Steve Waugh's Fault

[Speersy]

I think it was S.Waugh's bio that I remember reading how he always thought South Africa were a good team but that they would never dominate and take the game away from you. I understood what he was saying, but now I am thinking that the South Africans are not happy with that and ready to prove him wrong.

"The one thing that is really noticeable about our group is the belief that has crept in. We now have the belief that we can dominate games rather than just sitting back and waiting for things to happen. We know that we can grab a game by the scruff of the neck and make it ours. If you look at that last series, we won nearly all of the key moments. If we can do that again, I'm confident we will go on to win the series at home." -Steyn

You think Steyn read that book? Are we about to get dominated by a far more willing team?

Hussey please stand up!

 

[Redbacks]

Firstly, you need the ability to be able to go out dominate matches. However to play in an more aggressive manner there needs to be some good results to back it up. A team is likely to find an equilibrium in their style of play which is governed by one thing Winning and increasing the probability of winning under all circumstance (I.e. Federer's game plan for a tennis example). Thus as South Africa push on and develop as a top side they will aim to play in a manner where they dictate play and set up matches in a manner most likely to get results. The feedback mechanism will be results. It worked for Aus so we continued to play in that manner, if it doesn't for another team they will simply adapt and find a new solution.

It's hardly Steve Waugh's fault and I doubt he was the inventor of an aggressive mindset towards cricket. Success IMO is required to back up more cavalier play. It's wouldn't make sense for England to suddenly be batting at 4-5 runs an over when batting as they don't currently have the bowling or batting attack to turn this into a winning formula with a high enough probability of success.

 

[Richard]

You think it wasn't known that Waugh felt this way pre-book? It was a very common train of thought amongst the Australians of his time - Border, Hughes, Warne, Healy, etc. The South Africans have always been aware of it and have always been keen to prove it wrong. Previously they've let themselves down and not managed to; this time they have.

The biggest reason, though, as I've said many times now, is not that the South Africans have gotten better but that the Australians have gotten worse.

South Africa of 1996/97 and 2001/02 > South Africa of 2008/09. But Australia of 1996/97, 1997/98 and 2001/01 >>>>>>>>>>> Australia of 2008/09.

 

[trishan]

Given the youth in South African team Steve Waugh would be ancient history for most. Don't think you can blame him. I'm glad the South Africans have put the "choker" tag to rest. It's taken a while since that semifinal, but I think we are over it now.

 

[Richard]

SAfricans were known as chokers looooooooong before that semi.

And TBF, that semi proves nothing IMO, as I've always said. Except that Lance Klusener made a bad call for a single. I'm sure he's made bad calls for singles (and even twos and threes) before and since TBH.

 

[Speersy]

You say there predecessor's where better and yet they lost against Austraila.
When they finally win against Australia (at home) you say that Australia has gone down hill.

How is it that you compare how good a team is, if its not how they perform against the best team int the world?

 

[Richard]

You say there predecessor's where better and yet they lost against Austraila.
When they finally win against Australia (at home) you say that Australia has gone down hill.

Are you seriously telling me that the Australian team of 2008/09 was as good as the one of 1997/98? 'Cos, well... it just wasn't. Plain and simple.

Taylor, Slater, Blewett, M Waugh, S Waugh, Ponting, Healy, Warne, Reiffel, Kasprowcz, McGrath is just so unspeakably better than Hayden, Katich, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, Symonds, Haddin, Johnson, Hauritz, Lee, Siddle.

If this South African side of 2008/09 had faced the Australian one of 2001/02 or 1996/97, or 1997/98, or even 2005/06, they'd have been beaten. Handsomely. And equally, the South African team of 1996/97 or 2001/02 would've annihilated the Australian side of 2008/09. Absolutely wiped 'em off the park.

How is it that you compare how good a team is, if its not how they perform against the best team int the world?

Look at the players. Simple as.

 

[Ikki]

Gotta agree with Richy boy here. The Australian team now looks nothing like the domineering ones of the past. I also agree that the past S.African teams were probably better - they just faced a better Australia side and couldn't beat them. They were born a bit too early I guess.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The one question over the SA teams of the past was whether or not they had a batsman who could grab the game by the scruff of the neck and lead. They do now in Smith.

