-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
why are south africa so good?
- Thread starter deira
- Start date
protea lover
Cricket Spectator
Probably because they have always replaced good but old players at the right time with a suitable replacement.
for example: Pollock on the verge of retirement replaced by an in form steyn.
But after the 03 wc we were in a crisis.
The selectors had a major overhall and smith the 22 yo came in as captain. Young players came through old players went out in a smooth transition.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
South Africa have always been naturally strong at the ODI game really, which has been helped by the fact that the country has long been given to producing all-rounders.
Though you might note that Australia have been stronger at Tests if not ODIs than South Africa since before they were even readmitted - 1989.
Bees
U19 12th Man
I'm not sure I feel the same way as the OP. When I go for South Africa (pretty much all the time) I'm always expecting the train to go off the rails.
Often in the past, they - as a unit - never seemed to match what the aggregate strength of their individual players seemed to to suggest.
However, my thoughts on this might exaggerated by a natural anxiety in wanting to see them succeed.
Often in the past, they - as a unit - never seemed to match what the aggregate strength of their individual players seemed to to suggest.
However, my thoughts on this might exaggerated by a natural anxiety in wanting to see them succeed.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
SA could easily have won each of the WCs of the 1990s, and obviously the 2002/03 one was at home so with a better reading of a D\L sheet they could've won that too. I don't think there's any less-than-sum-of-parts-ism about the team, it's just often one tiny mistake has cost everything at the crucial moment.
And in Tests, they have - 1993/94 aside - been been second-best to Australia. Almost all the rest of the time, they've been better than everyone else. The only loss at home to someone other than Australia was England in 2004/05 which could easily have gone the other way, and almost all the losses away not in Australia have come in India and Sri Lanka, where almost everyone struggles. They've played 12 away series in places other than Australia, India and Sri Lanka since readmission and won 7 (drew 3, lost 2 - the losses being England 1998 and Pakistan 2003/04, and the latter too should've been a draw). That's more than acceptable.
Also, they've won in India (1999/2000) and drawn in Sri Lanka (2000) once each - no mean feat. Precious few other sides have managed that.
It's quite natural and to-be-expected that someone who supports them will have the natural anxiety about how they're going to perform. Not at all surprising.
And in Tests, they have - 1993/94 aside - been been second-best to Australia. Almost all the rest of the time, they've been better than everyone else. The only loss at home to someone other than Australia was England in 2004/05 which could easily have gone the other way, and almost all the losses away not in Australia have come in India and Sri Lanka, where almost everyone struggles. They've played 12 away series in places other than Australia, India and Sri Lanka since readmission and won 7 (drew 3, lost 2 - the losses being England 1998 and Pakistan 2003/04, and the latter too should've been a draw). That's more than acceptable.
Also, they've won in India (1999/2000) and drawn in Sri Lanka (2000) once each - no mean feat. Precious few other sides have managed that.
It's quite natural and to-be-expected that someone who supports them will have the natural anxiety about how they're going to perform. Not at all surprising.
Langeveldt
Soutie
A culture for sport and a hunger for success very similar to that of the Aussies, world class facilities (to the privelidged who could make use of them), and really serious sport in schools.. Not rocket science..
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
They're a good team at the moment because they have a good blend of class players, many of whom are in form at the same time, led by an effective leader - it's not rocket science. Some of those players seem to have done the hard work to get that result themselves, with no extra encouragement from selectors, others have been the result of good patience and management by the team brainstrust.
Assuming a basic level of interest in the game and effiacy in the game's infrastructure, these things are cyclical and its nice to see, but not that surprising that SA have again developed a very good team - they've historically been a strong cricket nation.
Assuming a basic level of interest in the game and effiacy in the game's infrastructure, these things are cyclical and its nice to see, but not that surprising that SA have again developed a very good team - they've historically been a strong cricket nation.
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
Because they're black, obv.
8|
8|
four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
Kallis.
Gives them an awesome balance. They're basically playing 12 men.
Gives them an awesome balance. They're basically playing 12 men.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Not just Kallis. Clearly he's either their best or second-best all-rounder since readmission, but they've also had McMillan, Klusener and Pollock, who were all top-class all-rounders. And they've also had the likes of Symcox, Kemp, Boje and Hall, who are useful bits-and-pieces players and also Hansie Cronje who was an excellent batsman and less-than-useless bowler.