South Africa - most over-rated team?

[benchmark00]

You'll get over it. I know I have.

I'm not willing to be drawn into this argument...


And Striker, just because they're going through an injury period, that doesn't mean they'll never get back to full fitness.

 

[silentstriker]

I'm not willing to be drawn into this argument...


And Striker, just because they're going through an injury period, that doesn't mean they'll never get back to full fitness.

A 'period' is a game, maybe a series. It's not three full series (and probably soon to be four).

If you trot your 'best' team out on the field once every two years, and lose or draw all the series in between....you aren't the second best team.

 

[benchmark00]

A 'period' is a game, maybe a series. It's not three full series (and probably soon to be four).

If you trot your 'best' team out on the field once every two years, and lose or draw all the series in between....you aren't the second best team.

A period may be that, but an injury period is certainly not just one game/series.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'm not willing to be drawn into this argument...

What argument? That we disagree? It's a difference in opinion and that's all, really. You believe x, I believe y; nothing more needs to be said.

And yet a couple extra runs in one match would have meant Ashes would still be in Australia. They were brilliant over some periods, but they let Australia off the hook too many times for me to admit they were 'consistently better'.

Yeah but it always happens that way when you're trying to beat a team who has dominated you for so long. Even when you're clearly playing better, sometimes hesitation can get in the way. It happened when Australia beat the WI in 1995; on raw talent (especially with the bat), Australia should have won that series far more easily than they did.

And as for the close results, a couple of correct LBW decisions and England would have won the second Test by 80+ runs, not 2, and without rain, the third Test would not have been a draw.

Anyway, by consistently better, I was more referring to their bowling.

 

[silentstriker]

A period may be that, but an injury period is certainly not just one game/series.

Yes, but their record since the Ashes is 0-2-1, 1-1-1, 1-1-1. Its irrelevent WHY you are performing the way you do...what counts is who you put on the field. Injuries are part of the game, and if they ever do get everyone back and start winning series again (like they were pre-Ashes), then they would certainly rise.

 

[silentstriker]

And as for the close results, a couple of correct LBW decisions and England would have won the second Test by 80+ runs, not 2, and without rain, the third Test would not have been a draw.

Anyway, by consistently better, I was more referring to their bowling.

Yes, their bowling was consistently better (with the exception of Warne on the other side). And yes, England did play better overall than Australia. There's no denying that.

However, one series every two years does not mean much when it comes to cementing your place as the top #1 or #2 team in the world.

 

[benchmark00]

Yes, but their record since the Ashes is 0-2-1, 1-1-1, 1-1-1. Its irrelevent WHY you are performing the way you do...what counts is who you put on the field. Injuries are part of the game, and if they ever do get everyone back and start winning series again (like they were pre-Ashes), then they would certainly rise.

Although I would like to point out why I disagree with those thoughts, I couldn't be bothered.

Let's keep on track, and the point is, England were at full strength when they played the Africans.

 

[silentstriker]

Although I would like to point out why I disagree with those thoughts, I couldn't be bothered.

Let's keep on track, and the point is, England were at full strength when they played the Africans.

Yes, and they were a better team then

 

[howardj]

And day in and day out, England have been slipping fast since the Ashes.

I don't think so - they're just suffering from injuries and, to a lesser extent, having to make a mental re-adjustment. Trouble is people expected England to dominate the world once they beat Australia. It rarely works out that way though. When Australia beat the long-running World Champs back in 1995, it was another four years before they dominated World cricket. In the interim they lost two series to India and lost to Sri Lanka. England will come good again very soon - they just have to adjust to being the 'hunted' rather than the 'hunter', and also get their players back on the park.

Anyway, back on topic....South Africa have always been very competitive. They rarely get steamrolled. However, until they play with more freedom - and stop being scared at losing - they won't challenge the very best sides. You don't beat the top sides by wearing them down. Rather, you have to storm the fortress - like Pietersen, Flintoff etc did against Australia.

 

[open365]

Thats a big assumption, considering that they are rarely at full strength. You can only judge the team that goes out onto the field....

