Main problems each side needs to confront before start of series...

[aussie]

It may do, it may not. It's not like Langer's not had fallow periods before now.

He has - on yet more very flat pitches against, very often, nothing bowling.

No - you'd have to be pretty mad to miss the absurd number of let-offs Ponting had against South Africa, though.

WOW, SCORING RUNS AGAINST ZIMBABWE IN 2003!!!!!!! You've got to have some nerve to credit that as worthy Test-cricket.
Yes, Gilchrist did play the odd decent innings in 2003\04, and played plenty at home and in NZ in 2004\05, but he also had failure aplenty before that.
Incidentally - the Darwin 2004 pitch certainly wasn't a shocker if you're a seam-bowler, it was a beauty.

1. Since his 2001 ashes revival there has been next to no fallow periods. Plus i think Langer will be ok once fit again since even through all his injuries he still has looked good in the crease.

2. Missed the MCG, SGG & Cape town test i presume..

3. Ok i'd admit he had his luck in SA but when you are in the form he has been in since coming back from the ashes luck tends to go your way. But forget about that you someone have come to the conclusion that Ponting has just been ``merely reasonable since 2003 , now for the life of me i dont know how you could say such crap.

I know he had a poor 2004 by the standards he has set since the 2001 ashes (after all he has been the best batsman in the world since then) But for christ sake the man for in 16 test since the ashes has been the best of his career. What the hell is wrong with you...

4. So what if its ZIM, you said he has done nothing of real note since 2002/03 so that the ZIM knock plus all the others shows how WRONG you were. Plus what failures are you talking about?

Yea i know the darwn pitch was a seam bowlers dream thats why i said it was a shocker.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Bangladesh make plenty of a dent on Sarwan's 100s, let me remind you.
Fleming, as his home average up to 2001\02 suggests, has often had to contend with far, far more difficult (seaming) conditions than Sarwan.
Sarwan has only rarely played on seaming pitches. Usually, of course, when he has, he's failed.
You've surely had enough conversation with me to realise that a batsman who can't even average 40 against Test-standard sides on the pitches that Sarwan has by-and-large played on in his career doesn't deserve much credit in my mind.
To compare simply their performances team-by-team is not really that relevant, as their careers have not run concurrantly.

Totally expected. So basically the only real justification for backing Fleming ahead of Sarwan is that you back Fleming ahead of Sarwan?

Your first point was that Fleming has been scoring runs against various teams in various places for longer than Sarwan has. When I prove that Sarwan has been scoring more runs, you change your tune and narrow it to the influence of New Zealand pitches.

You basically said that Sarwan cashed in against SA and SL. Well Fleming has cashed in against SL and Pak. Both have done well against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. That Sarwan has done better against Ban and Zim shouldn't go against him. It's on Fleming to have done better against them, not that Sarwan shouldn't have done so well.

Both have not done very well on seaming pitches and both have scored runs when it's rather easier to bat. It really is not Sarwan's fault that he's not a Kiwi and therefore does not play on New Zealand pitches as often as Fleming does.

Maybe people would find it easier to debate with you if you defined your argument at the start, rather than changing the parameters at various intervals.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Aside from the odd (recent) occasion I've never seen Lara troubled by bounce in itself. Even recently, he's still come through and played some superb innings.

Because he's a class above other batsmen. It doesn't change the fact that bounce with direction troubles even the best of them.

 

[Blaze]

Home:
Sarwan: 49 inns, 43.15, 4x100, 11x50
Fleming: 77 inns, 32.98, 2x100, 17x50

Away:
Sarwan: 57 inns, 37.18, 4x100, 13x50
Fleming: 91 inns, 44.81, 6x100, 24x50


Really Richard, how in the world can you justify calling Fleming a world class batsman and leaving Sarwan out in the cold?

Probably something to do with their away averages.

Personally I think they are both good players. Neither of them are world class.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Err, he's perfectly stoppable, you just need to take your catches.
Ponting's form since The SCG 2004\05 might have been decent, but it certainly hasn't been as good as it's been made to look. He also played more than his usual share of extremely average shots in The Ashes - played at least 5 nothing strokes that resulted in chances being given (got away with the 1 at The Oval because of a bad Umpiring decision). Only twice could he really be said to have been got out (Lord's first- and Edgbaston second-innings).

