FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Quinton De Kock.....

Quinton De Kock.....

Started by Denny62 REPLIES1,234 VIEWS· 10 Feb 2016, 07:02
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
DE
Denny
Captain12,893 posts
DE
DennyCaptain12,893 posts
10 Feb 2016, 07:02
#1
10 Feb 2016, 07:02#1
is he the real deal?...the next best thing or is he another flash in the pan made to look good against an average English attack with further assistance from a docile pitch and small ground? I'm not going to be the judge or jury, I'm simply opening up a debate. What we do know is that his ODI stats are great against a variety of teams in different countries. Noticeably his technique has improved and so too is his application and temperament. Having answered part of my own question I should be satisfied but there is lingering doubt when I look at his not so impressive test appearances and let's be honest it's test cricket that defines a player. We need a player like QDK, he reminds me a lot of another free flowing now retired wicketkeeper, Adam Gilchrist, a player who backed himself and served it up in breathtaking displays. Time will tell and until he faces credible attacks in away series against Oz and NZ under varying conditions I will withhold any judgement.
BL
bluebok
Pro3,977 posts
BL
bluebokPro3,977 posts
10 Feb 2016, 08:26
#2
10 Feb 2016, 08:26#2
I am very wary of simply jumping on the bandwagon, but he does look like he has that special something! Technical issues can be fixed, but talent cannot be taught, and he has spades full of talent! Also, his stats are pretty impressive! I stand to be corrected, but as I remember it, AB was also a little inconsistent when he first arrived on the scene. 
I have high expectations for this fellow! 
BE
Beeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
10 Feb 2016, 08:35
#3
10 Feb 2016, 08:35#3
 I would hazard that if dense denise had seen the young Graeme Pollock batting at 19 years old he would not recognised the talent. De Kock is a talent and will perform at test level. Just keep him in the team and allow him to grow. That test hundred against England was the beginning.
Next
RO
Rooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
10 Feb 2016, 09:00
#4
10 Feb 2016, 09:00#4
Why is this suddenly up for debate, Dense?

You seem to have made up your mind . . .

Denny

Status: Senior player
Posts: 3299 RE: Quinton brings back memories of the WC
January 03, 2016, 12:57:16

 If QDK had it all then he would have had footwork, to my eye he has none. Let's not confuse eye/hand co-ordination with footwork.


Denny

Status: Senior player
Posts: 3299 RE: Quinton brings back memories of the WC
January 06, 2016, 02:10:08

 Just an addition to my above post.....he is dumb as well.


Denny

Status: Senior player
Posts: 3299 RE: So ....Quinton de Kock
August 03, 2015, 11:00:08

 ".....the kid is a class act who...." A "class act" who is being demoted.  How many more times are we going to hear this utter rubbish?  You really don't know do you? In my book a class act doesn't get demoted...that's exactly why he'd be a class act!


Sphlott....Sphlott  wipe the egg off your ignorant face. 


And just before you come abarking....here...a muzzle.



Denny

Status: Senior player
Posts: 3299 RE: So ....Quinton de Kock
August 05, 2015, 12:58:06

Vlag...QDK in my not so humble opinion has some serious flaws, the kid needs more than time away.....I have my doubts as to whether he'll come good at the very highest level.
Hope I'm wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LMAO!

What a complete and utter plonker!

"I'm simply opening up a debate"

Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffhahahahahahahahaha!



CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
10 Feb 2016, 10:20
#5
10 Feb 2016, 10:20#5
 Denny
I am afraid you are wrong in this case.  How many tests have De Kock played?  he in fact played in only eight tests and already has a test average of 45,22 - which included a century at a strike rate of 6 runs per over as well as 2 half-centuries.  In those 8 games he hit 5 6's and 31 4's.   So your quote of "I look at his not so impressive test appearances" raises serious question marks about your objectivity in this case.  A test average of 45 of "not so impressive".  What do you really expect from De Kock.    
In his first eight tests Kallis played his average score was 15.  And that average score did NOT include a century or half-centuries.  Kallis made it good later on - why should the same not happen to De Kock?
In dealing with cricket - whether you like it or not - the shortened version of the game is played much more often than tests and all the international world competitions are based on the shorter version of the game.  So you cannot argue that those components are not important.  In the shorter version of the game De Kock is a miracle.   He has out-performed in batting on an age level all of the top world batsman.   Within slightly over 2 years he has accumulated already 2288 runs with an amazing century record of 10 centuries and 5 half-centuries.  A conversion rate of 66,7% in cricket is basically unheard off.   The best other players can do is under 40%.
In previous posts of yours you mentioned footwork deficiency - but ask yourself a question - can a player hit that many centuries and half-centuries  if he has a footwork deficiency.
I know your mate Mozart has been attacking De Kock all out and come up with all kinds of things to rubbish De Kock - but the moment he gets a look at the stats he goes quiet since he cannot counter it.  
Personally I think De Kock is a class act that will eventually be the Protea captain.         
   
