South Africa bigger threat to Australia than England

[honestbharani]

I think it is obvious that England are no.2. As to what happens in the next two years, only time will tell. Even India have a no. of promising guys. The problem is, it is not always translated into potential. In fact, it rarely happens (esp. in India).

 

[Neil Pickup]

One could suggest that it may be due to over-hype on the part of certain sections of the Indian media and public creating unrealistic expectations upon players?

 

[honestbharani]

It could be. It could also be because of pitch conditions differing at the international level than what they get in the domestic level. Maybe it is also because some of them simply cannot handle the pressure of international cricket. There may be a lot of reasons but the fact is that a lot of Indians seem to show promise when they come in but just get lost soon after.

 

[Beleg]

Could it be that they are introduced to the game either too early or too late?

 

[Pratters]

One could suggest that it may be due to over-hype on the part of certain sections of the Indian media and public creating unrealistic expectations upon players?

That is a very true and sad case. Indian media makes it sound like a national tragedy and blames players on losses as if they were criminals.

A small part of the disappointment over the last year has existed among Indian fans for another reason though. India played a superb series in Australia and had a win in Pakistan. Most people recognised India that time as potential no 2 with no clear favourites for that position.

Most people did not however recognise that bowling was still a major problem and batting indeed did perform below potential in the past year or so.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes indeedy.

South Africa may have lost to England but I think they rebounded well on their tour of the West Indies. Nel's return has given the Saffers a lot more firepower and he and Ntini form a potent new ball combo. This will be backed up up by the ever reliable Polly.
Smith provides strong leadership and the batting looks good again.

I feel the real battle of this year will take place in December between the Saffers and Australia and continuing on to February. I think it will be alot closer than the 5-1 scoreline last time.

English cricket has no depth.....their A team was well beaten in Sri Lanka recently and their u-19's got whitewashed in India. Few players of genuine quality are emerging from the English academies...something which even Rod Marsh (their coach) admitted.
SOuth Africa have a number of quality youngsters waiting in the wings e.g Imraan Khan, Keagan Africa, Brent Kops, Dale Steyn......
Cricket Australia te monitor the programs and development of other countries to gauge which teams will be a threat to Aussie world dominnace. They have identified South Africa as being a clear threat over the next ten years even tho they went thru a difficult period recently. England was not mentioned as a long term quality adversary.

SO there you go....England may be world no. 2 but it will only be short term. I can't see players like Harmison and Jones being anything other than inconsistent. ALso, England don't have a quality spinner in sight.....at least South Africa are rectifying this problem. Several promising spinners have been identified and sent to India for coaching.
I fully epect South Africa to be Australia's main challengers again within a year's time.

actually the biggest threat to australia at the moment is ......australia A.
with world class batsmen like matthew elliott, world class pace bowlers like bichel and bracken, and world class spinners like macgill, how can they possibly lose?

 

[tooextracool]

Yet lost 5-1 this year!

while i think that we still would have lost that ODI series, i think that the reason why we lost as severely as we did was because flintoff didnt play and harmison well barely did. not to mention the baffling selections of matthew hoggard & kabir ali.

 

[kendall]

what you have said is a joke, to suggest that south africa are better than england is a joke, a below par team beat south africa can surely not be classed as worse than them, what happens when pollock retires? theyre bowling attack will be dire asides ntini and the odd burst from nel.

 

[greg]

Change the thread title to "South Africa bigger threat to England than Australia" and we might be able to have a worthwhile debate ;-)

We could start with Dennis Lillee's observation on the worrying state of Australian fast bowling. And how have the Australian U19 team been doing recently?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Change the thread title to "South Africa bigger threat to England than Australia" and we might be able to have a worthwhile debate ;-)

We could start with Dennis Lillee's observation on the worrying state of Australian fast bowling. And how have the Australian U19 team been doing recently?

Yeah, good call. Australia are rubbish.

 

[luckyeddie]

Change the thread title to "South Africa bigger threat to England than Australia" and we might be able to have a worthwhile debate ;-)

We could start with Dennis Lillee's observation on the worrying state of Australian fast bowling. And how have the Australian U19 team been doing recently?

