Cricinfo - Blogs - Rob's Lobs - In praise of quotas

Let’s, for the moment at least, dispense with nationalities and loyalties. Here was a day richly symphonic in form and content. Slow but fascinating overture as the hosts take 21 overs to reach 50, vaunted quicks mislay their radar on an unreceptive pitch and openers shift almost imperceptibly from wary strokelessness to quiet assertiveness; sudden and dramatic exposition as openers and home skipper are blown away in quick succession by vaunted quicks and over-anxious King Pantomimer does his level best to run himself out before being felled; wholly unexpected development as shy resident of Last-Chance Saloon throws caution to the afternoon breeze and imposes himself against a top-class attack as never before; riveting recapitulation as King Pantomimer relocates the undiluted arrogance he exuded when he first played against the men he allegedly betrayed; crescendo as King Pantomimer marches on to another century and hosts spurt from 200 to 300 in 24 overs. Bar some spin bowling [oh, was that what Mr Harris was serving up?], who could ask for anything more? Well, since you asked …

Last month, while stressing that the current "targets" should continue until at least 2010, the South African board recommended that the ultimate responsibility for selecting the national XI should lie with the coach and convenor of selectors, that the selectors should be solely responsible for squad selections, and that the board president should no longer be empowered to wield a veto. Many interpreted this as confirmation that the end of quotas was nigh. However misplaced, the applause was global, the mourning inaudible.

Yet to scan Thomas Lord’s patch was to see the fruits of that prickly, divisive policy, and remind oneself why it was necessary. Forty years ago, Basil D’Oliveira, another non-white cricketing child of that troubled land, the man in whose honour England and South Africa now compete, brought the iniquities and crimes of apartheid to the attention of the ignorant and the blinkered, courtesy, ironically, of the MCC mandarins who did their level best to keep his oppressors sweet by not selecting him to tour his homeland. Yet here, now, a triumphant triumvirate of coloured men was taking the field beneath the committee room where that selection meeting took place.

You had to pinch yourself pretty hard. Or, if you didn’t, it says a lot for society’s development over the past four decades because you probably didn’t even notice. There were Hashim Amla, Makhaya Ntini and Ashwell Prince clopping down those ancient pavilion steps, wearing those dark green, defiantly unbaggy caps, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Afrikaaners, 153 Tests between them already, 345 wickets, 17 five-fors, 4598 runs and 11 centuries safely deposited in their joint account. For a few moments, as this realisation dawned, the lump in my throat had all the makings of a second Gibraltar.

All of which posed a question to those who had long protested against the justice and worth of quotas: without them, would one of the most successful fast bowlers of all time have ever scaled such heights, paving the way for a Cape Coloured and a grandson of Indians to follow? To me there can only be one answer, and it does not contain the letters y, e or s. In seeking to help transform societies and correct despicable historical injustices based on gender, race and physical well-being, quotas in sport have their place, serving the same purpose as those in the wider world of work.

Yes, the time for quotas at the highest level has passed. But that’s only because they’ve fulfilled their prime function: to remove the obstacles of prejudice and inspire a generation. One might also argue - and heaven knows King Pantomimer himself has done so ad nauseam - that they have turned a disgruntled South African offspinner into England’s finest batsman for a couple of generations. But then that might sound suspiciously like the words of a smug Pom.

One could argue that the reason coloured players are srtiking it big is not due to the quota system, but due to grassroots development among the hitherdo neglected coloured population of south africa. the thing about quotas is that you let a player of inferior ability in over a player with superior ability. when you compete, players with inferior ability dont do well. so they won't perform, almost axiomatically. the fact that these coloured players are performng is indicative of the fact that they've been taught and coached well, and they havent been discriminated AGAINST, allowing them to mature fully. They'd have got in without quotas.

think, however of all the other quota players who didnt make it big...

quotas are harmful. full stop. the way forward is to give equal opportunity to all from the grassroots level. eliminate discrimination, do not just replace one form with another!

