South Africa or India - Which team has the chance to be Number one ?

[Richard]

SA could struggle a bit with all the players who have ****ed off to England.

I'm not really sure about that TBH. Most of the quality players who've been Kolpaked or have British passports are players who are too old to be coming back into international cricket now anyway (Ackerman, van Jaarsveld, Kemp, Willoughby, Langeveldt, Klusener, Hall, van der Wath, Boje, for example), and those of the right sort of age have questionable credentials at franchise never mind international level (Telo, Smith etc.).

The only two players who I'd say have been genuine losses (ie, they've looked like coming back but something has gotten in the way - for now at least) are Dillon du Preez and Ryan McLaren. Both high-quality longer-form bowlers who could certainly make a difference to the team right now never mind post-Kallis\Ntini. And McLaren can bat too.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I went for India. While i gave SA the edge for the number two slot before this series began based on recent results, i'd personally have to say the Indian side looks like it has more potential. Ishant, Zaheer, Mishra, Gambhir and Dhoni really do look like quality cricketers. The big test for them is how they deal with the loss of Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman. The big test for SA is how they deal with the loss of Kallis, Boucher and Ntini. I'd just about back India to have a bit more depth. SA could struggle a bit with all the players who have ****ed off to England.

To be fair, although they've both been around for an age, Boucher and Kallis have only just turned 32 and 33 respectively. All things being equal they should have more cricket left in them than Sachin and Dravid, both of whom soon turn 36.

 

[aussie]

I'm not really sure about that TBH. Most of the quality players who've been Kolpaked or have British passports are players who are too old to be coming back into international cricket now anyway (Ackerman, van Jaarsveld, Kemp, Willoughby, Langeveldt, Klusener, Hall, van der Wath, Boje, for example), and those of the right sort of age have questionable credentials at franchise never mind international level (Telo, Smith etc.).

The only two players who I'd say have been genuine losses (ie, they've looked like coming back but something has gotten in the way - for now at least) are Dillon du Preez and Ryan McLaren. Both high-quality longer-form bowlers who could certainly make a difference to the team right now never mind post-Kallis\Ntini. And McLaren can bat too.

Dillon du Preez hmmm, never really noticed him TBH.

Just had a look at his FC record looks good, but is really as loss i wonder. Whats up with a bloke called Fridel De Wet (spell check)?

 

[GIMH]

Being honest, I'm basing it on what I've seen from each side V England this year, South Africa impressed me a little more. Both have just chased down mega totals though, and have quality attacks. Could go either way.

 

[Langeveldt]

nah it's all the younger ones playing in the UK who we don't know how good they could be, that could hurt us.. As for de Wet, I think he's about, plays A team AFAIK

 

[Richard]

Dillon du Preez hmmm, never really noticed him TBH.

Just had a look at his FC record looks good, but is really as loss i wonder.

du Preez's First-Class record, in both SA and the UK, shows he's quite clearly a better bowler than most SAfricans currently. It's not impossible that he's better than both Ntini and Morne Morkel in fact.

Whats up with a bloke called Fridel De Wet (spell check)?

Still making his way, AFAIK.

 

[Richard]

Being honest, I'm basing it on what I've seen from each side V England this year, South Africa impressed me a little more.

India was more last year TBH - they toured in 2007, SA in 2008. SA were certainly more impressive for my money, but conditions weren't exactly directly comparable.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Being honest, I'm basing it on what I've seen from each side V England this year, South Africa impressed me a little more. Both have just chased down mega totals though, and have quality attacks. Could go either way.

See, I'm exactly the other way around. Our batsmen gifted the yarps far too many wickets this summer (an unfortunate display of largesse that the Aussies also seem to have adopted) and, but for a rather giveable LBW shout Monty had turned down against Fat Gray in the third test, we could've snuck a draw at least.

 

[Richard]

Apparently the glove was far more giveable than the lbw was.

 

[GIMH]

India was more last year TBH - they toured in 2007, SA in 2008. SA were certainly more impressive for my money, but conditions weren't exactly directly comparable.

Um, we're playing a series V India atm

 

[GIMH]

See, I'm exactly the other way around. Our batsmen gifted the yarps far too many wickets this summer (an unfortunate display of largesse that the Aussies also seem to have adopted) and, but for a rather giveable LBW shout Monty had turned down against Fat Gray in the third test, we could've snuck a draw at least.

