disgraceful, how can he possibly return to the team now?
Stupid decision not to take the knee; and stupid decision not to offer an explanation of any sort.
Stupid decision by CSA not to settle the issue weeks before the start of the tournament and to get all players' agreement ahead of squad selection; and stupid decision to release a statement before determining what happens next, since that paints de Kock into a corner.
If a player is so uninterested about representing his country that he would prefer to demonstrate his opposition to anti-racism than play in the final stages of the World Cup, then it will be a good thing if he's missing. Permanently.
Completely agree that it should've been sorted a long time ago, but surely it's a matter of personal choice by the player. I don't know de Kock's reasoning but personally i don't think a player should be excluded from a game of sport because he won't do it.
Zaha doesn't agree with taking the knee, i don't see Palace refusing to play him.
disgraceful, how can he possibly return to the team now?
Stupid decision not to take the knee; and stupid decision not to offer an explanation of any sort.
Stupid decision by CSA not to settle the issue weeks before the start of the tournament and to get all players' agreement ahead of squad selection; and stupid decision to release a statement before determining what happens next, since that paints de Kock into a corner.
If a player is so uninterested about representing his country that he would prefer to demonstrate his opposition to anti-racism than play in the final stages of the World Cup, then it will be a good thing if he's missing. Permanently.
Completely agree that it should've been sorted a long time ago, but surely it's a matter of personal choice by the player. I don't know de Kock's reasoning but personally i don't think a player should be excluded from a game of sport because he won't do it.
Zaha doesn't agree with taking the knee, i don't see Palace refusing to play him.
If he's told that he has a choice of supporting his country's anti-racist stance or not playing for his country, then he should have a very good reason for not participating. Especially given the histories of countries participating in the match.
He's chosen not to play in the game. I hope he bothers to explain his reasoning for that disrespectful decision.
disgraceful, how can he possibly return to the team now?
Stupid decision not to take the knee; and stupid decision not to offer an explanation of any sort.
Stupid decision by CSA not to settle the issue weeks before the start of the tournament and to get all players' agreement ahead of squad selection; and stupid decision to release a statement before determining what happens next, since that paints de Kock into a corner.
If a player is so uninterested about representing his country that he would prefer to demonstrate his opposition to anti-racism than play in the final stages of the World Cup, then it will be a good thing if he's missing. Permanently.
Completely agree that it should've been sorted a long time ago, but surely it's a matter of personal choice by the player. I don't know de Kock's reasoning but personally i don't think a player should be excluded from a game of sport because he won't do it.
Zaha doesn't agree with taking the knee, i don't see Palace refusing to play him.
Chizz was fishing for a bite and you bit. Best to just ignore.
disgraceful, how can he possibly return to the team now?
Stupid decision not to take the knee; and stupid decision not to offer an explanation of any sort.
Stupid decision by CSA not to settle the issue weeks before the start of the tournament and to get all players' agreement ahead of squad selection; and stupid decision to release a statement before determining what happens next, since that paints de Kock into a corner.
If a player is so uninterested about representing his country that he would prefer to demonstrate his opposition to anti-racism than play in the final stages of the World Cup, then it will be a good thing if he's missing. Permanently.
Completely agree that it should've been sorted a long time ago, but surely it's a matter of personal choice by the player. I don't know de Kock's reasoning but personally i don't think a player should be excluded from a game of sport because he won't do it.
Zaha doesn't agree with taking the knee, i don't see Palace refusing to play him.
If he's told that he has a choice of supporting his country's anti-racist stance or not playing for his country, then he should have a very good reason for not participating. Especially given the histories of countries participating in the match.
He's chosen not to play in the game. I hope he bothers to explain his reasoning for that disrespectful decision.
no one should be forced to take the knee and he should not have to atone for his countries racism from generations past.
Whoever is at fault, it's a disaster for S African cricket though, which has enough trouble with race issues already, especially when it's such an iconic player for them
disgraceful, how can he possibly return to the team now?
Stupid decision not to take the knee; and stupid decision not to offer an explanation of any sort.
