Australians have alot to say now that they're winning ? - Tony Cozier

[The Sean]

I've said South Africa were below their best in every series between 1996/97 and 2008/09, regardless of whether Australia or South Africa won, and regardless of whether Australia or South Africa would have won had South Africa been closer to their best. South Africa have an extreme tendency to underperform, sometimes substantially, when Australia are the opponents (best demonstrated by the epidemic of dropped catches in 2001/02 and 2005/06, which is such an un-South African trait and which was conspicuous by its absence in the Australia leg of 2008/09), though that doesn't necessarily mean they were always a better side than Australia IMO (it is a possibility and no more than that).

Ha ha yeah, I was referring to the ones you'd seen and studied close at hand.

Personally I can't believe that South Africa "just happened" to be below their best every single time they came up against Australia, and TBH if they did always just happen to fail to perform against the best there was then that IMO shows even more clearly that Australia were the better side, especially as it was over an extended period of time rather than a single isolated series.

As to the discussion at hand, I am surprised that even a particularly one-eyed Australian fan could say that we are clearly better than South Africa at this point in time, so wrong is that statement.

 

[aussie]

And because SA were well below their best.

Ha no. The MAIN reason why AUS won in SA was because Johnson was able to swing the ball. That shocked everybody, since Johnson didn't do that in AUS. SA planning all-round for AUS was very precise & meticulous.

 

[Richard]

Ha ha yeah, I was referring to the ones you'd seen and studied close at hand.

Personally I can't believe that South Africa "just happened" to be below their best every single time they came up against Australia, and TBH if they did always just happen to fail to perform against the best there was then that IMO shows even more clearly that Australia were the better side, especially as it was over an extended period of time rather than a single isolated series.

I can quite happily believe it. I've seen it with my own eyes. South Africa's fielders caught poorly, sometimes woefully, against Australia in the time in question, despite being mostly excellent against all others; no opposition side can make the slightest impact on how well a team catches, dropped catches (where normally safe) proves only that one side underperformed. South Africa's bowlers and even batsmen bowled and batted differently to how they did at other times (often the batsmen crumbled because the bowlers had done so badly and let Australia score intimidating totals); now you can make the claim in the latter (in fact some even would in the former though I don't believe it for a strong-willed bowler, which is the vast majority) that this had to do with Australia's cajoling them into it, but I'm far from convinced.

In my book South Africa were often intimidated by Australia 1996/97-2001/02 and in 2005/06 and 2008/09, despite obviously not being, were at their worst at the most important time - which can happen and has done at other times with other teams.

I'd say with both sides in tip-top condition there'd not have been all that much to choose between the sides in any of 1996/97/98, 2001/02 or 2005/06. And we all saw that in 2008/09 there wasn't, despite there being plenty of evidence that both sides could at various points have done better.

 

[Richard]

Ha no. The MAIN reason why AUS won in SA was because Johnson was able to swing the ball. That shocked everybody, since Johnson didn't do that in AUS. SA planning all-round for AUS was very precise & meticulous.

Johnson's excellence was certainly a big factor but South Africa - especially the bowlers - were well below the levels you'd expect for a lot of the time. Let's remind ourselves that though Johnson bowled nowhere near so well in the Australian leg he was still hugely effective, but South Africa won despite his effectiveness.

 

[The Sean]

I'd say with both sides in tip-top condition there'd not have been all that much to choose between the sides in any of 1996/97/98, 2001/02 or 2005/06. And we all saw that in 2008/09 there wasn't, despite there being plenty of evidence that both sides could at various points have done better.

Fair enough, well as I say I don't for a moment believe a decade's worth of (sometimes crushing) superiority can simply be handwaved like that, but I know you're set on this one so I'll happily leave it at that.

 

[Richard]

I'm far from writing it off - Australia were able to rise to the occasion and South Africa weren't, Australia were thus deserving winners. But I'd place it at the door of failing to rise to the occasion rather than ability as cricketers.

 

[aussie]

.In my book South Africa were often intimidated by Australia 1996/97-2001/02 and in 2005/06 and 2008/09, despite obviously not being, were at their worst at the most important time - which can happen and has done at other times with other teams.

