***Official*** South Africa In Australia

[pasag]

If Australia win in SA, there will be no clear #1, but if SA win, they'd be pretty undisputed at the #1 spot, easily, for mine.

Yeah, if Aus lose in SA it'll be a pretty clear SA = 1, Ind = 2

 

[Precambrian]

Compare their preparation for the last CT with their lack thereof for previous editions - it was obvious that they actually targetted that tourney (like a WC) whereas before they hadnt

So why did they lose out in the T20 World Cup?

Don't come up with the silly T20 argument. A T20 WC win would have increased the already high following of that form in Australia, and would convert it to a money spinner for the CA, isn't it? And above all, it was a World Cup, Isn' it?

 

[Uppercut]

I was responding to a post where Australia apparently has a divine right to win everything.

I watched the series and the first three games were really close, so close that I wrote them off in two and backed them in the game they lost.

The first one was Australia's to lose (and they did so very effectively) before Albie went nuts. SA really should have won the second one but got their tactics all wrong regarding the batting powerplay, leaving them with nothing to do but attempt to hit Bracken's inch-perfect yorkers out of the ground. I thought SA were pretty convincing in the last three though.

 

[social]

If Australia win in SA, there will be no clear #1, but if SA win, they'd be pretty undisputed at the #1 spot, easily, for mine.

And the chances of SA holding onto it for a significant amount of time is slim to none

They have one great player (Kallis) and quite a few ordinary ones

Compare this to the recent OZ team or the dominant WI teams - their WORST cricketer was an exceptional test match performer

We're now in a period of much more even competition and the top ranking in all forms is likely to change quite a lot i.e. there is no undisputed No. 1

 

[social]

So why did they lose out in the T20 World Cup?

Don't come up with the silly T20 argument. A T20 WC win would have increased the already high following of that form in Australia, and would convert it to a money spinner for the CA, isn't it? And above all, it was a World Cup, Isn' it?

They treated like a joke and played like it - read the comments of the players made BEFORE the tourney if you have any doubts

 

[Uppercut]

They have one great player (Kallis) and quite a few ordinary ones

Don't think any of their first choice players are ordinary, except perhaps Paul Harris.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Nope I wasn't talking about Australia..

Congratulations on missing the point, sir. If you think England have a settled opening pair and a good spinner I can only despair.

 

[social]

Don't think any of their first choice players are ordinary, except perhaps Paul Harris.

McKenzie, Ntini (definitely away from home and arguably anywhere at this stage of his career) and Morkel (again, at this stage of his career) are just average test players

The standard of the team is no better than the ones that previous Australian teams pummelled day in/ day out for years - it's just that Oz 2008/2009 is appreciably worse than its predecessors

 

[Uppercut]

McKenzie, Ntini (definitely away from home and arguably anywhere at this stage of his career) and Morkel (again, at this stage of his career) are just average test players

The standard of the team is no better than the ones that previous Australian teams pummelled day in/ day out for years - it's just that Oz 2008/2009 is appreciably worse than its predecessors

McKenzie's probably going to go out of the team, so i was working on the assumption that Prince would play instead.

Ntini and Morkel might be average as far as quality goes, but they're anything but ordinary. That's an important distinction because it means batsmen are never quite set against them. The only world-class bowler in the attack is Steyn, but I'd certainly say the five together are a world-class attack.

 

[silentstriker]

And the chances of SA holding onto it for a significant amount of time is slim to none

That's irrelevent. THey'd still be the clear #1s. The length of their stay at that position is a separate issue.

 

[Ernest]

And the chances of SA holding onto it for a significant amount of time is slim to none

They have one great player (Kallis) and quite a few ordinary ones

Compare this to the recent OZ team or the dominant WI teams - their WORST cricketer was an exceptional test match performer

We're now in a period of much more even competition and the top ranking in all forms is likely to change quite a lot i.e. there is no undisputed No. 1

So by your own mouth the cream of our cricketers got smashed in one day & test cricket by one great player and "quite a few ordinary ones"

Does that make all our players less than ordinary?

 

[Ernest]

Congratulations on missing the point, sir. If you think England have a settled opening pair and a good spinner I can only despair.

Despair away mate. Cook & Strauss have been opening consistently since Trescothick left, I would hazard a guess that that puts them in the "settled" catagory.

And Panesar, by results is one of the better spinners going around. That would make the guy "good". Notice I didn't use the moniker "great". I though "Good" was sufficient. He is certainly better than a Nathan Hauritz or a Paul Harris.

So excuse me if I don't understand why you are in despair? BTW I noticed that you left out "good pace attack" in your quote. We obviously agree on that point at least.

