Moz your thoughts on

 When QDK one day realizes what an enormous talent he is, he could become another Brian Lara, perhaps even better. Don't worry what anyone else says, Lara is a legend of cricket......one of the greatest.

Lara was great, but his performances were often hindered by the fact that his team mates were crumbling around him. I remember countless games where he ran out of batting partners. Very sad that he came at a time when the Windies were so ba d. 

Well, that could happen often to De Kock if he continues to come in at 7  

Agreed. De kock should come in at 4 or 5. 

Agreed blue  

 leave him at 7, or 6 for the time being. He seems to be working there ATM. Let him gather some more runs first.

And then put him where?  

 His progress will show us where to move him and when.....IF....

 If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Having someone of QDK's quality at #7 gives the Quoteas a huge safety net and he's the perfect guy to build a big partnership with one of the top order guys later on in the innings.

The only reason I'd move him up the order would be if there was no-one else good enough for the middle order roles. Seeing the likes of Duminy and Bavuma might tempt me to bat QDK a bit higher up the order but if any of our youngsters prove their worth then leave him at #7 to shore up the batting.

That said, he should definitely open in ODIs and T20s.

RE: Interesting comment on de Kock by Michael Holding. March 13, 2015, 18:14:52 I was never really convinced he is an opener. At his best he looks like a fast scoring number 6 batsman and wicket keeper. That feels like a good permanent role. What worries me is the kind of stuff we are hearing from AB in the post above. It's about de Kock ...about ABs not wanting to keep....I'd rather hear him talk about how we are going to win this thing. NZ, OZ, Sri Lanka and India seem very focused and determined. We seem to be bemused and thinking about touchy feely issues. The honest answer from AB would have been, de Kock is a great talent, but he has had a disappointing run. And the team needs a solid start, so a change may be necessary. This is the WC and we will do everything we can to win... ........................ That's what I said 2 years ago Dave and it seems pretty prophetic. He has found his role in the lower middle order. The kid has a great eye....but still tends to throw the bat at the ball, which does him in when there is a lot of movement. To me he should be at 6 as I suggested in that posting.

 Well Mozart
I suppose you are not talking about ODI' but tests insofar as the batting order is concerned
De Kock - despite batting at 7 (bar in one test where he opened) in tests and 1 in ODI's and T20's hold a number of records already, namely -
*   the quickest player ever with the least test innings played to reach a 1000 runs in test cricket;
*   the quickest player ever with the least number of innings batted to reach a 1000 runs in ODI's.
In his short career De Kock has already past Graeme Smith in ODI's centuries so I cannot see why he should not open the batting.    He does not have the batting limitations evidenced in the case of Graeme Smith and routinely set up a high soring rate for the rest of the batting order.  
The commentators think he is a unique talent and I doubt not he will be a huge success as a player so your comments about his limitations seem to be a bit spiteful.       

Not really.....the comment were prescient.

 Prescient?   Based on what are the remarks made.
De Kock was very young in the  WC situation and was rushed abacl after a two month injury lay-off.   He definitely was not really ready and consequently  up to standard in that tournament.
Prescient should be based on certain proven norms and what you have evinced thus far on the guy has largely been negative and definitely not based on the talent of the player and on his proven performance records since the WC.  
I have yet to see from you a really positive comment on this player - your vaguely favourable  comments are constantly weakened by caveats thrown in as well.        

Nope I told you he wasn't ready for the WC, you insisted he was. I told you he was a middle order batsmen, with a great eye and a somewhat flawed technique. That's the case. He is now a much better player than he was two years ago, which just goes to show he wasn't ready. But he still struggles when the ball is moving. Right now he is A plus against mediocre bowling and no more than a B when things get tough. When he fixes that you can compare him with Amla, Smith and Kallas.

@clevermike

"the quickest player ever with the least test innings played to reach a 1000 runs in test cricket"

um, thats complete bullsh1t!