Decent? Even if you think the dropped catches are significant in some way, he certainly hasn't had them in every innings. At Durban for example, he was dropped by Boucher in the first innings, and then not dropped by anyone in the second. Oddly enough, he scored a century in both.

In his last 10 tests, Ponting has scored 7 centuries and 5 fifties at an average of 80. He's played on some difficult pitches against some good opposition in that time, and a handful of dropped catches hardly relegates the form to "decent".

The current game is only against Bangladesh.

And? What difference does that make, if Bangladesh are playing well?

 

[marc71178]

WOW, SCORING RUNS AGAINST ZIMBABWE IN 2003!!!!!!! You've got to have some nerve to credit that as worthy Test-cricket.

So no doubt Gilchrist's ton 2 days ago and Pontings ton today aren't worthy of any credit in your mind either then?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

So no doubt Gilchrist's ton 2 days ago and Pontings ton today aren't worthy of any credit in your mind either then?

I doubt he'd have payed attention, probably too busy telling an international u-19 off spinner what conditions are better for him.

 

[TheEpic]

No, it doesn't - that 1 century was against Bangladesh - completely and totally irrelevant.
Like I say - I'm sure Lara was in fine form in South Africa (in fact I'm absolutely certain - he played magnificently) but he sure as wasn't in form in either of the first 2 Tests at home, nor ever really in the away series.

Yes, so he was in good form BEFORE he played England. He was in good form AFTER he played England. He wasn't in form whilst he was playing England. England bowled exceptionally well to him. Next.

In fact, Sehwag averaged over 60 as an Indian opener (removing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) in 30 Tests, 51 innings!!! Yes, a batsman of his type was incredibly lucky to do so, because if Pakistan (and Australia) weren't so abysmal at catching he'd not average anything close to that.
It doesn't take a genius to see that Sehwag's average up until his most recent 5 Tests was incredibly flattering.

Apparently, it does! If a batsman repetedly makes big scores, even after he's been let off, then he may not be one of the all time greats but he is certainly an incredibly good batsman. No poor batsman could average close to 60 even if they were dropped incessantly.

And that consists of 1 superb series and 2 very poor ones.
You are easily fooled by the simple overall-average. It's not the be-all-and-end-all. Mohammad Yousuf has actually by-and-large been a failure against England (and all other decent attacks).
An overall-average doesn't prove anything. You need to look at the components. And, but for that dropped catch, Yousuf's average in his most recent 5 Tests against England would be barely 20.

Right, ok, let's look at the components shall we?

Yousuf seems to average poorly against sides with great spin options. The two sides he has a poor average against - Australia and Sri Lanka - both include possibly the two greatest spin bowlers of all time. In his last 4 innings against Australia, he has been removed by MacGill (x2) and Warne (x2). He seems to fair much better against pace bowling.

Against Sri Lanka, in his last 8 dismissals where Murali has been playing, he has been out by him 6 times.

However, against sides who have a much stronger pace bowling department (England, New Zealand, West Indies), he averages 59, 64 and 78 respectively!

Err, I suggest you actually look at his dismissals, rather than just assuming what it'd be nice for you to think. Younis clearly got himself out, doing such things as missing innocuous straight balls from Harmison. He was allowed to play as well as he wanted to - it's just that, on this occasion, he didn't do so.

I did watch the entire series. I saw a man who started the first test match in good nick, and who got a couple of decent scores. I then saw him completely fall apart. Unlike you, I won't speculate on these reasons, other to say that again our pace bowlers bowled well to him to an effective plan.

No, you wouldn't - I've not been saying it anywhere prominent.

Yes, it was a joke. Nevermind

No, it's not remotely bizarre. You don't need rocket-science to realise that NO-ONE goes on averaging 107 forever. If you've done that well over 8 Tests, you're going to have some comedown. Indeed - I'd say someone who did as well as Gilchrist did in his first 42 Tests was due the sort of comedown he's experienced.

I realise that Gilchrist was unlikely to carry on that average for a lengthy period of time. What you must recognise is that it is extremely unusual to go from being in tremendous touch to looking as though he couldn't lay bat on ball. Such a rapid decrease in form would be extremely rare if it were not for very very very very good plans being applied and then delivered superbly by Flintoff and our other bowlers.

