*Official* England in South Africa Thread

[tooextracool]

Except not once did all 5 play together.

yea so 4 of them played in the same side. seriously, how bad is a bowling attack of donald, pollock, mcmillan,klusener(in prime),kallis(in prime) and symcox?

 

[tooextracool]

ahhh yes but the SA batting was considered to be its achilles heel back then...depth is ok, but without a truly world class performer (which SA lacked..australia certainly didnt) that depth was wasted by inconsistancy,and a lack of ability to push the score along (therefore putting not really being able to put themselves into a postion of real strength)..it was the batting that was the reason that SA never really pushed for a place as the number one team in tests.The bowling was the real strength.

depends on your defintion of world class. if world class is someone that would make it into all other sides(or nearly all)(which is in fact my defintion) then SA had many more than australia. kirsten, cullinan, cronje,klusener and mcmillan would have made it into any side in the world. if you are talking about great batsmen, which is what i presume you are then australia had only one in steve waugh, and it didnt make up for the many below par players that australia had either.

yes the talent was there, but that is no use if the players cannot harness that to produce the goods

no, and ive never said that they did produce the goods. its fairly obvious that based on results, australia were the best team of the 90s. based on talent, which ive been saying for quite a while now SA were far better. it didnt convert to results in most series, largely because they choked, but it certainly did in ODIs where they hammered every opposition.

 

[tooextracool]

Actually, yes I would favour the Aus lineup, if only because the Waughs were in a different class to any of the other players you listed from eithe side. beyond them, it was probably much of a muchness at that time of their careers.

m. waugh was certainly not in any different class than the likes of cullinan or kirsten. in fact id rate cullinan as a much better player than m.waugh. and if you analyse that australian batting lineup there were so many weak batters, and they didnt even have a settled batting lineup that SA pretty much had(bar the opener after hudson retired).

As for SA against England, it's not just the 1998 series. As I said last time, Aus wallopped us every time in the 1990's - we were never at the races, apart from the start of the 1997 series, and even that one was easily won by Aus eventually. That just wasn't the case with SA, who also failed to beat us in 1994 and only won the series in the final test in 1995/6. Ultimately, if you're saying that SA regularly underperformed against Aus and regularly underperformed against England, where is the evidence that they were a more talented side than the Australians?

where is the evidence that the aussie side bar the waughs and ponting were talented? i think its quite clear that kirsten,cullinan, klusener, mcmillan, cronje were gifted and as i said, they choked far too often in test match cricket, the talent was visible in glimpses.

 

[social]

so you reckon that an aussie test batting lineup consisting of:
hayden(who was distinctly rubbish at the time)
mark taylor
elliott(rubbish)
waugh
waugh
blewett/ponting(who again wasnt anything special at the time)
bevan(wasnt good enough)

was better than

hudson
kirsten
kallis
cullinan
cronje
rhodes
mcmillan
?

Yes, based on performances against each other.QUOTE]

 

[tooextracool]

thank you for stating the obvious.

 

[Jono]

I can't believe South Africa tied after that first ball. Amazing.

 

[12th Man]

What a ball by kabir ali at the end

 

[wpdavid]

where is the evidence that the aussie side bar the waughs and ponting were talented? i think its quite clear that kirsten,cullinan, klusener, mcmillan, cronje were gifted and as i said, they choked far too often in test match cricket, the talent was visible in glimpses.

1. Their results.

2. No-one is saying that the SA guys weren't gifted. The point is there is no evidence that they were more gifted than the Australians.

 

[chris.hinton]

Kabir Ali bowled the last over excellently..... he is worthy of his place in the one day set up

 

[Scaly piscine]

Kabir Ali bowled the last over excellently..... he is worthy of his place in the one day set up

He won't be if he can't consistently get through his 10 overs, he also has to stop the completely moronic no-balls he gives away - unless he improves to be as good as Flintoff.

 

[Swervy]

Kabir Ali bowled the last over excellently..... he is worthy of his place in the one day set up

but it wasnt a great over....5 off the first ball (no ball)..second ball another full toss if hit 5 yards either way would have been the end of the game.

 

[marc71178]

Kabir Ali bowled the last over excellently.....

Oh yes, starting with a full toss that was a no ball and smashed for 4 then following it with another full toss - that was excellent when trying to defend 8 runs!

he is worthy of his place in the one day set up

8-0-56-3 doesn't suggest it.

 

[Langeveldt]

Kabir Ali bowled the last over excellently..... he is worthy of his place in the one day set up

Certainly surprised Boucher!

 

[Tom Halsey]

Kabir Ali bowled the last over excellently..... he is worthy of his place in the one day set up

He bowled the last 4 balls excellently. Have to say, not bad when defending 8 runs from just an over mind. And the last ball was the perfect yorker.

 

[BoyBrumby]

And the last ball was the perfect yorker.

Apart from it not hitting the stumps, like!

But it wasn't too sahbby a ball.

 

[Langeveldt]

Kabir bowled 2 absolutely shocking balls, then finished off quite well.. And nobody won..

Positive and a negative equals Mediocre.. Kabir did okay... Heppy?

 

[Swervy]

Kabir bowled 2 absolutely shocking balls, then finished off quite well.. And nobody won..

Positive and a negative equals Mediocre.. Kabir did okay... Heppy?

nice South African touch with the 'heppy'/happy thing

 

[Langeveldt]

nice South African touch with the 'heppy'/happy thing

If you're heppy en you know it klep your hends..

Well I'm not

 

[tooextracool]

1. Their results.

2. No-one is saying that the SA guys weren't gifted. The point is there is no evidence that they were more gifted than the Australians.

no because talent does not always lead to results. the definition of talent varies from person. if you had to choose an all time SA team since readmission, id wonder how many players you'd drop from that side? that was a settled batting lineup almost everyone was assured of a place in the side, australia had about 4 permanent batsmen - waughs, taylor and ponting and 2 settled bowlers - mcgrath and warne.

 

[Swervy]

no because talent does not always lead to results. the definition of talent varies from person. if you had to choose an all time SA team since readmission, id wonder how many players you'd drop from that side? that was a settled batting lineup almost everyone was assured of a place in the side, australia had about 4 permanent batsmen - waughs, taylor and ponting and 2 settled bowlers - mcgrath and warne.

so how does one measure talent???

(I kinda know what youre getting at though...although I would still dispute that they were more talented than the Aussies were)