It’s PUB NIGHT again…
The heading suggests we talk about the past weekend’s rugby, where 3 South African sides recorded wins in Super Rugby and I think that qualifies as a good weekend of rugby!
Unfortunately the DHL Stormers and Toyota Cheetahs let South Africans down… baaadly, sis on you muppits!
This weekend is Easter Weekend, but the rugby will continue, 2 games on Easter Friday and 4 games on Saturday.
I guess this makes for a few good discussions!
It is time to straddle a bar stool and order a drink or 2.
Let’s focus on the PUB tonight…. the idea with PUB NIGHT is to lighten up our dull Tuesday evenings with music, comedy and fun.
Rugby takes a backseat tonight as the clan and fellow rugby nutters gather and wheel in their old friends…
Read the rules below carefully, or you WILL get burnt!
Just for clarity sake, when someone does not adhere to the Rules of the PUB, EVERYBODY jumps on them and pummels them, right… understood?
Here’s how it works:
- Before you are allowed to greet, comment or take part in general discussion about anything else, you enter the PUB with a lekker Music Video found on Youtube.
- You copy the URL (web address) of the clip… and you make sure it is NOT the Mobile version of the URL (the Mobile version has a solitary “m” in the beginnig of the URL… just replace the “m” with “www” if there is a solitary “m” somewhere).
- Sometimes you have to replace the “http” part with “https” too… but we do not take excuses, we will pummel you anyway!
- You Paste the URL into the Comment Form Box of this Article and you SUBMIT your comment.
- Your video will appear in the Comments section.
- If you fail with your attempt and it does not appear, we WILL kak you out, we will pummel you with insults… and LAUGH at you, you silly muppit!
- Once you have a successful Video loaded, you can take part in the discussion and add more music, but beware, every broken link will cop you an “Uitkak” and a laugh at your expense.
- Failure to abide by the rules, will be punished by requiring you to say a seriously denigrating thing about the Provincial / Club side you support and asking all of us, by name, for forgiveness and acknowledging our clear superiority.
- Most important rule: Nobody is allowed to get angry… this is all in good fun!
Fire away!
Today, our FIRST VIDEO will be this one, here it is!
Come on, show me up, do better than me!
Bullscot wrote:
There is a hackneyed saying in sport (yet it remains true): ‘Form is temporary, class (talent) is permanent.’
Nobody, not even nortie, has a crystal ball that indicates the duration of a talented player’s “bad patch” and when he’ll return to form. Selectors, coach & captain are no better than you & I & nortie in the crystal ball stakes. We all have a (personal, & perhaps different) point where we will cut our losses & give up on an out form player. If one is inclined to chuck in the towel early, you will sometimes be vindicated, other times not, but over time, if that is your bent, you’ll likely destroy some talented careers at susceptible stages. There are many very good-to-great batsmen that went through these temporary slumps. Shit happens. Very few of them get dropped.
There were also several class players that went into the CWC without having had great form in differing lead up periods to the tournament. Fans, scribes & I guess, selectors, were nervous about them under-performing. Yet they were not dropped & discarded and they gave good account of themselves & some even made the CWC XI (When they were out of form, who would have known THAT? Who would’ve known in advance when they would reach their nadir?):
Shikhar Dhawan
Martin Guptill
Glenn Maxwell
David Miller
Chris Gayle
Rilee Rossouw
Brendon McCullum
Daniel Vettori, etc.
I think that in cricket more often than not faith in class, despite lack in form, is vindicated.
AGREED REgards.Ryegunther wrote:
151 @ Angostura:
Quite valid points and the one who I remember from SA in the past was Gary Kirsten who they persisted with through a long bad patch and eventually when he came good he did so in a big way. I have in the past advocated that Morne Morkel be dropped when he was playing so badly but they stuck with him. I do not think they should drop these players never to select them again but to give them time to gain confidence at a lower level and also give the next person in line a chance to show what they are worth. I, and I think nortie, wasn’t advocating completely dropping de Kock but letting him come in down the order as he was clearly struggling at the top of the order, the number 3 batsman was coming in quite early a lot of the time anyway so in the absence of another opener he could just have stepped in as an opener.
@ Angostura:
“Nobody, not even nortie, has a crystal ball that indicates the duration of a talented player’s “bad patch” and when he’ll return to form”
True, but sometimes one doesn’t need a Crystal ball, sometimes some eyeballs are enough to see what is happening
I’m still unsure as to why some people here are trying to justify political interference in terms of just another questionable selection.
The point is that coaches and selectors live with the consequences of those selections whilst politicians and administrators do not.
If teams now have to be approved by the government them this should be made clear to the sporting public who fund these teams in one way or another as well as the international bodies to which these teams belong.
The current situation is just dishonest.
gunther wrote:
Give that man a Bells.
@ gunther:
Try to, for the moment, forget the politicians.
How much did the team that played in the semi differ from what they would have picked prior to the start of the WC?
