*Official* South Africa in India

[Cevno]

When was the last time in a test series,both teams have defeated each others by and innings?

Can't seem to remember.Though i think it should have happened before a few times.

 

[Agent TBY]

Innings victory in 4 days and 1 session, without Zaheer for most of the second innings is a hair's whisker. Some of the crap in this thread, I swear.

 

[wpdavid]

When was the last time in a test series,both teams have defeated each others by and innings?

Can't seem to remember.Though i think it should have happened before a few times.

iirc SA vs England 2009/2010

 

[Cevno]

When was the last time in a test series,both teams have defeated each others by and innings?

Can't seem to remember.Though i think it should have happened before a few times.

Oops it happened in the recent england ,south africa series.Completely forgot.

 

[silentstriker]

That's all well and good, as long as when South Africa win the match in the last five overs and Sehwag has scored 120 (115b), you point out that that South Africa wouldn't have time to win the match had Sehwag scored his runs at the rate of Tendulkar.

Scoring your runs quickly is only advantagous if you prove to be the better team throughout the game. If you get outplayed, scoring them slowly is actually much more advantagous. As such I just ignore strike rates when attempting to compare players as there are pros and cons of each extreme.

It's not that simple though is it? Scoring faster puts the opposition team on the defensive, and helps everyone else do better on your team as well. I don't think you can ignore S/R at all. No, it's not as important as it is in ODI/T20, but I would take a higher S/R vs. a low one every single time.

 

[Pratters]

All times except when you look to draw games*

(There S/R is irrelevent)

 

[Cevno]

All times except when you look to draw games*

(There S/R is irrelevent)

Not neccesarily as Sehwag showed in the last test of India's tour of AUS in adelaide.

Though it was not a case of classic drawing the match.But if he hadn't scored so quickly India could have been in trouble like England got in ,in the ashes 2006 at the same ground.

 

[Jono]

Gutted for SA, they are the masters at falling at the final hurdle. Could imagine a few of them would be physically sick after that heartbreak.


Despite my prediction that India will lose the no.1 spot in this series, I was wrong, but only by 9 ***** deliveries.

I still can't see them winning in Aust, SA or Eng (when they next tour), because they don't have good enough bowlers imho, time will tell.

Also, surely a bit of a concern for them to get absolutely whipped like they did in the first test in a home test.

Anyways... credit where credit is due... I can't deny the fact they were good enough (by a hairs whisker) to manage to draw that home series in the end.

Not saying India are a clear #1, but surely you realise on that last day India had lost 8/10ths of day 4 and did not have a fit Zaheer. Bit harsh on them.

 

[Jono]

There is never a situation where a lower strike rate is better than a higher one.

There is a situation where lasting more deliveries is better than fewer deliveries.

But if Sehwag faces 250 balls, he's probably on 290. If someone else faces 250 balls, they may be on 120.

Sehwag has still taken up the same amount of deliveries, and just pummelled the team on the defensive more than other players.

You can't ignore strike rate. Obviously it doesn't determine the better batsmen, but it is not useless.

Time at the crease is what you people are talking about. Newsflash, Sehwag bats for a long time.

 

[funnygirl]

Not saying India are a clear #1, but surely you realise on that last day India had lost 8/10ths of day 4 and did not have a fit Zaheer. Bit harsh on them.

It is absolutely funny the way people pretend it was such a close match even without looking at the other factors.If any thing bad happened in this series it was for India.

Yes India won by a whisker because of rain.

 

[stephen]

It is absolutely funny the way people pretend it was such a close match even without looking at the other factors.If any thing bad happened in this series it was for India.

Yes India won by a whisker because of rain.

This series was strange in that it was a lot like the '09 Ashes series. It was a tight series while each game was a one sided affair.

Still, I want a third test! Poor Amla could have broken records for run scoring in a single test series if he had another game.

 

[Zinzan]

Innings victory in 4 days and 1 session, without Zaheer for most of the second innings is a hair's whisker. Some of the crap in this thread, I swear.

Seriously dude WTF, they took the final wicket required to win the match with just 9 deliveries remaining...if that's not getting there by a hairs whisker I don't know what is.

 

[Zinzan]

Not saying India are a clear #1

We both agree then

 

[vic_orthdox]

That's all well and good, as long as when South Africa win the match in the last five overs and Sehwag has scored 120 (115b), you point out that that South Africa wouldn't have time to win the match had Sehwag scored his runs at the rate of Tendulkar.

Scoring your runs quickly is only advantagous if you prove to be the better team throughout the game. If you get outplayed, scoring them slowly is actually much more advantagous. As such I just ignore strike rates when attempting to compare players as there are pros and cons of each extreme.

Two aspects to that.

Defensive batting allows for more balls to be bowled in less time.
Scoring runs can also bring the possibility of getting in front of the total. Take this last game, say Amla scored at a quick rate, and still faced as many balls. By putting South Africa back in front, it would have taken more time because India would have been required to chase runs, plus taking three overs out of the equation for innings change over.

 

[jeevan]

We both agree then

Very clever editing out of "but surely you realise on that last day India had lost 8/10ths of day 4 and did not have a fit Zaheer.".

But then you were the guy who twaddled on about India's bowling and this part wouldn't have suited your purposes at all.

 

[jeevan]

Seriously dude WTF, they took the final wicket required to win the match with just 9 deliveries remaining...if that's not getting there by a hairs whisker I don't know what is.

One delivery and not losing 54 overs the previous day is

 

[Zinzan]

One delivery and not losing 54 overs the previous day is

It's really not that difficult to grasp is it? They WON with 8 or 9 balls to spare in the final wash regardless of whether or not 3 full days were lost, hence they won just in the nick of time, by a dogs whisker, a cats bollocks ...whatever you like.

 

[Sir Alex]

There is no doubt that India won by a whisker, but the battle then was against the elementals, South Africa did not give it a challenge considering India did the job in about 4 days play time.

 

[sunilreddy]

Not to forget the umpiring standards in the series was brilliant. Both the umpires done a great job!!

 

[jeevan]

It's really not that difficult to grasp is it? They WON with 8 or 9 balls to spare in the final wash regardless of whether or not 3 full days were lost, hence they won just in the nick of time, by a dogs whisker, a cats bollocks ...whatever you like.

You asked for an example of something that was closer, & I did.

If you like black & white, fine. India are #1 by an official ranking system that has been ironed out over time. Rational folk cant have nuances when it suits them and 3 posts later go very literal.

BTW zinzan12, you are free to carry on from here as you wish. It's abundantly clear from a previous thread just how insightful you are. Isn't much to be gained exchanging thoughts with you. Thx.