Can South AFrica end Australia's 13 year run as the best test team ?

[Richard]

yeah...although I have seen Dawson really tweak it of the pitch a few times, I just cant remember where.

For me, Dawson was a better bowler than Harris is now

Hahahahaha... no. Dawson was about as bad a bowler as you could wish to see. One of the worst bowlers ever to play for England in recent times - and that's saying something.

Gareth Batty was probably as bad mind. He too struggled for effectiveness on some of the most spin-receptive pitches you could wish for.

Honestly, people seem to think Harris is incapable of turning a ball. I saw him turn it in a National League game for Warwickshire 3 or 4 years ago. You don't get anywhere as a spinner if you can't ever turn the ball.

 

[Xuhaib]

The last time SA were in Australia they were quite competitive and could easily have drawn the series 1-1 if they had taken a few important catches. This time they are a better team with a settled unit that has won a lot of series together and Australia is obviously worse off after the retirement of Warne and McGrath. So I can easily see South Africa winning.

Their main weak link is obviously Paul Harris. Fortunately in Albie Morkel they have a near-perfect replacement for him. Bringing him in for Harris will strengthen the batting and possibly the bowling as well. Plus as Arjun will tell you he can hit big sixes.

...and then they got spanked at home 3-0 and that too without McGrath.

Aussies comfortably for mine.

 

[Richard]

The only people who've ever swung the ball in Perth are blokes prepared to bowl into the Doctor late in the day. Terry Aldermann, Damien Fleming, etc.

Indeed - but The WACA still offers more to swingers than anywhere apart from The SCG has in recent years.

Honestly, I can't recall anyone swinging more than the odd delivery here and there at Bellerive, Adelaide, The MCG or even The 'Gabba in the time I've been watching cricket in Australia. Seem to remember Hoggard getting a bit with the new-ball in the opening session in 2002/03, justifying Hussain's thinking if not neccessarily his decision, in putting Australia in, but that's about it.

Couldn't imagine any of the Saffies being pleased about let alone willing to willing to cut back on pace a bit to get the movement. Takes a certain sort who can dispense with the macho crap.

Well I'd hope any decent bowler would put success above macho-ness. You're never going to get as far as you could if you don't.

In any case, Steyn is the only real swinger of SA's front-line seamers. Nel, Ntini and Morkel simply aren't and almost certainly never will be - their actions and natural lengths just don't allow it.

And Lee didn't really bowl with a lot of swing against SL and India at home. He's a bit too quick. Only RP Singh did and even then his swing wasn't that consistent. Most of Lee's wickets were due to the pressure he put on, good lengths, smart bowling, etc. That why although Steyn was a little ahead in wickets taken last year, people rate Lee's wickets much higher; he wasn't dependent on the conditions at all to take wickets, was always threatening and was bowling to high-class, in-form batsmen on the flattest of decks.

I tended to rate his bowling better because a) of the calibre of the batsmen he dismissed and b) because he simply looked so much less vulnerable. Rarely did he look like giving runs away, which Steyn just always has, even when he hasn't actually given them away (which has been rare).

However, I saw him swing plenty of batsmen out last winter, as he's always had the ability to do. You can't really bowl too quickly to swing it, it doesn't really work that way. Lee isn't that quick any more either - early-90s tops.

Further increasing the pressure to score is that South Africa, after Boucher, have 4 number 11's in Steyn, Ntini, Harris and Morkel with another one (Nel) in the wings.

Morne Morkel is far from a number-eleven sitting-duck. He can certainly bat a bit - hope he might be good enough to average 20 or near-as-damn-it if he has a long Test career. Harris too has 2 First-Class half-centuries. Ntini, Nel and Steyn are all rank hopeless though.

Unless Morkel's brother is given a go, that lower-order looks very fragile

Albie Morkel is nowhere near good enough to play Test cricket IMO. Not even close.

 

[Richard]

Richard Dawson spun the ball a lot more than Harris does didnt he?

No. Dawson had a very poor bowling-action and spun the ball possibly less than John Emburey. Added to which, he didn't get any drift either.