"Bar some spin bowling [oh, was that what Mr Harris was serving up?]"
Wow, that is rich coming from someone whose country hasn't produced a decent spinner in five decades. As for Pietersen, I have a theory that after considerable deliberation it was decided it would be best to force him out rather than select him and allow him to drive all his teammates nuts with all that drivel. The added advantage being that England might finally become competitive.
In fact, I think quotas are brilliant, you'd have an excellent excuse to keep all the narcissistic loud mouths out of your national team. Australia should consider employing it so at least three team members comprise of men of African descent, so that means off the remaining four in the country, only one might not represent Australia. That might force that uncouth punting thug to play for New Zealand, and hey presto, another competitive Test side! I'm thinking I just found the solution to keeping Test Cricket alive.

Did Pietersen leave South Africa because of quotas? An article in Saturday's Guardian reminds us that Pietersen was not selected for Natal because he was the inferior 'spinner who could bat a bit'. Not one Natal player or administrator argued against the selection of Gulam Bodi. Pietersen's sense of injustice is more to do with his ego than the actual facts of the issue.
Of course he has reinvented himself as a world class batter, and Marcus I would rather have KP in my side than any of the South African top six, barring Kallis. So why pick on Amla? Would you rather have Rudolph or Dippenaar? I suggest you compare averages.
Let's not forget that the South African side has always employed racial quotas, its just that for the first 100 years or so they were all-white, ignoring many players of colour who deserved a place on merit. Targets were introduced at the behest of the government because the national cricket board were not taking transformation seriously.

I agree, everyone should have the same opportunity to be selected, regardless of race. Unfortunately this is still not the case in South Africa. Not, of course, because of legal restrictions, but because of widespread econiomic inequalities between black and white.
Most African children still do not enjoy the same privileged education as their white counterparts and have less opportunities to play sports such as cricket.
Many areas of public life are being asked to contribute to the transformation process, sport is one and I feel cricket has a lot more to be proud of than say rugby. But is the project over?
Cricket has the opportunity to provide role models for all communities and thus help in South Africa's healing process.
The sport will only thrive if it is supported by the majority population.

Finally, I don't think any of the players in the current XI are there as quota players. They qualify on merit, and I'd shade Amla over Gibbs - a close call, but he is the future.

Saptarshi

First of all, "my team" isn't South Africa.

Second of all, even an ordinary batsman like Amla can score a century- especially on a flat pitch against a tired attack. His technical weaknesses were exposed by Messrs. Anderson and Broad very nicely in the first innings, thank you. By the way, Mohammed Sami has had a few good spells with the ball, but that alone doesn't make him a Test-standard bowler, does it?

Finally, you may not agree with my OPINION of Amla. Fair enough. I don't agree with Rob Steen's opinions on quotas or Hansie Cronje, but I don't ask him to "shut up," or suggest that he stop writing. There are plenty of people of your ilk who'd do that happily, but that's the difference between someone like you and someone like me, isn't it?

Jon

Amla has shown good recent form, however the last Test had nothing in it for the bowlers, and I've heard plenty of bad things about Indian pitches too. I don't think Amla's technique against high-quality pace bowling is good enough. I don;t think he's going to get dropped for now- after all, he can't help the conditions he plays in- but I've yet to be convinced.

Saptarshi, I'm not South African, so I don't know much about their domestic players, but a quick glance at the domestic records shows me that both Bodi and Duminy should get a shot someday, and Amla to me is the most vulnerable of South Africa's lineup (certainly not Kallis, what's he done wrong?). Francois Du Plessis is doing a decent job in the County Championship, so I expect he could do quite well too, as presumably he has a good technique against spin.

But regardless of our opinions of Amla- all I'm saying is that I'm not a fan of quotas, and that merit should be the only criteria for selection.

