Mozart... Quinton de Kock continued

Forum » Cricket » Mozart... Quinton de Kock continued

Jul 09, 2021, 15:43

Hi Moz

Since you butchered that QDK thread by trying to paste from another website into this one, i thought i'd continue it here...

I read through that table. What are you trying to say though?
That he averages less when we lose?

Jul 09, 2021, 16:01

Apologies…..I tried to eliminate the post but the edit button was hidden under layers of material.  What the table is saying is that he averages less when we lose….not surprising. But he averages 45 runs less when we lose fielding first.

That’s a remarkable number, and not driven by not batting a second time….because we have lost, so he has to have batted twice.

My impression is he does well when the team does well, and poorly ( even relatively) when we lose. 

De Kock is more successful when he hits out from the start. Yes occasionally he has embarrassing dismissals, but if his eye is in, good innings eventuate.

When he feels he has to be measured, however, as in the WCs….he looks like a deer in the headlights. And with his bat/pad gap he is vulnerable to movement.

That sense of having to be responsible is a better predictor than game pressure and hasn’t been exorcized. I see him as a Roy McLean….an attacking bat, who will have his ups and downs.

Jul 09, 2021, 16:45

What WC are you talking about Mozart?    

Jul 10, 2021, 04:38

2015 scoring:7,7,12, 1, 0, 26,78*, 14.

2019 scoring 68, 23, 10, 17*, 68, 5, 47, 15, 52

A total of 450 runs in 17 innings, but with 2 not outs…an average of 30, with most of the runs in 2019 coming when the Proteas were already out and the pressure was off.

Not a disaster but not the match winner his fans think.

Jul 10, 2021, 07:46

So you afrer going for De Kock as per normal.    What about the utter failure Amla was in the 2019 CWC anyway.   What about the farce you made of that with vicious intent no doubt.    Amla was poor in both the strike rate and runscoring  - in shorter versions of the game strike rate is important and Amla's strike rate was way below par.   But Amla was not the only real failure in 2019 - Steyn - another hero of yours - was even worse.

The Proteas team collapsed during the past two years because of poor coaching and selections and the demoralizing effect caused by both.    To take out De Kock and blame him alone fopr the disaster is total BS.

We know you by now not to rely on your BS when it comes to stat usage anyway.   Just a question - why is De Kock rated in the top 10 batsmen in the world if he is as under par as you claim he is?               


Jul 10, 2021, 11:56

Mikey, the spin softens, the tone changes but the intent stays the same, it's  all "your fault",when are you going to learn not to spruik a player? There is no technical flaw in Quinnie's technique, if he did leave a gap then every batsman with an eye for a wicket would exploit the weakness. Quinton is no super star, at best a good player, praise and acknowledgement of him is conveniently spun as hype. Sure he's been a disappointment in the two world cups that he's played in but then which Protea batmen hasn't been? If his failure at WCps is going to be used as a yardstick then give me an example of one SAFFA bat who has been a success at World Cups?  His dip in form coincided with his appointment of the captaincy, he didn't want the position and only took it on condition that it'd be temporary, clearly his form suffered the effects of the added responsibility. Like every good batsman he's had a look at his game and decided on a style of play that's suits him, in other words he knows what works best for him, I would suggest that to be free flowing and attacking, to pretend to be anything else would go against his natural instincts and he'd be a major disaster to even think of a change.

Jul 10, 2021, 20:02

"example of one SAFFA bat who has been a success at World Cups?  "

Lance Klusener 1999

Jul 10, 2021, 20:26

1 Run to score....3 balls to face.......what happened? 

A disaster.....not what I call success when a WC was there to be had. Klusener was a WC batting tragedy.

Jul 10, 2021, 21:30

Quisling you obviously haven’t played the game either….if Donald had watched his partner, whose call it was,  and run properly we would have won that game. Besides, we wouldn’t have even been there were if not for Klusener.

As for your comments on de Kock, you’re right for once….he was a disappointment at WCs. His sequence of failures in the last WC did us in.

Jul 11, 2021, 01:10

His average in the 2019 WC was over 40.

Hardly  a failure.

Seems like there may be an "anti Mike" agenda here.

Jul 11, 2021, 03:22

Thirty eight actually. But it was the failures against India, NZ and Bangladesh that really hurt….those were all crucial matches. What he did against Pakistan and Oz subsequently raised his average, but were of no consequence.

