Best team since Waugh/ Ponting’s Australia?

[Chrish]

Is current SA team as weak as previously thought?

Edit: didn’t even notice post above.

 

[subshakerz]

Please keep in mind that SA has always had a strong record in NZ. So drawing a series including a crushing innings loss in the first test isnt that outstanding a result historically speaking.

 

[subshakerz]

Like I said, anyone who thought this RSA team beating India in their backyard was some kind of proof that India are not good needs their brains and biases examined.

Nobody said India werent good, but you need your bias checked if you dont think losing to SA wasnt a disappointing result and India werent favorites.

 

[honestbharani]

Nobody said India werent good, but you need your bias checked if you dont think losing to SA wasnt a disappointing result and India werent favorites.

Like I said, it is why you need to actually watch the cricket before commenting on it.

 

[h_hurricane]

Please keep in mind that SA has always had a strong record in NZ. So drawing a series including a crushing innings loss in the first test isnt that outstanding a result historically speaking.

Nobody said India werent good, but you need your bias checked if you dont think losing to SA wasnt a disappointing result and India werent favorites.

Well, you have said it yourself. SA has a good record in NZ. India has a poor record in SA. It is not always about the better team on the paper winning the match. It is about whoever is better suited to the conditions.

Also remember you mentioning during the 2nd or 3rd test of the Ind vs SA series that even if India were to win the series, it would not be worthwhile. Sometimes your posts would be seen in better light if you give credit to someone who does well(regardless of the caveats). After all you can only play against whoever is up against you right ?

On a side note, I really rate the SA pace attack which won against India and think they will really do well in the future as well. They had the right physical attributes (6'3 + height range) as opposed to indian bowlers well below 6 feet. Hitting the deck hard and making the ball jump off an awkward length was the difference.

 

[honestbharani]

Its simple, isn't it? If a result proves him wrong, it was because it was expected and it is no big deal coz, reasons.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Please keep in mind that SA has always had a strong record in NZ. So drawing a series including a crushing innings loss in the first test isnt that outstanding a result historically speaking.

Why? If they're that **** NZ should be spanking them and it doesn't matter.

Also, NZ came to India and we were missing about half our team and beat them - in the end relatively comfortably. (Don't give me the 'they had us on a rope at one point' spiel - yes, they did...they're a good team. You'd expect them to. We had half a side missing).

NZ don't have Kane and they can't even beat SA or Bangladesh at home? We beat NZ at home (and should have clean swept them but for some rain, ****ty captaincy and good rearguard action). And this SA side could come here and we'd smash them too.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. India's home dominance is seriously underrated. They're a freakishly, freakishly good home team. You could argue with the recent England and the NZ series that some cracks are starting to appear (mainly that we can't put together huge scores, even at home) but the results are still standing. We're comfortably putting teams away in the end. And that run we had from 2016-2019 or something was incredible.

Which doesn't take away from the fact that India's eventual defeat to SA was disappointing - but I think people also underestimated this SA team clearly.

 

[Chrish]

Their side is either young/ inexperienced or made of senior players who aren’t consistent despite their potential. So, skepticism regarding their quality is understandable. However, it’s strange that some posters refuse to acknowledge the fact that this isn’t the same team that lost against current SL at home for example. They had different players debuting who contributed toward series win against India.

I am very curious how they would go in Australia. Australia will be favorite of course but SA have always managed to surprise everyone when touring there.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Subshakerz v Indian brahs is the never-ending battle

 

[subshakerz]

Why? If they're that **** NZ should be spanking them and it doesn't matter.

Also, NZ came to India and we were missing about half our team and beat them - in the end relatively comfortably. (Don't give me the 'they had us on a rope at one point' spiel - yes, they did...they're a good team. You'd expect them to. We had half a side missing).

NZ don't have Kane and they can't even beat SA or Bangladesh at home? We beat NZ at home (and should have clean swept them but for some rain, ****ty captaincy and good rearguard action). And this SA side could come here and we'd smash them too.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. India's home dominance is seriously underrated. They're a freakishly, freakishly good home team. You could argue with the recent England and the NZ series that some cracks are starting to appear (mainly that we can't put together huge scores, even at home) but the results are still standing. We're comfortably putting teams away in the end. And that run we had from 2016-2019 or something was incredible.

Which doesn't take away from the fact that India's eventual defeat to SA was disappointing - but I think people also underestimated this SA team clearly.

I said that the SA team India faced recently was the weakest since readmission,

I also said India were favorites to win that series and losing was a disappointment.

