Top On-Field Personalities

[Richard]

and believe me any team other than australia and b'desh are capable of beating the rest on their day. of course the fact that they managed to lose 5 and 6 out of 7 if you include the test, it really shows how much smith was affected.

"If you include the Tests with the ODIs" - that's precisely the problem.
Too many people judge tours with the Tests and ODIs grouped - not as separate things.
If you take the Test-series as separate, you'd not get quite such the picture of NZ dominance that seems to have prevailed.
Indeed, SA's Test form seems to have been - at least a little - muddled with their ODI form of late.
And yes - everyone bar Australia and Bangladesh (and Zimbabwe) are capable of beating the rest, ODI-cricket really is a massive turnstyle ATM.

 

[Richard]

please, i didnt even look at all the games that i played, i simply looked at all his 100s and as you pointed out, it falls even further when you consider the giles lbw on his way to 277. IMO his average would be around 35ish if we were to look at first chance averages, a whole 16 runs less than his career average.

And Vaughan's average difference of 2002 is something like 50.
That's one hell of a difference.
Sehwag I'm not totally sure, he has still played a good innings or two, but I'm not even sure what his scorebook-average since 2003\04 started is, let alone his exact first-chance one.

 

[marc71178]

Something that I somehow doubt Fleming had any influence on

No, I mean he only captained the opposition, how on Earth is he expected to influence the series by captaining one of the sides?

They've played 22 ODIs against teams other than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe since then and their record reads 5 wins, 1 NR and 16 defeats. 3 of the wins came against West Indies and 1 was only by courtesy of a remarkable run-chase.

So surely that's just 16 instances of them underperforming, but of course that doesn't mean they're not that good does it, because you've decided that they are and that's all that counts.

It's not a run of form that can be easily explained in terms of the ability of the players available, but it's fact nonetheless.

I think it sums the ability of the players available up quite well - not good enough.

 

[marc71178]

Indeed, SA's Test form seems to have been - at least a little - muddled with their ODI form of late.

Because 1 win in 9 is such a great record isn't it?

 

[Richard]

No, I mean he only captained the opposition, how on Earth is he expected to influence the series by captaining one of the sides?

You know perfectly well what I mean - the 5-1 had little to do with Fleming irking Smith and much more to do with how woeful South Africa's ODI form at the time was.

So surely that's just 16 instances of them underperforming, but of course that doesn't mean they're not that good does it, because you've decided that they are and that's all that counts.

As far as I'm concerned, yes - as far as others are concerned - not so.

I think it sums the ability of the players available up quite well - not good enough.

Except that plenty of them have demonstrated beforehand that they actually are.

 

[Richard]

Because 1 win in 9 is such a great record isn't it?

When taken in the context of 4 games in the subcontinent it's not quite as terrible as it might seem - especially as it's almost certain to become 2 in 10 later today.

 

[marc71178]

As far as I'm concerned, yes - as far as others are concerned - not so.

16 defeats in 22 games suggests comething more than mere underperformance.

Why can't you just accept they're nowhere near as good as you hype them to be?

 

[Richard]

Partly because I don't "hype" them.
And mainly because I've seen teams go through terrible trots before - and it's been equally inexplicable.
Before long, though, it's pretty likely that the players will raise their levels again and the wrongs will be righted.

 

[marc71178]

No, so blaming all defeats on them underperforming rather than simply not being good enough is what then exactly?

 

[Richard]

Sensible, given that not being good enough would be a suitable conclusion for players who had not performed in previous games - plenty of them.

 

[tooextracool]

"If you include the Tests with the ODIs" - that's precisely the problem.
Too many people judge tours with the Tests and ODIs grouped - not as separate things.
If you take the Test-series as separate, you'd not get quite such the picture of NZ dominance that seems to have prevailed.
Indeed, SA's Test form seems to have been - at least a little - muddled with their ODI form of late.
And yes - everyone bar Australia and Bangladesh (and Zimbabwe) are capable of beating the rest, ODI-cricket really is a massive turnstyle ATM.

err we're talking about captaincy here, hence it has equal value in both tests and ODIs.

 

[tooextracool]

And Vaughan's average difference of 2002 is something like 50.

rubbish lets see how you got that figure. so vaughan was averaging 11 in 2002 then? and thats despite the fact that you yourself have mentioned that several of his 100s were chanceless.

Sehwag I'm not totally sure, he has still played a good innings or two, but I'm not even sure what his scorebook-average since 2003\04 started is, let alone his exact first-chance one.

quite conveniently too i might add, possibly because he averages more than smith.

 

[marc71178]

Sensible, given that not being good enough would be a suitable conclusion for players who had not performed in previous games - plenty of them.

