What the F is JJ

Agreed - that is why I highlighted him.   I think in general there are some movement on the renewal of the squad and am looking forward to the game on Saturday,  I think Smith and Boucher realized they are going nowhere  with the elderly - but I think there are a few other youngsters they can look at as well.   I would have included Coetzee ahead of Hendricks for instance.

They are hanging on to Hendricks because he fulfills a political role.

He isnt great, but I'm not too offended by him being in the squad.

TB has really surprised me. Hope he continues to be a shining star.

JJ will come good

Odd... but i agree with DA again.

JJ may well be the man for the big occasion.

He looks like a fighter.

Let's see Dave

If he succeeds and proves you wrong, then you can just apologise to everyone in writing here 

31 is still young.... it just means that he is 20 years younger than you, and he still has a good 5 years to give us, so relax dude

Spot-on Dave. How on earth can they kick start an international career at age 31.

It's dumb.....no not stupid, just dumb.

I'll have a 31 year in my side if he'd done the rounds, ideally would have one world cup under his belt and is one of the rocks in my side.

Bump

Senior player

3368 posts

JJ will come good

JJ Smuts shows up the predictable hysterical cricket  youth brigade on this string....second most Proteas’ runs  in the series behind Klaasen. And JJ only played in 2 of the 3 ODIs.

No Mozart - one decent score made when there was no pressure does not take away from the fact that he is a slow batsman unsuitable to play in the shorter versions of the game.  He ill never make the grade in any other international team and definitely is a poor section in the Protea squad,   Both Snyman and Ackerman has better performances records on franchise levels and that makes his selection a joke,  

He is  lucky he got some game time on internasal level and is not in the international squad game for the future and is unlikely to be in the squads later this year,   The first game he nearly list the game with an ultra-slow strike rate - but that did  not count according to you.   He was lucky that Malan, Klaasen and Miller could make up and eliminate his deficiency,               

300x.8571=257.13 and 257.13>254......do you understand or do I have to explain it to you?

That os no answer to may statement that Smuts is not a suitabl e future player, 

Saffex

The idiotic Mozart ever take into account facts,  When Australia scored 271 runs in the 2nd ODI SA was required to score at 5,42 rpo representing a strike rate of about 90 Smuts was batting at a strike rate of 64.   In the other ODI's he played in his strike rates varied between 63 and 82.

On the whole Smits strike rate in all 5 games he played in was 78.7 which means a run rate of 4.72 runs in every 6 balls faced,    Whereas a score of  5 per over in ODI's is below par nowadays  and the realistic rate required is normally more or less 5.5 runs per 6 balls faced Smuts strike rate is way below par.   The required run rate of between 85 to 90 is what is to be expected from a batsman.

Even in his last game his strike rate was 83 it was still way below the required rate and the difference was made up by Verreinne - strike rate 100, Klaasen - strike rate 99 and Miller - strike rate 112.   In that  ODI the required strike rate was 88 - Smuts' contribution was 83 - hi s best in all games played,   .           

Even in his last game where his strike rate was 83 it was still way below the required rate....says Wanker.

Ag  siestog, he still doesn’t get it, even though I gave him the facts below:

300x.8571=257.13 and 257.13>255... do you understand or do I have to explain it to you?

.....

So it’s obviously too complicated for your pea brain. The Proteas had to score 255 runs to win and they had 300 balls to do it. That means each ball has to yield on average 0.85 runs. And each ball to Smuts yielded on average 0.8571 runs.

So no simpleton, there was no problem with Smuts’ run rate. Considering the  dismissals of  Malan and also Ock at a run rate below Smuts.....he had a job to do consolidating the innings. Which he did while still scoring at the required run rate.

I point  this out not because I think Smuts is a great new find, but because I can’t accept   the abject rubbish and lies you produce all the time.

"he had a job to do consolidating the innings."

Yep, incredibly simple logic applied here

I expect the Chinese dominance to continue in the upcoming world table tennis championships.

Sure there's more of a challenge from the Europeans, Taiwan and Japan this time round as compared to the last world cup but it's not a big enough challenge to crack the Chinese stranglehold.

A pity really knowing the results are going to be one sided....still we can only hope.

Go Liam Pit chford!

Mozart

You try and manipulate the figures to get away from the real issue - namely the actual strike rate. ,  The fact is the average strike rate of Smuts was 78 in all matches played and  in the other case where he made 41 runs - his other significant run-score - Smuts' strike rate was 64.   

It will never hit home in your case - since you do not understand the importance of strike rates in batting in the shorter versions of the game.  

