Shoaib Akhtar = awesome

[Richard]

and they could have played better and won too. what does that say about their ability as a team though?

That they are absolutely rubbish and should never have been let near Test-cricket.

 

[Richard]

no, teams like pakistan and india can be champions on their day, but because they dont play like that consistently enough, it means that they shouldnt be rated as highly.

It does indeed - but with South Africa it was much more a case of them being by-and-large pretty consistently good (losing the Test in Pakistan apart) and having one bad game at Eden Park.

 

[Richard]

and bearing in mind that SA consisted of a bunch of overrated players, they were only marginally stronger too.

So Smith, Gibbs, Kirsten, Kallis, McKenzie, Dippenaar, Pollock, Terbrugge and Boje are overrated?
Given that most people who know much know perfectly well that Boje's not really that good on normal pitches and that neither McKenzie nor Dippennar have done their ability justice, I don't see how.
Terbrugge, meanwhile, is extremely under-rated and bowled worse in that Test than he's probably ever bowled in his life.
And on the pitches of that series against the attack of New Zealand, none of the batsmen are overrated. I'll give you that on a seaming or turning deck against Australia or Sri Lanka they might be, yes, but on flat pitches against moderate attacks your chances of beating them are pretty remote.

 

[Richard]

or perhaps the weaker side over performed? something that this NZ side had made quite a habit out off.
regardless i dont think SA are all that much stronger than NZ, or at least in that series.

You cannot play better than you are able to.
If the weaker side won (or drew) the stronger underperformed.
If you really think a team containing Papps, Styris, Tuffey, Oram (the bowler), Mason and the like are stronger than the South African team of that series, I suggest you take a closer look.

 

[Richard]

No, the side you perceive to be weaker managed a draw and the side you perceived to be stronger underperformed.

The question is how long does a side have to underperform for you to accpet they're not as good as you make out?

Ability does not just disappear, I'm afraid.
Most of the South African players have proven themselves - so they're underperforming if they fail to repeat it.

 

[Richard]

And what's to say it wasn't playing above themselves on other occasions?

Because there are rather too many of these occasions.

 

[Richard Rash]

Terbrugge, meanwhile, is extremely under-rated and bowled worse in that Test than he's probably ever bowled in his life.

How can you say that when you already admited that you didn't watch one ball of the series

 

[tooextracool]

That they are absolutely rubbish and should never have been let near Test-cricket.

yes and the same thing is valid to any other team that under performs. if they dont perform as well as they can, it means they've played poorly and deserved to lose. it also means that they cant be ranked highly.

 

[tooextracool]

How can you say that when you already admited that you didn't watch one ball of the series

because he reads match reports....the same ones that when i use to prove him wrong that he says are complete unreliable.

 

[tooextracool]

Ability does not just disappear, I'm afraid.
Most of the South African players have proven themselves - so they're underperforming if they fail to repeat it.

and its impossible for them to have gotten worse is it?
i mean face it, graeme smith has never really been the most consistent of players, neither has rudolph, ntini is rubbish away from home, pollock struggles outside of seaming wickets.

 

[tooextracool]

It does indeed - but with South Africa it was much more a case of them being by-and-large pretty consistently good (losing the Test in Pakistan apart) and having one bad game at Eden Park.

nope SA have gotten considerably worse for a while now, something that you just wont admit. donald, rhodes and cullinan, they were never the same team. they were hammered by australia both home and away, then they beat SL and pakistan at home and face it which team doesnt beat both of them outside the sub continent?
then they toured england, who were in complete disarray at the time, with hussain resigning, and anderson as their leading strike bowler!, goughy being complete rubbish, harmison being nowhere near as good as he is now, at least until the last test at the oval, and of course the side also included anthony mcgrath and ed smith. and yet they couldnt win that series!
then they went to pakistan and got hammered in the first test and survived the 2nd. then they beat WI at home, and again who doesnt?went to NZ and again struggled then got hammered in SL and again in india and are continuing to get hammered by england. this side really looks like an extremely good one to you doesnt it?

 

[tooextracool]

So Smith, Gibbs, Kirsten, Kallis, McKenzie, Dippenaar, Pollock, Terbrugge and Boje are overrated?.

smith by god is.
gibbs probably isnt.
kirsten wasnt
kallis is slightly overrated but still a fairly good player, with the ball though hes extremely overrated.
mckenzie, i couldnt care less if he was or not, but hes completely useless anyways.
as is dippenaar who would probably average in the mid 20s if it wasnt for that series against b'desh
pollock definetly is with the ball, you know that
ntini is(cant believe that such a rubbish bowler actually made it to no 2 on the ratings)
boje is decent, but not really very threatening.