DE
Denny
Captain12,893 posts
DE
DennyCaptain12,893 posts
10 Feb 2016, 10:35
#6
10 Feb 2016, 10:35#6
 Mike,read my above post where I say...
"Noticeably his technique has improved and so too is his application and temperament."
The test average you quote.......what teams would that be against? Please note I'm not knocking the lad and I state that I will withhold judgement until I see him against teams like Oz and NZ on away tours.
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
10 Feb 2016, 11:01
#7
10 Feb 2016, 11:01#7
 I think that the problems you saw with De Kock was not what is the general situation.  He is a natural and like all players will have problems from time to time.  I know that his first 50 was made in SriLanka - the other one I am not sure about.  I merely look at his stats thus far.  However, as I stated before - De Kock's record is really impressive with a long list of man of the Match and Man of the series awards.
I do not know when the next test series are being played against Australia and New Zealand - but he was very good in the previous NZ tour.   However he already made a century in ODI's in Sydney.  He was also the Man of the Series in a series of ODI's against Australia in SA.  
Not sure he can do much more to impress - he already has an impressive record.  
 
RO
Rooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
10 Feb 2016, 11:13
#8
10 Feb 2016, 11:13#8
"I'm not knocking the lad . . ."

"I will withhold judgement . . ."

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha!

This kind of embarrassment comes about when you're a grovelling arse licker and the person whose arse you lick clean every day is a ignorant about sport as that self-important and pompous blowhard Moffie.


DE
Denny
Captain12,893 posts
DE
DennyCaptain12,893 posts
10 Feb 2016, 11:37
#9
10 Feb 2016, 11:37#9
 His list is impressive only in ODI's. He was dropped from the side and replaced by Vilas because management had run out of patience with him and justifiably so. His test percentages you quote are against minnow nations with his best against Zimbabwe. Management had reason to drop him and I stand by what I said of him at the time. You obviously haven't read through my above post where I've noted a marked improvement in his technique. Subject matter closed.
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
10 Feb 2016, 11:37
#10
10 Feb 2016, 11:37#10
@Mike. You have one big problem whenever you do not agree with someone. You, for some reason, seem to think that a difference of agreement is an all out attack on a person/player. Of course, my critique of QDK will also be seen as an attack on the guy and an effort to rubbish him. 
If you are honest, you would remember that I have always raised three points about him. I said that he was hyped up too early in his career, especially at test level. ODIs and T20s are a different kettle of fish. He has always been OK there. The second point was that he should not open the batting at test level and probably also not at at ODI level either. Once again, he was OK in ODIs and T20. TBH, I cannot even remember if he ever played T20 because I do not give a sh1t about T20. I hardly ever watch it and do not even really know who our top T20 players are. I have, for quite a while maintained that he should bat lower down the order. The third point, and that goes hand in hand with the first one, was that he was not the player to replace Graeme Smith, at a time when you were all fired up that GS should be booted out and replaced by QDK. Once again, I am talking about the test side here.
All of the above aside, the point that I actually want to get to is his test averages.
One has to be very careful when using statistics in cricket. It is always useful to look a little wider than one particular figure only. While you are 100% correct that he has a very good average at this stage but that is when you look at that figure alone. Fact is that you have actually pinpointed the issue yourself without even noticing it. "...he in fact played in only eight tests and already has a test average of 45,22..."
You might remember that Faf du Plessis' average in the early stages was well above that. After eight tests Faf's average was 56.8. Why? Because of a few outliers and the luxury of two consecutive big "not out" scores, i.e. 110* in the second innings of his first test, followed by a 78* in the first innings of his second test. In fact, after his second test his average stood at 146.5. As his test tally rose, his batting average eventually tapered down to somewhere in the low fifties. He has recently slipped down into the low forties due to his recent slump in form.
Now, to get to QDK's averages. The best way to demonstrate what I am trying to say is to show you how his averages progressed innings by innings. His averages were as follows:After innings no 1 - 7After innings no 2 - 20.5
After innings no 3 - 30.67
After innings no 4 - 32
After innings no 5 - 25.6
After innings no 6 - 27.5
After innings no 7 - 35.14
After innings no 8 - 37.71
After innings no 9 - 33
After innings no 10 - 29.89
After innings no 11 - 44.22
After innings no  12 - 45.22

