South Africa - most over-rated team?

[marc71178]

Not anyone, no.

 

[Autobahn]

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.

True he did play a lot of his cricket in "slower times" where a wicket was more valued than run-rate, but his captaincy did coincide with Aus playing the far more agressive version of cricket of 4 an over.

And Steve Waugh's rate is higher because in his early days he attacked bowling, before he started reinventing himself and cutting out the hook and pull and ignoring short balls.

 

[TT Boy]

Not anyone, no.

 

[marc71178]

Well they've struggled to beat England, even before we got the side that was building towards the Ashes, so by definition they can't "forcibly win any test series against any team, any where."

 

[Goughy]

This has been on my mind for quite a while and the question for me is, is South Africa the most over-rated team on the international circut?

I think by general fair minded cricket analysts they are rated about right.

However, they are hugely overrated by those in South Africa (media and fans). They are so unrealistic and have standards that cannot be met.

I mean before the ICC Test Superseries SA TV pundits listed their International teams and they had 6 South Africans in the World XI. It was enough to make me sick.

For the record they were- Smith, Kallis, Gibbs, Boucher, Ntini, Pollock

 

[Goughy]

The South Africans, for a start, are a well-composed team, where every player serves a purpose. Unlike teams with stronger individual selections, such as England, they actually combine well.

Thats a decent assessment of the team 5-10 years ago. The nature of the team has changed dramatically over the past few years.

The players are more tempramental and with some flair. The team does not work as a well oiled unit any more. Selections are bizarre and massive numbers of players are getting selected.

THe team now, is very different to how it was in the past.

 

[Goughy]

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.

You must never have seen Australia or India play then. SA batting is NOT special.
SA have 7 main batsmen, 8 if Neil McKenzie is included (he is looking like he may get a recall).

of those 8 main batsmen
1 averages over 50- Kallis
1 averages 45-50 - Smith
1 averages 40-45 - Gibbs
3 average 35-40- Prince, de Villiers, Rudolph
2 average 30-35 - Dippenaar, McKenzie

I see little to no evidence to suggest SA batting is special. In fact it is quite weak which is probably the reason for their recent decline.

 

[Goughy]

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. (Boje, Botha, etc) they never make an impact.

Well by that criteria, SA will never challenge.

Gibbs is reaching towards the end and will not change his game now. Pollock is never going to get back to where he was. And Steyn will not crack test cricket as a top quality support bowler.

I think its generally going to get more difficult for SA before it gets better. They will however, continue to beat the weaker teams.

 

[Autobahn]

And Steyn will not crack test cricket as a top quality support bowler.

Well he is only 22 really, and already is getting more and more accurate and had a very good Test series against NZ, you can't surely write him off this early?

 

[Craig]

You must never have seen Australia or India play then. SA batting is NOT special.
SA have 7 main batsmen, 8 if Neil McKenzie is included (he is looking like he may get a recall).

of those 8 main batsmen
1 averages over 50- Kallis
1 averages 45-50 - Smith
1 averages 40-45 - Gibbs
3 average 35-40- Prince, de Villiers, Rudolph
2 average 30-35 - Dippenaar, McKenzie

I see little to no evidence to suggest SA batting is special. In fact it is quite weak which is probably the reason for their recent decline.

Well I hope Neil McKenzie gets a recall and does well - I've always been a fan (as with Dippenaar and every big score he gets I'm genuinely happy for him).

 

[Craig]

Most of that could apply to NZ at ODI level as well.

You could probably apply that to them at Test level as well.

 

[Craig]

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?

What does being more 'aggressive' or looking to keep the score moving translate to smashing loads of four's and sixes? If he looks for more singles (if possible though), they can have just as much effect IMO, especially if you have somebody like Prince at the crease.

 

[wpdavid]

You must never have seen Australia or India play then. SA batting is NOT special.
SA have 7 main batsmen, 8 if Neil McKenzie is included (he is looking like he may get a recall).

of those 8 main batsmen
1 averages over 50- Kallis
1 averages 45-50 - Smith
1 averages 40-45 - Gibbs
3 average 35-40- Prince, de Villiers, Rudolph
2 average 30-35 - Dippenaar, McKenzie

I see little to no evidence to suggest SA batting is special. In fact it is quite weak which is probably the reason for their recent decline.

Especially when you realise that the averages for Prince, Rudolph & Dippenaar are significantly boosted by filling their boots against Bang or the current version of Zim.