Err, you assume wrong, then.
Ponting has, however, indeed been exceptionally lucky - in his 8 innings here he must've had at least 6 or 7 let-offs. At least. That's at least 13 of 14 chances in 8 innings.

No batsman can average that highly by pure luck. Nearly every innings of a high score includes a couple of let-offs or half chances. What matters is that he didn't let them affect him and continued to show great technique and mental strength to continually deliver centuries.

Err, no they didn't. They won comfortably when SA fielded an unbalanced side, then won one by the skin of the teeth, and had plenty of times in the other 3 where they were behind, plus some where they were in front, of the game.
The only bowler who bowled well in SA was Hoggard - even then only some of the time.

I didn't say they dominated them for every part of every match. But at no point did England look like they were not going to win the series easily.

No, it doesn't - and I've shown why.
You won't get too far by quoting simple scorebook averages at me - they're too easy to undermine.

I agree, averages don't show the entire story. However, you seem to think a valid point is that your opinion is more valuable than hard evidence. Simply stating that he was 'due a bad run' or that he 'didn't deserve to average so highly anyway' is nonsensical, and shows a sheer lack of understanding of the game.

EDIT: Some unecessarily harsh stuff removed. Other points still are valid.

 

[Richard]

1. Since his 2001 ashes revival there has been next to no fallow periods.

There have been several. Do you want me to show them?

2. Missed the MCG, SGG & Cape town test i presume..

How on Earth was the bowling (or catching) especially good in those games?

3. Ok i'd admit he had his luck in SA but when you are in the form he has been in since coming back from the ashes luck tends to go your way. But forget about that you someone have come to the conclusion that Ponting has just been ``merely reasonable since 2003 , now for the life of me i dont know how you could say such crap.

Err, because he's only played the odd good innings in that time? He barely played 1 against SA - possibly there might've been one in there, but if so it was lost in the flurry of obscenely-lucky ones. Luck goes your way when it goes your way - and never do you deserve any credit for it doing so.
Whereas 2001-2003\04 he barely looked like getting out.

I know he had a poor 2004 by the standards he has set since the 2001 ashes (after all he has been the best batsman in the world since then) But for christ sake the man for in 16 test since the ashes has been the best of his career. What the hell is wrong with you...

They have been nothing of the sort, they've just been easily the luckiest of his career.

4. So what if its ZIM, you said he has done nothing of real note since 2002/03 so that the ZIM knock plus all the others shows how WRONG you were. Plus what failures are you talking about?

When I say "nothing of note" I mean "nothing of note in credible Test-cricket". I'm sure he's scored runs in some domestic-First-Class games, too. That wasn't what I meant.
I seriously can't believe you can fail to notice Gilchrist's countless failures since the India 2003\04 series. Yes, there's been the odd decent knock in there, too. That amounts to 3 decent innings in 24 - terrible by any standards.

Yea i know the darwn pitch was a seam bowlers dream thats why i said it was a shocker.

Except a "shocker" is a poor term, because being shocking is relative.

 

[Richard]

Because he's a class above other batsmen. It doesn't change the fact that bounce with direction troubles even the best of them.

So... how many others have been similarly troubled in the same time.
Even with looking uncomfortable, it still hasn't actually caused his downfall on a massive number of occasions.

 

[Richard]

Totally expected. So basically the only real justification for backing Fleming ahead of Sarwan is that you back Fleming ahead of Sarwan?

Your first point was that Fleming has been scoring runs against various teams in various places for longer than Sarwan has. When I prove that Sarwan has been scoring more runs, you change your tune and narrow it to the influence of New Zealand pitches.

You basically said that Sarwan cashed in against SA and SL. Well Fleming has cashed in against SL and Pak. Both have done well against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. That Sarwan has done better against Ban and Zim shouldn't go against him. It's on Fleming to have done better against them, not that Sarwan shouldn't have done so well.

Both have not done very well on seaming pitches and both have scored runs when it's rather easier to bat. It really is not Sarwan's fault that he's not a Kiwi and therefore does not play on New Zealand pitches as often as Fleming does.

Maybe people would find it easier to debate with you if you defined your argument at the start, rather than changing the parameters at various intervals.