Remember way back when AB was slated by everyone for stating that he wanted to be the best in the world? Some laughed and said he had a good eye but was naive in the way he approached a stand. Others said he simply wasn't good enough. He was also called arrogant. Remember that Kallis, Tendulkar and Ponting were still playing. Truthfully, at the time it was impossible to know what the outcome would be. AB later said said "What should I have said? That I want to be second best?" Ian Botham is my favorite cricket of all time but AB certainly is the best batter I've ever watched. And he did rank 1st in all formats. Would strole into any team presently and will be remembered along with Kallis and a select few others as the greatest SA has ever produced. And then remember, after that great knock in OZ how people claimed that Duminy had greatness written all over him. He was specifically compared to Lara. What's he averaging now? Mid thirties? A true passenger. QDK is pretty damn good. Way better than Mark Boucher ever was. Is he as good as Gillie? Only time will tell. I agree with Moz's assessment as regards QDK presently. Hopefully he does go the way AB went and not the down the Duminy path.

 Mozart
There is serious difference between the batting of Smith and Kallas on the one hand and De Kock on the other hand.   De Kock is an attacking batsman - watching Kallis and Smith batting was like watching paint dry.
Besides that Smith had a serious defective batting technique - which is totally absent in De Kock.   The same problem is now evident in Amla whose batting average has gone down drastically.
So lets look at the actual performance of De Kock compared to the three players you mentioned:-
Tests
After 15 tests Kallis batting average was still below 20 - de Kock' average is already above 50.   Kallis was the slowest batsman I ever saw in the game and he would block and block or just refuse to hit any balls that was anywhere outside of off-stump.    That was his technique and it paid off handsomely for him.   However I rated Kallis above the other two mentioned by you.
Smith was a player with a bad batting technique he never overcame and to compare him with De Kock is childish and foolish. 
Amla has gone backwards this year and is struggling with a defective technique - getting stuck in the crease.   Whether he at his age will recover is questionable.

As per normal with De Kock he was the player with the fewest tests to reach a 1000 test runs ever. 
ODI's
Smith was poor in ODI's because of his poor technique and as a result a slow batter.  He ended up with a batting average of 37 runs -  which was defective in most respects - especially in view of his low strike rate.   De Kock has already had more ODI centuries than Smith scored in his whole career.  So no comparison at all he had
Kallis was a top class all-rounder with one problem - his strike rate of 71 was  inadequate as an ODI player.    That presented a serious problem lower down in the order.   However - he was good enough to be in the team.
Amla is still a very good batsman - but he has more problems now than  he used to have.
Bowling Opponents
Who do you rate as the top bowlers?    Stark and Hazelwood as well as the NZ bowlers - De Kock faced all of them and did no worse than Kallis, Smith and Amla did against the top bowlers of their eras.   Amla in fact was worse than De Kock in his tests in Australia.  
However - a final point you missed completely is that one has to look a the careers of players when they were at the same stage of their careers as De Kock is at present - none of them were even comparable with De Kock at that stage of their careers.
I am afraid your prejudice got the better of you in this case.   It started when Smith was dropped from the ODI squad and replaced by De Kock - you had a hissy-fit.    It is still going on after three years - get over it and start looking positively at the player.    

 " Mozart
There is serious difference between the batting of Smith and Kallas on the one hand and De Kock on the other hand.   De Kock is an attacking batsman - watching Kallis and Smith batting was like watching paint dry.
Besides that Smith had a serious defective batting technique - which is totally absent in De Kock.

