• 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

susudear

Banned
The coach of South Africa has been a key stone behind their success in the last 1.5 years. His insightful analysis of subcontinental conditions helped them to win 2 series and draw 1 there. And now that his team has bested in Australia, I think he has done a fantastic job so far.
 

pup11

International Coach
Yup and its not as if this group has had unparalleled success all of a sudden, they have stuck with a core group of talented players, they have had their lows and highs, but they didn't do much chopping and changing and they are reaping the rich divedends now, i think Aussie selectors can take a leaf out of the book of their South African counter-parts.
 

susudear

Banned
Unprecedented success

Apparently this SA team has not lost a series since Nov 06. Clearly Mickey and Smith have combined well.

A doubt, At 27, is Smith the youngest ever captain to win a series in Australia?
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Mickey Arthur's cleverly turned into a complete wanker, so his captain doesn't have to be & can concentrate on his cricket. It's the SA quota system in action.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Helped to have such a talented group of players to coach too.
Yup and its not as if this group has had unparalleled success all of a sudden, they have stuck with a core group of talented players, they have had their lows and highs, but they didn't do much chopping and changing and they are reaping the rich divedends now, i think Aussie selectors can take a leaf out of the book of their South African counter-parts.
Tbf, they've always had a talented group of players. This may actually be the least talented for ten years in fact, and Arthur has to take some of the credit for turning talent into success.
 

Rant0r

International 12th Man
Mickey Arthur's cleverly turned into a complete wanker, so his captain doesn't have to be & can concentrate on his cricket. It's the SA quota system in action.
like some of the australian opposition aren't ? give me a break
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Tbf, they've always had a talented group of players. This may actually be the least talented for ten years in fact, and Arthur has to take some of the credit for turning talent into success.
Looking at the South African team from 10 years ago, I'd take Kirsten over McKenzie, and that's probably about it in terms of batting.

I'd be interested to see if either Donald or Pollock had a year as prolific as Steyn's 2008 was either.
 

Rant0r

International 12th Man
pollock's career was like a flash to me, his peak must have came at a time when i wasn't watching as much cricket, because BAM he's played 100 odd tests captained his country and retired. shame really, donald was pretty good, he would have started a lot earlier too if not for the apartheid ban, he would have been ready to go at 22 probably.

i reckon either of them would have had a fat at the season steyn just had though, albeit inflated by bangladesh
 

susudear

Banned
Shaun Pollock

Looking at the South African team from 10 years ago, I'd take Kirsten over McKenzie, and that's probably about it in terms of batting.

I'd be interested to see if either Donald or Pollock had a year as prolific as Steyn's 2008 was either.
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
 

susudear

Banned
No

pollock's career was like a flash to me, his peak must have came at a time when i wasn't watching as much cricket, because BAM he's played 100 odd tests captained his country and retired. shame really, donald was pretty good, he would have started a lot earlier too if not for the apartheid ban, he would have been ready to go at 22 probably.

i reckon either of them would have had a fat at the season steyn just had though, albeit inflated by bangladesh
Pollock's golden run from 98 to 03 had nothing to do with Bangladesh, and Zimbabwe was a reasonably good side during then.
 

susudear

Banned
Donald 1995-2001

Donald's best year was 1998 when he took some 80 odd wickets!
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:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Looking at the South African team from 10 years ago, I'd take Kirsten over McKenzie, and that's probably about it in terms of batting.

I'd be interested to see if either Donald or Pollock had a year as prolific as Steyn's 2008 was either.
Kirsten > Smith
Gibbs < de Villiers
Kallis of 1999 < Kallis of 2001/02-onwards
Cullinan > McKenzie
Cronje > Prince, comfortably
Rhodes > Amla
Boucher = Boucher
Klusener > Morne Morkel with bat and ball
Pollock of 1999 obviously > Ntini by quite some distance
Donald > Steyn by quite some distance and that will NEVER, EVER CHANGE!!!!!!
Harris > Adams

I'd take SA of 1999/2000 over the current team, easily. Australia are weaker, and this will doubtless fool many people into believing that the team that conquered Australia must be better. However, Australia of 2001/02 and 2005/06 would almost certainly beat this current SA team (as well as this current Aus team) easily.

Equally, a side of Hudson, Kirsten, Wessels, Cullinan, Cronje, Rhodes, McMillan, Richardson, Matthews, de Villiers, Donald > both the SA side of 1999/2000 or the current one.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Kirsten > Smith
Gibbs < de Villiers
Kallis of 1999 < Kallis of 2001/02-onwards
Cullinan > McKenzie
Cronje > Prince, comfortably
Rhodes > Amla
Boucher = Boucher
Klusener > Morne Morkel with bat and ball
Pollock of 1999 obviously > Ntini by quite some distance
Donald > Steyn by quite some distance and that will NEVER, EVER CHANGE!!!!!!
Harris > Adams

I'd take SA of 1999/2000 over the current team, easily. Australia are weaker, and this will doubtless fool many people into believing that the team that conquered Australia must be better. However, Australia of 2001/02 and 2005/06 would almost certainly beat this current SA team (as well as this current Aus team) easily.

Equally, a side of Hudson, Kirsten, Wessels, Cullinan, Cronje, Rhodes, McMillan, Richardson, Matthews, de Villiers, Donald > both the SA side of 1999/2000 or the current one.
You've tactically lined them up though. Smith and Steyn would absolutely stroll into that team. Don't really get how you can say Steyn will never be as good as Donald either. Bit dismissive.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
You've tactically lined them up though. Smith and Steyn would absolutely stroll into that team. Don't really get how you can say Steyn will never be as good as Donald either. Bit dismissive.
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.

And no, Steyn won't ever be as good as Donald, AFAIC. I've given my reasons why I can't see the slightest chance of that before now. He just doesn't quite have as much in the way of natural attributes as Donald did. Make no mistake, Steyn has been an excellent bowler for the last couple of years and will likely be an excellent bowler for a good few years ahead. But Donald is one of the best there's ever been and there's a good few reasons why Steyn is almost certain never to be quite that good. All of which I've mentioned before.
 

Top