Sure they won a couple of games in the 1999 WC but so what? There's always one shock team who puts it together for a few games and beats some good sides. Kenya in 2003 (with a little help from boycotts) made the SF's after all. And Kaz's point stands; even with those batsmen, they were a low-mid table Test side at best.Zimbabwe also had Andy Flower, it didn't make them a great test side or even an average one.
This is a list of the players that played against both that English side and O'Reilly's Australia:
These are all their batsmen from the 1930s. They are all middle-order to top-order batsmen too, I left out tailenders. From about Syd Curnow onwards, a new generation takes place. The reason some of them have so few games against O'Reilly are because that a lot of them were at the end of their careers.
Since Bruce Mitchell played all the tests against England and Australia I will use him to see how many of the other good batsmen batted with him in the 1930s.
-Bruce Mitchell and Dudley Nourse play in total 9 matches with each other, 5 of them against Australia.
-Bruce Mitchell and Herbert Taylor play in total 4 matches with each other, 3 of them against Australia.
-Bruce Mitchell and Eric Rowan play in total 12 matches with each other, 3 of them against Australia.
-All 3 never played in the same Test together.
I mean, even if you wish to still contend that S.Africa was not the equivalent of a minnow side (which I find that hard to believe) you should agree that the S.Africa against O'Reilly, at least, is very poor.
I also checked the 2 test matches they won. Surprisingly, had nothing to do with their batsmen. They were two low scoring tests where S.African bowlers got England out cheaply and surged to victory.
Last edited by Ikki; 06-05-2008 at 09:32 PM.
Furthermore, why Bangladesh? Isn't Zimbabwe enough? I only really care for Zimbabwe anyway as I compared this S.Africa to the 1990s Zimbabwe.
Dont know about that TC. Whether they were mid or low table is irrelevant.Originally Posted by Top_Cat
Were they test class in the 1990's? Yes.
Were they test class after 2001? No, they were not.
So it is with South Africa in the 1930's. To say, and to claim otherwise, is purely subjective.
Otherwise we run into the danger, as we did earlier, of comparing upper and lower order batsmen between teams with all the confusion that results. A qualitative judgement as to whether a team was test standard is sufficient (in the same way that, for instance, NZ since about the 1950's and 1960s have been a test standard side, even if not boasting many great batsmen and bowlers with phenomenal averages). Anything else is pure statistical number massaging.
Last edited by JBH001; 06-05-2008 at 09:29 PM.
Last edited by Migara; 06-05-2008 at 09:43 PM.
S.Africa of 1930s: Avg. 38.12; SR 80.
England of 1930s: Avg. 29.78; SR 70.4
Zimbabwe of 1990s: Avg. 36.05: SR 79.2
Australia of 1990s: Avg. 27.75; SR 61.1
I guess the difference in SR is because Australia in 90s had one of the best attacks of all time whereas England in 1930s weren't as special.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)