done better in the WC.   

However,  he saw what was inevitable and retired from the game/   The only problem is his retirement came 6 months too late.

If Amla, Du Plessis and Van der Dussen was that good where did all the losses in the WC came from  - Idiot Speaker?   The fact is that if players are not out in ODI's there batting averages are  increased because of the not-outs - but if the strike rates are too low the matches are routinely lost.    Amla's strike rate was routinely below 65 and  tat was a disaster in the WC,  ,              

Jan 05, 2020, 22:13

Okay I'll bite.....which 2 games did we lose because of Amla's strike rate?

Jan 06, 2020, 01:29

We a pathetic showing today - I cannot believe the utterly useless Sibley is closing in on 100.

We looked to have surrendered the game from the first ball bowled today. Vern was bowling far too slowly and was completely ineffective as a result - he was 5km/ph down on his usual speed and it set the tone

Jan 06, 2020, 02:00

The only bowler that did really try was again Nortje and that is a fact,

Jan 06, 2020, 02:19

Rabada had his moments but yes agreed

But the real issue is our useless batting

On that pitch with their bowling attack less Archer we should have been 100 ahead

Jan 06, 2020, 02:21


Here goes - I make it three IDI's.   Please not the strike rates involved:-

England              13          23      Strike rate  56,52

New Zealand     55          83     Strike rate   66,46

India                     6             9     Strike rate  66,67

 Anything below 75 in ODI's are totally unacceptable. 

We would have lost the game against Australia as well if Amla was selected to open the innings, taking into account his average strike rate in the series, ,     

Jan 06, 2020, 02:30

That I saw coming for moths now,   Du Plessis was pathetic in test after test - both in India and  in the present series,   Hamza - I am getting a sick feeling he is not going to make the grade,   Malan was pathetic - should never have been selected,   De Kock seems to be disinterested - as Denny said maybe he is getting so because too many of the others fail badly,   


Jan 06, 2020, 02:34

Bullshit Mike Amla was huge for us right to the end

Man if only we had him now

Jan 06, 2020, 03:01

So let's examine your claim that the Proteas lost 2 matches at the CWC because of Amla's strike rate. These were our losses:

1 England. In this match Amla scored 13 runs before being clocked by Archer.... at a 56 strike rate. To get  to an innings high strike rate, he would have needed to score 7 more runs. Would 7 more runs have made a difference? Nope England won by 104runs....so no, his strike rate never lost the Pom match.

2 Bangladesh. Amla wasn't playing,  though I know  you'd still be inclined to blame Amla.

3 India. Amla freshly back from his concussion made 6 runs in 9 balls. Would 3 more runs and a second place run rate have made any difference? Only if you believe India with 6 wickets in hand couldn't make 3 runs in 15 balls. So nope, Amla's run rate never lost  the match.

4. New Zealand. After De Kock failed... Amla, Faf and Markram all scored at about the same rate. And if Amla equalled Markram's rate....NZ would have needed 2 more runs in 3 balls. Which was highly likely. Still you could argue Markham,  Faf and Amla all scored too slowly. Or you could argue our bowlers were poor.

Either way Amla clearly made the best contribution of any of the 4 openers. Guptill, the only other opener to make runs scored at a strike rate 7 below Amla,

5. Pakistan....Amla only faced 2 balls, so obviously his strike rate wasn't a factor.

West Indies was abandoned and the Proteas beat Sri Lanka on a solid 83 by Amla at a sensible strike tate.

So Tokkie, your claim we lost  2 matches because of Amla's strike rate, is balls. After a fearful blow from Archer, he struggled for form...but still ended up third in the averages and there is no clear cut case where his strike rate was the biggest factor in losing a match, let alone the only factor.

Very simplistic thinking on your part Wanker.

Jan 06, 2020, 03:12

Dave, seems like we'll never agree on that one, Amla's batting had been in decline for two years prior to the WC. Also, because of that, there was no choice but to opt for a younger hopeful if you wish to stay consistent with what you've sprouted several times over on the subject of youth.The majestic Amla left an image which I'll never forget, there was fear in his eyes and face and perhaps a younger hopeful wouldn't have done any better, we'll never know,  but it would have at least spared us the image of a scared rabbit trapped in a cage.

Jan 06, 2020, 03:26

Amla had clearly declined given his age but he was still a better option than Hamza is now

Some players are that good that you let them decide when time is up - Smith, Amla, AB, Kallis etc

Amla left at the right time. Had there been a few quality youngsters about to take over then things might have been different

A player like Faf is not in the league of my list mentioned and that’s why I would say he needs to go post the England series

Can’t say I ever saw Amla scared

Jan 06, 2020, 03:34

Well in that case we'll agree to disagree.

End of.

Jan 06, 2020, 05:19

bout Us Feedback Ask the Statistician Advertise on Howstat Compare Players
Home Page
  Hashim Amla (South Africa) - ODI Cricket
Performance Analysis by Year  (calculated for matches beginning in named year)
YearMatInnsNO100s50s0sHS  RunsAvgS/RCaSt
20091212 10509748043.6475.956
20101515 1540129105875.57104.246
20111515 1251116*63245.1488.021
20132322 024112283838.0984.5617
20141818 1520122*89252.4780.5890
Overall (12)1811781427 39 159 8113 49.47 88.40 87 

Jan 06, 2020, 05:20

There....some facts....not just impressions.

Jan 06, 2020, 08:06

No Mozart

Facts are strike rates being too slow in ODI's loses matches,   In the latest WC Amla's strike rate in batting was below 65 on average and was bound to be losses.    Opening batters with that kind of strike rate are total disasters and that is why the Proteas lost.

You went on about the England ODI -  here is the scorecard:-

Jan 06, 2020, 08:22

For some or other reason the above posting went awry and my comments was not updated,   Amla was and remained one of the reasons the Proteas lost matches,   His average strike rate was below 65 in the WC series and that means scoring at below 4,5 runs per over - way too low for ODI's and always representing match losses,

How the hell do you think his opening partner felt standing watching Amla fumbling around and then has to try and hit out in games at balls he should not have to purely to up the strike rate and then going out early?   

Amla realized he was failing and retired form international cricket,   He failed in the WC series and  irrespective how you try to mangle things around - he was too poor and caused losses for SA,  The Proteas would have lost the Aussie game too if Amla played and the reason they won that one was due to the fact that he did not play.   Aside from his batting him dropping catcjes left, right and center also played a role in losses anyway.

No Mozart - everybody bar you realized he was a liability in the WC series abnd his selection was a joke in bad taste, 


Jan 06, 2020, 18:42

The Proteas lost no matches at the WC because of Amla's strike rate....it's all laid out very clearly above so even a stubborn moron like you can follow. And what do you do....come back like a broken record ignoring the facts.

Amla was a great One Day contributor....and his average in 2019 was 7th of the 12 years he played. His WC was disrupted by concussion and he was less culpable for our losses than Markham and Miller, who you never mention.

Dishonest, sloppy, biased bullshit.

Jan 06, 2020, 18:44

Agreed 100% Moz

You need to Log in to reply.
Back to top