Amla and QdK was always going to be the openers.
Faf at 3 and AB, Miller and Duminy middle order.
Steyn, Morkel, Philander and Tahir the bowlers.
They had to decide whether to go for one extra batsman in Rilley or Behardien and then “make up a 5th bowler” between JP, AB and Behardien or they could have opted for Parnell or Abbott as the designated 5th bowler.
They weren’t willing to sacrifice QdK and have AB keep, giving us the option of playing both an extra batsman and an extra bowler.
They gambled by opting for another batsman instead of the 5th bowler, it backfired because they didn’t need the extra batsman in the end.
Hindsight is an exact science, and I’m sure if they could do it over maybe they would have gone with 5 bowlers instead of 7 batsmen?
Not one of the players that they could have picked from the squad would have been due to political interference, and even if there was pressure to play Philander with a niggle, he would always have been in their plans, barring the injury. They could have played both Philander and Abbott though, then Rossouw would have missed out.
On WC form they should have insisted that the best for the team be Rossouw opening, AB taking the gloves and Abbott and Philander starting, giving us 5 proper bowlers and 7 batsmen.
@ nortie:
5 bowlers and 6 batsmen, not 7
@ nortie:
I’m not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse but the political interference is kind of the whole point here.
As I said earlier we can and do argue with the selections made by the coach and selectors all day. The point is though that is their job and they live and die by those calls.
It’s quite another thing for a politician or an administrator to stick his snout in and then for the powers that be to sit back and deny it.
Whether you happen to agree with the selection is neither here nor there.
@ gunther:
As I mentioned earlier, to me it’s obvious that there was some form of political interference, we are talking about SA here, there is always political interference.
What we don’t know yet, is whether it was pre tournament with some instructions of how the team must be made up, or whether it was only for the semi.
My point is merely that if they knew that they must adhere to certain targets, then they could have been more astute with the team selections, and still have chosen a better side than they did, and everyone in Parliament would have been satisfied as well.
If someone can insist that Philander must play, and they listen, why couldn’t someone also insist that AB take the gloves for the good of the team?
They could have selected an XI that, on merit, could have satisfied all camps.
And we can already start asking for transparency for the Rugby WC as to what targets HM must have in his starting team.
They will also deny that he has been given instructions, but, do we really believe that?
nortie wrote:
One never needs a crystal ball to see what’s (present case) happening
gunther wrote:
He is deliberate … he is not interested in the topic du jour; as he often does he prefers to dredge up & argue old issues.
nortie wrote:
In your dreams
gunther wrote:
We will never agree on the team selections (ESPECIALLY suddenly forcing AB to be the keeper 😆 )
but yes, that’s the whole point, and if there is political interference (if any) be upfront with it. Or hold the person spreading these malicious rumours (if so) accountable.
@ Angostura:
O my, the only thing on earth than being proven wrong is being proven wrong by me.
Shame, I realize that you must be burning
nortie wrote:
There is no wrong or right… only opinion.
Thought you got it by now?
😆
Angostura wrote:
Really
Drop your toy boy on his form, pick Riley to open, AB to keep, then you could have both Philander and Abbott in the starting side.
6 batsmen, 5 proper bowlers.
Not better than 7 batsmen and 4 bowlers?
Especially since it’s our bowlers that weren’t doing the job?
MacroBull wrote:
Sometimes there are actually stats that prove the one opinion is right.
Why must I agree with him? Then we will both be wrong
@ MacroBull:
Not in his head.
😆
@ MacroBull:
If you want to win a tournament like the WC, then it sometimes comes down to harsh decisions, and personal sacrifices as well, so yes, AB could have kept wicket for two games if they really wanted it.
Angostura wrote:
Yes, like stats from 18 months ago…..o wait, that wasn’t me
nortie wrote:
looks like you have winning world cups down… easy job. apply? you’ll be a folk hero.
Anyway….3 of the Nortie suig klub members can now have a go at me.
You boys enjoy it now
so now the politicians can select the team as long as they agree with Nortier.
😆
nortie wrote:
I thought you said stats mean nothing, you even ranted to make fun of Angos (oooh Mr Stats) for using stats or google, but now you want to use stats to prove your point?
Disagreeing with someone’s opinion does not create a divide between right and wrong or verify it.
@ nortie:
Don’t be such a martyr fark but you are pathetic.
nortie wrote:
Well everyone was talking about the political subject… you started ranting about QdK… off topic
@ MacroBull:
Team selections that could have appeared even the politicians Macro.
That means decisions could have been made on form of the players and someone could have been left out.
Surely that’s not “off topic”
Stats that had bearing on the WC Macro.
From day 1 that was all I was referring to, merely the WC.
Not that difficult to understand is it?
178 @ nortie:
Appeased not appeared
gunther wrote:
Gooi maar, ek is op die crease
Users Online
Total 128 users including 0 member, 128 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,448,122 Page Impressions
_