He saw his averages make big leaps and two fairly big dips in these 12 innings and they are easily explained by a few outliers. They were:
It dropped suddenly from 32 to 25.6 after his fifth innings due to one duck in his fifth innings. One single duck would  have no or very little effect on his average later in his career but after only four innings it has a massive influence. His other dip came after his ninth innings when he scored his second duck against Bangladesh which saw his average drop from 37.71 to 33. 
The jumps in his batting averages, similarly, came after big scores and two "not outs". He jumped from 20.5 to 30.67 after his total of 50 in his third test innings against Sri Lanka. He also jumped from 27.5 to 35.14 following an 81 against Zim. His next big jump was from 29.89 to 44.22 and subsequently to 45.22 after a big not out score followed by another not out in his last test.
The more important thing is that, at the time, the critique against QDK was warranted. In addition, it was also correct to say, at the time, that he should not have opened the batting either. Yes, he is a "class act" at the right time. I would not agree that he should be discarded because of his technical issues. Those can be either sorted or worked around. 
There are enough examples of working around issues. Graeme Smith was also technically a crap batsman but he worked around it and his stats prove that. Same with Amla. He has a few flaws but he work around them by playing to his strengths. His footwork is not the best out there but he is probably the best "wrist-batsman" out there. Even Kallis had his flaws that he worked around. He was quite often bowled, by balls that he clearly misread and left alone, only to hear the ball hit his off-stump behind him. He worked around that by using his ability to concentrate and follow the ball and then play it right under his eyes, so to speak.
So, the bottom line  is that, QDK should  be fine as a test batsman in time to come, as long as not too much pressure is put on him and as long as he is not moved up the order too soon and definitely not moved up the  order too high, especially if he is to become the permanent keeper, which seems likely to happen. But, and this is the big "but", at this stage his batting averages are proving bugger all. 
DA
Devil's Advocate
Pro7,008 posts
DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
10 Feb 2016, 11:45
#11
10 Feb 2016, 11:45#11
Denny
 
Status: Senior player 
Posts: 3300RE: Quinton De Kock.....
February 10, 2016, 10:35:02

The test average you quote.......what teams would that be against? 

 Australia - HomeSri Lanka - AwayZimbabwe - AwayWest Indies - HomeBangladesh - AwayEngland - Home
3 x Not Outs2 x Did not bat

RO
Rooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
10 Feb 2016, 11:56
#12
10 Feb 2016, 11:56#12
Very funny to see all of Quinton de Kock's very vocal detractors suddenly changing their tune and pretending they haven't got loads of egg dribbling down their faces.
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
10 Feb 2016, 12:13
#13
10 Feb 2016, 12:13#13
 I haven't changed my story one bit. 
I did not agree, at the time, that Graeme Smith should be fired. I still believe that. 
I did not agree, at the time that he should replace Smith. I still believe that. 
I did not agree that he was a test opening batsman. I stand by that. 
I believed that he was pushed into the test arena prematurely. That hasn't changed either. 
I said, after five innings, that his averages proved nothing. I have just indicated that, even after 12 test innings, you can still not read anything into his test innings. 
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
10 Feb 2016, 12:30
#14
10 Feb 2016, 12:30#14
 Ceradyne
Time to be civil again.  let me explain when players are denigrated and when they are criticized from time to time.  Mozart is the great denigrate expert on site.  He constantly attacks the same player - whether in rugby or cricket - mostly based on it to belittle the player and praise his predecessor or the player he replaced.  When Mozart likes a player - not a word of criticism ever - when he does not every thread he started or take part in is reflecting the same nastiness.   
Now for your comments.  8 tests is very few to evaluate a person's performance reliably.  You apparently missed the reference I made to Jacques Kallis's first eight tests.  You bring in Faf du Plessis as an example - but Faf was 28 when he forst came on the scene and had many years of cricket experience behind him.  De Kock was 21 when he played his first tests and had very little experience.  
Nobdy wanted De Kock to open the batting in tests.   You cannot have a player keeping wicket during a normal innings and then expect from him to open the batting.   You apparently misinterpreted a story about Smith and De Kock in ODI's instead of in tests.   I can see De Kock eventually batting at 5 or 6 in tests - but as an opener he should never bat while keeping wicket.
Now for your critique about ODI performances.  According to you he is OK, which in everyone else's idea would be that you think he is an average player.  This is absolute tripe - De Kock is one of the best ODI opening batsmen in the game today and that was proven in a heap of ODI's.   Smith in the 196 ODI's he played in as an opener made 9 centuries - De Kock in just over 2 years already past that figure.    De Kock also hold the re cord by a mile of converting half-centuries to centuries in ODI's.   Why you want to move him lower down the order in ODI's is a mystery only you can explain.
   

CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
10 Feb 2016, 12:47
#15
10 Feb 2016, 12:47#15
 Ceradyne 
I also noticed your later contribution.  I assume you refer to the ODI replacement - since that is where De Kock replaced Smith.  How do you arrive at your great story about Smith should not have been replaced by De Kock.  Smith was replaced at the end of 2013 - after an abysmal record in ODI's stretching over more than 2 years.  he did not only score rubbish runs - he scored it at an atrociously low strike rate. 
Why should he have been retained.   Smith was discarded after two atrocious matches against Pakistan away.   The first ODI the Proteas won - the second they lost.   They then won the rest of the five ODI's against Palkistan winning the series 4 - 1 with De Kock as opener.
Immediately thereafter Pakistan came to SA for an ODI series of 3 games.  The first 2 both Smith and Kallis were in the team and the Proteas lost both because both failed badly in the two games.  It was after those 2 failures - following a string of previous failures by Smith that he  was told by CSA that he will not play any further ODI's for SA.  He was abysmal and his replacement was a priority.
Professional sport cannot be played on reputation - continuous performance is necessary.   That is where Smith failed and that is why your heroes Meyer and Ludeke were effectively fired as SA Rugby Coach and Blue Bulls Rugby coach respectively.  .        
RO
Rooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
10 Feb 2016, 12:57
#16
10 Feb 2016, 12:57#16
"I haven't changed my story one bit."

I didn't mention any names, Ceradunce, but your very defensive tone speaks volumes.

I was actually mainly referring to the ignorant cricket noob who obediently supported his even dumber master and slagged QDK off at every possible opportunity and then still had the nerve to suddenly say he was withholding judgement on him . . . coincidentally soon after he scored two excellent centuries.

Your self-righteous and very defensive response would indicate that you also seriously underestimated QDK and you probably also have a face full of egg . . . but I'll only be bothered to check out your record if you say something as stupendously stupid as "I'm not knocking the lad" or "I will withhold judgment" after blatantly slagging the "lad" off and judging him exclusively on his early form and his poor CWC performance.
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
10 Feb 2016, 13:01
#17
10 Feb 2016, 13:01#17
 The usual BS. You fiddle around the core issues in an effort to avoid having to agree with what I have said. I have not been comparing Faf and  QDK at all. I used Faf's figures to add to what I was trying to explain the use of average batting figures and what influences them. That was the only reason why I mentioned Faf du Plessis. I was not comparing the two players and  I was definitely not trying to say that one  is better than the other. 
I was trying to get you to understand the issue of outliers when you work  with batting averages. I have tried it before but just like in this case you took your own route in an effort to avoid what was staring you in the face. Maybe I should just give up because nobody is as blind as he who does not want to see.
Nobody wanted QDK to open the batting in tests, you say. That was exactly what started this whole argument, way back then, which had you believe that Mozart (and myself, for that matter) said that QDK was crap. I never said that. Read my post again..... the one following Rooinek's last post.
"You cannot have a player keeping wicket during a normal innings and then expect from him to open the batting."
That was exactly my argument, at the time, but you immediately crapped yourself  and interpreted it as me saying that QDK was kak. 
I never misinterpreted anything about GS/QDK/ODIs/test cricket. Whenever I talk about cricket I am referring to test cricket first and foremost. I have told you often enough that test cricket is real cricket IMO. ODI is good entertainment and T20 is just hit and giggle BS. I do agree that T20 requires a certain specific level of skill and that it has  a place somewhere and that it has had certain benefits for test (real) cricket but that is where it stops for me.
"I can see De Kock eventually batting at 5 or 6 in tests - but as an opener he should never bat while keeping wicket."
That was exactly what I was saying a few years ago and when  I said it, you went into fits of hysteria about it.
The only confused one here is yourself. You wanted QDK to replace Smith in the test side, on the back of his (QDK's) ODI performances. 
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
10 Feb 2016, 13:15
#18
10 Feb 2016, 13:15#18
 @Rooinek
I was actually mainly referring to the ignorant cricket noob who obediently supported his even dumber master and slagged QDK off at every possible opportunity and then still had the nerve to suddenly say he was withholding judgement on him . . . coincidentally soon after he scored two excellent centuries. Point Taken.