Tests
After 15 tests Kallis batting average was still below 20 - de Kock' average is already above 50.   Kallis was the slowest batsman I ever saw in the game and he would block and block or just refuse to hit any balls that was anywhere outside of off-stump."     
Geez. What planet are you living on? Every time you open your mouth about test cricket you just reconfirm your lack of understanding test cricket, which is not unexpected, given how besotted you are with T20 wannabe BS. 
Yes, Kallis did bat slowly at times but, like so many of his critics, you have clearly missed how many he would bat slowly at first and then end batting at four/five runs per over, overall for his innings. Do you understand what that means. It means that at the start of his innings he surely bats slowly and that is when "mik en moer" fanatics, like yourself, decide that he is batting slowly. To, then, get to an overall run-rate of four/five per over, he surely has to be going at more than 6 per over for some length of time, especially if he ends up scoring between 80 and 100 runs. 
Jacques Kallis ended up with a career strike rate of 45.98. That equates to an average run rate of 2,76. Of course your thickness would say that that is a crap result. Problem is that you have to look at the bigger picture. For most of the early part of Kallis' career he was regarded as a bowler first and then a batsman. In addition, he got very little exposure in his early career. He has one test and one innings in his first year in 1995. He had another chance in 1996 where he had only one innings again. In 1997 he had five matches but only had 8 batting innings. His first decent spell was in 1998 where he featured in 15 tests and that was against the likes of Shane Warne, Glen McGrath, et al.
QDK, on the other hand had quite a bit more matches per year in his early years..... well his early years are actually still early years at the moment but you have to match up his bowling opponents. Another very important factor about QDK is that he was tried as an opening batsman where he had mixed results. He was tried at no 3 with equally mixed results and has now seemed to settle at 6 and mainly 7 where he is doing great. That is what I thought his batting position should be at some stage in his career when he was ready for test cricket. That was, of course, at a time when Graeme Smith was still playing and you wanted him as a test opening batsman prematurely.
Do not get me wrong. I am not saying that he is a crap cricket player. On the contrary, I think that he is a brilliant cricket player in the right batting position at the moment. Not fecking three or four ago when you wanted him to open in test matches. I think that he will become an SA great, provided they stick to the status quo for the time being and gradually moving him up the order over time. I see him settling at no 4/5 and maybe 3 in years to come.
Graeme Smith and Kallis like watching paint dry............? You should lay of that sh!t that you're smoking mate, it fecks up your brain cells.

 Dofdoos
What was the figures of the Kallis after playing in 15 tests and what was the figures of  Smith throughout his career?
What you do not understand  is that I refer to their initial career with comparable info.  That applies to them at the time of their careers compared to the data of De Kock.
If you are too stupid to appreciate that I cannot help you at all.    If you cannot appreciate that and that De Kock is a unique talent you must have the shrink look at that sh!t on the braincell disease you are suffering from.  
To be quite frank I clearly said Kallis was a top all-rounder - but Smith was a very average cricket player - a journeyman with serious batting limitations which her never overcame.   It did not take opposing teams long to work him out and adjust their field-placings to limit his scoring abilities.    

 Gosh Oom you said Kallis was a top all rounder.....you think? What other great insights do you want to share with us?

Mike I don't know how many "average" cricketers manage to retire averaging above 50. Have you forgotten when Smith lead from the front with the bat to take SA to series victories in OZ and England? At a stage him and Mckenzie were averaging 100+ for the opening partnership. Batsmen with deficiencies don't do that. Smith was very bloody good Mike. And as far as his captaincy goes, it'll be a long long time before someone truly fills his shoes. As for Amla, this is just my opinion but I think it's a bat speed thing. At his prime he scored a lot of runs playing away from his body with very quick hands. Those flashes of his outside off stump don't quite have the same zip anymore and I think it's causing him to have to try and score in areas he wouldn't previously exploit. Lol Kallis. Averaging the same as Tendulkar when he retired yet with a few hundred wickets and a ton of slip catches to his name as a bonus. Yeah, he was alright.

 Mozart
I never said that Kallis was not a top cricket player and this story about De Kock is sickening.   You do not see any positives in the player yet with the same number of tests he is streets ahead of what the situation was with Kallis and Smith.   I think that Smith was more of a journeyman and not really the best player around.   Too limited a player to be regarded as a cricket great.
However, we will have to see how De Kock develops in years to come.   What he has shown thus far is that you are dead wrong about him.  

 Smith was very bloody good Mike.
Down the leg side, technically flawed on the on side. Was it the Indian quick, Abbas(forget his name), who made Smith his bunny?

OOm I said his best role was as an attacking middle order batsmen. You want him to be an opener......game, set and match.

 He is an opener in ODI's and T20 games and that he will remain.   In the one test he opened he scored a century.   There is no game set and match here - the difference is you don't rate the guy and that remains a fact.
   

That remains a fact....no, that remains a lie.

 Mozart
I will remain polite - a lie is when you are caught out.   You have never ever wrote anything really positive about De Kock - faint praise with negatives added.  

Oh I see, saying a player is "a great talent" isn't positive.

@Denny Yeah he did play through the on side a lot. And I also recall him being someone's bunny at international level, just can't remember who. But he was a very good opener though. He was plagued by a right elbow injury for most of his career and I think that it hampered his technique. I don't agree with Mike that he was a journeyman.