 

[Matt79]

So why did they lose out in the T20 World Cup?

Don't come up with the silly T20 argument. A T20 WC win would have increased the already high following of that form in Australia, and would convert it to a money spinner for the CA, isn't it? And above all, it was a World Cup, Isn' it?

Players weren't taking it seriously. You read the biogs that have come out since, it was regarded as prank cricket by most Aussie topliners until the success of IPL.

 

[Briony]

McKenzie, Ntini (definitely away from home and arguably anywhere at this stage of his career) and Morkel (again, at this stage of his career) are just average test players

The standard of the team is no better than the ones that previous Australian teams pummelled day in/ day out for years - it's just that Oz 2008/2009 is appreciably worse than its predecessors

I tend to disagree. You could argue that the improved performances of some players is reflected by the fact that the Aussies have declined but I think on paper this team looks better than the one that toured three years ago.

Smith wasn't the same player and was distracted by sledging etc., Ntini was more or less the same (younger but he seems to be a more thoughtful bowler now) but broke down in the middle of the Melbourne test anyway. AB is a much better player. Prince is better but didn't play and Duminy is much classier in any case. Kallis is bowling better. His batting may have declined but in the end was no less effective than it was the last time he toured.

Boucher is similar to what he was last time around, while Amla has made a difference at #3.

Steyn is way better than anything they had last time (Ntini's spell in Perth aside), while Morkel, despite a lack of wickets, troubles the batsmen a lot according to the likes of Clarke and Mike Hussey. Harris looks ordinary but does a lot better than Boje did. Maybe he's helped by having a better pace attack.

Their slip cordon is probably second to none.

Last time they had the inconsistent and declining Gibbs, Kallis at #3 where he is loath to bat, a very green AB and a distracted Smith. The only discernible difference was that Pollock shored up their late order with the bat but he was remarkably impotent with the ball, barely able to penetrate on our pitches. Nel was full of bluster and took more wickets than anyone but was not as fearful to the batsmen as either Steyn or Morkel. Certainly the five bowlers, with Kallis in better form was a much superior unit to the one which they confronted three years back.

Duminy's presence hasn't hurt them in the field either and their stellar 2008 instilled a self-belief in them which was missing on previous occasions.

 

[Precambrian]

Players weren't taking it seriously. You read the biogs that have come out since, it was regarded as prank cricket by most Aussie topliners until the success of IPL.

Cricket is a professional sport. If they didn't take a format seriously reflects badly on their attitude.

 

[Matt79]

Cricket is a professional sport. If they didn't take a format seriously reflects badly on their attitude.

CA had been treating it as a joke, as had the major broadcast partner in Aus, ch 9. It was seen as hit'n'giggle that didn't matter.

Australia was hardly alone in that regard. India only won because so many of their senior players chose to sit out, and the young guys who came through - selected for T20 - grabbed their chance with both hands. Australia sent their normal, then somewhat jaded, ODI team who were more interested in the ODI series on India that was coming up. T20 only took off in India as a result of that tournament win. Since the final of that comp, and the IPL, lots of parties inc Australia have started taking of seriously.

 

[Precambrian]

CA had been treating it as a joke, as had the major broadcast partner in Aus, ch 9. It was seen as hit'n'giggle that didn't matter.

Australia was hardly alone in that regard. India only won because so many of their senior players chose to sit out, and the young guys who came through - selected for T20 - grabbed their chance with both hands. Australia sent their normal, then somewhat jaded, ODI team who were more interested in the ODI series on India that was coming up. T20 only took off in India as a result of that tournament win. Since the final of that comp, and the IPL, lots of parties inc Australia have started taking of seriously.

How's that anyway contradicting the original point I made? Australia made an error, and didn't apply professionalism when it mattered.

 

[social]

Cricket is a professional sport. If they didn't take a format seriously reflects badly on their attitude.

Hooray, give the man a cigar!

 

[social]

That's irrelevent. THey'd still be the clear #1s. The length of their stay at that position is a separate issue.

If it's all about ranking points on a particular day, then Oz is "clearly" No.1 and that totally contradicts your earlier post

Or are there different rules in place depending on who you support?

 

[Redbacks]

people thought T20 would be a flash in the pan, in our previous games we had the players with nicknames on their backs and take for example this game against NZ, it was all about fun.

Things have changed and now that $$ are behind the IPL the WC competition will be taken much more seriously. Nearly all the existing cricket media were from the test era, and unsurpisingly, they weren't receptive to the T20 WC thus absolutely no public pressure or concern was placed on most teams leading into the competition.