The intimidation in the 90s was Shane Warne. SA where way below they quality their 90s quality in 2001/02 since the bowling attack had declined. While 05/06 Smith was just talking tuff before that series began, trying to claim that because AUS had just lost the Ashes SA could beat them - but overall AUS where superior in 05/06 without a doubt.

In 2008/09. Sa where definately capabale of winning & they did. Although AUS selectors didn't help themselves on AUS leg of the tour due to poor bowling selections.

 

[Richard]

The intimidation in the 90s was Shane Warne.

Warne can only partially explain the batting failures; he can't explain the bowling and certainly not fielding ones.

SA where way below they quality their 90s quality in 2001/02 since the bowling attack had declined. While 05/06 Smith was just talking tuff before that series began, trying to claim that because AUS had just lost the Ashes SA could beat them - but overall AUS where superior in 05/06 without a doubt.

Much as SA were inferior as a bowling unit in 2001/02 (less so 2005/06) than they had been in 1996/97/98 (and 1993/94) they were still good enough to have been a match for Australia had they batted and caught well.

Australia were superior in 2005/06 because South Africa caught abysmally and Australia had the rub of the green, no other reason. Had an even hand been dealt and had South Africa caught up to their usual standards they could easily have won and absolutely certainly tied that one.

 

[aussie]

Johnson's excellence was certainly a big factor but South Africa - especially the bowlers - were well below the levels you'd expect for a lot of the time.

No they weren't. In ENG 08 the SA attack was just fine. Ntini & Morkel started to get worse during the 6 tests vs AUS.

Let's remind ourselves that though Johnson bowled nowhere near so well in the Australian leg he was still hugely effective, but South Africa won despite his effectiveness.

Because AUS picked the wrong bowlers. Johnson is bowling at his best is when he hitting the deck as he showed in his 8 wicket haul @ Perth. He is not a swing bowler & although he was effective SA (given he found swing from nowhere) they where able to plan deal with him in AUS, since they knew what was coming.

Also as I've said before Australia had overwhelmingly the best of the conditions in the South African leg. With more equity there there'd have been a better-balanced series.

Nope. SAs batting was just where stunned by the amount of swing Johnson got. That was not in SA plans nor did AUS expect it.

 

[aussie]

As to the discussion at hand, I am surprised that even a particularly one-eyed Australian fan could say that we are clearly better than South Africa at this point in time, so wrong is that statement.

 

[The Sean]

You're surprised that I'm surprised? Or just tired?

 

[aussie]

You're surprised that I'm surprised? Or just tired?

Full strenght AUS vs SA test sides:

AUS: Katich, Watson, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, North, Haddin, Johnson, Krejza/Haurtiz, Siddle, Hilfenhaus

SA: Smith, Elgar/Prince, Amla, Kallis, AB D, Dumminy/Prince, Boucher, Harris/Tahir, Styen, Morkel, Nitni/McLaren/De Wet.

IMO The batting is even, AUS are superior in bowling. Thus overall AUS have the better test side right now.

Full strenght AUS vs SA ODI sides:

AUS: Watson, Haddin, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, White, Hopes, Johnson, Lee, Hauritz, Siddle.

SA: Smith, Amla, Kallis, ABV, A Pietersen, Boucher, A Morkel/Mclaren, VDM/Botha, M Morkel/McLaren, Parnell, Steyn.

Same comparison with the ODI side.

So if these opinions make me one-eyed. Well yea i'm a glady stand by this one-eyed opinion.

 

[subshakerz]

Full strenght AUS vs SA test sides:

AUS: Katich, Watson, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, North, Haddin, Johnson, Krejza/Haurtiz, Siddle, Hilfenhaus

SA: Smith, Elgar/Prince, Amla, Kallis, AB D, Dumminy/Prince, Boucher, Harris/Tahir, Styen, Morkel, Nitni/McLaren/De Wet.

IMO The batting is even, AUS are superior in bowling. Thus overall AUS have the better test side right now.

As I've said before, it's way too early to call Australia superior in pace bowling until the attack starts winning series regularly. And I would rate Harris above Hauritz as a spinner. And let's not forget that with Kallis SA have five bowling options to Australia's four.

