When Quinton de Kock smiles, the Proteas win

Being Quinton de Kock must be a tough existence.

Everyday people look at him hoping that someone else will emerge. That the realisation that he’s been blessed with so much talent will manifest into some form of responsibility.

That he won’t take things for granted. That he will ponder about life’s issues a bit more, give greater thought about a topic before commenting, and heaven forbid, be more socially aware.

The same way he approaches his batting is the way he takes on life too. He keeps things simple. And this should not be interpreted as stupid. There’s a fundamental difference.

When recently asked in the Caribbean what the key was to the Proteas’ maintaining their winning streak, De Kock replied: “The only way to maintain a winning streak is to keep winning, that is the only way, not by losing.”

In one moment De Kock stripped away all the gameplans, formulas and strategies, and broke it down to its bare bones. While the majority of journalists in attendance would have wanted a more complicated and nuanced reply to build their stories around, that was ultimately not De Kock’s problem.

He played it as he saw it. And that’s when he’s at his best – just like he was in the West Indies this past month. There was an abandon, a joie de vivre about the way he went about his batting once again that saw "Quinny" return to being the world-class player we all know that he is.

Perhaps the languid style of the Caribbean islands and its people were a good fit. Maybe it was the rum punch. Or just the fact that he was once again able to free up his mind after spending months isolating in bio-bubbles around the world.

The answer probably lies hidden somewhere in between.

There are few players in the world that excel in all three formats as consistently as De Kock. Not even England’s maverick Ben Stokes can compare.

It is a fact that is often overlooked, and the work-load that accompanies it, particularly for the fact that De Kock fronts up to the new ball, takes it behind the stumps, and has been burdened with the tri-factor of leadership in the recent past.

The West Indies tour was an unparalleled success for Mark Boucher and the Proteas’ Men’s team. Their fragile confidence was restored a great deal through back-to-back series wins in both the Tests and T20I’s.

It was no coincidence that De Kock was named Player of the Test series for his 237 runs at an average of 118.50. And were it not for Tabraiz Shamsi’s miserliness with the spinning ball, De Kock would have been a worthy winner of the accolade in the T20I series too for his 255 runs at 51.00.

The Proteas’ Men’s team are smiling again. And they have De Kock to thank for that.

Thanks for that one - I think that his main detractor will now shut up.

Yep if only the whole team could speak as well as the Captain and bat as well as the captain.

Spot on Chippo.

He smiles when the ball isn’t moving and the pressure isn’t on.

Another attack after De Kock effectively won both WI series - only way to describe it is childish  behavior and alternatively stupidity.  

So  here goes  according to Mozart the story is as follows:-

*   De Kock is weak against pace bowling - 2013 and 2014;

*    De Kock is weak against spin bowling  -  2015 through to 2017

*    De Kock cannot face swing bowling 2018 to date.

So the upshot is clear - somewhere Mozart finds a thing he can attack De Kock on.   All  the above implies  that De Kock cannot bat at all - since he fails against  all bowling attacks.    Is there any logic ever in what Mozart comes up with?      

No wonder Mozart wanted De Kock to be replaced by Klaasen.     Verreynne  is a much better batsman and wicketkeeper than Klaasen - so why did Mozart not change his tune and sufggest Verreynne should replace De Kock?   The answer is simple - he hates Verreynne even more than De Kock.      

The game plans et al aren't the what, but the how. A recurring weakness of South Africans. Ja, if only we smile more. Sums it up brilliantly. 

Moz, i just need to correct you slightly.

De Kock actually plays a lot better when he is under pressure or when the team needs him.

Did you ever watch his innings against Australia when we were chasing something like 368? He got one of the most memorable hundreds i have ever seen.

When we were last in England, he was the only batsman that performed really well. They even pushed him up the order to open as he was the only bastman that seemed to be able to churn our runs.

Did you get to see the Windies series at all? He was literally the difference between the 2 sides. Pressure was ALWAYS on when he came to the crease down at number 6/7 in the tests.

He really did slump when he was given the captaincy. But thankfully that has been taken away.

I love seeing you winding Mike up on this forum, but I reckon you missed out on this argument based on what I have given you above.

 I’m always willing to be corrected by a well reasoned argument Flash and you make some good points. I agree he was the difference in the Windies series, even though it wasn’t carried on Willow, that was clear. Also he has had some big innings, particularly in Oz.

But I’m still left with the impression that many of those efforts have embellished a win, rather than been the deciding factor….and that his form in WCs has been disappointing.

I found these ESPN stats interesting:

I’m always willing to be corrected by a well reasoned argument Flash and you make some good points. I agree he was the difference in the Windies series, even though it wasn’t carried on Willow, that was clear. Also he has had some big innings, particularly in Oz.

But I’m still left with the impression that many of those efforts have embellished a win, rather than been the deciding factor….and that his form in WCs has been disappointing.

I found these ESPN stats interesting:

I’m always willing to be corrected by a well reasoned argument Flash and you make some good points. I agree he was the difference in the Windies series, even though it wasn’t carried on Willow, that was clear. Also he has had some big innings, particularly in Oz.

But I’m still left with the impression that many of those efforts have embellished a win, rather than been the deciding factor….and that his form in WCs has been disappointing.

I found these ESPN stats interesting. I found these ESPN stats interesting. They suggest he has a huge performance gap in tests we’ve won vs tests we’ve lost..over 40 runs on average if we field last and lose. One could say de Kock does well when the team does well, or take the more positive view that the team does well when de Kock does well, certainly true for the Windies series.

I’m always willing to be corrected by a well reasoned argument Flash and you make some good points. I agree he was the difference in the Windies series, even though it wasn’t carried on Willow, that was clear. Also he has had some big innings, particularly in Oz.

But I’m still left with the impression that many of those efforts have embellished a win, rather than been the deciding factor….and that his form in WCs has been disappointing.

I found these ESPN stats interesting. They suggest he has a huge performance gap in tests we’ve won vs tests we’ve lost..over 40 runs on average if we field last and lose. One could say de Kock does well when the team does well, or take the more positive view that the team does well when de Kock does well, certainly true for the Windies series.