Australian Tour of South Africa 2018

Remove this Banner Ad

I have a pathological hatred for the Australian cricket team, but the Sth Africans’ attitude has been embarrassing and bizarre re the Rabada episode.

Spookily similar to their behaviour here:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/cou...e/news-story/a442f6f5391417c8eb37220b8ae4da2e

This has been way worse. The mint thing still baffles me. You can make spit using certain lollies..... just as long as they’re the lollies that Australians like to use (ie. gum).

I didn’t have a problem with that drama. This has been handled horrifically
 
******* joke from the Saffers. Anyone who has unexpextedly brushed past someone has rolled their shoulder forward the way smith did.

Lossing a lot of credibility this series and i actually really like the proteas in general.

Post g.smith, an extremely successful era, there seems to have been a bit of an ugly decline...very similar to the aussies post warne/mcgrath.

I like Faf Du Plessis's captaincy. Seems solid tactically, has a calm authority about him and i get a sense his players really want to play for him.

However, they seem to developing a persecution complex about them with him at the helm. Perhaps they're trying to create a siege/ us against the world mentality but surely they could have dealt with this Rabada stuff better.

I wonder how a Graeme Smith led South Africa would have dealt with the Rabada stuff.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

So, according to RSA, their belief Smith that could have avoided contact with Rabada will be used as part of their argument that Rabada should have his charge downgraded or dropped. Good luck with that. These quotes from Dali Mpofu, their lawyer, featured in Ben Horne's piece stink IMO: “I do believe this is an important case for all South Africans and has implications for our shared project of nation-building. We should all wish Kagiso luck for Monday.”

So no pressure then?

Lord, is this getting kinda creepy or what?
 
I like Faf Du Plessis's captaincy. Seems solid tactically, has a calm authority about him and i get a sense his players really want to play for him.

However, they seem to developing a persecution complex about them with him at the helm. Perhaps they're trying to create a siege/ us against the world mentality but surely they could have dealt with this Rabada stuff better.

I wonder how a Graeme Smith led South Africa would have dealt with the Rabada stuff.

Bit tenuous to be connecting this with du Plessis - clearly this is being driven from pretty high up in CSA.
 
Pretty interesting quotes from Rabada before the appeal
A contrite Rabada said “I can’t keep doing this because I’m letting the team down and I’m also letting myself down” during his post-match media conference in Port Elizabeth.

The repeat offender, whose poor disciplinary record is what triggered a two-Test ban, remains remorseful.

“I take responsibility for what happened. On the video, it looks like I got into the guy’s space so I shouldn’t have done that,” he said.

“I’ll say 50/50 it’s my fault. I didn’t feel anything in the moment.

“I must obey the rules. I do things because I’m passionate. Sometimes, you are bowling against the best players. I guess I shouldn’t really rub it into their faces.

“It’s about managing your emotions and making sure that you follow the rules, not do anything stupid.”

Seems like theyre resigned to the fact he won't play in the final 2 tests.
 
This has been way worse. The mint thing still baffles me. You can make spit using certain lollies..... just as long as they’re the lollies that Australians like to use (ie. gum).

I didn’t have a problem with that drama. This has been handled horrifically

Problem was that he rubbed it on the ball directly. Would be more willing to give benefit of the doubt if Faf didn't use his zipper on a ball before.
 
Dissent in the ranks??

Starc confirms what most have suspected (that Smith is a bit clueless as a tactician), but not generally the kind of comments you see publicly. Maybe in an autobiography, but not during a series.

Good enough to have Australia's captain Steven Smith instruct Mitchell Starc, arguably the world's fastest bowler, to fire balls deliberately down the leg side in an effort to keep the South African maestro off strike for the next over. As the tourists ponder how better to find a way past de Villiers in the pivotal Cape Town Test match next week, Starc has not only revealed being ordered to take this highly negative approach to de Villiers during his Port Elizabeth masterclass, but also that he was far from happy to do so.

"I can't say I was too happy with that either," Starc said when asked how often he had been reduced to such tactics in his professional career. "Look, if the captain tells me to do something I'm going to do it, aren't I?"