Amla’s average by the way was 41 and I consider him a disappointment at the WC.

De Kock’s one relevant contribution was against England….not enough to offset the three crucial failures. But do I  take it that you think he performed up to expectations Flash?

Jul 11, 2021, 07:12

What crucial  three failures Mozart?   What were Amla's strike rate and runs in those three alleged failures? 

You persistently attacked De Kock and praised Amla in the 2019 CWC  - now you say the latter was a "failure".  Just a question - Amla made most of his runs in one game where he was not out - that boosted his average - but in crucial games he failed badly even against weak teams.   So schedule all games and give the runs scored by De Kockj and Amla indicating also their strike rates  and we can the judge for ourselves what really that disastrous series..   

You have the most prejudiced approach I have ever seen in anybody dealing with sportsmen and you have no real worries about writing totally false game descriptions and occurrences on this site.     So keep it up - you are a joke  in bad taste as well.      

Jul 11, 2021, 17:22

No Amla actually made 55 in the crucial game against NZ,  and scored 80 not out against Sri Lanka. For the rest he was disappointing. Clearly not at his world class best, he still averaged more than de Kock.

Jul 11, 2021, 18:26

How many runs diud De Kok scored in the WC in every match he played and what was his trike rate.   Same for Amla - give the full breakdown  and thew strike rate - so we can see what the reals situation was.    There was no way that Amla was in any critical game a success.

I want the figures from you and will certainly check them afterwards.    So unless you rpovide them then shut up and do not come  up with selective stats.             

Jul 11, 2021, 18:32

By the way that run-out in 1999 showed was madness by Klusener - hitting a ball straight to fielder lwess than 10 meters from the stumps was inexcusable.    Entirely the fault of Klusener.   

Jul 11, 2021, 18:35

Do it yourself Tart….do you even know how to calculate an average…. hahaha?

 And by the way….. it was Klusener’s call….Donald had to respond. Neither you nor the Quisling have ever played the game obviously. 

Jul 11, 2021, 21:56

Dishonest idiot stooge aka Mozart

OK here goes:-

Runs scored 

De Kock         -     306   Runs

Amla                     203   Runs

Strike Rate

De Kock                 81,82

Amla                       66,21

The above tells me that  De Kock was a much better player than Amla in that tournament.   

Jul 11, 2021, 22:14

Averages are what we need…Amla played in less games. And explain the source for the strike rate.

And update your Wimbledon tennis posting you rotten, rotten sport.

Jul 12, 2021, 08:37

Strike rates is what count in limited overs cricket - and that one of Amla was poor and way below par.     Amla's strike rate was less than 4 runs per over - while De Kock's was much much     Do you know anything about cricket at all?    

By the way I know that Amla played in 8 games and De Kock in 10 games.  In 4 of the 8 games Amla batted he had less than 15 runs - in 2 of the 10 games De Kock batted he had only 2 matches where he scored les than  15  runs.    

Jul 12, 2021, 08:37

Strike rates is what count in limited overs cricket - and that one of Amla was poor and way below par.     Amla's strike rate was less than 4 runs per over - while De Kock's was much much     Do you know anything about cricket at all?    

By the way I know that Amla played in 8 games and De Kock in 10 games.  In 4 of the 8 games Amla batted he had less than 15 runs - in 2 of the 10 games De Kock batted he had only 2 matches where he scored les than  15  runs.    

Jul 12, 2021, 09:29

This is like comparing a yacht, with a full compliment of staff, to a CBR 400.

Mike, Amla was at the end of his career and had already lost much of his bat speed at that stage. Something very difficult to deal with for guys that make their money square of the wicket. I posted about it at the time. 

Quintie was just about hitting his prime. 

Up until Amla was about 31/32 he was murdering ODI bowlers and averaged well oever 50...with a strike rate of about 80'ish. 

He was a diagonal bat master but that style of batting falls off very quickly when/as you get older and especially if you have minimal upper body strength while not having relied on playing straight much in your preceding 20 years of batting.  

It's simple physics. Meeting a ball outside off with diagonal bat means that you're having to intersect the ball's trajectory on two axis...vertical and horizontal...with a flashing bat, and you have to be opt-in with your timing. It requires the most precision. Hitting straight means you're dealing predominantly with meeting the vertical axis and requires less timing and batspeed. One variable allowing a bigger margin for error instead of two with a tiny margin for erring.