Honestly, people seem to think Harris doesn't spin the ball half a rev per second. It's ridiculous. He's no threat on a non-turner, but he's not some sort of worst spinner in history. It was initially thought, not without justification, that he was SA's best spinner since readmission.

 

[Top_Cat]

Indeed - but The WACA still offers more to swingers than anywhere apart from The SCG has in recent years.

Always has but, as I said, only into the Doctor.

Well I'd hope any decent bowler would put success above macho-ness. You're never going to get as far as you could if you don't.

Dont know many professional athletes?

However, I saw him swing plenty of batsmen out last winter, as he's always had the ability to do. You can't really bowl too quickly to swing it, it doesn't really work that way. Lee isn't that quick any more either - early-90s tops.

Ooo gee, 'only' early 90's? That's still somewhere between 145km/h and 150km/h which is lethally quick and still faster than only a few other bowlers in the world. He can still crank it up too but he's just pared his bowling back a bit.

And of course at any pace, there will still be some swing but the point is the faster you bowl, the less the ball will be affected by the air rushing over its sides simply because it's in transit for less time than a slower bowler.

Morne Morkel is far from a number-eleven sitting-duck. He can certainly bat a bit - hope he might be good enough to average 20 or near-as-damn-it if he has a long Test career. Harris too has 2 First-Class half-centuries. Ntini, Nel and Steyn are all rank hopeless though.

They're all still bunnies in Tests with Morkel a bit less of a bunny. Even Shaun Tait has a couple of FC 50's. Hell, even Glenn McGrath has a couple. The point is, I hope South Africa aren't looking for late-order contributions from them because from what I've seen, they'll be disappointed.

Albie Morkel is nowhere near good enough to play Test cricket IMO. Not even close.

Was a joke.

 

[Julian87]

. If Australia decide to look for a spinner however they should probably pick a player like Beau Casson, Dan Cullen or Nathan Hauritz. .

I am honestly not following you around and shooting you down. But both Cullen and especially Hauritz are utter rubbish in the longer version of the game. Casson deserves to be in the squad I suppose, but McGain is a better bowler. Other than that, there are no options atm.

 

[Julian87]

Big Doug will swing the ball if chosen.

 

[subshakerz]

I honestly think quite a few of you are underrating South Africa's chances based on previous tours. If Australia do win it will be anything but comfortable, while South Africa on current form are just getting better and better. A few things:

-South Africa this time around are a far more settled and balanced outfit. Smith is more secure and mature as captain, the team has a great track record of late, and everyone in the side is confident in their position.

-How exactly does Australia have a far better bowling attack? While Lee and Clark are worldclass, the back up bowling after that is flat. I would rate Ntini, Nel and Harris over any support bowler Australia can offer.

-No Warne. Just looking at the past series and how massive an influence Warne had on them, not having him here will mean South African batters can open up once Lee and Clark are off. West Indies saved a match by batting a whole last day against them, not possible in the past.

-Australia's batting may be better but even they faced troubles against even the West Indies of late. Steyn and Morkel are a far bigger test, Steyn is right behind Lee as the best fast bowler in the world, and Morkel has been very impressive so far against England.

-A lot will also depend upon Australia's form on their tour to India. A tough series there could be enough to tip the momentum in a fresh South Africa's favor.

 

[Spinksy]

I am honestly not following you around and shooting you down. But both Cullen and especially Hauritz are utter rubbish in the longer version of the game. Casson deserves to be in the squad I suppose, but McGain is a better bowler. Other than that, there are no options atm.

They may be utter rubbish in the longer version of the game but I honestly think that they are still the best options all round for Australia, McGain would be the better option in the side but I think that we need atleast two spinners in the squad, which is where Dan Cullen, Nathan Hauritz or Beau Casson will come into effect, I respect your opinion I really do but in my eyes there is hope in spinners other than McGain. Dan Cullen in my opinion isn't a very classy spinner of high order but it seems that when in desperate need of someone he comes through in the very end which is another reason why we need him in the squad.

Big Doug will swing the ball if chosen.