 

[Richard]

They did, several, and these batsmen did against other teams. It's just that to attemping to grab an attack by the scruff of the neck that contains the likes of McDermott, Warne, Reiffel, McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz and Clark is something that's only going to work once in a blue-moon. Many tried and failed; many others realised that to not try was their best bet. Unfortunately, this only marginally increased your chances.

South Africa did have the bowling attack to dominate the Australian batting and sometimes they did, but not as often as they needed to. Often, of course, they were let down by their catching, which again against other teams was usually excellent.

 

[subshakerz]

Gotta agree with Richy boy here. The Australian team now looks nothing like the domineering ones of the past. I also agree that the past S.African teams were probably better - they just faced a better Australia side and couldn't beat them. They were born a bit too early I guess.

I think this is indisputable. I do think, however, if this current South African team continues like this, they could be considered better than Hansie Cronje's team of the late 90s. The batting may already be there.

 

[Evermind]

Yes, South Africa want to win test matches just to get back at Steve Waugh.

 

[Richard]

I think this is indisputable. I do think, however, if this current South African team continues like this, they could be considered better than Hansie Cronje's team of the late 90s. The batting may already be there.

I don't see this bowling-attack of Steyn, Ntini, Morne Morkel, Harris, Kallis being a remote patch on either of Donald, de Villiers, Matthews, McMillan or Donald, Pollock, Kallis, Klusener, Adams\Elworthy\Terbrugge\AN Other.

The top-order batting, though, is getting toward being as good as the top-order circa '99 but in terms of depth it's still lagging way behind. Kirsten, Gibbs, Kallis, Cullinan, Cronje, Rhodes, Boucher, Klusener, Pollock is unbelievable. McKenzie and ABdeV are still the wrong way around for my liking, but Amla and Prince are making constant strides (Prince has been for a good while of course) and Duminy has long looked the business, it was just a question of when he stopped being wasted in ODIs and got into the game-form he's actually good at. The only worry is whether Kallis still has many years ahead of him - you just never know with him, for someone who can be so impenetrable he can also be very poor from time to time.

 

[Burgey]

I don't see this bowling-attack of Steyn, Ntini, Morne Morkel, Harris, Kallis being a remote patch on either of Donald, de Villiers, Matthews, McMillan or Donald, Pollock, Kallis, Klusener, Adams\Elworthy\Terbrugge\AN Other.

The top-order batting, though, is getting toward being as good as the top-order circa '99 but in terms of depth it's still lagging way behind. Kirsten, Gibbs, Kallis, Cullinan, Cronje, Rhodes, Boucher, Klusener, Pollock is unbelievable. McKenzie and ABdeV are still the wrong way around for my liking, but Amla and Prince are making constant strides (Prince has been for a good while of course) and Duminy has long looked the business, it was just a question of when he stopped being wasted in ODIs and got into the game-form he's actually good at. The only worry is whether Kallis still has many years ahead of him - you just never know with him, for someone who can be so impenetrable he can also be very poor from time to time.

Rich and Ikki on the money here for mine. SA are playing great cricket atm but their beating Aus in the last series had plenty to do with the attack Australia put out in the series. Even allowing for injuries etc (which all teams get), if the bowlers Australia put on the park had an extra 20 odd tests each under their belts, they'd probably have taken the series, baringg in mind they were on top in each of the Perth and Melbourne tests but were beaten by SA's resilience in the end.

 

[Top_Cat]

The one question over the SA teams of the past was whether or not they had a batsman who could grab the game by the scruff of the neck and lead. They do now in Smith.

This. Even in the past, their best batsmen still tended to grind the opposition out of the game, rather than take control. The closest they had to a game-breaker was someone like Cullinan. Cronje threatened early but after a while, even he was a pretty high-percentage player.

 

[Richard]

This. Even in the past, their best batsmen still tended to grind the opposition out of the game, rather than take control.

Yet this earned them results everywhere, except against Australia in 1996/97/98 and 2001/02. It's not the wrong approach, it's just an approach that happened not to work against Australia, not because it was the wrong approach, but because Australia's bowlers were too good.

It's also an approach we know you have a personal dislike of.

 

[Something_Fishy]

The biggest reason, though, as I've said many times now, is not that the South Africans have gotten better but that the Australians have gotten worse.

South Africa of 1996/97 and 2001/02 > South Africa of 2008/09. But Australia of 1996/97, 1997/98 and 2001/01 >>>>>>>>>>> Australia of 2008/09.

