• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Mickey Arthur

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I've put comparable with comparable. Best, and left-handed, opener vs best, and left-handed, opener; best seamer vs best seamer; spinner vs spinner (assuming the "you must have variety" crap); etc.

Much as I've always rated Smith as potentially quite superb, right now Kirsten still strikes me as better, though I hope Smith can change that in the next few years.

The only specialist bowler of SA circa 1999 that the current Steyn would replace would be Adams, a spinner. He's not as good as Donald was all career, or Pollock was then. Kallis and Klusener are in the side for as much if not more batting than bowling.
Pffft. Steyn would walk into that team. When you have Pollock batting at 9 you don't pick Klusener over Steyn for his batting. I'd have De Villiers in there in place of Rhodes too, but that's only if you believe (and i do) that the De Villiers of this year is a genuine improvement and not just a purple patch of form. Or you could throw him the gloves and have both if you preferred. A composite XI for me would be:

Kirsten
Smith
Cullinan
Kallis
Cronje
De Villiers
Boucher
Pollock
Harris
Steyn
Donald

Juggle the batting order if you like, but that's my XI. Four players from today's team, two in both, five from the earlier one. Although i would definitely say that, on balance, there was a lot more talent in the 2000 side, as i've mentioned before, this particular team has more of an idea of how to win.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I'd have Rhodes over the middle-order ABdeV anyday, at this point in time. If ABdeV could get back to the top and start doing the job, or if he'd been doing it for the last 4 years, maybe. But Rhodes was a middle-order specialist and a damn good one at that.

I'd probably go something like:
Smith
Kirsten
Kallis (with the latter version being better than the former but both being easily worth a place)
Cullinan
Cronje
Rhodes
Boucher
Klusener
Pollock
Donald
Steyn

Which is just 2 players (plus the later version of Kallis being better than the earlier) from the current side.

I also think people are inclined to underestimate just how good SA's results were between 1992/93 and 2002/03. Just because they failed to beat Australia seems to mean people fail to spot that they beat, and often wiped the floor with, near enough everyone else. And I dread to think (well, I don't actually - I lick my lips at the thought of) what the SA of 1999/2000 would have done to the Australian team the current SA side is facing.

As I say - the only thing this current SA side has done better than ones from the first decade post-readmission is beat Australia, and that has to do with the strength of Australia, not South Africa.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'd have Rhodes over the middle-order ABdeV anyday, at this point in time. If ABdeV could get back to the top and start doing the job, or if he'd been doing it for the last 4 years, maybe. But Rhodes was a middle-order specialist and a damn good one at that.

I'd probably go something like:
Smith
Kirsten
Kallis (with the latter version being better than the former but both being easily worth a place)
Cullinan
Cronje
Rhodes
Boucher
Klusener
Pollock
Donald
Steyn

Which is just 2 players (plus the later version of Kallis being better than the earlier) from the current side.

I also think people are inclined to underestimate just how good SA's results were between 1992/93 and 2002/03. Just because they failed to beat Australia seems to mean people fail to spot that they beat, and often wiped the floor with, near enough everyone else. And I dread to think (well, I don't actually - I lick my lips at the thought of) what the SA of 1999/2000 would have done to the Australian team the current SA side is facing.

As I say - the only thing this current SA side has done better than ones from the first decade post-readmission is beat Australia, and that has to do with the strength of Australia, not South Africa.
Yeah actually, Klusener>>>Harris, but i was including a spinner for the sake of it as is the way.

Never won in England either, remember. But i see your point. It's probably because they didn't seem to play other sides quite so often around that time, and also because they're blurred with the class of '04-'05, who were definite underachievers IMO.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
They were the better side in 2003, probably in 1994 and to an extent even in 1998, though. Not that England didn't deserve their 1998 victory, but they were ridiculously fortunate to draw in 2003 and 1994 was essentially turned by one performance - a performance for the ages.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
They were the better side in 2003, probably in 1994 and to an extent even in 1998, though. Not that England didn't deserve their 1998 victory, but they were ridiculously fortunate to draw in 2003 and 1994 was essentially turned by one performance - a performance for the ages.
Better side, didn't win, QED.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Nah, you can't blame any person for circumstances conspiring to cause a certain result - that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Weather, tosses, usually utterly useless bowlers (Devon Malcolm) becoming superlative for a session, etc. - all out of the control of individuals.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
I was just running through the SA batting in my head, and I was alarmed at just how good it is. I am either convinced about or have high hopes for every one of the top 7. With Prince as a reserve player, this side has the best test batting card going around.
It is perhaps their bowling which is less impressive IMO. Ntini is close to being done, I dont really rate Morkel and Harris is serviceable with only Steyn being a bowler to watch out for for opposing teams.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
They were the better side in 2003, probably in 1994 and to an extent even in 1998, though. Not that England didn't deserve their 1998 victory, but they were ridiculously fortunate to draw in 2003 and 1994 was essentially turned by one performance - a performance for the ages.
England had absolutely no business winning that series in 1998 nor did anyone give them a hope of doing so. That they did is probably more down to situations and umpiring conspiring against SA.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I was just running through the SA batting in my head, and I was alarmed at just how good it is. I am either convinced about or have high hopes for every one of the top 7. With Prince as a reserve player, this side has the best test batting card going around.
It is perhaps their bowling which is less impressive IMO. Ntini is close to being done, I dont really rate Morkel and Harris is serviceable with only Steyn being a bowler to watch out for for opposing teams.
Yeah, their batting's definitely more solid than their bowling. I would say that Harris is much improved from when i last saw him in England though.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
England had absolutely no business winning that series in 1998 nor did anyone give them a hope of doing so. That they did is probably more down to situations and umpiring conspiring against SA.
Although I'd not dispute too hotly the claim that England had no business winning the series (their performance at Edgbaston was excellent and they were probably only denied by rain; and some of the bowling at Trent Bridge and Headingley, despite the abysmal Umpiring, was very good and Butcher, Atherton and Hussain's knocks excellent) it's interesting to note that England apparently actually lost more wickets to bad Umpiring through the course of the series than SA did.

