1st Quarter Final - South Africa v Sri Lanka (18th March)

[Isura]

The common definition of choke in sports is to underperform relative to the mean in a high leverage situation. By that definition SA have choked many times in elimination matches. 92, 96, 99, 2007, 2011 WC.

 

[CricAddict]

Getting really excited about this game now. I hope it lives up to expectations.

Yes, Excited about this match-up between two equally matched teams. The other qfs shouldn't be as interesting as this one since the dice is massively loaded in favour of one team. ABDV vs Malinga and Sanga vs Steyn are two juicy little match-ups which will determine the contest more or less.

 

[viriya]

Yes, Excited about this match-up between two equally matched teams. The other qfs shouldn't be as interesting as this one since the dice is massively loaded in favour of one team. ABDV vs Malinga and Sanga vs Steyn are two juicy little match-ups which will determine the contest more or less.

It's not evenly matched when Herath is out.

 

[Zinzan]

Nah, Bahnz has a fair point. Not every loss is a choke. You're over doing it.

How in hell was the 1996 WC QF against the WI a choke?

I know you like to play devils advocate, but who said anything about '96 being a choke? Once again you're arguing against a straw-man and it's starting to get annoying. Stop arguing against things I didn't say thank you sir.

The 2011 game was a choke imo, but if you want to buy into that Journalist being the world authority on it and label it 'mass panic' instead, be my guest, but stop implying I said things I didn't, I never once mentioned 1996, nor did I say every loss is a choke.

It's not the first time you've misrepresented what I've said either.

 

[Bahnz]

Nah, Bahnz has a fair point. Not every loss is a choke. You're over doing it.

How in hell was the 1996 WC QF against the WI a choke?

Yeah, the only World Cups were you can even seriously debate whether a choke occured were 1999 (definite) and 2011 (arguable). In 2007, South Africa just weren't that good, in 2003 they suffered an admin ****-up, in '96 they copped Lara in god-mode and in '92 they didn't have the chance to choke because it rained with 2 overs to go.

 

[smash84]

I know you like to play devils advocate, but who said anything about '96 being a choke? Once again you're arguing against a straw-man and it's starting to get annoying. Stop arguing against things I didn't say thank you sir.

The 2011 game was a choke imo, but if you want to buy into that Journalist being the world authority on it and label it 'mass panic' instead, be my guest, but stop implying I said things I didn't, I never once mentioned 1996, nor did I say every loss is a choke.

It's not the first time you've misrepresented what I've said either.

Oh really, says the man who made inzy an ATG in 1992

 

[Zinzan]

Oh really, says the man who made inzy an ATG in 1992

The difference is I later conceded Inzi probably wasn't in fact an ATG and that I'd perhaps used that too loosely,... That's very different to you intentionally going out of your way to misquote & misrepresent me. It's about the lowest form of posting.

So I'll ask you again, when did I say anything about 1996 or that every loss is a choke? And if you don't have an answer.... so why did you say it?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

By that definition SA have choked many times in elimination matches. 92.

Shouldn't have inadvertently done that rain dance.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Oram's bowling in that semi final was brilliant. Go back and watch the balls that dismissed Botha and Petersen, and his control of line and length throughout his 10 overs was as good as I've ever seen from him. Now admittedly these guys were lower-order batsmen, but neither of them were mugs, and by the time they came out to bat, South Africa still needed less than 100 to win at a run rate of less than 5.

They're not mutually exclusive. The way AB, Kallis and Duminy got out made it clear it was a choke. Nz may have bowled well but SA shot themselves in tje foot.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Nah, Bahnz has a fair point. Not every loss is a choke. You're over doing it.

How in hell was the 1996 WC QF against the WI a choke?

Yeah, the only World Cups were you can even seriously debate whether a choke occured were 1999 (definite) and 2011 (arguable). In 2007, South Africa just weren't that good, in 2003 they suffered an admin ****-up, in '96 they copped Lara in god-mode and in '92 they didn't have the chance to choke because it rained with 2 overs to go.