 

[tooextracool]

You cannot play better than you are able to.
If the weaker side won (or drew) the stronger underperformed.
If you really think a team containing Papps, Styris, Tuffey, Oram (the bowler), Mason and the like are stronger than the South African team of that series, I suggest you take a closer look.

look, i'll look at each department from both sides.
batting- i think south africa have the clear the likes of oram, cairns, richardson and fleming cant compare to kirsten, gibbs, smith etc
bowling- given that pollock struggles on non seamer friendly wickets, and the rest arent worth talking about, id say that NZ are better in the bowling department, at least with the way martin was bowling in that series and cairns supporting him.
fielding- personally NZ are far more disciplined in terms of team spirit and fielding if you ask me. SA's fielding has gone downhill since they've lost rhodes.
captaincy - is there any real doubt?

 

[bryce]

The weaker side managed a draw - doesn't change the fact that the stronger side had to underperform

surely if they underperformed they deserved to lose then

You cannot play better than you are able to.
If the weaker side won (or drew) the stronger underperformed.
If you really think a team containing Papps, Styris, Tuffey, Oram (the bowler), Mason and the like are stronger than the South African team of that series, I suggest you take a closer look.

they both average about 22 with the ball at home which shapes up quite well

 

[Richard]

How can you say that when you already admited that you didn't watch one ball of the series

Because he went for 4-and-a-half-an-over or something.
You don't do that without bowling very, very poorly.

 

[Richard]

yes and the same thing is valid to any other team that under performs. if they dont perform as well as they can, it means they've played poorly and deserved to lose. it also means that they cant be ranked highly.

Depends on the consistency, doesn't it?
If you play poorly once or twice and do well the rest, you've generally done well and deserve to be ranked highly.
If you do a Bangladesh you don't deserve to be playing.

 

[Richard]

because he reads match reports....the same ones that when i use to prove him wrong that he says are complete unreliable.

I didn't actually read any reports of that game - was rather too depressed.
Didn't need to, though - you don't go for 4-and-a-half-an-over without bowling very poorly indeed.

 

[Richard]

and its impossible for them to have gotten worse is it?
i mean face it, graeme smith has never really been the most consistent of players, neither has rudolph, ntini is rubbish away from home, pollock struggles outside of seaming wickets.

Yes, but in that series Rudolph was in a good period, so by the sounds of things was Smith, Kallis and Kirsten weren't exactly doing too badly, and McKenzie and Dippenaar's skill is still there.
I would never have expected them to bowl New Zealand out cheaply on such a pitch, so don't keep going-on about the bowlers, but I would expect them to force a draw comfortably as in The First Test.

 

[Richard]

nope SA have gotten considerably worse for a while now, something that you just wont admit. donald, rhodes and cullinan, they were never the same team. they were hammered by australia both home and away, then they beat SL and pakistan at home and face it which team doesnt beat both of them outside the sub continent?
then they toured england, who were in complete disarray at the time, with hussain resigning, and anderson as their leading strike bowler!, goughy being complete rubbish, harmison being nowhere near as good as he is now, at least until the last test at the oval, and of course the side also included anthony mcgrath and ed smith. and yet they couldnt win that series!
then they went to pakistan and got hammered in the first test and survived the 2nd. then they beat WI at home, and again who doesnt?went to NZ and again struggled then got hammered in SL and again in india and are continuing to get hammered by england. this side really looks like an extremely good one to you doesnt it?

Yep - I've analysed the thing, you really should have noticed that.
With the loss of Donald, Kirsten, Cullinan and Rhodes (to a lesser extent in the most latter's case - he retired in 2000 and the form-dip didn't start until a bit later).
The two England series are their only true tests in a long while and they did everything but win the one in England and are on track to lose the thing badly here.
Doesn't alter the fact that they're still packed with quality players with plenty more waiting in the wings.
Their poor going is rather inexplicable.

 

[Richard]

look, i'll look at each department from both sides.
batting- i think south africa have the clear the likes of oram, cairns, richardson and fleming cant compare to kirsten, gibbs, smith etc
bowling- given that pollock struggles on non seamer friendly wickets, and the rest arent worth talking about, id say that NZ are better in the bowling department, at least with the way martin was bowling in that series and cairns supporting him.
fielding- personally NZ are far more disciplined in terms of team spirit and fielding if you ask me. SA's fielding has gone downhill since they've lost rhodes.
captaincy - is there any real doubt?

The only reason New Zealand drew that series was because Martin somehow bowled a good spell in The Second; and Styris was allowed to score 170.
Otherwise the bowling is equally mundane - the one difference is that Martin's performance came at just the right time.
Any other time and South Africa's superiority would have been apparent.