Quintie is a good player, and he may break into the next level now and be great for the second part of his career. We ALL hope that occurs. However, it's safe to say that he hasn't yet lived up to the hype, which I myself perpetuated, RE him being our very own Gillie. 

We certainly are better off with Quintie than we would be without him. 

And one has to accept that a keeper will always be worth five runs less than his true average would be if he didn't keep. 

Anyway, we have other issues in our batting line-up. Bavuma being the first and most pressing.

But government wants him to be captain and like everything else they known the rest.

Jul 12, 2021, 10:22

"Mike, Amla was at the end of his career and had already lost much of his bat speed at that stage."

Tooo funny...dearie, dearie me.....

See the source image

Jul 12, 2021, 11:15

Amla is currently 38.

How old was he during the WC?

Graeme Smith himself said exactly what I said above and spoke about having to make a successful transition into playing straight as opposed to predominately through the off-side.

There's no mystery here.

The fact you're butthurt because I blew your stupid question about Lara out of the water, is pretty obvious too. Really, it's embarrassing that you'd even attempt to compare the two.

Jul 12, 2021, 11:32

And yes, allow me to embarrass you bloody halfwit gimp.

Again, show's how very little you know about a game you probably rate as one you're knowledgeable on. 

Amla's bat speed - You gimp 

The art of Amla

His amazing bat speed helps make up for a minor technical quirk

The batsman hit a slightly short ball off the back foot behind point for a four. The bat came down at unbelievable speed to generate pace, the supple wrists opened the face of the bat at the last minute, and the ball sped to the fence. That was the first time I saw Hashim Amla bat, and I was fortunate to have the best seat in the house, about 20 yards away, at the non-striker's end.
I had not seen anyone with such bat speed. Amla was different and it showed.? In India we talk a lot about Virat Kohli's enviable record in ODIs but Amla's numbers are even better. He took 13 fewer innings than Vivian Richards (and Kohli) to get to 5000 runs, and he scores a century every 5.5 innings, which is better than anyone who has played the limited-overs game
Even minimal knowledge of the game would mean you'd understand that Amla's bat speed was his major strength. And he lost it once he was around 32.
Embarrassing for you indeed.

Jul 12, 2021, 11:35

My bad, I should have explained myself, the joke is not on you.....settle. It's the exact same words and reasoning Mike used to explain to your Master why Amla should not have been selected for the last world cup. Some here will remember the lengthy argument Mike and I had trying to convince him that Amla was done, that father time had caught up with him, that he had slowed, that he was not the player we all knew him to be.....your Master wouldn't have a bar of it, he had the bone clamped between his jaws and wouldn't let go and here you come along and say exactly what we've said. Bet you wish you'd known, too late mate but hey for once we agree.

He ain't gonna be happy with you.

See the source image

Jul 12, 2021, 11:36


Amla showed very bad signs of deterioration in performance starting in 2018 and should not have been in the WC squad in 2019.   As from January to May 2019 Amla due to sickness of his father did not play any cricket.  When some of us said this on site - Mozart went into an attack on members like you have not seen before.  

After the series he went ballistic about De Kock losing the  plot  during the WC and causing the poor performances of the team all on his own.   That is why  I raised the Amla issue.    Be it aa it may - the fact is that  Dale Steyn also misfired in the WC and Mozart also attacked members who said he should not be in the squad.

In one of his comments last year he agreed woth Bopucher that players once in the team "owns" their position in the team - irrespective of their performances.   That obviously is BS - but Mozart thrive on it.            .   

Jul 12, 2021, 11:51

Say Mike, do you remember that painful long argument we had with LostFart? It went on forever, now sit back and watch him spin fresh BS to justify Amla's selection.

It's going to be very funny. What's equally funny is that he claims to have played the game.....fat lot of good that's done him.

Jul 12, 2021, 11:54


And who'd you have been selected in place of Amla? You've got to be kidding if you think anyone was available to fill his shoes from a skill, reputation or experience perspective.

A deteriorated Amla is still better than 90% of the best players we produced, during their prime.

I was giving you a reason for his results, not a definitive argument as to why he should not have been selected.