Anyone who has done anything against Ban and Zim (Sarwan isn't really influenced by substandard Zimbabwe teams, anyway - scoring 9, 39, 65 and 9 against them; Fleming, too, has only played 2 knocks against them, scoring 73 and 65) DOES have it go against them. Bangladesh and substandard Zimbabwe sides should simply be knocked out - completely. Totally ignored. Therefore, someone whose average is more affected by them suffers more. It's just a shame anyone has ever given credence to the games as Tests.
Fleming has scored runs (been given more of a chance to, obviously) on seaming pitches more than Sarwan has. Simple as.
I haven't changed the parameters - I never said to simply look at a team-by-team record, because it doesn't really mean anything for two players who's careers weren't totally concurrant. For instance, the England Fleming played in 2004 bore virtually no resemblence to the England Sarwan played a decade later.
Purely and simply, Sarwan rarely seems to me to get stuck in when the going's anything other than pretty easy. Fleming does.
I'm sure I could do some in-depth statistical analysis to show that but I really do have better things to do.

 

[Richard]

Decent? Even if you think the dropped catches are significant in some way, he certainly hasn't had them in every innings. At Durban for example, he was dropped by Boucher in the first innings, and then not dropped by anyone in the second. Oddly enough, he scored a century in both.

In his last 10 tests, Ponting has scored 7 centuries and 5 fifties at an average of 80. He's played on some difficult pitches against some good opposition in that time, and a handful of dropped catches hardly relegates the form to "decent".

It's rather more than a handful.
If all the catches had been taken, Ponting would have scored 2 of those centuries at best.

And? What difference does that make, if Bangladesh are playing well?

Has it occurred to you that it's infinately more likely that Australia are playing dreadfully? Would you credit Somerset-Australia as a ODI just because Somerset beat The Best Team In The World? You have to make a simple distinction - some teams are ODI\Test-class, others aren't. Just because they happen to have 1 game where they're competetive (which would happen to anyone if they got enough chances) doesn't instantly change that.

 

[Richard]

So no doubt Gilchrist's ton 2 days ago and Pontings ton today aren't worthy of any credit in your mind either then?

No, of course not.
Why should they be?
They came against a team that's not Test-class.

 

[Richard]

Yes, so he was in good form BEFORE he played England. He was in good form AFTER he played England. He wasn't in form whilst he was playing England. England bowled exceptionally well to him. Next.

Err, how was he in good form after playing England? He didn't play another Test for nearly a year after playing England.

Apparently, it does! If a batsman repetedly makes big scores, even after he's been let off, then he may not be one of the all time greats but he is certainly an incredibly good batsman. No poor batsman could average close to 60 even if they were dropped incessantly.

Err, no poor batsman could, but a half-decent one certainly could. Sehwag isn't totally useless, but he's nowhere near as good as his average in his first 51 innings as an opener made him look. Had catching been of a better standard, I'm pretty confident he'd have averaged barely 40; had catching and bowling been better I reckon he'd have averaged 35 tops.

Right, ok, let's look at the components shall we?

Yousuf seems to average poorly against sides with great spin options. The two sides he has a poor average against - Australia and Sri Lanka - both include possibly the two greatest spin bowlers of all time. In his last 4 innings against Australia, he has been removed by MacGill (x2) and Warne (x2). He seems to fair much better against pace bowling.

Against Sri Lanka, in his last 8 dismissals where Murali has been playing, he has been out by him 6 times.

However, against sides who have a much stronger pace bowling department (England, New Zealand, West Indies), he averages 59, 64 and 78 respectively!

And against South Africa? He averages 18. New Zealand and West Indies hardly have strong seam attacks - they both generally have had rather RUBBISH attacks in both departments.
Certainly, Yousuf played well against England in turning conditions (2000\01) and very, very poorly in seaming ones (2001). He also did poorly against seamers who were capable in non-seaming conditions (2005\06).
Clearly, he's not much good against quality spin or quality seam.

I did watch the entire series. I saw a man who started the first test match in good nick, and who got a couple of decent scores. I then saw him completely fall apart. Unlike you, I won't speculate on these reasons, other to say that again our pace bowlers bowled well to him to an effective plan.

I'm mystified as to how someone could "completely fall apart" in the space of a massive 2 innings. I'd also like to know what this "plan" was, because there was certainly no consistency in his dismissals. He simply played an indifferent stroke or 2. Then, sadly, his brother's death deprived him of the chance to come good in the Third Test.