And just why is the Aussie batting superior? Watson is still very much a makeshift test opener IMO, leaving a hole in their batting. Middle orders are pretty equal though.

 

[aussie]

As I've said before, it's way too early to call Australia superior in pace bowling until the attack starts winning series regularly.

Yes. But if you want to rate them individually Hilfenhaus/Siddle/Johnson continue to improve every test (although Johnson has his slight blimp in the Ashes). While for SA Ntini, Morkel have clearly gone backwards while Parnell, McLaren, De Wet are unproven.

But as we agreed i have no problem waiting to see how SA bowlers perform vs ENG. Although i tend to believe that weakness in SA's attack will be an area ENG can exploit.

And I would rate Harris above Hauritz as a spinner.

I dont rate either of them. But the roles each would play as a stock spinner in 5-man attack would make them even i would think. Both would be crap in a 4-man attack.

If i had to chose i wouldn't pick a spinner for AUS anyway. I would go in with 4 seamers either Lee when fit again or Bollinger.

And let's not forget that with Kallis SA have five bowling options to Australia's four.

Watson bowls dont forget. So AUS does have a 5-man attack as well.

Watson=Kallis as a test bowler these days tbf. Kallis hasn't taken a 5 wicket haul in about 6 years.

And just why is the Aussie batting superior? Watson is still very much a makeshift test opener IMO, leaving a hole in their batting. Middle orders are pretty equal though.

I said the batting overall is even, would never make that mistake to say AUS is better. Watson is indeed makeshif, but so is Prince for SA who opened in their most recent test.

 

[subshakerz]

Watson bowls dont forget. So AUS does have a 5-man attack as well.

Watson=Kallis as a test bowler these days tbf. Kallis hasn't taken a 5 wicket haul in about 6 years.

Forgot about Watson. Would still argue Kallis is better, but both are far from matchwinners so its not a big difference.

I said the batting overall is even, would never make that mistake to say AUS is better. Watson is indeed makeshif, but so is Prince for SA who opened in their most recent test.

Yes, Prince is makeshift but is a proper test class batsman. Watson was only in the side because of Hughes' terrible form. Watson would hardly be in the lineup on batting ability alone and is only a stop gap option till they can find a real opener. When he leaves so does their fifth bowling option.

 

[aussie]

Yes, Prince is makeshift but is a proper test class batsman. Watson was only in the side because of Hughes' terrible form. Watson would hardly be in the lineup on batting ability alone and is only a stop gap option till they can find a real opener. When he leaves so does their fifth bowling option.

AUS could call up Jaques to open. Drop North & let Watson bat @ 6.

 

[subshakerz]

AUS could call up Jaques to open. Drop North & let Watson bat @ 6.

I'm assuming they could have done that but they have persisted with Watson for this WI series.

 

[BoyBrumby]

lol.. I know aussie doesn't really speak for the majority of Aussie fans, mate.. Juz find it laughable that the guy is turning into a mini-Richard.. At least Richard acknowledges that he is wrong sometimes and doesn't always maintain as if he knows everything about cricket...

You should try reading some of Dicko's posts sometimes, think you'd be quite surprised, tbh.

Anyway, can see why Coze was a bit put-out. Bloke obviously cares passionately about Windies cricket still and to constantly have it written off must rankle. As he says, they did beat us in a test series only last winter. One swallow & all that, but I'm still hopeful they'll come again.

 

[Goughy]

I've said South Africa were below their best in every series between 1996/97 and 2008/09,

What is the Sean Connery line from 'The Rock'?

I believe it is

" Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and **** the prom queen!"

Perfect for this. It isnt about what you could have done (that is all hypothetical) it is about what you do and those that win make it happen. Perform well and win, play bad and win, win ugly, it doesnt matter. The best just win.

 

[aussie]

I'm assuming they could have done that but they have persisted with Watson for this WI series.

Word. The selectors will give Watson alot of chances to open this summer i reckon, since they want him in the team. But even if doesn't work in Jaques, Hughes & even Rogers AUS have qualified openers ready to come in.

Watson will then go back to # 6 & North unfortunately although he has been going very well so far. Will always be the batsman at risk of being dropped. (Although Hussey could be vulnerable also)