***Official*** Australia in South Africa 2018

[Spark]

Tbh, the Australian bowling was largely disappointing apart from Cummins pretty much all series. Hazelwood and Lyon in particular were toothless.

Haze was a tad "unlucky" in that his spell at PE (and another at Cape Town) would have netted him a sizeable bag of wickets against most anyone else. Batting was just too good.

Lyon though, yikes. Worst series he's had in ages.

 

[srbhkshk]

The problem with India is they couldn't beat a pub team outside India.

Exaggeration much? Literally beat the team you are ranking #1 in their home.

 

[vcs]

When a team suffers a thumping loss such as this, it is usually futile trying to pin the blame on either the batting or the bowling. They just completely imploded after day 3 in Cape Town.

 

[Spark]

When a team suffers a thumping loss such as this, it is usually futile trying to pin the blame on either the batting or the bowling. They just completely imploded after day 3 in Cape Town.

I mean the batting was clearly failing though. Really struggled to cobble together mid-200 scores.

 

[Bahseph]

Was brilliant to see Markram step up. It shows that he can be as good as we have been claiming he can be. AB is a different class and Elgar is the best opener in the world if you ask me. I think what we have to accept with Amla is that he is not the player he once was but if he can be a blunting no3 it will serve us well for a few years. Philander was a low key mvp with the bat for me. Always makes a contribution when we need it.

 

[srbhkshk]

When a team suffers a thumping loss such as this, it is usually futile trying to pin the blame on either the batting or the bowling. They just completely imploded after day 3 in Cape Town.

Agree with this, think Australia felt victimized (or insulted, pick the word you like) after the second test, and really really wanted to win the third test, when it started getting away from them - they imploded. The 4th test is not a good reflection of how the series was before that.

That said - their batting does have issues which Smith had been covering up for a long time. The one series he failed, it showed.

 

[vcs]

I mean the batting was clearly failing though. Really struggled to cobble together mid-200 scores.

In SA, mid-200s are not necessarily match losing scores. Usually you've always had one or two batsmen who really thrived in SA who the rest could bat around (Steve Waugh, Ponting, Warner) .. that didn't happen this time with Smith's poor form.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Exaggeration much? Literally beat the team you are ranking #1 in their home.

The amount of away series India have won against major opposition could be written on a postage stamp.

 

[akilana]

Faf was disaapointing with the bat. I don’t know if Amla moving down would help the team but it’s somethig they should think about. If SA has another opener, Makram can move to no 3 which is probably his ideal batting position.

Elgar, Markram, de kock, Rabada, Maharaja, ngidi give hope for the future.

 

[vcs]

Agree with this, think Australia felt victimized (or insulted, pick the word you like) after the second test, and really really wanted to win the third test, when it started getting away from them - they imploded. The 4th test is not a good reflection of how the series was before that.

That said - their batting does have issues which Smith had been covering up for a long time. The one series he failed, it showed.

Guys like Khawaja and the Marshes, and even Handscomb, Burns etc. are more than fine at home.. but they have big weaknesses away. England have a similar problem with Moeen, Woakes etc. So do India, but at least they tried something different in this series with a "horses for courses" type selection strategy. We can say that it did work as far as the bowling attack was concerned. SA look to be building a team where they can stick to a predictable XI in all conditions.

 

[srbhkshk]

The amount of away series India have won against major opposition could be written on a postage stamp.

and? What's that got to do with the current team?

 

[S.Kennedy]

and? What's that got to do with the current team?

It applies to both the current and the historic.

 

[Borges]

This irrational emphasis on "away series" is utterly, deliciously, absurd if you ask me. Considering that every series is an "away series" for one of the two teams involved.


If a team is more competitive in their away series, compared to what this same "away team" was when they met them at home, they are doing quite well. Thank you very much.

 

[Daemon]

You're most welcome, Borges

 

[S.Kennedy]

This irrational emphasis on "away series" is utterly, deliciously, absurd if you ask me. Considering that every series is an "away series" for one of the two teams involved.


If a team is more competitive in their away series, compared to what this same "away team" was when they met them at home, they are doing quite well. Thank you very much.

Most players and fans regard the winning of away series as infinitely more difficult than winning home series - this is not exactly a fringe belief here.

 

[Tec15]

Rubbish. You seem to be weak at maths. Causality does not imply correlation. These guys had good records and by the law of averages would have smashed SA at the Wanderers.

Wow, we've got a real live statistician here! Anyway, I'll just copy-paste from Wikipedia about the "the law of averages":

"As invoked in everyday life, the "law" usually reflects wishful thinking or a poor understanding of statistics rather than any mathematical principle."

 

[Borges]

Most players and fans regard the winning of away series as infinitely more difficult than winning home series - this is not exactly a fringe belief here.

That is precisely why bilateral series alternate between home and away; performance at home is as (that means no less, no more) important as performance away.

 

[S.Kennedy]

That is precisely why bilateral series alternate between home and away; performance at home is as (that means no less, no more) important as performance away.

I do not agree.

 

[StephenZA]

That is precisely why bilateral series alternate between home and away; performance at home is as (that means no less, no more) important as performance away.

They try to avg out but practically does not happen... e.g. RSA played a 4 match series in India, against a 3 match series in SA etc. Many more examples.So rankings don't distinguish.

However anybody that thinks a Test match played at home versus foreign country, with hostile fans, different pitches, less well known grounds living out of hotels for months, no family etc

 

[Borges]

They try to avg out but practically does not happen

I do not disagree with that; and I was not talking about rankings here.

However anybody that thinks a Test match played at home versus foreign country, with hostile fans, different pitches, less well known grounds living out of hotels for months, no family etc

I agree with all that; what I fail to understand is how an international match played between two competing teams becomes "more important" for one team "less important" for the other. So is that match as a whole important or not important? What then is the big deal about winning an "away" game, if the home team is expected to believe that the game is not important to them?