Shoaib Akhtar = awesome

[marc71178]

Look at the teams on paper, South Africa's is almost twice as good.

And have a look at the results.

Cricket is played on the pitch, not paper.

 

[Richard Rash]

New Zealand were the inferior side - so they should have lost the series.
Simple as.

Cricket isn't that black and white Richo..

 

[tooextracool]

New Zealand should no way have won The Second Test - indeed, New Zealand should never have any remote chance of beating South Africa at present.
Normal order was resumed at Basin Reserve.

why not? its not like this SA team happens to be a very brilliant side. i mean their bowling attack was quite appalling- pollock has never been good on non seaming wickets, ntini is just rubbish away from home, terbrugge enough said, kallis isnt anyways near as good as he used to be with the ball and boje isnt really brilliant either.
chris martin bowled surprisingly well and deserved most of his wickets and cairns bowled relatively well too. the south africans played poorly and deserved to lose that game.

 

[tooextracool]

No, they were not - they managed to edge their noses in front in one Test and South Africa immidiately put them back in their place.
That New Zealand got into such positions at all says something about how poorly England generally started. If England had bowled better with the new-ball all 3 victories would have been by massive margins. Fortunately, they mostly dragged it back, winning the first 2 comfortably and The Third by the skin of the teeth.

err what? i mean isnt it obvious that if any team played better than what they did they would have won?

 

[tooextracool]

Not to mention how much stronger SA would have been had all the players who underperformed performed better.

and tell me something i dont know. i mean if every player from bangladesh performed much better than they usually do they'd be beating most of the other teams in the world.and where do we get?
if a team plays poorly, it makes them poor, simple as that.

 

[tooextracool]

styris is not poor he is just disticntivly average and a very bland player, his bowling inst that bad now you mention it though, actually neither is his batting really.

hes just average

wow amazing how the general feeling about styris has changed. not long ago when i suggested that he shouldnt average near 40, but instead in the low 30s people attacked me with everything they had. now hes classified unanimously as 'average'.

 

[tooextracool]

New Zealand were the inferior side - so they should have lost the series.
Simple as.

on paper you mean?
and how many times have we seen that sides being better on paper can often be misleading as to the end result?
i mean which team was better in 01- india or zimbabwe? yet zimbabwe managed to hold out a draw against them.

 

[Richard]

please explain to me how he is so poor,

and if he really is poor then why is he still included in the side?

Because thus far he hasn't been worked-out.
Hopefully it'll only be a matter of time.

 

[Richard]

on paper you mean?
and how many times have we seen that sides being better on paper can often be misleading as to the end result?
i mean which team was better in 01- india or zimbabwe? yet zimbabwe managed to hold out a draw against them.

Bearing in mind India's weakness away from home, they were only marginally stronger.

 

[Richard]

And have a look at the results.

Cricket is played on the pitch, not paper.

I'm perfectly well aware of that.
The weaker side managed a draw - doesn't change the fact that the stronger side had to underperform.

 

[Richard]

why not? its not like this SA team happens to be a very brilliant side. i mean their bowling attack was quite appalling- pollock has never been good on non seaming wickets, ntini is just rubbish away from home, terbrugge enough said, kallis isnt anyways near as good as he used to be with the ball and boje isnt really brilliant either.
chris martin bowled surprisingly well and deserved most of his wickets and cairns bowled relatively well too. the south africans played poorly and deserved to lose that game.

Yes, they did - but they had to play poorly to lose it. The bowlers were rubbish, yes, but it was very poor to lose the wickets they did - even to Martin, who's caused them problems more than once now.
In the final Test South Africa's class shone through.
BTW, you might want to rephrase the bold underlined bit, given that you seem to have said otherwise most other times.

 

[Richard]

and tell me something i dont know. i mean if every player from bangladesh performed much better than they usually do they'd be beating most of the other teams in the world.and where do we get?
if a team plays poorly, it makes them poor, simple as that.

Not if they've played much better on many other occasions.
It makes them underperforming.

 

[Richard]

err what? i mean isnt it obvious that if any team played better than what they did they would have won?

Not neccesarily - Bangladesh could have played much better in most of their Tests, and still lost.

 

[tooextracool]

Not neccesarily - Bangladesh could have played much better in most of their Tests, and still lost.

and they could have played better and won too. what does that say about their ability as a team though?

 

[tooextracool]

Not if they've played much better on many other occasions.
It makes them underperforming.

no, teams like pakistan and india can be champions on their day, but because they dont play like that consistently enough, it means that they shouldnt be rated as highly.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, they did - but they had to play poorly to lose it. The bowlers were rubbish, yes, but it was very poor to lose the wickets they did - even to Martin, who's caused them problems more than once now.
In the final Test South Africa's class shone through.
BTW, you might want to rephrase the bold underlined bit, given that you seem to have said otherwise most other times.

yes but if they perform poorly they deserve to lose, simple as that. therefore the 1-1 is a good indication of how well the sides played in that series, because NZ played poorly in one game, and SA played poorly in another.

 

[tooextracool]

Bearing in mind India's weakness away from home, they were only marginally stronger.

and bearing in mind that SA consisted of a bunch of overrated players, they were only marginally stronger too.

 

[tooextracool]

I'm perfectly well aware of that.
The weaker side managed a draw - doesn't change the fact that the stronger side had to underperform.

or perhaps the weaker side over performed? something that this NZ side had made quite a habit out off.
regardless i dont think SA are all that much stronger than NZ, or at least in that series.

 

[marc71178]

The weaker side managed a draw - doesn't change the fact that the stronger side had to underperform.

No, the side you perceive to be weaker managed a draw and the side you perceived to be stronger underperformed.

The question is how long does a side have to underperform for you to accpet they're not as good as you make out?

 

[marc71178]

Not if they've played much better on many other occasions.
It makes them underperforming.

And what's to say it wasn't playing above themselves on other occasions?