South Africa - most over-rated team?

[Craig]

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? Because I have always got the impression from them that they are sides who beat teams (and sometimes quite convincingly) below them but when they play against Australia, and to some extents England, or on the really big occassions they crack, and get beaten, but if they play against New Zealand or other teams they perform a lot better. Is something to do with the mentatility of the players or within in the team, therefore over-rated?

[Pedro Delgado]

Nasser and Fletcher always maintained that at the crunch, if you can put them under pressure, they haven't "got it". There might be something in that.

[Langeveldt]

Just because they can't beat Australia, doesn't mean they are over rated.. Not many sides can, and I doubt England will be repeating any of their 2005 heroics this winter..

I'd say they weren't really rated by many, most people assosciate SA will dull cricket, and I don't know many people who like any of their current players.. I'd say Jonty and AAD are the only two popular international cricketers SA has produced

[Top_Cat]

I'd say they're over-rated, not least of all by supporters. I mean, even when convincingly beaten by Australia in the past in ODI's or Tests, there are people who would have you believe that the Saffies are at least up with the Aussies, are better and were just unlucky or believe that there was only a couple of sessions difference between the two sides. For mine, the big difference has always been in the batting; SA's bowling has always been great but the batting has always lacked a spark. So focussed on the team goals are the they that Saffie batsmen seem to forget that there's some times when someone needs to take charge.

So many times, SA have had Australia and other teams ripe for the kill and just when the killer blow needs to be struck, no-one puts their hand up. It's like they're in a sword fight and have their opponent disarmed and on the ground when they step back a bit, wait for their opponent to grab their weapon back and then they start fighting again. In those situations, they let the other team back into the match.

[Jono]

Yes they're overrated, but they are also a team I enjoy watching.

[Langeveldt]

But SA's hate Aussies with such a passion they'd have you believe they were up there competing with them whatever the results were.. I don't think its a soundly judged opinion, just a measure of hatred

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by Craig

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? Because I have always got the impression from them that they are sides who beat teams (and sometimes quite convincingly) below them but when they play against Australia, and to some extents England, or on the really big occassions they crack, and get beaten, but if they play against New Zealand or other teams they perform a lot better. Is something to do with the mentatility of the players or within in the team, therefore over-rated?

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

[Arjun]

That's not a fair assessment of this side. 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. While their success is often confined to ODI's, especially recently, they have the firepower to win a Test series anywhere, against anyone. They may not have done well against the Australians, but a whole lot of other teams haven't beaten them either.

That they don't have someone in the batting to take charge is not quite right. They have Smith, Gibbs and Kallis, all of whom can take charge. They have decent support players, though one may question the role of the likes of AB de Villiers, who seem to score next to nothing these days. They also have a knockout punch in their batting, down at seven. Their strike bowling pair is one of the best in the game these days. Can leadership be an issue? Maybe, given their resources.

They haven't quite recovered from losing their best players in a heap. They lost McMillan, a dynamic all-rounder. They lost Symcox, a much better bowler than any of their current (eevn then) spinners. They lost Allan Donald, one of the greatest fast bowlers of the recent past. They've lost Gary Kirsten, a world class opener with an established reputation, and also the free-scoring Cullinan, and let's not even mention Cronje. Not too many teams recover from such losses, but they've still done reasonably well, against other good teams, such as India, without two frontliners.

[silentstriker]

Considering they are 8-9-8 in their last 25 matches...I do think they are overrated.

[benchmark00]

I don't consider them overrated. I just think they don't have the necessary fire power to knock off the two best test teams in the world, no shame in that though.

[silentstriker]

I don't know if the case that England is #2 is as solid as it once was.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

I don't know if the case that England is #2 is as solid as it once was.

Assuming full strength, I believe they are.

[Top_Cat]

That they don't have someone in the batting to take charge is not quite right. They have Smith, Gibbs and Kallis, all of whom can take charge.

Two of whom have only done so sporadically against Australia (and even then, their hundreds were of the grafting variety or in the case of Gibbs, in a dead rubber) and the other (Smith) has one 50 against Australia in 8 Tests in his first against them. All three have had their techniques summarily exposed against Australia. All three average well below their career averages against Australia. Only one (Gibbs) has a genuinely match-winning knock against Australia and, again, in a dead-rubber Test.In ODI's, obviously, it's a different story but then SA have only ever been over-rated in Tests.