Yes, it was a joke. Nevermind

Err, I slightly realised that.

I realise that Gilchrist was unlikely to carry on that average for a lengthy period of time. What you must recognise is that it is extremely unusual to go from being in tremendous touch to looking as though he couldn't lay bat on ball. Such a rapid decrease in form would be extremely rare if it were not for very very very very good plans being applied and then delivered superbly by Flintoff and our other bowlers.

Err, when did I say superb plans were not laid and carried-out? They were. But equally, we've seen Gilchrist barely score a run since Lord's 2005, and you'd be hard-pressed to call him a batsman of any real note in that time.

No batsman can average that highly by pure luck. Nearly every innings of a high score includes a couple of let-offs or half chances. What matters is that he didn't let them affect him and continued to show great technique and mental strength to continually deliver centuries.

Of course, ANYONE can average highly due to luck. And but for the let-offs, Ponting would average something like 40 in that period. Plenty of high-scoring innings are played without dropped catches. Ponting, however, has played few of late, compared to countless in 2001-2003\04.

I didn't say they dominated them for every part of every match. But at no point did England look like they were not going to win the series easily.

So SA weren't on top (with the score 1-1) at The Wanderers, then?
Never after Kingsmead did England ever look convincingly the better side. Indeed, when England were on top it was usually by thin margins. When SA were on top, it was usually by a large one.

I agree, averages don't show the entire story. However, you seem to think a valid point is that your opinion is more valuable than hard evidence. Simply stating that he was 'due a bad run' or that he 'didn't deserve to average so highly anyway' is nonsensical, and shows a sheer lack of understanding of the game.

No, it doesn't. It's pretty obvious to anyone that a high average means a fallow period is due eventually. Simple law of cricket. Only rarely does it fail to deliver.
Any fool can tell, equally, that averages are sometimes flattering. And in the current age of dreadful standard of catching, even more so.

 

[aussie]

There have been several. Do you want me to show them?

How on Earth was the bowling (or catching) especially good in those games?

Err, because he's only played the odd good innings in that time? He barely played 1 against SA - possibly there might've been one in there, but if so it was lost in the flurry of obscenely-lucky ones. Luck goes your way when it goes your way - and never do you deserve any credit for it doing so.
Whereas 2001-2003\04 he barely looked like getting out.

They have been nothing of the sort, they've just been easily the luckiest of his career.

When I say "nothing of note" I mean "nothing of note in credible Test-cricket". I'm sure he's scored runs in some domestic-First-Class games, too. That wasn't what I meant.
I seriously can't believe you can fail to notice Gilchrist's countless failures since the India 2003\04 series. Yes, there's been the odd decent knock in there, too. That amounts to 3 decent innings in 24 - terrible by any standards.

Except a "shocker" is a poor term, because being shocking is relative.

1. Yes please...

2. At the MCG he wasn't dropped he batted extremely well in conditions where the ball was seaming about and was keeping low. Hayden wasn't dropped in Capetown either, many of his shots went through the slips etc and and a few fell short of the slips. But if looking at how well he played in these testing conditions againts some quality and you still cant accept it. You either just dont like Hayden or you are Hayden basher..

3. Bull i don't see why a batsmans innings should be under-rated just because he was dropped. These things always happen it cricket when you are team and are playing well you get the better of the decisions (as we saw on many occassions during the ashes) and if you are a batsman and are batting well you get away with a few. Geez everyone one be it here on CW or cricket journalist around agree that the way Ponting was batting since the ashes is the best of his career. You are the only one that has the stupid idea that he has been lucky

Plus going back to your point that he hardly looked like getting out betwen 2001 to 2003/04. No doubt he was excellent during that period and for me that was the period where Ponting was beginning to show that he was a world class batsman in the making. But i can remember him giving a few chances during that period, his double century vs WI in Trinidad he was missed in the 40's. But probably he didn't give as much chances as he has done recently but i am convinced along with the world that since the Ashes Ponting has been in th form of his life.

4. Even though i was frustrated it seems as if you didn't watch the test match since the way Bangladesh played in Futtulah can be classified as `credible test cricket` so his innings should not be looked down upon. Dont lets bing up the argument about his countless failures since 2003/04 India series according to you, since its on in the other thread.

