If England hit their straps with the ball they might not have to get many runs to force a positive result, therefore the absense of KP may be negated somewhat. Not sure I get your point really - KP not being there doesn't affect England's ability to bowl SA out cheaply twice.
They might, but you can't see why it contributes to an ongoing narrative (let's call) about SA failing to close out series that they have the ascendancy in?
Deadset one of the funniest collapses I've ever seen, that one. We just bowled a selection of absolute long-hops/half-volleys all day, and batsmen just kept getting themselves out somehow. Utterly inexplicable.indeed
That's the reason they are called test matches and given 2 chances. You will see even the great Australian team have chocked too, if you want to use that word. Lost the ashes in 2005 which they should have won. Lost in India after making India follow on. Lost to SA in Australia after leading in those both matches. In SA after bowling them out for 108, they chocked for 47. I'm not trying to do tit-for-tat but you don't understand the point of test matches.
The collapse at the hands of Welegedara was just as bad, too.
The 47ao is superfluous, as no one is calling that team a particuarly great team. Teams that aren't that good are allowed to play **** cricket from time to time. Moreover, we at least had the courtesy of losing to teams that were playing bloody good cricket. The 2009 Aus team was alright, I'll accept, but the India team subsequently lost 8 away Tests (hammered, really) on the trot in the next year, the SL team's pace attack... well, it wasn't, and you've already mentioned 47ao (not to mention the fact that our pace attack in that game consisted of Mitch Johnson, Pete Siddle (who was still bowling pies) and an 18yo)
Well England were overwhelming favourites, scores of 2 - 0 and 3 - 0 to England were bandied about on here. So South Africa have overachieved already. Surely if England lose the series it will be considered a major choke. Bearing in mind how good England were suppose to be and man for man better than the Saffers
Cricket doesn't work like that, though. Did everyone say India choked after 4-0? No, they just realised that they were wrong before-hand, having not actually watched the teams in action in these conditions, and in fact India were not very good.
Seriously what's their potential? They over-achieved if anything. In bowling, they really had only Steyn for a long time and in batting nobody really contributes other than Smith, Amla Kallis(the player according to many who plays for himself) and DeVilliers.
Its not the point.
I thought you rated Morkel? And Ntini was a decent bowler. Their batting lineup was the equal of any in the world (seriously, name a better one).
Would you call SA overwhelming favourites now? This really is a simple point. It's the difference between incorrectly rating two teams who you haven't seen play, and a team underperforming.
Nope England are, better bowling attack, batting down to 9. Super Swann, Proteas only have 4 batsmen - you know the stuff that was drummed into me and was not allowed to dare counter argue.
Indeed some of their draws at home have been pathetic.
Hasn't their batting been pretty dire for the last year or so? Seem to remember them collapsing frequently against SL and NZ.
How is this an argument? Is your team trying to win games of cricket or win forum arguments?
Where are you getting this from? People were giving their opinion, not drumming anything into you ffs.
A bit yeah, and it really, really shouldn't be. Collapsing to SL is the pits.
Those series that SA have drawn are far too short IMO and their team has 1 passenger for every good player they have. For them to win consistently, they need Steyn to be getting 5 wickets hauls every single match and at least 2 of Smith, Kallis, Amla and DeVilliers to be contributing every single innings.
I agree that the series are too short, but you have to work with what you have. They can't use the 'too short' excuse for not winning that series against England, for example.
Again, I thought you rated Morkel? And getting two of that list to contribute on a consistent basis is not an onerous task at all. These are high, high quality players.
Exactly!
Look at it in context. At the time the best team was considered to be us, and by golly did we have some passengers at that time. SA are awesome in context. They would be below us six or seven years ago, but right now, as it stands, they should have done better than they have. At a minimum they shouldn't have lost the #1 ranking to India.