To an extent, I disagree with this. There is no doubt, of course, that Australia are not the powerhouse they were when Waugh was at the helm, but I don't think the 96/97 and 01/02 SA teams were better than the one we have now. We had plenty of inexperience and mediocrity back then, now we have the most stable top 7 in the world, with Smith, Amla, de Villiers, Prince (AND now Duminy) consistently getting runs, a world class bowler in Steyn, and good backup from the experienced Ntini and developing Morkel. But the biggest difference for me is the mindset. We've never had confidence or the ability to kill matches off, something which is all in the mind. Graeme Smith and Co has instilled that and now we are brimming with confidence, have a brilliant mixture of youth and experience, consistency and explosiveness, and deserve to be the no.1 team in the world. IMHO.

 

[Richard]

To an extent, I disagree with this. There is no doubt, of course, that Australia are not the powerhouse they were when Waugh was at the helm, but I don't think the 96/97 and 01/02 SA teams were better than the one we have now. We had plenty of inexperience and mediocrity back then, now we have the most stable top 7 in the world, with Smith, Amla, de Villiers, Prince (AND now Duminy) consistently getting runs, a world class bowler in Steyn, and good backup from the experienced Ntini and developing Morkel.

As I say, for me, there's no doubt at all that the side comprising Kirsten, Gibbs, Kallis, Cullinan, Cronje, Rhodes, Boucher, Klusener, Pollock, Donald, AN Other (and even slightly weaker variants where one or two of those players had retired \ not arrived yet) was better than the current team. Better batting depth and a much stronger bowling attack, and not really IMO massive difference in the calibre of the top-order batting either.

But the biggest difference for me is the mindset. We've never had confidence or the ability to kill matches off, something which is all in the mind. Graeme Smith and Co has instilled that and now we are brimming with confidence, have a brilliant mixture of youth and experience, consistency and explosiveness, and deserve to be the no.1 team in the world. IMHO.

I think SA did have said confidence and ability to kill-off matches, and demonstrated it many times. They just didn't, quite, have as much of it as Australia did, so Australia beat them several times. That is no disgrace. Had the Australian teams of 1989-2006/07 been less good, it's highly likely SA would've been the #1 team for a great deal if not all of that time. Those SAfrican teams were simply very unfortunate to be exceptionally good sides around at a time when there was a slightly better still team around.

 

[Something_Fishy]

I think SA did have said confidence and ability to kill-off matches, and demonstrated it many times. They just didn't, quite, have as much of it as Australia did, so Australia beat them several times. That is no disgrace. Had the Australian teams of 1989-2006/07 been less good, it's highly likely SA would've been the #1 team for a great deal if not all of that time. Those SAfrican teams were simply very unfortunate to be exceptionally good sides around at a time when there was a slightly better still team around.

But that's part of the problem then, isn't it? They didn't expect to win, and didn't believe in themselves. And the pathetic sensationalism (he said this, he said that, we'll beat them this time, yadda yadda) that was always there before the series never helped, either. That said, Australia were the superior team, especially in 96/97 (and in Test matches; ODIs were a lot closer). But I believe that has a lot to with the mindset that the Aussies developed, thanks to guys like Steve Waugh, Slater, Warne, McGrath, Reiffel, Gilchrist and even Hayden, which made the Aussies believe they were better, became infectious and suddenly the whole Aussie team was a killer machine.
I mean, if the current Aus team still had Waugh, the results, but perhaps more importantly, the development of young players would have come through much quicker than what it will.
So to reply to the OP, I don't think it's Steve Waugh's fault at all, I think it's the fact that there isn't another Steve Waugh following.

 

[Richard]

But that's part of the problem then, isn't it? They didn't expect to win, and didn't believe in themselves.

As I say - I think they did. Possibly they didn't against Australia, but even then I'd bet it was only after the series had started and things had begun to go wrong (specifically catches going down, the way they so rarely did en-masse against other teams). At the start of most series', and at more than one point in pretty well each of them, SA have pushed Australia, they just only fairly rarely managed to get over the line.

I think the fact that SA have finally won in Aus is going to obscure a fair few things. As I say, I think anyone would be dreaming if they thought this SA team wouldn't have copped a beating against Australia in each of the previous 3 meetings. Unless, that is, they caught as well as they have and as previous teams didn't. The catching was such a huge thing in at the very least the most recent (2005/06) series, and to an extent in the previous 2 as well.

Whether you attribute catching to self-belief I don't know, but I'm not sure I would.