The England team consists of Mahmood and Plunket and all the others, as they are the ones trotting out on the field. It does not include Vaughn and Jones, because they aren't playing.

You can't judge a team on only their best day....it has to be what they do day in and day out.....

And day in and day out, England have been slipping fast since the Ashes.

I don't believe you can rate a side by how good their second string team is.

It's nothing to do with anyon that all our ebst players keep getting injured, so i think we have to rate sides on what they can do when they are at full stregnth, and England at full stregnth are better than anyone else in the world bar maybe australia

 

[open365]

I think South Africa are genraly over-rated and i think they underperform a lot.

I mean, i don't think i've ever seen a side with as many players avergaing over or close to 50 as SA have, on paper they are a lot better than they are in practice.

 

[oz_fan]

South Africa have the team to be in the top 3 test nations in the world but just never seem to be able to perform.I think that now they rely to heavily on Kallis to score the runs and Ntini to take the wickets. With Steyn and DeVilliers coming through they have a good mix of youth and experience. If South Africa are to challenge the likes of Australia, Gibbs needs to value his wicket more, Pollock needs to return to somewhat near his best and Steyn has to provide good support for Ntini. South Africa also lack variety in bowling. They usually play 4 seamers. Even when they play a spinner (Boje, Botha, etc) they never make an impact.

 

[Craig]

Jacques Kallis is always somebody who mustify's me, how can somebody like him is such a good player of the short ball let somebody like Brett Lee bounce him, and then get his 100 and then start hooking and pulling him?

I also consider how much of a 'team player' he really is, batting at his own pace and not looking to keep scoring more often, i'm not suggesting he goes out there and bat's like Ponting, pr Gilchrist, or Hayden, Pieterson etc. but to look for more one's and two's and even three's and if you are doing that more often then that has a greater impact IMO then just standing there and scoring whenever it suits Jacques Henry Kallis.

As for Herschelle Gibbs, sometimes you have to think what goes through his head at some points with some of his shot selectons and I also believe Graeme Smith should put his giant ego to one side and score some more runs against Australia before getting into a war of words. I have no problem with big 'talking' before a game, but back up the talk with some runs or a win.

 

[Matt79]

with regards to england, it's looking increasingly likely that their 11 core players from 2005 will never play together again, with s. jones having another knee op, as well as all tehir other injury woes.

best thing english cricket could do would be lure errol alcott away from australian cricket, except the south sydney rugby league club have already done just that.

 

[Craig]

Like the old saying - you snooze you lose.

 

[Autobahn]

I don't think Kallis is really that selfish a batsmen really, and if you saw the Third Test when he was captain he defintely was trying hard for his team and being a team-player.

The fact that he came top of the batting averages for the saffers shows that his "over-my-dead-body" does work, and although he does sometimes value crease-occupation over run-rate in a team full of biffers and agressive players (except prince), his style is quite useful.

And you don't have to look much further for evidence that that style works, I mean Steve Waugh who saved aussie butts several time scored his runs at a sr of 48.64 which is only a bit higher than kallis' strike-rate (42.83).

 

[Beleg]

South Africa isn't the most over-rated team in the world. England is.

 

[Langeveldt]

Jacques Kallis is always somebody who mustify's me, how can somebody like him is such a good player of the short ball let somebody like Brett Lee bounce him, and then get his 100 and then start hooking and pulling him?

Because if he started hooking and pulling from ball one he wouldn't average 50..

I never understand everyones annoyance with Kallis.. If he was a more agressive batsman, true he might be a "team player" or whatever BS you want to call him, but he'd average 36 and would be no better than, say Ian Bell or Craig McMillan.. Why would we want that?

Agreed with your point about Smith though.. At least the difference between him and Pietersen is performance..

 

[marc71178]

And you don't have to look much further for evidence that that style works, I mean Steve Waugh who saved aussie butts several time scored his runs at a sr of 48.64 which is only a bit higher than kallis' strike-rate (42.83).

Yes, but a lot of his career was played at a time of slower rates around the world, and he's still got a higher rate.

 

[TT Boy]

I think South Africa are pretty good side, other than Australia their can forcibly win any test series against any team, any where.