The Beginning?

[Slifer]

I think this is different as he is actually beating up supposed good sides almost singlehandedly. Not many bowlers manage that. He is basically doing an Ambrose special each match not once or twice a series at present.

I'm on my cell phone so I can't look for myself, but what is Australia's schedule for the rest of the year (tests only) ?

 

[Red]

double posted when editing accidentally

 

[Red]

In the paper today, talked about Johnson's summer. He now has 44 wickets from 6 tests, which puts him ahead of Hogg and Alderman (who did their work in 6 test Ashes series).

It's a bit of a convoluted stat, but it's bloody impressive nonetheless, and shows what a force he's been.

Statsgurus- what would the most amount of wickets in a ten test stretch be? Without going back in to the dark ages...

 

[TNT]

The point is, this run is not unprecedented. Impressive but nothing new

I think it is quite new, since the use of helmets I cant think of a bowler that has intimidated teams (some bowlers could intimidate batsmen but johnson is taking on teams) as much as Johnson has, some bowlers like Ambrose were scary and intimidating but teams could handle it better. (Dont even think I regard Johnson better than Ambrose), its just he has somehow enhanced the fear factor be it from angles or because batsmen have got soft I dont know but I have never seen anything like it before.

 

[Adders]

I think it is quite new, since the use of helmets I cant think of a bowler that has intimidated teams (some bowlers could intimidate batsmen but johnson is taking on teams) as much as Johnson has, some bowlers like Ambrose were scary and intimidating but teams could handle it better. (Dont even think I regard Johnson better than Ambrose), its just he has somehow enhanced the fear factor be it from angles or because batsmen have got soft I dont know but I have never seen anything like it before.

I think because you have to go back so far for examples of this standard of hostile bowling, todays batsmen have never seen it and probably are soft in comparison to other generations.

I'm just fascinated to see how long MJ can keep this going......is that **** bowler of 3 years ago still lurking beneath the surface somewhere or has he gone forever? I know he can't keep taking his wickets at this rate and average and of course somewhere down the track he'll have his off days/tests, but is he going to finish his career in this form?? Scary ****ing thought if he does.

 

[Slifer]

I think it is quite new, since the use of helmets I cant think of a bowler that has intimidated teams (some bowlers could intimidate batsmen but johnson is taking on teams) as much as Johnson has, some bowlers like Ambrose were scary and intimidating but teams could handle it better. (Dont even think I regard Johnson better than Ambrose), its just he has somehow enhanced the fear factor be it from angles or because batsmen have got soft I dont know but I have never seen anything like it before.

Ok yes this point is a valid one. Back in the 80s we all know what used to go down so I won't elaborate....Which brings me to my next question, when did hostile pace bowling aimed at intimidating become all of a sudden so celebrated???

 

[subshakerz]

How typical, SA have a poor first test and are suddenly in decline. Steyn suddenly is a spent force, Philander is a trundler, Smith is a test from retirement, Amla is in decline, Du Plessis is exposed, etc.

I don't think SA lost this match primarily because of Johnson, but because of their poor display in the field and by Philander and Morkel with the ball in backing up an unfit Steyn. This is nothing new, the same happened in the UAE and against India, but in this case the media is pushing the line prematurely that the end has come. Johnson sure put some fear into the SA batsmen, but they are facing his new incarnation for the first time, and didnt we all predict that the going would be tough for batsmen? So scoring 200 is below par for me, but its not like SA were skittled for below 100. SA's bowlers need to step up next match to expose the fragility of the Australia top order.

Mark my words, SA will be back, Australia haven't won this series yet, and if they do end of losing or even drawing this series, this thread would be a bit ridiculous.

Let me even say, even if Australia manage to beat SA in this series, I would still consider SA a better team. They're batsmen and bowlers have had proven success over the past several years in pretty much every country, and none of their main players are looking at retirement soon. You become no.1 through years of repeated success. Six years unbeaten away from home is a record even the Aussie's of the late 90s/2000s didnt have. One poor series at home wont change my mind on that.

Having said that. SA clearly have a weak spot against Australia in their own country, though strangely not in Australia, the same way Australia have a weak spot against India in India.

 

[Spark]

Let me even say, even if Australia manage to beat SA in this series, I would still consider SA a better team.

