De Kock looks under kooked

The lad was dropped once by Smith, hit one incredibly lucky shot just over one fielder and short of another and was close to disaster on a number of other occasions.....he hardly middled a ball. So after those two innings is it obvious, as Dave and the Oom were claiming, that de Kock should have been selected at the start of the series? 

Of course not, he is no Graeme Pollock or Barry Richards. No doubt he is talented and will probably become a test player....but he needs more first class play. Right now he looks like an escapee from 20/20 cricket.

 Mozart

You are very quick to jump to conclusions.  It is the youngsters first test and he did qute well considering the fact that -

*   he scored in two innings more runs than Smith scored in four innings in the present test series against Australia;

*   he was the second highest run scorer for SA in the second innings.

It must also be borne in mind that the great Kallis in his first ten test matches never scored more than 15 runs un any innings.

His dismissal in the second innings stemmed from Lyon hitting a foot hole and the ball bouncing unpredictably.  

 Mozart

This thread was posted twice - why?  Is it because you believe that it is better to repeat hogwash - somebody may end up believing your tripe  

All the talk about him being dropped by Smith - that is the hogwash part. How many players in history of cricket gas been dropped and were they out? NO.  You came with the  same sorry tale when De Kock made a century against India.

If you want to discredit sportsmen use facts - mot ifs and buts and especially not fiction conjured u p by yourself.        

Mozart

Sorry about it - a belated thank you for your help,

I do think that you are correct about De Kock needing more exposure before he cab cope as a test player.  However,  I think he will make the grade.  

The reference to the India ODI was when you wrote  the Indians dropped catches twice.  during his innings.   My attitude on dropped catches is - name a cricket player who has not survived dropped catches and went on to make centuries or more.  It has happened to every cricketer and to my mind it is not of real importance in cricketing terms.   The player is not out and it actually means nothing insofar as the batter is concerned - it is nowhere of importance recorded in any event.

I hope they do not change the team to cater for Petersen 0 he was way to poor in the fi rst test - and they should not change a winning team. 

 What counts now is what Graeme Smith delivers now - not ten year ago,   I mentioned what Kallis - a far better batter than Smith ever was - did in his first ten tests.

So lets lave it there - you are entitle to your opinion - I to mine.  I said De Kock needs more exposure and he will make the frade.

He has quicker reflexes and a far better technique than Smith ever had.

Saffex

As far as I could make out De Lange is playing for the A-side in a series.  However, the obvious replacement is Abbott and he is likely to be called up for the next test.

Agreed Denny, if we have to replace Parnell, the raw pace of de Lange is our best bet  

Saffex

I never suggested that Smith should be left out of the test side -  I jus t said that De Kock in his only test made more runs than Smith did in both tests - that being as motivation why he should be retained in the test side.    Obviously Mozart wants him out - and by implication Alviro Pietersen in and so does Dof Doos.

Mozart

De Lange is the fastest bowler in SA - but his accuracy is near to zero - he sprays balls all over the show like it is unbelievable,  He might with luck bowl one good ball per over.

Makes sense...although if he is number 7, he almost has to keep wicket. Very few teams select a one trick pony at number7.

And OOM don't assume you k now what others think, with your horse power, how couldya.

Saffex

 I agree with you about a few issues here - but your constant wish to have Du Plessis out of the test side is real BS.  I also think that Smith should stay - despite the poor form he is in 90% of the time nowadays.

The batting line up should be as followsL-

Smith, Elgar, Amla, Du Plessis,  De Villiers, De Kock, Duminy, etc

That is what it was in the PE test and despite Smith's failure was on the whole successful,  At no 7 Duminy has a dual role - he is also the spinning all-rounder.

And I have no problem with De Kock taking over the WK duties.  They could not do it during the latest test - because somebody would start a story about how Tsolekile was over-looked for a position as he is the reserve WK and should have been played if AB was not going to keep wicket - you know the normal "racist" crap.   

 The following has been announced-

*   Kyle Abbott has been called up as a bowling cover for Parnell;

*   De Kock - previously called up because of Petersen's indisposition - remains in the squad as an extra batting option.

Likely that - in view of Petersen's batting slump - and also the possible replacement of Parnell (despite Mozart's wish to the contrary) the same team - as played in the 2nd test - will take the field in the third test.  

Dof doos

Fine - if you want to say that.   For practical purposes he is not only in the team as a batter - he also fill the role as a spinner.   Or at least that was the case in PE.

I see some speculation about Petersen coming back as opener and moving Elgar down in the order,  resulting in De Kock being dropped .  That would be one of the worst selections Hudson ever made.   You do NOT change a winning side - especially if the replacement would be as bad as Petersen was in his previous test.  

I can't imagine de Kock opening an innings with that open stan ce of his.....but it's a new world out there. 

Saffex

Miller is a ODI and T20 player par excellence - he really is not a test batter at this stage of his career.  So far on franchise level that shows in longer versions of the game.   where his bating average is considerably lower than Faf's.

I am sure he will not let the team down should he be selected for test cricket - but the player he should replace from a batting perspective  is not Faf - but Duminy - and that will not happen because of Duminy's spin bowling requirement.  Duminy did exceptionally well at the PE test - but was very average and even poor  in all the tests played over the past 15 months.      

So Mike, in your infinite cricket wisdom, kindly explain why Miller would not make a test bat.

Vlag you thick shit, why should JP not be in the test side???????????????

Saffex

In test batting a lot of patience and waiting for the right deliveries is required.   Miller is an impatient youngster and because of that he goes out earlier than normal in the longer versions of the game.  

He would develop that aspect of his game and would fit into the test side, but I think it will happen when Smith goes out and De Kock moves to the opener role next year. 

Beeno suggest Smith should bat lower down the order - but he is hopeless against spin bowling and it will not work.  You will scream murder - but Smith cannot continue as he has done recently.  1 Good score - followed by a string of failures is just not acceptable.  He has no consistency anymore and it will start counting against him in test s eries this year and next year.   

So Mike, do you think that if he was chosen to play in the test side that he would lose patience and play a rash shot??

In the last year that I have watched him develop as an ODI player, I have seen plenty of patience and very little rashness........so I would expect to see him being even more circumspect at test level.

His technique looks better than most.......it is better than Smith, Alviro, Elgar and Faf's for instance.

SA test cricket is missing out on another gem here......just like Faf a far less talented player made the step up from ODI to tests, so would the more gifted Miller.......same can be said of David Warner of Oz.......he was always labelled an ODI, 20/20 player and is now a test incumbent.

Miller would be in my test side now