Yeah, Doug Bollinger should without a doubt be chosen in the line up in place of Mitchell Johnson who seems to be lacking in areas when it comes to test match bowling. Doug Bollinger is the right replacement for the team and he will more than likely get the ball to swing whether it be to the left or to the right.

 

[tooextracool]

Dont think that SA are quite ready to be world champs. They are too raw and even if they beat Australia they are not ready to be beating sides consistently around the world like Australia did.

With regards to the series down under, Australia are clear favorites, but not by as much as people are making it out to be. People still seem to believe that this Australian side is omnipotent when in fact there are cracks that have merely been papered over.
South Africa's main worry is ironically their bowling because I hope that the likes of Harris and Ntini dont play a test in Australia with the way they are bowling at the moment. If Morkel sorts out his accuracy he could be a handful on Australian conditions and we've already seen what Nel can accomplish in that part of the world. Personally, something like:

Smith
Mckenzie
Amla
Kallis
Prince
ABD
Boucher
Morkel
Steyn
Nel
Another pace bowler

is likely to challenge Australia for their money down under

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

He even said "apologies" to chalky in the Eng-SA thread, dunno if you spotted that.

Daniel Smith, what has happened to thee?

The apologies thing was justified as he thought I was calling him a gimp when it was clearly not my intention.

You're the last person who I thought would have explained that to him... is this a new Smith?

These two are going to stick around by all indications, may as well try and get them up to scratch.

 

[Top_Cat]

South Africa's main worry is ironically their bowling because I hope that the likes of Harris and Ntini dont play a test in Australia with the way they are bowling at the moment. If Morkel sorts out his accuracy he could be a handful on Australian conditions and we've already seen what Nel can accomplish in that part of the world. Personally, something like:

Smith
Mckenzie
Amla
Kallis
Prince
ABD
Boucher
Morkel
Steyn
Nel
Another pace bowler

is likely to challenge Australia for their money down under

You mean in NZ? Very different conditions, bowlers who succeed in NZ generally get pummelled in Aus and vice versa. Steyn has played two ODI's in Aus and, although some time ago now, went for 10+ per over in each of them. Personally, he's going to struggle; if he tries just throwing the ball up and swinging, I reckon he'll go the journey no matter how quick he bowls. The pace bowlers who've done best in Aus have always been guys who hit the seam or are extraordinarily accurate.

 

[Perm]

Amla better fail, I have an avatar bet that will come back to haunt me (see BI's sig) if he doesn't fail.

I can't see Amla having too much success against the high-quality seam bowling that will most likely be on display from Stuart Clark and Brett Lee, not if the Australian catching is as good as we've grown accustomed to.

 

[Perm]

SA didn't pick a spinner for this series either. They just picked someone who bowls 50mph nothing-breaks that bore irresponsible batsmen into doing something stupid.

Will really enjoy this series though. India gave Australia a good run for their money not so long ago, and SA>India for my money.

You can't compare India and South Africa against each other and come to the conclusion about how they will perform against Australia. Lately South Africa have struggled to come to grips with the intensity of the cricket that the Australian's play, whereas India have blokes like Laxman, Harbhajan and Tendulkar who manage to save their best for the biggest stage. Who do South Africa have that has performed excellently against Australia in the past? Nobody AFAIK.

 

[Langeveldt]

No.. Beating England has no relation to ever winning against Australia..

 

[NUFAN]

The unlucky thing for South Africa is that they've had to play a tough series in Australia first and back up a few months later at home and they are down on confidence. If we play series once every 2 years I reckon South Africa would have won a series by now and would have a better chance of winning more often in the future too.

 

[Richard]

You mean in NZ? Very different conditions, bowlers who succeed in NZ generally get pummelled in Aus and vice versa.

Nel did dreadfully in his games against NZ home and away (albeit with circumstances rather conspiring against him whereby he played on the flat pitches and missed the green seamers). He did relatively well against Australia, though obviously the dreadful catching badly impacted on him as it did all the bowlers.

 

[Richard]

Always has but, as I said, only into the Doctor.