So even if Australia win 3-0 in similar fashion to this, you'd consider SA a better team than Australia?

 

[ajdude]

it's kinda crept up on me that we've won six tests in a row actually. kinda humorous when you consider NZ were going for their record equalling fourth in a row

 

[Slifer]

How typical, SA have a poor first test and are suddenly in decline. Steyn suddenly is a spent force, Philander is a trundler, Smith is a test from retirement, Amla is in decline, Du Plessis is exposed, etc.

I don't think SA lost this match primarily because of Johnson, but because of their poor display in the field and by Philander and Morkel with the ball in backing up an unfit Steyn. This is nothing new, the same happened in the UAE and against India, but in this case the media is pushing the line prematurely that the end has come. Johnson sure put some fear into the SA batsmen, but they are facing his new incarnation for the first time, and didnt we all predict that the going would be tough for batsmen? So scoring 200 is below par for me, but its not like SA were skittled for below 100. SA's bowlers need to step up next match to expose the fragility of the Australia top order.

Mark my words, SA will be back, Australia haven't won this series yet, and if they do end of losing or even drawing this series, this thread would be a bit ridiculous.

Let me even say, even if Australia manage to beat SA in this series, I would still consider SA a better team. They're batsmen and bowlers have had proven success over the past several years in pretty much every country, and none of their main players are looking at retirement soon. You become no.1 through years of repeated success. Six years unbeaten away from home is a record even the Aussie's of the late 90s/2000s didnt have. One poor series at home wont change my mind on that.

Having said that. SA clearly have a weak spot against Australia in their own country, though strangely not in Australia, the same way Australia have a weak spot against India in India.

I agree with every thing u just said. Which is y in this poll I voted not sure. If RSA some how lose this series in whatever fashion, it'll be there first in GOD knows how long. Meanwhile Oz got white washed in India, lost 3-0 in England and if I'm not mistaken lost at home last time to RSA. This Oz team does have a lot a lot of potential but even after this series (win or lose) they cannot be automatic #1 over a sustained period.

 

[Spark]

I'd suggest that #1 ranked - which SA will deservedly be regardless of what happens here - and "the best team" is not quite the same thing, though. The former is built up over several years whilst the latter is a bit more short term.

EDIT: And SA themselves are a good example of this pre-2012 where they weren't the top ranked side but probably still the best team despite randomly dropping Tests at home for no apparent reason.

 

[subshakerz]

So even if Australia win 3-0 in similar fashion to this, you'd consider SA a better team than Australia?

If SA do have a horror series like that, which is unlikely, that I may place the teams even i.e. SA would have fallen a notch for having both their batsmen and bowlers completely out of form, which hasn't happened since they became no.1, while Australia still need to prove by their next tour to the UAE that their success isn't just because of pace friendly pitches in Australia and SA. After 3-0 I would consider Australia the more in-form team, but I cant say after looking at their lineups and seeing SA produce the goods for year and years that Australia is better on the basis of one series.

 

[subshakerz]

I'd suggest that #1 ranked - which SA will deservedly be regardless of what happens here - and "the best team" is not quite the same thing, though. The former is built up over several years whilst the latter is a bit more short term.

EDIT: And SA themselves are a good example of this pre-2012 where they weren't the top ranked side but probably still the best team despite randomly dropping Tests at home for no apparent reason.

WI were ranked no.1 almost throughout their reign until 1995 and Australia for almost throughout the reign until 2008. Both of those teams combined class with proven success, so the no.1 ranking was never an issue as no.1 was synonymous with best team. The situation from 2009-2012 was a unique interregnum in that both India and England achieved the no.1 ranking despite not being the best team and based on mixed results, but were keeping the seat warm until SA displayed the results home and away that reflected the superior class in their lineup. So, in general, no. 1 ranking does reflect on the teams that do best over a sustained period, and those are almost always the teams with the better overall lineups.

The ranking system is not perfect but for teams that have sustained success, they will deservedly be no.1, but if you are inconsistent like Australia, India and England, you will shift between 2-4.

So for a team now to overtake SA who have a decent lead, would mean that they must show sustained success to achieve the necessary points, and SA must have lost their points in poor display, all showing that that team deserves to be considered a better lineup than SA who will be past their best. That point hasn't come.