Stupid decision by CSA not to settle the issue weeks before the start of the tournament and to get all players' agreement ahead of squad selection; and stupid decision to release a statement before determining what happens next, since that paints de Kock into a corner.
If a player is so uninterested about representing his country that he would prefer to demonstrate his opposition to anti-racism than play in the final stages of the World Cup, then it will be a good thing if he's missing. Permanently.
Completely agree that it should've been sorted a long time ago, but surely it's a matter of personal choice by the player. I don't know de Kock's reasoning but personally i don't think a player should be excluded from a game of sport because he won't do it.
Zaha doesn't agree with taking the knee, i don't see Palace refusing to play him.
If he's told that he has a choice of supporting his country's anti-racist stance or not playing for his country, then he should have a very good reason for not participating. Especially given the histories of countries participating in the match.
He's chosen not to play in the game. I hope he bothers to explain his reasoning for that disrespectful decision.
no one should be forced to take the knee and he should not have to atone for his countries racism from generations past.
Definitely agree with the last bit, one hundred percent. South Africa's history is in no way the fault of any of its current players.
But, if CSA have a policy to do "x" otherwise you won't play, then you face a choice: do "x" or play. CSA have got it wrong in this case. But I think de Kock has made a decision he has to live with and it would probably be good if he were to explain it.
My last post on the issue. Taking the knee is a personal choice. If he decides not to do it then that's his decision. But the make up of the South African team and coaching staff includes quite a few black people. If he was a racist I doubt very much he would be involved in their set up .
Why he won't take the knee i havnt a clue. But I doubt very much it's because he's a racist.
My last post on the issue. Taking the knee is a personal choice. If he decides not to do it then that's his decision. But the make up of the South African team and coaching staff includes quite a few black people. If he was a racist I doubt very much he would be involved in their set up .
Why he won't take the knee i havnt a clue. But I doubt very much it's because he's a racist.
No-one - as far as I know - is suggesting he is a racist.
While taking the knee should be a personal choice, if it's part of his employer's requirements, then failing to do so will result in sanctions. I am sure he will have been made aware of what those sanctions are.
Playing for your country is a choice that's given to a very small number of people. de Kock should be respected for the decision he's made; but it would be good if he took the opportunity to explain it.
An update - 13 teams have now won the toss and elected to field first. 11 have won the match with the only two that didn't being Ireland (101 all out) against Sri Lanka (171-7) and Bangladesh (134-7) against Scotland (140-9). In the Super Sixes, all six of the teams that decided to chase have won and all seven of the sides winning the toss have been successful too. The only side that chose not to field first were Afghanistan and they would have beaten Scotland had they batted second too such is the supremacy of the likes of Mujeeb and Rashid.
As I've mentioned before, any reference to the bias of the toss by the ICC/Sky commentators has been relatively minimal. They want to sell an exciting product. Not one where the match is decided before a ball is bowled.
So why are the 2nd to bat generally winning in your opinion?
The biggest factor is that the team batting first does not know what a good score is especially as the quality of the pitches mainly vary between poor and ordinary. On good tracks teams can bat the other one out of the game by posting a big score because they know that 200 will be very hard to achieve batting second. Because of the low, slow, sticky nature of these pitches it is really hard to step and hit through the line of the ball because it just dies on you.
The other thing that does have a bearing for the games that take place in the evening is the dew which will benefit the team batting second. The ball becomes wet which makes it hard to grip especially for those who look to bowl out of the back of their hand and the dew also results in the ball skimming rather than sticking in the track making it that much easier to hit.
An update - 13 teams have now won the toss and elected to field first. 11 have won the match with the only two that didn't being Ireland (101 all out) against Sri Lanka (171-7) and Bangladesh (134-7) against Scotland (140-9). In the Super Sixes, all six of the teams that decided to chase have won and all seven of the sides winning the toss have been successful too. The only side that chose not to field first were Afghanistan and they would have beaten Scotland had they batted second too such is the supremacy of the likes of Mujeeb and Rashid.
As I've mentioned before, any reference to the bias of the toss by the ICC/Sky commentators has been relatively minimal. They want to sell an exciting product. Not one where the match is decided before a ball is bowled.