5. Yea fair enough, it wasn't the the best term..

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

For instance, the England Fleming played in 2004 bore virtually no resemblence to the England Sarwan played a decade later.

Right. In 2014, right? You're quite the visionary.

Purely and simply, Sarwan rarely seems to me to get stuck in when the going's anything other than pretty easy.

Right, let's see. Sarwan getting "stuck in". Let's see...

84* v Pakistan - came in at 213/4, but ended up scoring 84 of the next 185 runs, and he batted with Ambrose (22), Jacobs (10), McLean (1), King (2), Walsh (22) to add the last 116 runs for the last 5 wickets.

59* v England - came out of a total of 172. Entered at 56/4 and saw that become 60/5. Added 68 with Jacobs, then 44 with McLean/Ambrose/King/Walsh, none of whom reached double figures.

51 v Australia - West Indies trailing by 180 runs on first innings and 112/4 the second time around. Added 42 with Lara then 85 with Jacobs.

69 v Sri Lanka - Entered at 2/1, which quickly became 17/2. Added 194 with Lara, as the two accounted for 290 of the WI 390 total.

66 v Sri Lanka - Entered at 1/1, which quickly became 20/2. Added 141 with Lara, as the two accounted for 196 of 262 runs.

60 v India - India had been bowled out for 107 earlier that day. Entered at 30/1, which quickly became 35/2. Added 119 with Lara.

78 v India - Entered at 0/1 in the first over. West Indies trailing by 149 runs after first innings. Added 96 with Hinds and later 72 with Hooper.

58 v Australia - Following on and trailing by 277 at the start of the second innings. Entered at 31/2. Added 63 with Gayle and 93 with Lara.

105 v Australia - Chasing 418 for victory. Entered at 165/4 when Lara fell. Added 123 with Chanderpaul.

82 v Sri Lanka - 493 runs had been scored over the first 3 innings. Chasing 212 for victory. Entered at 1/1. Added 49 with Hinds and 161 with Lara.

114 v South Africa - Trailing by 394 runs at the start of the second innings. Entered at 31/1, which became 32/2. Added 42 with Lara and later took the score from 130/5 to 243/6 with Chanderpaul.

119 v South Africa - Following on after trailing by 303 on first innings. Entered at 18/1, which became 32/2. Added 67 with Chanderpaul and 174 runs with Gayle.

63 v England - Entered at 20/2. Added 68 with Lara and 79 with Chanderpaul.

139 v England - Entered at 5/1, which quickly became 12/2. Added 209 with Lara and 76 with Chanderpaul.

60 v England - Entered at 41/1. Batted with Lara, Chanders, Bravo, Baugh, Mohammed - all failed to reach double figures and were dismissed while Sarwan was at the other end. Windies collapse for 165. Sarwan scores 60 of the last 124 runs.

107* v South Africa - Trailing by 51 runs on first innings. Entered at 14/1. Added 65 with Hinds, then saw the score slip to 92/5. He then added 88 with Bravo and saw the score fall to 194 all out.

60 v Australia - West Indies trailing by 23 runs on first innings. Entered at 2/1. Added 58 with Hinds.

62 v New Zealand - Entered at 48/2, which quickly became 49/3 and 60/4 (and then 90/5). Added 89 with Bravo.

So yea, Richard. Sarwan doesn't score runs when the going is tough. You've convinced me. That list only accounts for 13 of his 24 career fifties and 5 of his 8 tons.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

So... how many others have been similarly troubled in the same time.
Even with looking uncomfortable, it still hasn't actually caused his downfall on a massive number of occasions.

Perhaps not the ball that bounces, but the mental effect certainly has contributed to his demise on occasion. That said, I suppose that doesn't count. He should probably be more strong-minded than that.

 

[marc71178]

No, of course not.
Why should they be?
They came against a team that's not Test-class.

In that case, SA aren't Test class either.

 

[Mister Wright]

How on Earth was the bowling (or catching) especially good in those games?

Are you forgetting the 100 & 70 odd he made against the World XI right after the Ashes that included 2 bowlers from the Ashes attack and one of the most dangerous spinners in the world and a spinner that troubles Australia on a regular basis?

 

[Richard]

In that case, SA aren't Test class either.

They've been routinely humiliated in every Test they've played bar 2 or 3, then?
Thought not.