Hardly the stuff of people who take charge in my opinion.

They have decent support players, though one may question the role of the likes of AB de Villiers, who seem to score next to nothing these days. They also have a knockout punch in their batting, down at seven.

In ODI's, yes. In Tests, again, Boucher has been exposed.

Their strike bowling pair is one of the best in the game these days. Can leadership be an issue? Maybe, given their resources.

I definitely agree with Ntini bowling really good stuff right now. But no-one is backing him up. Pollock has never really been SA's strike bowler, even when he was quick (aside from his 7-fer in Adelaide; THAT was outstanding bowling).

As for leadership, Australia has played against SA since 1994 now and in that time, there have been four captains (Wessels, Cronje, Pollock, Smith) and in all that time, SA haven't won a series. There's only so much one can blame on leadership when there have been so many different leaders who all have different personalities.

As I said, SA lack a game-breaker. They've got (and always have had) guys who can play long innings (Kirsten brothers, Kallis, etc.) and they've always had feisty 'keepers who can hit the ball around for half a session maybe but never have they had a Gilchrist who can change the game in one session, a number three who can alternate between rock-solid defense and 6-hitting at will consistently like Ponting or a guy like Steve Waugh who could fight tooth and nail and then when the danger had passed, start to dominate.

It may seem harsh but SA have always seemed to me to be like the team in every club league who realises they're a bit short on talent and becomes relatively successful by working on stuff they can control like ground-fielding and batting-time but ultimately, don't have the guns to push it all the way. Nothing I've seen of late has changed that; if anything, their fielding isn't as good.

They haven't quite recovered from losing their best players in a heap. They lost McMillan, a dynamic all-rounder.

Dynamic?! He was a grafter with the bat and a seam-up bowler with the ball. Not rubbish by any stretch but he was never a world-beater with either bat or ball. I mean, a SR of 42 with the bat and no 5-fers with the ball does little to support the tag of 'dynamic'.

They lost Allan Donald, one of the greatest fast bowlers of the recent past. They've lost Gary Kirsten, a world class opener with an established reputation, and also the free-scoring Cullinan, and let's not even mention Cronje. Not too many teams recover from such losses, but they've still done reasonably well, against other good teams, such as India, without two frontliners.

In the same time period, Australia has lost Craig McDermott, AB, Mark Taylor, Michael Slater, the Waughs and Ian Healy. All world-beaters for their time and a couple of all-time greats. Not to mention, SA didn't lose all of those players in a heap at all; their departures were fairly well staggered.

And, again, you're talking about players who rarely took the game by the scruff of the neck against the Aussies. Even AD (surprisingly; had all the raw materials to be an all-time great). Gary Kirsten is a prime example; several times he'd come into a series against Australia in red-hot form having spanked them in the ODI's or spanked someone else in Tests. Then the Tests would start and he'd have a run of outs. A bit more than mere co-incidence, particularly since he tended to get out in very similar ways. And again, he was a grafter; he got two hundreds against Australia but little else.

Maybe it's a perceptual thing but most of those guys would arrive in series' against Australia and (aside from AD And Hansie on occasion) and then actually look intimidated. It was weird; they'd arrive with fearsome reputations having just spanked some other good team (like India, for example) and then they'd be batting at 2 runs-per-over for a Test on a perfect batting deck and concede 400 on first-innings'. It was always really weird.

The only guy who I thought was able to really challenge the Aussies consistently just with sheer attitude and 'nads was Cronje. He looked an absolute gun in 1994 and I'll be buggered if I know what went wrong. Always mystified me.

[Top_Cat]

Assuming full strength, I believe they are.

At full-strength, England's versatility and raw firepower just about outstrips Australia's, really. They're the only team with three 90+ bowlers and really the big x-factor between them is Warnie.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

At full-strength, England's versatility and raw firepower just about outstrips Australia's, really. They're the only team with three 90+ bowlers and really the big x-factor between them is Warnie.

If you say "just about outstrips", you're saying Australia are still better.

So really you're saying nothing.