I Argued Next Door For Amla! I Am Sure....

[mapoui2]

he will get the job!

I still have only contempt for Saffie cricket though! its racist and exclusionary.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/co ... 46631.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mikesiva]

I'm in favour of Amla too, but I suspect they'll go for de Villiers....

[mapoui2]

I'm in favour of Amla too, but I suspect they'll go for de Villiers....

MAYBE... BUT lORGAT IS A POWER... AND GUESS WHOSE CORNER HE IS IN

[Colin Benjamin]

he will get the job!

I still have only contempt for Saffie cricket though! its racist and exclusionary.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/co ... 46631.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

S Africa cricket practices reverse-racism, dressed up in a fancy words like "Quota/Transformation" in which talented white players are excluded at times for selected blacks/coloured players who talent level's are questionable.

Apartheid and the quota policy is indefensible. Two wrongs don't make a right.

What gets ignored in this debate is the fact that most black african don't like cricket. Football player Steven Pienaar is more popular among black african than Jacques Kallis & Dale Steyn currently.

Back also when Lucas Radebe, Quinton Fortune & Benni McCarthy played in the premier league, they were more popular than Pollock, Allan Donald, Klusener, Gibbs etc in their prime.

When Ntini was at the peak of is powers in the mid 2000's that was the only period when black S Africa's really got into cricket. But football was still paramount.

Its like trying to attack indians in guyana/trinidad to play football - when they all about cricket. Dead end.

The mistake CSA have done is not get into the rural black communities & promote to sport from the grassroots level, but it makes no sense punishing the good white players who merit a place on ability.

South Africa have serious talent in depth - but their path to becoming a true great # 1 like recent Aussie & Windies teams were can be derailed by this quota policy.

I'd wager also if the ICC was a very strong governing body like FIFA, S Africa could not have implemented quotas at the highest level. Because it is a government implemented policy & we know how FIFA is against government intervention in sport - something ICC don't have the balls or structure to do.

[mapoui2]

I an sooprised a bit colin..more disappointed. I read you as a smarter fella than this post here.

what quota system or selection you imply here?

who were the blacks selected before white players..who are the white players who suffered from such quotas

we looking at the same reality..how come you see it so different

what's wrong with encouraging the game all over the nation especially where the people are most numerous

what level of talent is enough so that you don't need any more that's a terrible implication there..plenty white players so no need to encourage the game in the black areas

South african cricket was racist and is racist as we speak. despite any supposed encouragement of black players at youth levels, south african cricket is geared up to frustrate black players not to encourage them.

and from the confused, dis-jointed and illogical manner in which you speak you appear to be trying to justify that which cannot be justified and end up talking nonsense.

and administration is supposed to work in the national interest by building itself up on the support of as many citizens it can encourage into their particular fold.

football has always been a populist game with more followers than cricket. it is so in england yet cricket does not suffer for support in england.. and anywhere else for that reason. it should not suffer in RSA unless those who administer want it so..and ring excuses for their policy like "black people prefer football and it is a waste of time trying to get them to cricket"

it is not that Indian people do not play football in the west indies. they do...and at times produced high quality players who made all the representative levels. for whatever reason they are not as prominent at the representative level africans but their interest in the game is there

[Colin Benjamin]

Maybe you have misunderstood my friend, but I am not naive to the realities of S Africa cricket & that country's history with regard to race.

We all know of the atrocities of apartheid & how it affected cricket, with the amount of potentially black/coloured cricketers who were denied the chance to play for S Africa before they were banned in 1970. Basil D'Oliviera being the most one of that time.

As a black man it has always sickened me to read what happened in those times.

But I'm saying that two wrongs don't make a right. S Africa should not be using sport to get back at the white folks. Keep politics out of it. This world is still a white man world, racism may not be on the plantation anymore, but it exists in a more co-operate and sophisticated manner. So S Africa ain't winning no moral battles by forcing black/coloured players ever so often to be in the team ahead of white players.

I don't know about you, but I have met S African's in my time in the USA & England - both white & black (who are not racists), questioned them about life in modern S Africa & I have come to conclusion that what the SACB does with its quota policy is wrong.