...but I can see why'd you'd be so desperate to interpret my analysis the way you did. The keyword being desperate

Jul 12, 2021, 12:08

Uh-oh The U-Turn, as expected, can't upset your Master now can you!? Oh hell no!

On a serious note I would have given you a reasonable answer but seeing  that you've already answered your own question and seeing that you're doubling down......I won' would be a pointless exercise and a waste of my time.

Tx for the laugh.

Jul 12, 2021, 12:46

Indeed, run along.

Jul 12, 2021, 15:47

Precisely the point I tried to make to the Quisling and the Tart….a 90% Amla was better than anything else we had. And his average was higher than de Kock. He also made a game of the NZ match which was crucial …..De Kock flopped when we needed him, as he does so often.

Quisling privately has expressed the view that Tart is a complete idiot. Now he makes common cause with him. A nasty piece of work. Giving an answer would be a ‘waste of his time’….hahaha….as if his time is a precious commodity.

Jul 12, 2021, 19:29

Amla at the end of 2018 was not even 20% of what he used to be.    And in the WC he was desperately poor at about 10% of what he sued to be.    Get real idiot - and make some logical arguments   for a change.   The squad was a farce in 2019 and to blame De Kock with the third highest run-scoring total is just sick. 

The best batsman from an SA Perspective was Du Plessis second was Van der Dussen and third was De Kock.     From there the rest of the batsman had massively less runs - with Duminy be the worst,    Amla with his poor strike rate was bad as well.      On the wehole a team should ahve 6 batsmen - the 2019 squad had 3 and 3 failures made up the rest of the six.    

By the way you also supported the inclusion of Duminy in the squad - he was together with Dale Steyn the biggest failures in the squad.   

By the way since then Du Plessis also fell off the wagon  and by the end of 2020 he was desperately poor as well.   


Jul 12, 2021, 20:40

You want to use totals, but in cricket averages are customary Poofter.  In spite of all your blather de Kock failed us in 3 out of 4 crucial games, padding  his record when there was no pressure anymore. He was one of the main reasons we never even reached the knockouts. 

Case closed.

Jul 12, 2021, 21:17

Haha I'm just imagining trying to tell the side that Amla won't be in the squad for the WC. 

"One of our best ever won't be coming to the WC boys. Instead, we're gonna bring X. Yes, he's 22, very inexperienced and new to the international scene but we feel he'll be more valuable than Hash."


Jul 12, 2021, 21:54


This is amazing.  You claim that averages meant something in the 2019 CWC- but ignore then fact that  in shorter versions of the game runs scored and strike rates combined  determine whether games  are  won or lost.     There are huge numbers of games where  strike rates lost matches and without adequate strike rates - even with  a fairly high runs scored will lose games. 

Averages in fact means nothing in that version of the game.  Lets take an example of Amla in the Srilanka game.  he had a strike rate of 76,7,50 in the game - which was adequate and not being out it boosted his average.   But in all games combined Amla's strike rate was 66,21 and that means if that is found throughout by all batsmen the Proteas would not score 198  runs  in an ODI and when  would that be adequate to win ODI's - it will not be enough to win matches.   In the case of De Kock the run-scoring will be above 250 - which becomes a reasonable run count - but still not  necessarily a winning count.    

One can accept that your prejudiced attacks on De Kock, started in 2013 and continuing will not stop so keep on making a  total fool of yourself.   .   .       

Jul 12, 2021, 23:43

Please stop it hurts to read such stupidity. An opening bat has to create a foundation and balance scoring fast with protecting his wicket. And in many games the strike rate doesn’t matter, the total does. The Indian game for example was won with 230 runs, strike rates irrelevant.  Other games were won with 131 runs and 245 runs. 

Even the games that were won with over 300 runs were not in the 350 range so they allowed for the openers to set a base.

As for the strike rate being affected by not being out….you can’t be serious.

Jul 13, 2021, 04:24

Yopu  areindeed the most stupid commentator ever.   You simply do not understand that in shorter versions of the game the strike rate is important and that a strike rate eq

Jul 13, 2021, 04:24

You  are indeed the most stupid commentator ever.   You simply do not understand that in shorter versions of the game the strike rate is important and that a strike rate of 66 is a recipe for disaster - idiotic  is the  best description  of you when it comes to how the winning of such games happens.     

Jul 13, 2021, 04:54


You need to Log in to reply.
Back to top