 

[Spark]

I think SA were ranked #1 for a very brief period (retrospectively) around the turn of the century. The rankings are a very recent invention, remember.

I just think that if you put too much emphasis on the statistical rankings you can run yourself into strange (TM) and occasionally absurd self-contradictions (ie. a team can be the "best" even after losing a sizeable string of Tests - this kind of deprives "best" of any meaning if you take this too far). It's a useful and important metric but it's really just a reflection of results, so it's risky to take it as the be-all-and-end-all. Especially for teams in decline, who can hang on to past glories well beyond their use-by date (us in 08-9 a good example).

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Let me even say, even if Australia manage to beat SA in this series, I would still consider SA a better team. They're batsmen and bowlers have had proven success over the past several years in pretty much every country, and none of their main players are looking at retirement soon. You become no.1 through years of repeated success. Six years unbeaten away from home is a record even the Aussie's of the late 90s/2000s didnt have. One poor series at home wont change my mind on that.

I dunno. In the leadup to and duration of the 12-13 season, SA were dominant. Won series against England, away in Australia, and home against New Zealand and Pakistan, and aside from the Australia series they were all very convincing. The season before that was a similar story. Since then, in the Pakistan series and the home summer they're 2 wins and 2 losses in 5 tests, and if they go on to lose this series it'll be 1 win, 1 draw and 1 loss in three series. Certainly not disastrous, but this loss isn't totally out of the blue, there's been a somewhat extended run of middling form. In that sense I think it's a bit different from Australia losing in England in '05 - this isn't a one off result among otherwise dominant performances, it's a trend of a sort. It's fine to say SA's roster hasn't really changed much, but they have lost Kallis and players do simply get older, and other teams get better. A great generation of players doesn't have to actually quit for your team to stop being the best.

Now obviously if Australia win this series but it's competitive, and afterwards Australia move on to have patchy results and South Africa return to dominance, then it's fine to continue to call SA #1. You could write off the current series as an anomaly. But if Australia win this series in a similar fashion to the Ashes, given the other recent SA results it's fine to say that their form has been somewhat poor while Australia's has been dominant and they have work to do to get back to the top. When say the West Indies in '95 or Australia in '09 lost the unofficial top spot it was only based off a couple of series of results, after all.

 

[The Sean]

In the paper today, talked about Johnson's summer. He now has 44 wickets from 6 tests, which puts him ahead of Hogg and Alderman (who did their work in 6 test Ashes series).

It's a bit of a convoluted stat, but it's bloody impressive nonetheless, and shows what a force he's been.

Statsgurus- what would the most amount of wickets in a ten test stretch be? Without going back in to the dark ages...

That piece was obviously written before Mitch's second innings 5-fer - he actually has 49 wickets in six Tests, putting him ahead now of Lillee's 76/77 summer (47 wickets in six Tests) as well.

I've not been able to look up statsguru but off the top of my head Barnes took 88 wickets in his last ten Tests, which was all the more impressive given that he didn't bowl in one of them and went wicketless in another!

Additionally off the top of my head, I think that Murali once took 100 wickets in something like 12 Tests.

 

[Furball]

WI were ranked no.1 almost throughout their reign until 1995 and Australia for almost throughout the reign until 2008. Both of those teams combined class with proven success, so the no.1 ranking was never an issue as no.1 was synonymous with best team. The situation from 2009-2012 was a unique interregnum in that both India and England achieved the no.1 ranking despite not being the best team and based on mixed results, but were keeping the seat warm until SA displayed the results home and away that reflected the superior class in their lineup. So, in general, no. 1 ranking does reflect on the teams that do best over a sustained period, and those are almost always the teams with the better overall lineups.

The ranking system is not perfect but for teams that have sustained success, they will deservedly be no.1, but if you are inconsistent like Australia, India and England, you will shift between 2-4.

So for a team now to overtake SA who have a decent lead, would mean that they must show sustained success to achieve the necessary points, and SA must have lost their points in poor display, all showing that that team deserves to be considered a better lineup than SA who will be past their best. That point hasn't come.

India and England were quite clearly the best sides around in the 2008 - 2012 period when you look at their results. Behave yourself.