Whatever his personal views, Starc's last two balls of the 117th over in South Africa's first innings, and Josh Hazlewood's fifth in the 118th, were all bowled well wide of leg stump with the aim of de Villiers not being able to reach them. They were tantamount to a white flag of surrender after de Villiers had overcome all the Australians could hurl or twirl at him, and left Starc and the rest to spend much of their time off between St George's Park and Newlands in conversation about how to stop him.

By Starc's assessment, the single most challenging thing about de Villiers the batsman is his ability to play several different shots to the same ball, thus reducing a bowler's margin for error and also diverting his mind from the sorts of simple plans that work against most if diligently followed. "He seems to be able to play a couple of different shots to the same length ball, so your margin for error is a lot less to someone like him," Starc said. "But he's only human, so he's going to make mistakes and you're going to be able to get him out and people have before in the past and I'm pretty confident in our bowling attack. So there's no doubt we can get him out four more times in the series.

"I think you've got to think outside the box a lot more with him. A good ball's still a good ball to any batter in world cricket, it's just bowling them more consistently, changing the field a little bit and maybe cutting off a couple of scoring areas for him as well. I think that's one thing we didn't do well enough to him in the first innings [in Port Elizabeth], we didn't bowl enough good balls to him.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_...veals-conflict-smith-instructions-de-villiers
 
If a country appeals against a ban and the ban is not overturned at a hearing, the suspension should be doubled. Then maybe countries like Sth. Africa will stop making frivolous appeals, wasting time and money. Rabada even said himself that he was responsible. Why the **** are they appealing for?
 
If a country appeals against a ban and the ban is not overturned at a hearing, the suspension should be doubled. Then maybe countries like Sth. Africa will stop making frivolous appeals, wasting time and money. Rabada even said himself that he was responsible. Why the **** are they appealing for?

This is the biggest load of s**t. They’re paying the money, what’s the problem?
I’ve never understood this with any judicial system, particularly a sporting one. We see it week in week out - players ‘copping the early plea’ for things they probably have every reason to challenge (not saying that SA do have every reason to challenge this).
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SA have added Chris Morris and Duane Olivier to their squad.

Good quality depth they've got, but neither has the fear factor or incisive ability of Rabada.

Makes for a tough call with selection. Morris a more aggressive choice than Morkel and probably makes a fair bit of sense given the make up of their attack (presuming they want to keep it the same). As we all know though Morkel is quality and always a threat even if he is in general a bowler who doesn't go chasing wickets so it'd be pretty hard to overlook him especially given he's still the next cab off the rank.
 
SA have added Chris Morris and Duane Olivier to their squad.
Good quality depth they've got, but neither has the fear factor or incisive ability of Rabada.

Makes for a tough call with selection. Morris a more aggressive choice than Morkel and probably makes a fair bit of sense given the make up of their attack (presuming they want to keep it the same). As we all know though Morkel is quality and always a threat even if he is in general a bowler who doesn't go chasing wickets so it'd be pretty hard to overlook him especially given he's still the next cab off the rank.

Going purely off the last test, irrespective of A.B's brilliance, without Rabada S.A would have been toast.

Next test will be very, very interesting
 
Rabada may have just been saved by Shakib, a Bangladeshi teammate and Thisara Perera.

According to Harsha Bhogle it was ‘as close to cricketers coming to blows on the field as you’ll see’ when there was a major blow up in their Twenty20 match the other night. Biggest sanction meted out was 1 demerit point.
 
So, according to RSA, their belief Smith that could have avoided contact with Rabada will be used as part of their argument that Rabada should have his charge downgraded or dropped. Good luck with that. These quotes from Dali Mpofu, their lawyer, featured in Ben Horne's piece stink IMO: “I do believe this is an important case for all South Africans and has implications for our shared project of nation-building. We should all wish Kagiso luck for Monday.”

Thinly veiled attempt to play the race card. That alone should add an additional test to the penalty. ******* lawyers.
 
Most likely. In that case I'm certain CSA would be more circumspect with their choice of defending lawyer if it cost them an additional game without their star bowler. Would not surprise me in the least however if CSA actually directed this POS defence.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top