Nah. Rubbish. 2007 was a clear case of SA being psyched out by Ponting and Hayden in the pre match conference.

And if you want to talk about 1996, I'll play along. SA were at one stage 186/3 and needed 78 runs in 12 overs to win. That's all i have to say.

 

[ankitj]

in 2007 they were thrashed by a much better side

While Australia were a better team, the way SA batted was hilarious. You just have to see a few dismissals early on when batsmen stepped out to McGrath and Bracken. Who'd do that if they were thinking calmly? That was a brain freeze, and to avoid inventing a new term, I will just call it choke because the underlying cause is same - not being able to handle the big occasion.

 

[G.I.Joe]

And if you want to talk about 1996, I'll play along. SA were at one stage 186/3 and needed 78 runs in 12 overs to win. That's all i have to say.

One match could be deemed a choke was the WI SF loss to Australia in '96, which followed that QF.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Anyway I'm not surprised this discussion has started up again. Literally during every world cup this happens:

1) SA look awesome, don't they?
2) What do you mean they're chokers? What about that time they didn't choke. They're awesome.
3) Other teams choke too. That means SA arent chokers. Somehow.
4) After losing the first knockout match: Oh **** they bottled it. ****ing chokers.

Repeat from step 1

 

[OverratedSanity]

One match could be deemed a choke was the WI SF loss to Australia in '96, which followed that QF.

Oh yeah definitely. That semi is for me, the biggest choke ever. West indies just completely stuffed it.

However, my point stands. With 78 needed in 12 overs and 7 wickets in hand, you're kinda in a favourable position. And they all collapsed to Roger Harper.

 

[CricAddict]

It's not evenly matched when Herath is out.

While SA don't have a fifth bowler, SL have Matthews and to a lesser extent, Perera. That balances the loss of Herath.

 

[Bahnz]

Nah. Rubbish. 2007 was a clear case of SA being psyched out by Ponting and Hayden in the pre match conference.

And if you want to talk about 1996, I'll play along. SA were at one stage 186/3 and needed 78 runs in 12 overs to win. That's all i have to say.

You're looking at the 96 game through a modern lense. Back in the mid-90's chasing anything over a run a ball was difficult. You could equally look at WI's first innings were they only got 50 off their last 10 overs.

And as for 2007, again SA just weren't that good and they got smashed by a considereably superior side. The same thing happened to every other team that played Australia in that World Cup, (including South Africa in the 1st round) so I don't see why South Africa were the only team to have choked.

 

[viriya]

While SA don't have a fifth bowler, SL have Matthews and to a lesser extent, Perera. That balances the loss of Herath.

You can't use your 5th bowler as your 4th bowler.. who's going to bowl Mathews/Perera overs now?

 

[Zinzan]

Anyway I'm not surprised this discussion has started up again. Literally during every world cup this happens:

1) SA look awesome, don't they?
2) What do you mean they're chokers? What about that time they didn't choke. They're awesome.
3) Other teams choke too. That means SA arent chokers. Somehow.
3) After losing the first knockout match: Oh **** they bottled it. ****ing chokers.

Repeat from step 1

Exactly, and then to top it all off we get some Neville nobody Canadian Journalist who writes a piece splitting hairs between what is 'choking' & what it 'mass panic' to deflect things further away from the 'chokers' tag.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

And as for 2007, again SA just weren't that good and they got smashed by a considereably superior side. .

Yeah in 2007, SA were only the 4th best side after the super 8s which is why they were playing no 1 in the semis. SL and NZ were better sides in 2007.

 

[CricAddict]

You can't use your 5th bowler as your 4th bowler.. who's going to bowl Mathews/Perera overs now?

What I meant was, Steyn~=Malinga, Morkel~=Kulasekara, Philander>Chameera (but net effect on match is lesser). So the crucial overs that opposition targets are the other 20 overs. Here,
Tahir>Prasanna instead of Tahir=Herath. But Matthews+Thissara>>>De Villiers+Duminy. So net net it balances out on paper.