Are you perchance suggesting that one o' t'crossbeams out o' skew on t'treadle in the Australian set-up, that the well is dry, they're on their uppers, and that John Buchanan's 'report' on how the Aussies have sussed out all the English weaknesses now and that Steve Harmison had bowled 'A few good balls' in the Natwest Series was in fact a pile of old twaddle masquerading as a shoring-up exercise?

Really?

Welcome to CricketWeb. There's a few convicts who'll be after you as well as me now.

 

[EnglishRose]

OK, so which two domestic setups are stronger?

Australia and South AFrica have stronger setups than England.
Unsure about how the rest would go vis a vis England.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Australia and South AFrica have stronger setups than England.
Unsure about how the rest would go vis a vis England.

I'll give you Australia (obviously) but I'm not convinced about South Africa - a lot of very average players (Beukes, de Bruyn, Amla) have starred in the averages (even Tsolekile made a century...), and looking at the bowling averages there is no-one barring the Test players up top.

Here's a decent marker - Charl Willoughby. SA 04/05 - 10m, 43w @ 26.65, Eng 05, 6m, 10w @ 62.40. Obviously there isn't as much of a disparity as that single stat suggests, but I think England shades it over SA, partially due to the strength and volume of imports that we have.

 

[EnglishRose]

I'll give you Australia (obviously) but I'm not convinced about South Africa - a lot of very average players (Beukes, de Bruyn, Amla) have starred in the averages (even Tsolekile made a century...), and looking at the bowling averages there is no-one barring the Test players up top.

Here's a decent marker - Charl Willoughby. SA 04/05 - 10m, 43w @ 26.65, Eng 05, 6m, 10w @ 62.40. Obviously there isn't as much of a disparity as that single stat suggests, but I think England shades it over SA, partially due to the strength and volume of imports that we have.

In the 2004 English domestic season, average bowlers like Jon Lewis, James Ormond, Martin Saggers were among the leading wickettakers. Furthermore, guys like Ramprakash, Spearman, Hick, Owais Shah are among the leading run getters. Also pretty average players.

 

[marc71178]

Australia and South AFrica have stronger setups than England.

Oh really?

South Africa does then, based on what exactly?

 

[marc71178]

In the 2004 English domestic season, average bowlers like Jon Lewis, James Ormond, Martin Saggers were among the leading wickettakers.

All bowlers who bowl to the conditions.

Good county pros who've made their career out of adapting, hence they're up there year on year.

 

[EnglishRose]

Oh really?

South Africa does then, based on what exactly?

Based, at the very least on assessments by Desmond Haynes and Vasbert Drakes, guys who've played in both domestic comps and who both agree the SAffer one is more competitive.

 

[greg]

County cricket is a lot stronger now than when Haynes was last playing in it. Players like Ramprakash and Hick ARE quality players. Their failure at test level owed far more to psychological issues than technical ability.

10 years ago any random Australian could come into county cricket and you could guarantee that they would dominate the averages. That doesn't happen now.

 

[Top_Cat]

10 years ago any random Australian could come into county cricket and you could guarantee that they would dominate the averages. That doesn't happen now.

Whilst the second part of your statement is true, the first part is not - the Aussie players who've done well in England over the past few years have been in the upper-echelon of Australian domestic cricket too. Mike Hussey, Jamie Cox, Darren Lehmann, Greg Blewett, Tom Moody (no jokes, please; he scored a couple of Test tons and played plenty of ODI cricket for Australia), etc. have all done well in English county sides because they are genuinely good players. The mediocre players from Australia generally went to England and generally were, well, mediocre. This points to the fact that English domestic cricket has always been relatively strong and produced excellent players but recently, as you rightly point out, the competition is even tougher.

 

[tooextracool]

In the 2004 English domestic season, average bowlers like Jon Lewis, James Ormond, Martin Saggers were among the leading wickettakers. Furthermore, guys like Ramprakash, Spearman, Hick, Owais Shah are among the leading run getters. Also pretty average players.

owais shah whos never played a test match?