That being said, their bowling's nothing like what it was either.

 

[Goughy]

Well he is only 22 really, and already is getting more and more accurate and had a very good Test series against NZ, you can't surely write him off this early?

Im not writing him off. Its called evaluating talent and I do not think he is up to the task of being a top quality test bowler (ie sub 27 av).

To break it down.
-He is quick but not THAT quick. He is not top notch pace but is capable of pushing the batsman on the back foot.
-He is short. Unable to take advantage of tracks with uneven bounce. And this also means he cannot take wickets with surprizing bounce off a length.
-He swings the ball early, but once the shine has gone he becomes near cannon fodder.
-He does not have the control to work a pre-conceived plan against batsmen. He also releases the pressure by bowling loose deliveries at inopportune times. Most of his wickets will come from special unplayable balls that are very impressive. However, the really good guys do this AS WELL as working batsmen out.
- Im not convinced by his attitude.

 

[howardj]

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.

.

For all his slowness, I think I'd rather Jacques Kallis in my team than most other players. And he did average 50 against Australia in the six Test Matches last summer.

 

[benchmark00]

For all his slowness, I think I'd rather Jacques Kallis in my team than most other players. And he did average 50 against Australia in the six Test Matches last summer.

"Jacques Kallis: scores big, and scores all the time "


Surely that can be interchanged with Warney's name...

 

[howardj]

"Jacques Kallis: scores big, and scores all the time "


Surely that can be interchanged with Warney's name...

To be fair though, Jacques has also scored alright off the pitch.

 

[benchmark00]

To be fair though, Jacques has also scored alright off the pitch.

He also scored a role in The Lord of the Rings trilogy as the hobbit.

 

[Autobahn]

Im not writing him off. Its called evaluating talent and I do not think he is up to the task of being a top quality test bowler (ie sub 27 av).

To break it down.
-He is quick but not THAT quick. He is not top notch pace but is capable of pushing the batsman on the back foot.
-He is short. Unable to take advantage of tracks with uneven bounce. And this also means he cannot take wickets with surprizing bounce off a length.
-He swings the ball early, but once the shine has gone he becomes near cannon fodder.
-He does not have the control to work a pre-conceived plan against batsmen. He also releases the pressure by bowling loose deliveries at inopportune times. Most of his wickets will come from special unplayable balls that are very impressive. However, the really good guys do this AS WELL as working batsmen out.
- Im not convinced by his attitude.

Couple of points i would argue with:
- Well pace is never the be-all and end-all in cricket.
- accuracy and being to able to work to a plan is something that comes with age, you gotta remember that he is still only 22, a lot of bowlers start out trying to bowl the unplayable ball and then settle down a bit with experience.
- Again experience will possibly teach him stuff about different ways of bowling after the shine has gone off the ball, reverse swing, changes of pace, cutters etc.
- I don't know Dale Steyn's extact height but an example of a guy who didn't have much height and yet came very close to averaging under 27 was darren Gough and with his lack of height it forced him to come up with different ways and different variations of bowling.
- I've not heard anything about his attitude really what have you heard?

 

[Autobahn]

Im not writing him off. Its called evaluating talent and I do not think he is up to the task of being a top quality test bowler (ie sub 27 av).

To break it down.
-He is quick but not THAT quick. He is not top notch pace but is capable of pushing the batsman on the back foot.
-He is short. Unable to take advantage of tracks with uneven bounce. And this also means he cannot take wickets with surprizing bounce off a length.
-He swings the ball early, but once the shine has gone he becomes near cannon fodder.
-He does not have the control to work a pre-conceived plan against batsmen. He also releases the pressure by bowling loose deliveries at inopportune times. Most of his wickets will come from special unplayable balls that are very impressive. However, the really good guys do this AS WELL as working batsmen out.
- Im not convinced by his attitude.

Couple of points i would argue with:
- Well pace is never the be-all and end-all in cricket.
- accuracy and being to able to work to a plan is something that comes with age, you gotta remember that he is still only 22, a lot of bowlers start out trying to bowl the unplayable ball and then settle down a bit with experience.
- Again experience will possibly teach him stuff about different ways of bowling after the shine has gone off the ball, reverse swing, changes of pace, cutters etc.
- I don't know Dale Steyn's extact height but an example of a guy who didn't have much height and yet came very close to averaging under 27 was darren Gough and with his lack of height it forced him to come up with different ways and different variations of bowling.
- I've not heard anything about his attitude really what have you heard?