Your self-righteous and very defensive response would indicate that you also seriously underestimated QDK and you probably also have a face full of egg . . . but I'll only be bothered to check out your record if you say something as stupendously stupid as "I'm not knocking the lad" or "I will withhold judgment" after blatantly slagging the "lad" off and judging him exclusively on his early form and his poor CWC performance.

I haven't underestimated him. I just did not agree with the hype at the time. Once again...... at the time.. when we had the argument about him. 
I strongly believe that too many potential great sportsmen are pushed onto the big scene too soon. Unfortunately, there are a few who  immediately see that as not believing in the youngsters at all and  wanting to cling onto the "old toppies" forever. I know there are the Eddie Barlows, Graeme Smiths and Tendulkars of this world but they are few and far between. 
I can name many examples of youngsters who were pushed too soon. The latest is the hype about Pollard. I will admit that I also bought into it, initially, but I changed my story pretty soon. To me, he has proven bugger all and has done nothing exceptional. In fact, I think that he is highly overrated. I may well be accused of relishing in a player's misfortune but, IMO, Pollard's recent injury might prove to be a blessing in disguise for the Bulls. I think that Schoeman is a  better bet than Pollard and I can show you links to where I have said that a year, or so, ago.




CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
10 Feb 2016, 13:24
#19
10 Feb 2016, 13:24#19
Insofar as ODI's are concerned there was the following comparison between Smith and De Kock as ODI openers in News24:-
" Quinton de Kock's masterclass at SuperSport Park on Tuesday ensured that the Proteas stayed alive in their ODI series against England.   With two matches to play, England lead the series 2-1 and Friday's 'Pink' ODI in Johannesburg is now a massive affair. 

De Kock was just as good - and maybe even better - than he was in Bloemfontein in the series opener when rain ruined any chance the Proteas had of pulling off an unlikely 400-run victory chase.

 

It was the 23-year-old's fourth ODI century in six innings, and he has become South Africa's danger-man at the top of the order.   It was also De Kock's 10th century in just his 55th ODI. 


To put that into perspective, former Proteas captain and fellow opener Graeme Smith finished his career with 10 ODI hundreds in the 197 matches he played for South Africa.

De Kock's conversion rate is also impressive. He has passed 50 on 15 occasions, and gone on to three figures 10 times leaving him with a 66.6% conversion rate. 

Meanwhile, Smith's 47 ODI half centuries leave him with a conversion rate of 17.5%. 


Smith finished his ODI career with 6 989 runs while De Kock currently boasts 2 288.

But a simple calculation reveals that, if he continues scoring at this rate, De Kock will have scored around 8 193 runs by the time he has played as many matches as Smith did. 

Given the form that De Kock is currently in, one would expect his already healthy average of 44 to keep rising, so he could actually pass Smith's total at an even quicker rate."


One thing the article did not cover was the issue of strike rate by the two batsmen:-


Smith       =      80.81

De Kock  =      92.59


The other thing in ODI's - which is markedly better than the record of Smith is the following:-


Smith      =    Sixes    -    44    -   points   -       264

                      Fours   -   788   -   points   -     3152 


De Kock  =   Sixes    -     31   -   points   -     186

                     Fours    -   248   -   points   -     992


Boundary point average per game played:-


Smith     - 3416 runs    -   average  per game 17.34

De Kock - 1178 runs   -   average per game   21.42


There is not a single indicator above that make Smith a better batsman than De Kock.   Fact is the latter is a far better batsman than Smith ever was. 

CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
10 Feb 2016, 13:30
#20
10 Feb 2016, 13:30#20
 Booooooom. There goes the hype again. Trying to compare apples with bananas. 
DE
Denny
Captain12,893 posts
DE
DennyCaptain12,893 posts
10 Feb 2016, 14:07
#21
10 Feb 2016, 14:07#21
 VlagDon't waste your time....it's a lost cause as you probably know. Roonek as you would also know has never ever written a cricket post of note for the simple reason that we already know. I enjoyed our debates on the other site and I've always respected your opinions and views on the game even though at times we differed. Mate, take it from me, you have nothing to prove to anyone here....sweet nothing, because you know your stuff. My only wish is that you continue to debate and bump heads with me on a game we respect and enjoy.
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
10 Feb 2016, 14:10
#22
10 Feb 2016, 14:10#22
 ceradyne
Not comparing apples with bananas - just facing up to plain facts about ODI performances,  Smith played in 197 ODI's and De Kock in 55.   That is a big enough sample to get a vivid picture about the various aspects of the game.
The fact is that you, Mozart and Denny in fact is not applying facts and denigrates De Kock.  When it comes to facts and figures it is suddenly not important and either just ignored or cluttered up by BS comparisons.   
You will not replace Smith in ODI's - why not?  Certainly not on the basis of performance.   H e was sh!t poor in the 18 months before he was replaced - so why was he to be retained?
You and Mozart is the same - when a favourable newspaper report appears about a player you dislike - it is suddenly HYPE.   Let me tell you one thing - hype applies to non-performers where they get applauded based on nothing of consequence and then written up in the press.    Where accolades in the media reflects on actual performance it is NOT HYPE.       
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
10 Feb 2016, 14:48
#23
10 Feb 2016, 14:48#23
Ag FFS, you stupid old fart. I have not denigrated QDK. Denigrating players is your field of expertise. 
You cannot just compare Graeme Smith and QDK by simply comparing their batting averages and their number of fours and sixes. They are two different players who played in different eras. That is true for many players but the circumstances of Smith's introduction into international cricket differs in so  many ways that you just cannot accept their batting averages and numbers of fours and  sixes as the sole yardstick.
Graeme Smith got  the SA captaincy in his 23rd ODI. In other words, by the time he got to his 55th ODI, he was  already carrying the burden of not only the ODI captaincy, but also the test and T20 captaincy, and that while only on his very early twenties. Bear in mind that he took over the captaincy at a fairly ominous time. They have just come of a disastrous home  CWC campaign. He took over from  Polly who was forced out of the captaincy while he, the much older Polly, remained in the side  and would eventually remain in the side for another few years. In addition to that he also had to deal with the fact that there were other much older and  much more experienced captaincy candidates in the side, i.e. Kallis and Boucher. Coupled to that, the fact that this was the same in all three teams that he had to lead. QDK had none of that sh1t. 
I would not replace Graeme Smith in the ODI side at that stage for the simple reason why I would not, at the moment replace  AB de Villers who is also currently sh1t poor. Also for the same reason why I would not have replaced Amla recently when you wanted to send him back to play franchise cricket. BUT apart from these reasons I would not have replaced him because of his leadership. We did not have a captain to replace him then and we do  not even have one  now. None of AB or Amla is half the captain Graeme Smith has been. None of them have the balls that Smith had. That was why I would have kept him in the side at the time that you wanted to boot him into outer space.
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
10 Feb 2016, 15:06
#24
10 Feb 2016, 15:06#24
 O FFS - this is typical of the BS we have heard from you for a long time now.  The great Leadership is important - performance is not.   You can have a worthless captain who cannot perform - but you have to keep him as captain.  Irrespective of whether you lose games because he does not perform - that does not take away the problem.
You are saying - forget about performance - we can have 5 batsman and a passenger as our batting line-up.
Have you ever in your life heard that a real sports leader leads by example?   Apparently not.
But it is not cricket alone - last year the Rugby WC squad of SA was destroyed by the presence of non=performing leaders.  We had in that squad at least 8 players that should never have been there.  That includes the captain and the vice-captain whose performances were a serious joke.    
This idea of cluttering up sports teams with non-performers is lunacy and that is a fact.  
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
10 Feb 2016, 16:01
#25
10 Feb 2016, 16:01#25
"The great Leadership is important - performance is not.   You can have a worthless captain who cannot perform - but you have to keep him as captain." 
That is not what I have said. That is what you have accused me of saying. The circumstances did not allow for Graeme Smith to be dropped, just like  the circumstances did not allow for Amla or AB to be dropped now. You have been asked before and you were too much of a coward to answer it. Would you have dropped AB in view of his recent form, or as you like to put it...... "performance"?
"Have you ever in your life heard that a real sports leader leads by example?   Apparently not."
I have heard and seen it often enough, which is exactly why we needed Graeme  Smith then and  exactly why we needed someone like him right now. I will say it again. None of our current "leaders" have the leadership qualities/balls that Graeme  Smith had. All of them are too PC correct and  scared to take the bull nby the horns. Graeme Smith took on the Aus media and while he made big mistakes and said a lot of crap things in his early years, he still had the balls to speak his mind. He eventually won the Aus media and the Aus supporters over. Remember the applause from ALL the spectators when he ripped the cast off his arm and  went out to bat in order to try and get a result in a match? 
The current lot or all a bunch of wimps with no tenacity. I cannot see our current side come back from a hopeless position and grind out a draw like we have seen them do under Smith. 
Remember the 2008 test at Lord's where England declared with a total of  close to 600? Where SA then slumped to 247 all out and were forced to follow on, upon which Smith, McKenzie and  Amla then fought back to draw the match? I cannot see the current crowd do that. 
Nowadays, if AB and/or Amla fail, we are farked, and nobody try and fight back and the leadership cannot seem to get them to fight back. 
No mate. We, us South Africans, are sometimes our own worst enemies. We turn on great people in the blink of an eye. We hop from one so-called hero to the next without putting much thought into it. Graeme Smith went through a rough patch in his personal life but he did not wail about it. Meanwhile a large part of the public and the media......... people like you.............. were on his back like a pack of wolves and wanted him out so that the new boytjie on the block can "get a shot". He just needed to get through a slump in form, just like Amla needed and just like  AB is needing at the moment. 
Now, once again................ what about AB? Should he have been dropped? If not, then why not? 
DA
Devil's Advocate
Pro7,008 posts
DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
10 Feb 2016, 16:42
#26
10 Feb 2016, 16:42#26
Ceradyne
 