I don't see how those points are controversial.

The point that somehow annoys certain posters is to suggest that India's recent loss to SA does put a dent in their reputation. IMO it does.

 

[subshakerz]

Well, you have said it yourself. SA has a good record in NZ. India has a poor record in SA. It is not always about the better team on the paper winning the match. It is about whoever is better suited to the conditions.

Also remember you mentioning during the 2nd or 3rd test of the Ind vs SA series that even if India were to win the series, it would not be worthwhile. Sometimes your posts would be seen in better light if you give credit to someone who does well(regardless of the caveats). After all you can only play against whoever is up against you right ?

On a side note, I really rate the SA pace attack which won against India and think they will really do well in the future as well. They had the right physical attributes (6'3 + height range) as opposed to indian bowlers well below 6 feet. Hitting the deck hard and making the ball jump off an awkward length was the difference.

No, I think I said a few times that if India won in SA and Eng, it would plug up the holes remaining in their away record and I would consider them to have a better record than Smith's SA.

 

[honestbharani]

I said that the SA team India faced recently was the weakest since readmission,

I also said India were favorites to win that series and losing was a disappointment.

I don't see how those points are controversial.

The point that somehow annoys certain posters is to suggest that India's recent loss to SA does put a dent in their reputation. IMO it does.

...

Its simple, isn't it? If a result proves him wrong, it was because it was expected and it is no big deal coz, reasons.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Their side is either young/ inexperienced or made of senior players who aren’t consistent despite their potential. So, skepticism regarding their quality is understandable. However, it’s strange that some posters refuse to acknowledge the fact that this isn’t the same team that lost against current SL at home for example. They had different players debuting who contributed toward series win against India.

I am very curious how they would go in Australia. Australia will be favorite of course but SA have always managed to surprise everyone when touring there.

Can't say they've ever surprised me touring here, except possibly by how uncompetitive they were in the early 00s

 

[honestbharani]

Can't say they've ever surprised me touring here, except possibly by how uncompetitive they were in the early 00s

You really expected them to win in 2008?

 

[Burgey]

The Burgey Team wins this one

 

[TheJediBrah]

You really expected them to win in 2008?

Yeah thought it was odds-on. That was the year after most of the good Aus players all retired at once.

Definitely wasn't a big surprise.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I said that the SA team India faced recently was the weakest since readmission,

I also said India were favorites to win that series and losing was a disappointment.

I don't see how those points are controversial.

The point that somehow annoys certain posters is to suggest that India's recent loss to SA does put a dent in their reputation. IMO it does.

No, we're bringing you up on spouting **** like "Oh it's not that surprising NZ couldn't beat South Africa because SA have always had the wool over NZ" even though NZ are at home, while then also saying that India should be beating South Africa away even though we've never actually done that, and that is a much harder task even if the team isn't as strong as before - seeing as, you know, it's away...

 

[subshakerz]

No, we're bringing you up on spouting **** like "Oh it's not that surprising NZ couldn't beat South Africa because SA have always had the wool over NZ" even though NZ are at home, while then also saying that India should be beating South Africa away even though we've never actually done that, and that is a much harder task even if the team isn't as strong as before - seeing as, you know, it's away...

You bringing in SA drawing in NZ in the first place ia a red herring. Your only bringing that up to make India losing to them more palatable somehow.

Were India favorites to beat SA going into that series of not? Just answer that question.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You bringing in SA drawing in NZ in the first place ia a red herring. Your only bringing that up to make India losing to them more palatable somehow.

Were India favorites to beat SA going into that series of not? Just answer that question.

India were favourites but his point is maybe they shouldn't have been as heavy favourites as people made out. It's a fair point considering how well they've done on a tough away tour here against a good side. I was skepitcal they'd continue to do well but so far they have, and they didnt even have Petersen. Not sure how you can get away with on the one hand saying the below:

Please keep in mind that SA has always had a strong record in NZ. So drawing a series including a crushing innings loss in the first test isnt that outstanding a result historically speaking.

but then also say India should've won in SA which they've never in their history done. Pick one tbh. Blatantly biased posting exposed by deathscar tbh. Good stuff.

I frankly will pick one and say India not winning in SA is still a big failure not just because of how inexperienced the team was but also because they were in winning positions defending good 4th innings targets in both games. Context matters. India ****ed those two games up, especially the second one.

 

[Victor Ian]

Man. WTF happened again? Australia are back on top of the test rankings. NZ and India both **** the bed when it mattered.