Smuts helped us win the Australian ODI series, period.... with bat and ball

Some might not like that statement, but I don't care

Am I saying that he is the saviour to our problems..... no, not at all, not even in the slightest

A lot of what I have posted about him lately has been tongue in cheek, hoping that he proves me wrong, but for fucks sake people..... give the man some fucking credit at least

Sheeesh, some of you are so quick to just put any player down

DA I gave him credit for scoring runs - but in the second ODI against Australia his strike rate was way too low,  We won that game despite him - Malan, Klaasen and Miller needed to up their strike rates massively to ensure a win by the Proteas,  If Smuts batted for another 5 overs we would have lost the game.

In the end his batting in the third ODI was also below the required strike rate - but he did up his strike rate somewhat towards the end of his batting,   So give him credit for the last game - but for the rest he was really no good.        

Well there I agree with you Dave

You have to look at the context of what happens in any specific game to understand the strike rates... because each game's different scenarios will mostly always dictate the pace and strike rate of the batters.... simple really

Dave

If you take into account what happened in all shorter versions of the game to SA teams in the WC and subsequently in all subsequent games - there were two main  contributors to the losses namely -

*   inadequate runs scored by SA batsmen; and even when they did score runs.

*   inadequate strike rates.   

I appreciate that in cases where the batsmen did score runs too many of the losses resulted from below par strike rates,   Maybe I put too much emphasis on that aspect, but I pointed this out to Mozart as an inadequacy on the part of Smuts to equal the required strike rates set by the opposition.

To put it bluntly - until Smuts went out I gave up the second ODI as lost,   When he went out the recovery by Malan, Klaasen and Miller saved the game for SA,                     

Michael

If Smuts had gone for some very stupid big hit to increase his overall strike rate, and got out, you would be nailing him for that now

He did exactly and precisely what was needed from him.... at that time.... in that specific and individual  game scenario...….nothing more, nothing less

Dave you say he was clueless in the first two ODIs. Well he scored 41 in the second ODI and he wasn’t even playing in the first ODI....perhaps we need more clueless players.

Let’s be honest if he was 23 years old ....the youth axis would be highly enthusiastic about him.

Lol @ moz

How many balls did he face to make the 41 runs stupid?   He faced 65 balls -which was a potential match-loser,    That is a problem people do not always realize,   By doing what he did endangered the other batsmen who were forced to hit out at balls they should not hit out against, 

I will say clearly - Mozart is too stupid to understand that deficiency  and what pressure it place in the batter's teammates.  If the Proteas lost the second ODI the only player to be blamed for the loss would have been Smuts.  He faced 21,7% of all the balls bowled in that ODI and made 15.07% pf the runs scored.   At a strike rate o f 64 players lose more matches than they would ever win.                

How many balls did he face to make the 41 runs stupid?   He faced 65 balls -which was a potential match-loser,    That is a problem people do not always realize,   By doing what he did endangered the other batsmen who were forced to hit out at balls they should not hit out against, 

I will say clearly - Mozart is too stupid to understand that deficiency  and what pressure it place in the batter's teammates.  If the Proteas lost the second ODI the only player to be blamed for the loss would have been Smuts.  He faced 21,7% of all the balls bowled in that ODI and made 15.07% o f the runs scored.   At a strike rate of 64 players lose more matches than they would ever win.                

Building towards the next ODI World Cup the following players would not make my current squad, JJ Smuts, Faf Du Plessis and Rassie Van Der Dussen. 

Other no no's are Beuran Hendricks, Reeza Hendricks and Shamsi.

Disagree. The next ODI World Cup is more than 3 years away and we need to build winning habits as well as building players. A few mature guys in the mix will help the youngsters succeed. A team of players under 28, who are also always in form is a pipe dream.

Without Willie, Flouw, the Beast and Vermeulen  the Boks don’t win the WC.

You are 100% correct Denny - those are never to be considered.      

Mozart

And those experienced guys should be Smuts and Faf? 

Distortion of performances in the RWC  especially with Louw and Willie is just the type of things you come up with,   Louw NEVER in key games was in the starting line-ups and was just a dirt tracker - Willie on some games were 50:50,  Vermeulen was not  the key player you made him out to be and only Beast was an essential.   The players identified by experts who were  key in the WC victory has virtually all been belittled by you.

I love the following quote from you:-

"I point  this out not because I think Smuts is a great new find, but because I can’t accept   the abject rubbish and lies you produce all the time"

I cannot believe you ever gave a more  accurate description of your own modus operandi on site,