Status: Rugby Legend 
Posts: 5131RE: Quinton De Kock.....
February 10, 2016, 16:01:20

I will say it again. None of our current "leaders" have the leadership qualities/balls that Graeme  Smith had. 

 500% agree with this Ceradyne
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
10 Feb 2016, 16:58
#27
10 Feb 2016, 16:58#27
 Ceradunce
Back to normal with you.   Lets take your BS can clarify it:-
That is not what I have said. That is what you have accused me of saying. The cir[removed]stances did not allow for Graeme Smith to be dropped, just like  the cir[removed]stances did not allow for Amla or AB to be dropped now. You have been asked before and you were too much of a coward to answer it. Would you have dropped AB in view of his recent form, or as you like to put it...... "performance"?

First of all Thickness Smith was not dropped from test cricket - he resigned and that was the end of it.   He was dropped from ODI cricket because he was buggering up for 18 months and his performance was BS for an extended period and he was a constant disaster since 2011 - so what circu mstances was not right to drop him?   When would circu mstances have been right - after another year of disasters?
I have repeatedly said that players are not dropped for temporary slump in performances - hence your question about AB and Amla is utter BS - which I answered clearly before.  
Then there is a long sermon about what happened years ago - nothing about his disastrous performances in his last 18 months in ODI's leading to him being dropped.   A slump in form does not last nearly two years - I have never heard such junk before.  And all of that because Smith resigned from test cricket  himself - he was not ever dropped and that now suddenly becomes a topic for junk writing on this site.  
H ave you lost your marbles or what?
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
10 Feb 2016, 17:16
#28
10 Feb 2016, 17:16#28
 Turn around is fair play.....RooiAAS? Nope Rooi face.....bwaaaaaaahahaha
Rooinek
 
Status: Senior player 
Posts: 3121De Kock makes the CWC "Crap" XI . . .
March 31, 2015, 15:10:43

A NZ website has picked it's XI of the worst players at this year's CWC and Quinton de Kock (quite rightly in my opinion) makes the team . . . admittedly only as a batsman but he could have been the wicketkeeper for the Cra

MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
10 Feb 2016, 17:28
#29
10 Feb 2016, 17:28#29
 And here's the rotten, smarmy hypocrite again. Falling off a log.....