Marcus: "..and I've heard plenty of bad things about Indian pitches too"
Which pitches do you think are good? Can't be South African they don't encourage spin. Can't be subcontinent pitches, they don't encourage pace ("and we've heard bad things about them!"). Can't be West Indian pitches, they're either placid or under prepared. Can't be Zimbabwean pitches, because all the farmers... well lets not go there. Can't be New Zealand pitches because they're prepared by hobbits. Can't be Australian pitches, because England can't seem to win there. WE HAVE A WINNER!!! English pitches, which by complete coincidence are the only ones the English players are familiar with! You know the rest of the world is sick of England's whining... "Oh we only care about the Ashes, who cares about ODIs" thwn "Oh we only care about playing at home, otherwise we get stressed out or our stomachs get upset", "Get out Kolpaks already", "Oh we don't care about the IPL, oh wait we do because we dig money".. Wankers

Isn't it a bit early to pass judgment on Amla's skills? He's played just 26 matches.
You'd be delighted to hear Marcus, that off the current South African team, only Smith had a better average than any of the English top six after 25 matches. Smith leads the way among his own top six as well. Next comes Ashwell Prince. Then... wait for it... Amla! He has a better average than Kallis, deVilliers and McKenzie did after 25 matches. Lets face it, the really reason you have amlaphobia is... oh wait.. sorry, telephone:
AJAX:"Oh hello Mr Jones, how are you doing... yes I am writing about the ter... oh wait whats that... oh oh... I'm so sorry I completely forgot about that... alright, I'll make the corrections, have a good 'un."
Sorry, my buddy Mr Jones just called to say that this Amla issue is really sensitive and so we should consider this case closed, because we don't want people to get th wrong idea.
Now back to those anglo-saxon champions at home...

I really don't know what to say!

I have been accused of "picking on" or "targetting" Amla, because of his racial background- when it has nothing to do with my doubts.

I have been accused outright of being a racist, and a liar too, because I've said that race has nothing to do with it.

I have been asked outright to "shut up" because I don't share another poster's good opinion of Amla.

And all because I said that I think Pietersen is better than Amla.

Maybe I'm wrong about Amla. Maybe not. But my doubts about him have nothing whatsoever to do with his race or his religion. Not that I expect anyone here to believe that.

Hey, thanks for the hint "Neutral"! I was only wondering why "DA MAN(Marcus!)" thinks Amla isn't good enough? How many of Amla's innings has he seen to form this speculative opinion about Amla's ability to handle "high quality" fast bowling? By his own admission, he doesn't know much about South Africa's domestic scene and his recommended replacement is Herschelle Gibbs, anyone who has seen the last few SA Test series would find that funny. It makes no sense. And to top it all Marcus continued whining after this, fitting Noel Gallagher's description of a sissy.
I have to admit something- i lied about the jones phone call. it did not happen. But I was so high and in trance under the influence of "Saptarshi"'s incantations that I forgot all sarcasm and satire in an attempt to be more like him. Because we all know in today's world there can only be one kind of racist.
I have one more confession. I lied once more just now. With your skills of deduction "Neutral", I'm sure you can find it!

Ajax

You didn't really "wonder" why I doubted Amla.

"Let's face it, the really (sic) reason you have Amlaphobia is..." (phone call). It seems to me that you've formed your own conclusions.

As to how much I've seen of Amla- I saw him in his first couple of series, up until when he got dropped, where his technique didn't impress me a great deal. I saw him get set up by Stuart Broad and James Anderson in the first innings of the Test. His technique still didn't impress me. It seemed to me that not much had changed.

By the way, despite their glittering records, I'm not convinced that Graeme Smith or Ricky Ponting are that flash against quality fast bowling either.

Oh I see, you decide whether I "wonder" or not. What qualifies you to make that decision?
"I'd sooner have him in my team than Amla any day of the week." can be interpreted to have quite a sinister meaning, maybe you gave it all away there? We can see where these accusations are going now... Just because you don't understand what I write, doesn't give you the right to call me a liar.
The way I look at it you attempted to demonstrate the evils of the quota system, but you chose a poor example in Amla. You compounded this by saying his technique is suspect but you'd replace him with Gibbs, which is when I "wondered" out loud: "Isn't it a bit early to pass judgment on Amla's skills?"
"not much had changed" except he's scored five 100s and eight 50s. He scored 176 against an attack that included Bond and Martin. Doesn't look like he can impress you. You can't suggest a good replacement since you have no clue of SA's bench strength, but its in fashion to be critical of quotas, isn't it?