Aye, first thing I ever read about The WACA was how "the upwind 'shapers' of the ball generally had far greater effect than the downwind 'fliers' did". (This was only in one Test BTW, but I'm sure it's happened plenty of times.) I do hope that, bowling into said Fremantle Doctor, Steyn and Kallis can and will swing the ball more than they will on other grounds (apart from The SCG).

Dont know many professional athletes?

Nope. But I do have high hopes of good-quality cricketers.

Ooo gee, 'only' early 90's? That's still somewhere between 145km/h and 150km/h which is lethally quick and still faster than only a few other bowlers in the world. He can still crank it up too but he's just pared his bowling back a bit.

Yeah, of course he's still quick, but he's no longer the utter tearaway type Shaun Tait currently (if he plays again) is.

And of course at any pace, there will still be some swing but the point is the faster you bowl, the less the ball will be affected by the air rushing over its sides simply because it's in transit for less time than a slower bowler.

I don't know about that. Malcolm Marshall got the ball to bend around corners - I've seen him swing the thing as much as Martin Bicknell did. And there were times when there was 20mph difference or so in their speeds (I think it's a fairly safe guess Marshall could bowl 95mph). There are plenty of very, very quick bowlers who struggle to swing the ball but in my experience that's because they don't try hard enough, and their seam-positions are relatively poor. The few really quick bowlers who do try (eg Waqar Younis, Jason Gillespie - yes, both 90mph+ merchants) can and do swing the ball as much as fast-medium and medium-fast types.

Of course, the total distance swung will be less, but I don't think the angle will be enormously less. And of course the reduced reaction-time means less swing for a quicker bowler = more swing for a slower one.

They're all still bunnies in Tests with Morkel a bit less of a bunny. Even Shaun Tait has a couple of FC 50's. Hell, even Glenn McGrath has a couple. The point is, I hope South Africa aren't looking for late-order contributions from them because from what I've seen, they'll be disappointed.

I don't dispute the SAfrican lower-order is poor, especially by the standards of a team that's had the likes of Symcox, Klusener, Pollock, Boje, etc. in recent times. But Morne Morkel isn't a rank number-eleven, nor a bunny who you can be expecting to knock-over for next to nothing every innings.

Was a joke.

Good.

 

[Uppercut]

You can't compare India and South Africa against each other and come to the conclusion about how they will perform against Australia. Lately South Africa have struggled to come to grips with the intensity of the cricket that the Australian's play, whereas India have blokes like Laxman, Harbhajan and Tendulkar who manage to save their best for the biggest stage. Who do South Africa have that has performed excellently against Australia in the past? Nobody AFAIK.

Taking that into account, i still feel SA are capable of giving Australia a decent contest. India had huge weaknesses (their pace attack, poor captaincy) that SA don't have. This SA team are their strongest mentally since readmission, and this Australian team are the, err, least good that we've seen in a long time. So i don't expect SA to roll over and be beaten without a fight this time round.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't know about that. Malcolm Marshall got the ball to bend around corners - I've seen him swing the thing as much as Martin Bicknell did. And there were times when there was 20mph difference or so in their speeds (I think it's a fairly safe guess Marshall could bowl 95mph). There are plenty of very, very quick bowlers who struggle to swing the ball but in my experience that's because they don't try hard enough, and their seam-positions are relatively poor. The few really quick bowlers who do try (eg Waqar Younis, Jason Gillespie - yes, both 90mph+ merchants) can and do swing the ball as much as fast-medium and medium-fast types..

I vaguely remember reading some analysis of swing that said the ball needs to be travelling below a certain speed to move laterally through the air. It would make sense to me, because the ball slows down in flight and hence swings a lot later when faster bowlers try to swing it. Looking at Flintoff's crazy outswinging yorker to Kallis, for example, the ball moved dead straight but then bent away at the last moment as if swerving to avoid his bat.
Hence, faster bowlers need to bowl the ball fuller to achieve swing, but when they do it goes late and is therefore more dangerous. Most ultra-quick men prefer to bowl back of a length, which explains the shortage of 90mph-plus swing bowlers.