An update - 13 teams have now won the toss and elected to field first. 11 have won the match with the only two that didn't being Ireland (101 all out) against Sri Lanka (171-7) and Bangladesh (134-7) against Scotland (140-9). In the Super Sixes, all six of the teams that decided to chase have won and all seven of the sides winning the toss have been successful too. The only side that chose not to field first were Afghanistan and they would have beaten Scotland had they batted second too such is the supremacy of the likes of Mujeeb and Rashid.
As I've mentioned before, any reference to the bias of the toss by the ICC/Sky commentators has been relatively minimal. They want to sell an exciting product. Not one where the match is decided before a ball is bowled.
Morgan has elected to bat 2nd for as long as I can remember. I can't really see that there are any different issues (in batting 2nd) to any day/night games elsewhere. The only difference is the low, slow, sticky wickets producing lower scores and the teams should have a "handle" by now on what is a winning score. I think a winning score is about 40/50 down on what we normally see.
Morgan has elected to bat 2nd for as long as I can remember. I can't really see that there are any different issues (in batting 2nd) to any day/night games elsewhere. The only difference is the low, slow, sticky wickets producing lower scores and the teams should have a "handle" by now on what is a winning score. I think a winning score is about 40/50 down on what we normally see.
There appears to be a bigger difference between batting first and second in the current World Cup, based on whether it's a day game or a day-night game. Tomorrow's England game is a dayer, so shouldn't be so much at the mercy of dew as a later game.
Notwithstanding the dew, I don't think one can underestimate how difficult it is to work out what a winning score is on these pitches. It might be 135 or it could be 155. That difference of 20 runs is much bigger than the difference between 180 and 200 on a road. And a road is a road anywhere. Once you've seen 20 overs of what the pitch is doing it is so much easier to pace yourself batting second
So why are the 2nd to bat generally winning in your opinion?
The biggest factor is that the team batting first does not know what a good score is especially as the quality of the pitches mainly vary between poor and ordinary. On good tracks teams can bat the other one out of the game by posting a big score because they know that 200 will be very hard to achieve batting second. Because of the low, slow, sticky nature of these pitches it is really hard to step and hit through the line of the ball because it just dies on you.
The other thing that does have a bearing for the games that take place in the evening is the dew which will benefit the team batting second. The ball becomes wet which makes it hard to grip especially for those who look to bowl out of the back of their hand and the dew also results in the ball skimming rather than sticking in the track making it that much easier to hit.
It is an issue. The solution is going for too big a target but that can mean losing wickets too early. I suppose the way to go if batting first is working out a decent score and adding 20 to it as a target.
One of the things that is an advantage of a tough group like England's is you can afford to lose a couple as other teams can beat each other. Pakistan have won a couple in an easier group and are almost certainly through. If New Zealand lose to India they are likely to be out!
Quinton de Kock has withdrawn from the South African squad because he refuses to follow the BLM directive. The SA Cricket board passed down a directive that all of the team should kneel, raise a fist or stand to attention.
Divisive issue, particularly in a country with a history like South Africa. Outrage from both sides of the fence in SA apparently. (Aimed either at QDK himself, or the Cricket board for imposing the directive)
Quinton de Kock has withdrawn from the South African squad because he refuses to follow the BLM directive. The SA Cricket board passed down a directive that all of the team should kneel, raise a fist or stand to attention.
Divisive issue, particularly in a country with a history like South Africa. Outrage from both sides of the fence in SA apparently. (Aimed either at QDK himself, or the Cricket board for imposing the directive)
South African cricket writer Lungani Zama told SEN Breakfast he knows de Kock “personally” and revealed the cricketer chose not to kneel because he “took umbrage at the fact there was an instruction given with no choice for players” and believes taking the knee is a “token gesture”.
“Given the amount of time South Africa have had to take a definitive, collective stance on it and then they’ve almost made up the rule in the middle of a tournament ahead of a must-win game (de Kock withdrew),” Zama said.
“The previous board had said to them that every player is allowed to express themselves in whichever way they deem fit. To suddenly change that on the eve of such an important match …
“I think because their constitutional rights were taken away from them, it was an instruction from the boss when it hadn’t been previously discussed.