Yeah, fair points, but at times their batting was bloody impressive, IMO

 

[Richard]

Um, we're playing a series V India atm

Well yeah but that's in India. Obviously playing SA over here and playing India in India is rather difficult to make much comparison TBH. Remember Keith Fletcher reporting back that England didn't have too much to worry about with India after they'd been thrashed in SA and watching as his team were easily drubbed 3-0 in 1992/93?

 

[GIMH]

You can still make a judgement as to how good a side is, though, whether they're home or away - obviously for a more in-depth look you'd have to analyse it a bit more, with a wider spread of performances. But I can make a basic call on the basis of what I've seen in these two series.

 

[Uppercut]

To be fair, although they've both been around for an age, Boucher and Kallis have only just turned 32 and 33 respectively. All things being equal they should have more cricket left in them than Sachin and Dravid, both of whom soon turn 36.

Fair point, didn't realise they were so young. Feels like they've been around from the beginning of time. It probably also has a lot to do with the (ridiculously premature) reports of Kallis as a batsman being past it. I guess there's still a bit left in both of them.

According to Shaun Pollock, it seems that the plan is to use AB De Villiers as a 'keeper and the extra spot can go to an all-rounder of sorts. So there's definitely a plan in place to deal with it.

But India's lineup is just so strong. They might need just one more paceman for overseas tours, but they have as good a WK-batsman as they could hope to find, two fantastic quicks, a quality off-spinner and a very promising leggy, a world-class opening partnership that will serve them for a long time yet and a legendary middle order, all led by a young, innovative captain. The country has more interest in cricket than any other, too, and their board will be raking in money from the IPL for development. I'd say things look really bright for India right now.

 

[Uppercut]

See, I'm exactly the other way around. Our batsmen gifted the yarps far too many wickets this summer (an unfortunate display of largesse that the Aussies also seem to have adopted) and, but for a rather giveable LBW shout Monty had turned down against Fat Gray in the third test, we could've snuck a draw at least.

Their batting was bloody impressive (if with an overly long tail) though. And there's a long time left in the Prince-de Villiers show. As i've said before, what impresses me most about SA is that they seem to amount to more than the sum of their parts whereas past, more talented SA sides have done the opposite. The Perth match further reinforces that belief. They look like they have a winning mentality now.

 

[Top_Cat]

I personally don't think there will be a clear-cut number 1 nor team absolutely dominating out of any of the current lot for some time. Aus, India and SA will always be hard to beat at home and might take a few wins off each other away whilst schooling the rest.

 

[Richard]

You can still make a judgement as to how good a side is, though, whether they're home or away - obviously for a more in-depth look you'd have to analyse it a bit more, with a wider spread of performances. But I can make a basic call on the basis of what I've seen in these two series.

Hmm, 10 years ago you could easily have seen India in England\SA\Australia\NZ\WI and thought they were no-hopers and seen them in India and thought they were World-beaters.

 

[Richard]

As i've said before, what impresses me most about SA is that they seem to amount to more than the sum of their parts whereas past, more talented SA sides have done the opposite.

Not sure about more than the sum of their parts but I'd say more a case of finally the parts living-up to their billing in the biggest moments of them all, whereas previously many had let themselves down.

Cullinan against Australia being the most obvious example.

 

[GIMH]

Hmm, 10 years ago you could easily have seen India in England\SA\Australia\NZ\WI and thought they were no-hopers and seen them in India and thought they were World-beaters.

Yeah, ten years ago, not now

 

[Richard]

The point still stands though - for some teams, home to away makes a huge difference. India are most certainly, as I said above, still dependent to a large degree on playing at home, and that's not even exclusively about the surface. On their last, wholly bizarre, tour of SA, they beat SA in the opener on a surface that should've been perfect for the home team, then lost in the decider on one that couldn't really have been much better-suited to them if the curator had tried.

Then when SA went to India they had the opener on the most ridiculous pitch you could wish to see, then gifted SA one of the most SA-favouring ones you could wish for and were flattened, then redeemed themselves on one that was better for them.