Why should young white S Africa like a de villiers, steyn, kallis, etc who grew up in modern s africa with no racial tendencies & just want to play cricket, suddenly realize when they reach the international level, that the colour of their skin at times will dictate whether they play for S Africa or not?

This policy is why Kevin Pietersen, Trott, Kieswetter, Keeper Wessels son - M Wessels, Stuart Meaker, Michael Lumb, Jade Dernbach, Johan Botha, Nic Pothas, Gran Elliot, Kruger Van Wyk, Neil Wagner all left S Africa to have careers either internationally or as a kolpak domestic player in ENG/AUS/NZ.

What i've been able to understand from black south african that i've spoken to is that black people might play cricket at schools, they may go to games - but they won't see cricket as career option to play - they all for football. This is even the case with the black s africans who may be lucky enough to have access to it in schools or via the S Africa cricket board grassroots programs.

The only critique i think is valid to S Africa board is that they have not done enough to implement grassroots access to cricket in black communities. And local TV stations do not broadcast cricket unless its a tour to SA. The domestic championships and oversees tours are been televised on the pay channels which most ppl (black ppl) cant afford. So the latter doesn't help.

This is why i see a correlation & made the point about Indian in Trinidad/Guyana (the countries i grew up in) & how they view football. How many pure Indians played for the Soca Warriors in history or the TT pro football League? I can tell you - None to very few, just black people & the mixed raced individual . Same goes for Guyana. Indian's in those countries may watch football, but they don't play it for recreation ally too - but they all for cricket as the career option.

That is a inherent mental belief system, you can change with rules mandating certain races must play or even do more to develop it at grassroots level.

[mapoui2]

But I'm saying that two wrongs don't make a right. S Africa should not be using sport to get back at the white folks. Keep politics out of it. This world is still a white man world, racism may not be on the plantation anymore, but it exists in a more co-operate and sophisticated manner. So S Africa ain't winning no moral battles by forcing black/coloured players ever so often to be in the team ahead of white players.

I disagree almost totally with all your say, most strongly with your ideological position and expressed emotional ambient.

politics is life and life is political. like white on white rice..or brown on brown rice.. I would like to see you actually separate them..sports and politics. impossible!

that the world is the whites man's world may be true in a mechanical or calculative sense, but it is not otherwise. and whatever is still so can be seen to be slipping away from their control at ever faster rates daily.

yet the whites man's world while still with us, has been and is an exploitative world and exists on the labour and blood of people of colour. for us to tolerate that as we do is existential suicide. to exists with it in your easy, cool, supportive ambient is suicidal.

take a good look at the west indies. it is clear the west indian people have been poisoned.

upwards of 35% of males in the west indies are infertile. this is what has been admitted. and if you have been following the white power and how they express their white man's world we see that genocide has been heavily mixed in as tactic, stratagem for social control.

when you read about something like what's happening in the west indies it is because officially they have been forced to admit the reality by conditions on the ground, which are usually much worse than is admitted. so we can expect the infertility problem in the west indies to be much worse than is finally admitted.

but things are much worse for the west indian people. they are beset by more disease..as we speak a new type of fever is beginning to devastate the region.

then economically the region is devastated by financial exploitation, all states bankrupt save Trinidad and Tobago..and that is a heavily exploited nation. if their oil and gas give out they will be instantly bankrupt

then the intellectual/emotional state of the people is such that they see nothing in bleaching their skins to look fair or white which they consider beautiful, with medical consequences so dire that at some point the lives of the bleached turn into physical hell. yet they are aware of the consequences of skin bleaching but they don't care. they do it anyway.

the white man's world means that black people..people of colour.. lose their sense of themselves and seek to be white regardless of the consequences. it means they lose their sense of nature and why they are black and coloured..by nature as a means of natural human survival. if they divest themselves of what nature made in the natural conditions that spawned them then they turn those conditions into their enemy, existential factors against their own survival

the white man's world divests people of colour of their means of survival..of their very natural minds and relevant natural subjectivity. people of colour get stupid and good for nothing save death, to be killed off..or kill themselves off.. as so much garbage to be disposed of.

