Semi Final 1 - England v South Africa

[luckyeddie]

It would have been interesting to see how comprehensive England's victory would have been against a really poor, brittle, shambolic, leaderless, lacking-in-confidence side.

Like Australia.

 

[Adders]

I think it's probably harsh to criticise South Africa too much for yesterdays performance. Sure it was pretty bloody ordinary, but I dunno......**** does happen, can be the first game of a tourney or the final. Fact is none of the teams in this tournament are outstanding and any one of them is more than capable of turning in a performance like that, I certainly won't be gobsmacked if it's England on the wrong end of it in the final.

Before a ball was bowled yesterday it was just going to be Englands day; from Steyn being ruled out, the weather, to winning the toss. After Jimmy sent down the first delivery I just knew we were in.

Everything went right for us (apart from the Miller/Kleinveldt cameo) Just think; if Steyn had played and it was Jimmy ruled out and SA won the toss..........I reckon the chances are very good that it would be England getting ****canned today.

 

[Arachnodouche]

@ Kirsten calling it a choke.

Basically proof that the fans and media constantly hammering the "choke" and "mentally weak" tag has well and truly entered the locker room, to the point its not even used properly. The fact that one of the most measured and rational coaches of recent times in Kirsten has used the choke word is amazing. The fact he uses it when, for once, South Africa didn't actually choke or weren't actually mentally weak, is even more amazing!

Hilarious really.

Choking doesn't always have to be a dramatic thing. I think he implied failure to turn up and be "together" on a big game day. It's funny how it only applies to the one day unit because the Test side has been truly strong in its collective head over the years.

 

[Furball]

It's just funny to jokingly ask how South Africa will choke then watch them slump to 80/8. They're just hilariously inept when it comes to knockout games.

 

[marc71178]

How about a 84 ball 82? He's in excellent form at the moment.

563 @ 80.42 and striking at 86.61 in 2013 - clearly his fault when we lose.

 

[ankitj]

I will stick with 'choke' because it's an easy and effective way to describe the problem that SA suffer from i.e. mental weakness. No point discussing semantics to death. For a side of their quality, if SA ever won any knock out match, I mean ANY, people would be willing to look at cricketing explanations for other losses. But they do not. What happened yesterday was also piss poor. It's not like they scored a respectable 250 and lost. It was mental disintegration, and I have no qualms with it being described as choke. Kirsten has not shied away from that word and that's good.

Edit: And choking will not always manifest as comical throwing away of a strong position. At times it will manifest as never reaching a decent position due to inept performance and thereby making it appear that other team played absolutely top quality cricket. So until they win a knockout game...

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah but mental weakness had nothing to do with why they lost yesterday ffs. It was technical weakness.

 

[Spark]

Nah not 8/80 bad.

 

[Dissector]

If you play well below your potential in a big game I would call that choking. Doesn't matter if the side which beats you is better and would likely have won anyway. In the 2007 WC, Australia was the better side , but SA choked and lost by much more than they should have. In 2011 they choked against a weaker side. This time again they choked against a stronger side. There is no way that 80/8 is a reasonable reflection of SA's batting.

By contrast I don't think SL choked in either of their WC final losses. They were beaten by better sides but played reasonably well anyway. In the TT finals they choked against the West Indies but not against Pakistan IMO.

All sides choke occasionally but SA has done it consistently in big knockout games for a long time now. Until they stop doing that they label isn't going anywhere. And really they have so many opportunities now with the TT cup once every two years. You would think they would at least fluke it to a final if nothing else.

 

[Howe_zat]

Number of times "choking" has come up in relation to Sri Lanka's equally **** batting performance today: 1

(in this post, just now)

I guess SL just don't have a history of it though. I mean, when you compare Sri Lanka's phenomenal record of 1 world ODI trophy in 17 attempts compared to South Africa's miserable 1 world ODI trophy in 13 attempts, that really shows the difference.

 

[ankitj]

In 50 over world cups alone:

Sri Lanka has won 6 knockout games out of 9
SA has won 0 knock out games out of 5

T20 world cups have similar numbers, don't remember them though. That's the real story. I mean, come on!

 

[MW1304]

And they've only gone on to win one final.

Anyway you should look at each game on its merits to determine if its a choke, that statistic means little.

 

[ankitj]

To be fair, there has been question on Sri Lanka's mental toughness in finals. But as you say you have to look at each match on its merit. Sri Lanka was playing better or equally strong teams each time, didn't do anything comically inept, and did win one out of 3 finals with minimal fuss.

 

[Howe_zat]

In 50 over world cups alone:

Sri Lanka has won 6 knockout games out of 9
SA has won 0 knock out games out of 5

T20 world cups have similar numbers, don't remember them though. That's the real story. I mean, come on!

If it's world cups alone, you appear to have missed which forum you were posting in.

It's almost as though the "real story" seems to change depending on what appears to fit. Call me crazy...

 

[ankitj]

If it's world cups alone, you appear to have missed which forum you were posting in.

It's almost as though the "real story" seems to change depending on what appears to fit. Call me crazy...

Trust me not to have forgotten anything. And drop your aggressive posture please. I just didn't think necessary to add disclaimers about 98 champions trophy, mainly because I'm typing on a mobile and thought it will be understood that there is an exception, regardless of which general argument can be made . SA's mental problems truly started more from 99 world cup onward and since then they haven't won a knockout game.

Look, you can make justifiable arguments on why this game was not a choke. But you are not doing that, you are blaming it on people's bias if they think otherwise.

 

[Prince EWS]

And they've only gone on to win one final.

Anyway you should look at each game on its merits to determine if its a choke, that statistic means little.

Yeah exactly. You can't say that just because the same country (and it's not even the same team - these teams barely little to no resemblance to each other besides the logo on their kit) have lost X knockout games then every time they lose one then it's a choke automatically.

I understand the argument being made that you can choke a tournament rather than a game by collapsing under the pressure of a knockout and putting in a mentally weak performance from start to finish in a semi-final. But that's not what happened here. This South African team isn't very good; they were lucky to qualify for the semi-final in the first place and they were completely outplayed by a better side. De Villers aside I think they actually showed mental strength throughout the tournament and the game itself; they just weren't technically up to what was put in front of them.

 

[centurymaker]

yeah they haven't won a single knockout game in ANY global limited overs tournament since 99. It's ****ing crazy.

 

[Furball]

Yeah exactly. You can't say that just because the same country (and it's not even the same team - these teams barely little to no resemblance to each other besides the logo on their kit) have lost X knockout games then every time they lose one then it's a choke automatically.

I understand the argument being made that you can choke a tournament rather than a game by collapsing under the pressure of a knockout and putting in a mentally weak performance from start to finish in a semi-final. But that's not what happened here. This South African team isn't very good; they were lucky to qualify for the semi-final in the first place and they were completely outplayed by a better side. De Villers aside I think they actually showed mental strength throughout the tournament and the game itself; they just weren't technically up to what was put in front of them.

The difference between the sides wasn't 80/8.