Time for a certain Protea skipper to go?

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 ba t - 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.  

and  his replacement would be????????

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?       

"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?

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

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

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.                    

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

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?????

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 hi t 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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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,  ,              

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

Mozart

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, ,     

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,   

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.

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.

Well in that c ase we'll agree to disagree.

End of.