 Zaheer Khan
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Graeme+Smith+277&&view=detail&mid=2CEEC31CD11A87FF703A2CEEC31CD11A87FF703A&rvsmid=649D0D54FF4F0D685DC6649D0D54 FF4F0D685DC6&fsscr=0&FORM=VDFSRV

 Mozart
When did you say that?

March 13, 2015, 18:14:52  

Who can remember this absolute gem

Rooinek

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 4315 RE: Mozart ad his assessent of sprtsmen
October 01, 2016, 10:17:18

Ou Maaik, I think a lot of us were very frustrated with QdK because we knew how much talent he had and he wasn't producing . . . a bit like Jacques Kallis in his first few test matches . . . but I think Mofie is the only one who didn't recognise QdK's obvious talent at all.

Yet...... back at his mental facility... see the date

 
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 ...

 

Rooinek

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 4315 RE: Lets drop de Kock
February 11, 2016, 12:00:42

I'm still laughing at Dense . . .

"De Kock is useless, De Kock is dumb, De Kock's technique is poor, De Kock should be dropped, De Kock won't ever make it at the top level, De Kock blah blah blah . . . sorry, what was that? Three centuries you say? Really? Hmmmm . . . you know what, I think I'll . . . ummmm . . . withhold my judgement of De Kock! Wouldn't want to slag the lad off."

LMAO!

Bet Dense is wishing he hadn't jumped onto his beloved master's "we-hate-QdK" bandwagon. Hard to say which one of the two clowns has more egg dribbling down his stupid face

LMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!

Yet, just 29 days earlier, according to Piss Mint, he was a plodder and non-performer

You just can't escape the stupidity of this moron

 

 



clevermike
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 24886RE: Moz your thoughts on
January 05, 2017, 18:17:22

 Dofdoos
What was the figures of the Kallis after playing in 15 tests and what was the figures of Smith throughout his career?
What you do not understand is that I refer to their initial career with comparable info.  That applies to them at the time of their careers compared to the data of De Kock.
The only comparable info is the cold clinical figures. Your problem, though, is that you like to add context when it suits you. When it does not suit you, you prefer to ignore context and stick to cold clinical facts/figures. Now, try reading these parts again:
"For most of the early part of Kallis' career he was regarded as a bowler first and then a batsman. In addition, he got very little exposure in his early career."
"He has (sic) one test and one innings in his first year in 1995. He had another chance in 1996 where he had only one innings again. In 1997 he had five matches but only had 8 batting innings. His first decent spell was in 1998 where he featured in 15 tests and that was against the likes of Shane Warne, Glen McGrath, et al"
"QDK, on the other hand had quite a bit more matches per year in his early years..... well his early years are actually still early years at the moment but you have to match up his bowling opponents"
What I cannot under stand is the fact that you have suddenly decided to go the Kallis/QDK comparison route, rather than the Smith/QDK one that you have been punting all along? Why would that be? 
Oh, and I just noticed this remark that you made earlier:
"Kallis was the slowest batsman I ever saw in the game and he would block and block or just refuse to hit any balls that was anywhere outside of off-stump."
That alone proves just how uniformed you really are, or you have simply never paid attention when watching Kallis play. Kallis had such a variety of shots it is not even funny. There are many clips on YouTube that you can go watch to see that. To say that he refused to play outside off-stump is laughable. His cover drives, down on one knee was a very familiar sight. There were not many who could emulate him. 



His shots through mid-off and extra cover was something to see. Shots like these:


And for those (Denny?)  who are saying that he could not play on the onside (either), how about this familiar stance after a shot on the onside:


Then there was his familiar hop on his right leg after hitting it over the head of square leg:


These images are not scenes of Kallis that happened now and then.. They are familiar scenes that happened regularly.
Nee wat oudste, you have lost it completely.

And for those (Denny?)  who are saying that he could not play on the onside (either), how about this familiar stance after a shot on the onside:
Think I was referring to Graeme Smith not JK.

"Think I was referring to Graeme Smith not JK."

Yes, because they're so easily confused.

Wehe!

Tell me Dense, was Kallis still playing international cricket when you first started taking in interest in the game?