“Added to that, from my conversations with him (de Kock) before, he sees it as a token gesture which has been watered down to almost mean nothing. It’s something that you have to do to be seen to be doing the right thing.
“His preference is to actually do the right thing, which he does in the way that he lives, the way that he interacts, and the way that he treats people of all races.
“It’s the token gesture for him that’s the issue.
“I’ll qualify it by saying Quinton de Kock, if you’re asking me if he’s racist or against Black Lives Matter, I’ll unequivocally say no because I know him personally.
“I know the work that he’s done to improve the lives and experiences of black players and black people around him for years and years, long before Black Lives Matter was a trend on social media.”
Quinton de Kock has withdrawn from the South African squad because he refuses to follow the BLM directive. The SA Cricket board passed down a directive that all of the team should kneel, raise a fist or stand to attention.
Divisive issue, particularly in a country with a history like South Africa. Outrage from both sides of the fence in SA apparently. (Aimed either at QDK himself, or the Cricket board for imposing the directive)
South African cricket writer Lungani Zama told SEN Breakfast he knows de Kock “personally” and revealed the cricketer chose not to kneel because he “took umbrage at the fact there was an instruction given with no choice for players” and believes taking the knee is a “token gesture”.
“Given the amount of time South Africa have had to take a definitive, collective stance on it and then they’ve almost made up the rule in the middle of a tournament ahead of a must-win game (de Kock withdrew),” Zama said.
“The previous board had said to them that every player is allowed to express themselves in whichever way they deem fit. To suddenly change that on the eve of such an important match …
“I think because their constitutional rights were taken away from them, it was an instruction from the boss when it hadn’t been previously discussed.
“Added to that, from my conversations with him (de Kock) before, he sees it as a token gesture which has been watered down to almost mean nothing. It’s something that you have to do to be seen to be doing the right thing.
“His preference is to actually do the right thing, which he does in the way that he lives, the way that he interacts, and the way that he treats people of all races.
“It’s the token gesture for him that’s the issue.
“I’ll qualify it by saying Quinton de Kock, if you’re asking me if he’s racist or against Black Lives Matter, I’ll unequivocally say no because I know him personally.
“I know the work that he’s done to improve the lives and experiences of black players and black people around him for years and years, long before Black Lives Matter was a trend on social media.”
That’s an interesting piece. Hadn’t seen that. Puts a different spin on the situation, certainly.
I think that de Kock's stance is also linked to the quota system - not because he doesn't believe in equality. Far from it. But because again it is dictating the make up of the side to the extent that South Africa has seen a player drain and that in itself undermines their ability to compete and equally doesn't serve to achieve its purpose
Currently, CSA expects the national cricket side to have a quota of players of colour (POCs) in each match. The current quota (applicable to the season rather than each match) is that the Proteas must play six POCs, three of whom must be black (this, recently increased from two).
Reports indicated that the quota would be increased immediately to ensure that by the 2022/23 season the Proteas would have to play, on average, seven POCs per match. It was also reported that the average proportion of black players over a season would have to be 33% by 2022/23. This is equivalent to about 3.5 black players playing in a match (the fact that cricket teams are made up of eleven players, a number not suited to easy division or mental sums, means it makes the job of racial bean-counting more difficult).
Surveys by the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) show that 83% of South Africans want their teams selected on merit. Some 82% of black South Africans hold this view. That said, even without enforcing quotas, the current Proteas squad would look very similar to the one selectors chose.
One anonymous respondent said: "It will provide you short-term solutions in a sense that in a team you will see three black African cricketers and that all looks good, but whether you are developing them for the next five or ten years; I don’t think it’s the most effective solution."
Another said: "Quotas allow administrators to avoid doing proper development."
Comments
Zaha doesn't agree with taking the knee, i don't see Palace refusing to play him.
He's chosen not to play in the game. I hope he bothers to explain his reasoning for that disrespectful decision.
Best to just ignore.
But, if CSA have a policy to do "x" otherwise you won't play, then you face a choice: do "x" or play. CSA have got it wrong in this case. But I think de Kock has made a decision he has to live with and it would probably be good if he were to explain it.