the white man's world means for people of colour a rock and a hard place in which there is but one good option..FIGHT BACK, TO SEE AND LOVE TRUTH AND WORK WITH IT AS A BASIC LIBERATING FACTOR. anything else is suicide.

there is no choice but they people do not see that yet. they see the white man's weapons and are scared as if the life they live routinely is a better alternative. as you can see clearly it is not.

if what faces you all around is death what must you do? what is the answer?

it is obvious...you fight back period..even if it is late. you should have been fighting all the time, all along..long before it got to this stage. if you had been it never would have reached this stage.

AND WHAT I HAVE DESCRIBED HERE IS ONLY THE START OF THE REALITY FOR PEOPLE OF COLOUR IN THE WORLD.

I don't care about white Saffie players like you do. open up the process and let them compete in and against all the talent you can bring forward that's what. that's how you will produce a winner like the west indies used to.. and the Oz.

you are protecting white saffie players...why? you have literally the same group or type of players for 25 years, changing slightly as you go, as the years pass...always with the tokenism of 1 black player included. what the hell is that?

at the same time they keep out players of colour, black africans. no wonder blacks flock to football..BECAUSE THEY SEE NO OPPORTUNITY IN CRICKET..ONLY DEAD END!

at the same time, in general south african life, what exists on the cricket fields also exists in the general life where white favouritism, and preference for all the minorities, flourishes... while, save for a traitorous minority.. all black africans are locked out.

so it is not as if what goes on in cricket is unique in south africa. just ask the miners just freshly massacred at Marikana..if they could talk

[Gils]

I think each of these candidates would make an equally good captain for SA.

Both exemplary characters, above average in their primary roles, vastly experienced and have both earned the trust and support of the other players through performance.

IMO The black/brown/white issues are still unresolved and so cant be disregarded in any aspect of daily life.

Practically, I would say cricket is more elitist than football in SA, having been established many many years ago by specifically white owned clubs with exclusively white participation. Those same clubs would now be the primary cornerstones of the present SA cricket administration.

As I know it, such prolonged exclusion meant the vast majority of the population - black/brown, subsequently took up sporting heroes and interests beyond SA borders, and the controlling influence of the whites.

Football, being the most popular sport on the planet, and being affordable to even the most needy, naturally became the sport of choice.

But I could be wrong

[mapoui2]

As I know it, such prolonged exclusion meant the vast majority of the population - black/brown, subsequently took up sporting heroes and interests beyond SA borders, and the controlling influence of the whites.

there was a powerful black cricket in South Africa. I used to read about it way back then...lots of it. the ordinary black south African people did not necessarily have to go beyond their borders for cricket heroes. they worshipped their own right at home in South Africa.

but those are the players who were never selected due to skin colour. that is the section the almost white D'ollieviera came out of..and he wasn't the best of them..just fairer than most of them.

yes there used to be organised black South African cricket that produced many great players who were never selected but who were adored by their black public and recognized even by white South Africa as class..

the argument of lack of black South African support and involvement in cricket does not stand up to examination.

I do not know what has happened to black South African cricket. it was never supported by cricket south africa as far as I know back in the day. little or nothing in that regard appears to have changed.

any current paucity of black South African involvement in the cricket of that nation from all I know, is attributable to the machinations of the white dominated cricket administration in the Republic of South Africa

[mapoui2]

prolonged exclusion is right..exclusion, completely ignored... black cricket/cricketers in South Africa...continues to this day

and that is what Colin appears to be in full support of right now. there is no need to be talking about white players as he does. to hell with them. they have had a monopoly, still do..as if they have some dam right to be always first in line, in charge, running the friggin' show.

most of them are there because they have locked out all competition..black competition. so what I am about is ending their blasted monopoly that's what. open up the flow to players of all kinds especially black..take away the administrative power from whites..then lets see what gives

that's the only way I would support saffie cricket any-dam-way..if it becomes open cricket.