so..

[Jono]

Obviuosly only South Africa lose important matches. England did not choke against the Windies, or the Netherlands, Australia did not choke against Sri Lanka, and if the Widies-Sri Lanka match goes down to the wire it will still not be a choke.

It seems the only qualification for saying a choke was involved here is South Africa being the losing team

Firstly, India get criticised for choking all the time.

Secondly, you're missing the point. If your team is not very good (see England), then its not so much a choke as not being good enough.

SA were the favourites going into this tournament, and they were undefeated in this tournament. Yet they failed to chase a gettable total, with plenty of wickets to spare, whilst being 39/0 after 5 overs.

That is choking, i.e. tightening up under pressure and not performing like they have when there was no pressure.

 

[Mahindinho]

Smith is simply too fat to be an international leader.

That's exactly what I was telling my (non-cricketing) housemate last night, as well as explaining how Smith and Kallis are two of the world's smuggest-looking people. I mean, Smith even looks smug when he's lost!

 

[Xuhaib]

Firstly, India get criticised for choking all the time.

Secondly, you're missing the point. If your team is not very good (see England), then its not so much a choke as not being good enough.

SA were the favourites going into this tournament, and they were undefeated in this tournament. Yet they failed to chase a gettable total, with plenty of wickets to spare, whilst being 39/0 after 5 overs.

That is choking, i.e. tightening up under pressure and not performing like they have when there was no pressure.

You have to take the quality of bowling in to account SA had two mediocre score against India and NZL so them faltering against quality bowling was not something out of the blue. Choking would have been throwing wickets away (SF 07) or stupid run outs ala Klusner (SF 99)

 

[R_D]

Yeah definately a choke.
Probaly not the worse one they've done but still a Choke.

 

[Jono]

Choking would have been throwing wickets away (SF 07) or stupid run outs ala Klusner (SF 99)

Nah disagree, choking can come in different forms and to different degrees.

Choking can be just as much not going after the bowling (or specific bowlers) as much as they should have, as it is throwing wickets away, or bowling poorly when defending with the game in your grasp.

Firstly, despite their low scores, the fact is South Africa's batting line-up is awesome. Its deep, with plenty of quality and varied types of batsmen.

Secondly, sure Pakistan had Gul, Afridi, but whilst Ajmal bowled beautifully, they hardly took it to him. Pakistan's batting against Razzaq and Aamer was tame. They knew that the best was to come, and with a deep batting line-up, they should have cruised it.

Pakistan have bowled well, but they haven't been ripping teams out for less than 120 throughout this tournament. At 39/0 you'd have been a brave person to pick a Pakistani win IMO.

Once Gibbs was bowled however, why did everyone know the choke was on? They still had quality to come? Why is it that literally everyone on this board picked what would happen?

 

[ret]

I would say that SA had an off-day .... It's difficult to win so many games in a row in a format where one guy can make a difference, you are eventually going to have a bad day or bump in to someone who has a good day or a better day than you

 

[Dissector]

I would have to say that it was a choke. It wasn't just the fact that they lost but the way they let the match drift in the middle overs without even attempting to counter-attack until it was too late and simply allowing the RRR to drift upwards. They didn't even try to target Shoaib Malik's over.

That doesn't mean South Africa are always chokers. In test cricket they have been extremely tough in recent years: in the two home series against India and Pakistan, in England and of course in Australia, with some great fighting knocks from Prince, Smith and Duminy.

It's just in world cups where they seem to be haunted by the weight of history which of course gets heavier every time they stumble yet again. Eventually they will pull off a victory but until they do they won't get rid of the choker tag.

 

[R_D]

I would say that SA had an off-day .... It's difficult to win so many games in a row in a format where one guy can make a difference, you are eventually going to have a bad day or bump in to someone who has a good day or a better day than you

as someone eluded before.... this was the first match where SA were in real pressure situation and knew that if they lose this they'll be out unlike their previous matches.

Jono's post explains it pretty well why it was choke.... not going after the bowling when you should be.

Anyway...
what would be world cup without a classic SA choke.

 

[Briony]

That's exactly what I was telling my (non-cricketing) housemate last night, as well as explaining how Smith and Kallis are two of the world's smuggest-looking people. I mean, Smith even looks smug when he's lost!

Yes he always looks smug and arrogant but someone needs to point out how fat he is. I mean he can't even get a girlfriend, he should take stock.

At least SA choking in these tournaments creates talking points - adds to the entertainment. And they do think up new ways to go about it.

 

[jot1]

Everytime we lose a game, we choke. Everytime some of the other teams lose a game, they fire their coach and/or captain......

I call that good coaching and captaincy.