And of course, the players are exactly as good now as they were when SA were a good side, even though the fafct is they've lost a few players and are now not playing anywhere near as well.

As I said before, how long do poor performances have to go on before it becomes something more? Apparently it's ad infinitum for South Africans.

 

[Richard]

rubbish lets see how you got that figure. so vaughan was averaging 11 in 2002 then? and thats despite the fact that you yourself have mentioned that several of his 100s were chanceless.

2 of them, in fact.
Maybe I should add from the start of the 2002 season onwards, because obviously his New Zealand tour (where he had no luck and his shortcomings as a Test-opener were exposed) dragged down both scorebook and first-chance averages.
In that time his scorebook-average was 75 exactly, his first-chance average 47.83.
Yeah, I'd forgotten the 145 - before that it was 42.12, so actually the difference isn't even quite 30. Nonetheless it's a hell of a difference and bigger than Smith's.

quite conveniently too i might add, possibly because he averages more than smith.

Not conveniently at all - I'd not be all that surprised if his f-c average was higher than Smith's.
For posterity's sake, in the period (removing the recent Bangladesh Tests) the scorebook-average is 66.50, and I work-out the f-c average (I didn't watch all the games so there may be some luck I've missed and in some cases I'm only sure of scores within 5 runs or so) to be something in the region of 46.
Still a fair drop.

 

[Richard]

err we're talking about captaincy here, hence it has equal value in both tests and ODIs.

So captaining in Tests is the same as captaining in ODIs?
There are so many things that require different skills it's unbelievable.
Tactics are totally different.

 

[Richard]

And of course, the players are exactly as good now as they were when SA were a good side, even though the fafct is they've lost a few players and are now not playing anywhere near as well.

They've lost Cronje, Rhodes, Cullinan, Donald and now Kirsten.
Kirsten has been easily replaced by Smith, Donald I'm wholly confident will be replaced by Nel when he gets himself together, and I'm equally confident the four-five-six of Cullinan-Cronje-Rhodes can be replaced by McKenzie-De Bruyn-Rudolph\Dippenaar (though if Rudolph plays he's obviously got to bat three (see positional averages).
No, the reasons are not based purely on exact Test-match averages but there you go - they're not always with me.

As I said before, how long do poor performances have to go on before it becomes something more? Apparently it's ad infinitum for South Africans.

As long as it takes for me to feel "Jesus, what a terrible side". There's no exact time.

 

[tooextracool]

2 of them, in fact.
Maybe I should add from the start of the 2002 season onwards, because obviously his New Zealand tour (where he had no luck and his shortcomings as a Test-opener were exposed) dragged down both scorebook and first-chance averages.
In that time his scorebook-average was 75 exactly, his first-chance average 47.83.
Yeah, I'd forgotten the 145 - before that it was 42.12, so actually the difference isn't even quite 30. Nonetheless it's a hell of a difference and bigger than Smith's.

yes what a disgrace that is 47.83, certainly as poor as smiths average which would probably be in the mid 30s.

Not conveniently at all - I'd not be all that surprised if his f-c average was higher than Smith's.
For posterity's sake, in the period (removing the recent Bangladesh Tests) the scorebook-average is 66.50, and I work-out the f-c average (I didn't watch all the games so there may be some luck I've missed and in some cases I'm only sure of scores within 5 runs or so) to be something in the region of 46.
Still a fair drop.

yes of course what a significant drop that is, just as much as smiths average which drops about 16 runs or so you might say.
yet of course smith is rated higher than both of them as both vaughan and sehwag are considered lucky.

 

[tooextracool]

So captaining in Tests is the same as captaining in ODIs?
There are so many things that require different skills it's unbelievable.
Tactics are totally different.

yes such as being able to get your side to bowl well and bat well, making the right bowling and batting changes. it all comes down to making the same types of decisions to different situations, which is all part and parcel of captaincy. if you cant figure out 1 situation its quite unlikely that you can make the the other.

 

[Gangster]

Graeme Smith, of course.
Sledging him is hardly likely to do any good, he's one of the ones it's most likely to improve his performance than denegrate it.
But some players might be genuinely daggered by it.

I don't know if this is the perfect example of Hayden eating his words or sledging the wrong guy.

If, on the other hand, Hayden had said those exact words to Harbahajan Singh as he came on to bowl his first over in the second test match at Kolkata, then maybe!

 

[marc71178]

For posterity's sake, in the period (removing the recent Bangladesh Tests) the scorebook-average is 66.50, and I work-out the f-c average (I didn't watch all the games so there may be some luck I've missed and in some cases I'm only sure of scores within 5 runs or so)

If you didn't watch it, how can you be sure that you're within 5 of when he was dropped?