Rooinek
 
Status: Senior player 
Posts: 3121RE: Quinton fails again...SA/Ire match
March 12, 2015, 10:33:56

Enough is enough. Either give AB the gloves and drop QdK or else at least bat this failure at 8 or 9! Dale Steyn looks more likely to score runs than QdK.




AG
AgPleezDeddy
Club Pro900 posts
AG
AgPleezDeddyClub Pro900 posts
10 Feb 2016, 17:40
#30
10 Feb 2016, 17:40#30
In fairness to Rooi, he never said QDK is a bad player, just a player in bad form which is two completely different things
And to be fair, QDK did have a period of horrible form, which he seems to have overcome now. 
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
10 Feb 2016, 17:44
#31
10 Feb 2016, 17:44#31
'Bat this failure at 8 or 9' is just saying he is in bad form? You can't be serious!
AG
AgPleezDeddy
Club Pro900 posts
AG
AgPleezDeddyClub Pro900 posts
10 Feb 2016, 17:45
#32
10 Feb 2016, 17:45#32
 I'm just speculating obviously....I could be wrong
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
10 Feb 2016, 17:47
#33
10 Feb 2016, 17:47#33
 But this should settle it:
Rooinek
 
Status: Senior player 
Posts: 3121RE: So Clean Cut.....
January 13, 2016, 15:31:13

Can't agree Plum. I'm not seeing any of this talent you're talking about and the very idea of plodders or non-performers like Faf du Plessis, Stiaan van Zyl, Quinton de Kock, JP Duminy and Kyle Abbott competing for places in s

MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
10 Feb 2016, 17:49
#34
10 Feb 2016, 17:49#34
 If this is not the worst case of hypocrisy ever on these Boards, it's got to be in the top ten.....a Niagra of egg.
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
10 Feb 2016, 18:55
#35
10 Feb 2016, 18:55#35
Mozart 
By now the Niagra Egg Falls have covered you and we should call earthmoving equipment to get you out.    You are the one who has borne most egg because of your constant attacks on De Kock.    And all that because you and Ceradunce -your comrade in stupiduty - did not even seem to know that Smith resigned from the test squad and was not dropped, but he was dropped from the ODI squad because he was piss-poor for near to two years.       
DB
DbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
10 Feb 2016, 19:26
#36
10 Feb 2016, 19:26#36
 I also did not buy into the QDK hypy at the time. I wanted him to carry over his 1st and junior clas form into the international arena. He has not done it yet ( in all formats) but he has certainly shown more potential than anyone else.  Denying that is STUPID in the extreme. 
RO
Rooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
10 Feb 2016, 19:33
#37
10 Feb 2016, 19:33#37
Only a fool would dispute the fact that Quinton de Kock had a disastrous CWC.
Yes, I voiced my frustration with De Kock during the CWC (as did many others) because we all knew he was so much better than that. I don't think calling him a non-performer during the CWC is inaccurate or unfair. 
Like I said, only a fool would dispute that he had a poor tournament . . . but I'd rather be disappointed when a player I've punted doesn't fulfil his obvious talent than be the dribbling halfwit who reckons he doesn't have the talent and will never amount to much . . . which is what the supremely ignorant Moffie and his sickeningly servile gimp Dense have been banging on about for months now. 
In short, I'd much rather be guilty of criticising poor form than be the pompous clown who thinks he knows more about batting technique than the national coaches and the player himself.
LMAO!
A Niagara of egg indeed . . . every time De Kock makes runs from here on in . . . which will be often!

DB
DbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
10 Feb 2016, 20:17
#38
10 Feb 2016, 20:17#38
 De Kock came into the CWC after a long injury layoff...not that much of a problem for an experienced campaigner,  but a huge gamble for someone still trying to assert himself. 
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
10 Feb 2016, 20:18
#39
10 Feb 2016, 20:18#39
  Rooinek 
I also was disappointed  with De Kock's form in the WC - but I also was aware of the fact that he was out of cricket for two months and he had no match time in that time.   I do not believe that a player can play himself into form in such a tournament.   We saw it in the case of De Kock in the CWC and a number of players in the RWC,
The "slack jaw" imbecile is too stupid to understand that.   De Kock is making sure he is under the Niagra Egg Falls permanently.   
DB
DbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
10 Feb 2016, 20:19
#40
10 Feb 2016, 20:19#40
 Maaik, stop taking the bait...please!
↓ LOAD MORE (page 2 of 2)

More from Rugby

More news