Taking the knee is a personal choice.
If he decides not to do it then that's his decision.
But the make up of the South African team and coaching staff includes quite a few black people.
If he was a racist I doubt very much he would be involved in their set up .
Why he won't take the knee i havnt a clue.
But I doubt very much it's because he's a racist.
While taking the knee should be a personal choice, if it's part of his employer's requirements, then failing to do so will result in sanctions. I am sure he will have been made aware of what those sanctions are.
Playing for your country is a choice that's given to a very small number of people. de Kock should be respected for the decision he's made; but it would be good if he took the opportunity to explain it.
As I've mentioned before, any reference to the bias of the toss by the ICC/Sky commentators has been relatively minimal. They want to sell an exciting product. Not one where the match is decided before a ball is bowled.
The other thing that does have a bearing for the games that take place in the evening is the dew which will benefit the team batting second. The ball becomes wet which makes it hard to grip especially for those who look to bowl out of the back of their hand and the dew also results in the ball skimming rather than sticking in the track making it that much easier to hit.
I can't really see that there are any different issues (in batting 2nd) to any day/night games elsewhere.
The only difference is the low, slow, sticky wickets producing lower scores and the teams should have a "handle" by now on what is a winning score.
I think a winning score is about 40/50 down on what we normally see.
180 is more than decent so here I'd say 140.
One of the things that is an advantage of a tough group like England's is you can afford to lose a couple as other teams can beat each other. Pakistan have won a couple in an easier group and are almost certainly through. If New Zealand lose to India they are likely to be out!
Divisive issue, particularly in a country with a history like South Africa. Outrage from both sides of the fence in SA apparently. (Aimed either at QDK himself, or the Cricket board for imposing the directive)
South African cricket writer Lungani Zama told SEN Breakfast he knows de Kock “personally” and revealed the cricketer chose not to kneel because he “took umbrage at the fact there was an instruction given with no choice for players” and believes taking the knee is a “token gesture”.
“Given the amount of time South Africa have had to take a definitive, collective stance on it and then they’ve almost made up the rule in the middle of a tournament ahead of a must-win game (de Kock withdrew),” Zama said.
“The previous board had said to them that every player is allowed to express themselves in whichever way they deem fit. To suddenly change that on the eve of such an important match …
“I think because their constitutional rights were taken away from them, it was an instruction from the boss when it hadn’t been previously discussed.
“Added to that, from my conversations with him (de Kock) before, he sees it as a token gesture which has been watered down to almost mean nothing. It’s something that you have to do to be seen to be doing the right thing.
“His preference is to actually do the right thing, which he does in the way that he lives, the way that he interacts, and the way that he treats people of all races.
“It’s the token gesture for him that’s the issue.
“I’ll qualify it by saying Quinton de Kock, if you’re asking me if he’s racist or against Black Lives Matter, I’ll unequivocally say no because I know him personally.
“I know the work that he’s done to improve the lives and experiences of black players and black people around him for years and years, long before Black Lives Matter was a trend on social media.”
Currently, CSA expects the national cricket side to have a quota of players of colour (POCs) in each match. The current quota (applicable to the season rather than each match) is that the Proteas must play six POCs, three of whom must be black (this, recently increased from two).
Reports indicated that the quota would be increased immediately to ensure that by the 2022/23 season the Proteas would have to play, on average, seven POCs per match. It was also reported that the average proportion of black players over a season would have to be 33% by 2022/23. This is equivalent to about 3.5 black players playing in a match (the fact that cricket teams are made up of eleven players, a number not suited to easy division or mental sums, means it makes the job of racial bean-counting more difficult).
Surveys by the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) show that 83% of South Africans want their teams selected on merit. Some 82% of black South Africans hold this view. That said, even without enforcing quotas, the current Proteas squad would look very similar to the one selectors chose.
One anonymous respondent said: "It will provide you short-term solutions in a sense that in a team you will see three black African cricketers and that all looks good, but whether you are developing them for the next five or ten years; I don’t think it’s the most effective solution."
Another said: "Quotas allow administrators to avoid doing proper development."