It's just that all the mistakes that favoured England came in the last two games, which they won.

All being well, the score going into those last two Tests should've been 2-1, with England winning at Edgbaston and SA at Old Trafford. But don't underestimate how good England's Old Trafford escape was either.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I was just running through the SA batting in my head, and I was alarmed at just how good it is. I am either convinced about or have high hopes for every one of the top 7. With Prince as a reserve player, this side has the best test batting card going around.
It is perhaps their bowling which is less impressive IMO. Ntini is close to being done, I dont really rate Morkel and Harris is serviceable with only Steyn being a bowler to watch out for for opposing teams.
Yeah, their batting's definitely more solid than their bowling. I would say that Harris is much improved from when i last saw him in England though.
It's the bowling that this SA team lacks in, without doubt. Compare this attack with Donald, de Villiers, Matthews, McMillan, Symcox or Donald, Pollock, Kallis, Klusener, (Adams\Terbrugge\Hayward\Elworthy) and there's just no comparison.

You could, just maybe, make a case for the batting of Smith, de Villiers, Amla, Kallis, McKenzie, Prince\Duminy, Boucher (and that's only potentially - right now McKenzie remains out of position) being stronger than anything SA have had since readmission. Yet even so, there's much to recommend Kirsten, Gibbs, Kallis, Cullinan, Cronje, Rhodes, Boucher, Klusener, Pollock (or Hudson, Kirsten, Wessels, Cullinan, Cronje, Rhodes, McMillan, Richardson) - not least the much superior depth.

This is a very good SA batting unit, no doubts about, but there's no way it's the best team since readmission IMO.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's the bowling that this SA team lacks in, without doubt. Compare this attack with Donald, de Villiers, Matthews, McMillan, Symcox or Donald, Pollock, Kallis, Klusener, (Adams\Terbrugge\Hayward\Elworthy) and there's just no comparison.

You could, just maybe, make a case for the batting of Smith, de Villiers, Amla, Kallis, McKenzie, Prince\Duminy, Boucher (and that's only potentially - right now McKenzie remains out of position) being stronger than anything SA have had since readmission. Yet even so, there's much to recommend Kirsten, Gibbs, Kallis, Cullinan, Cronje, Rhodes, Boucher, Klusener, Pollock (or Hudson, Kirsten, Wessels, Cullinan, Cronje, Rhodes, McMillan, Richardson) - not least the much superior depth.

This is a very good SA batting unit, no doubts about, but there's no way it's the best team since readmission IMO.
I suppose it's just their way. The batting makes them very difficult to beat, and their bowling, while not at the level of the attacks you mentioned, has enough to do a job more often than not. Steyn, Morkel, Ntini, Kallis, Harris has quite a bit of bite. None are at all easy to face. Well, Harris, maybe. Perhaps that's why batsmen continually dance halfways down the pitch at him and try to hit him out of the country. It's not often you watch them bowl and feel they're not in with a chance of taking a wicket.
 

Rant0r

International 12th Man
Donald's best year was 1998 when he took some 80 odd wickets!
Shaun Pollock had a sterling run from 1998 to 2002 when he took 229 wickets from just 53 tests at amazing average of 20!!!

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...8;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

Incidentally his best years as a test batsman were from 2001-2003 when he scored 1256 runs from 26 test matches at an average of 54.60!!

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...1;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting
In fact, Donald had a stupendous run for 7 seasons starting from 1995-96 to 2000-01, wherein he took 241 wickets from 50 tests at an astounding average of 19.95!

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...5;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

That there was no Bangaldesh or a declining Zimbabwe in that makes it more grand.

His worst average during that period (opponent wise) was against Australia - 23.43 :wacko:
didn't realise either of them had gone that well, i knew they were good, but far out
 

Top