Was 2016 South Africa tour at home the biggest loss for Australia in recent years?

[Calm_profit]

Steyn got injured during the match.
Morkel was injured.
Ab De Villiers took time off.
Rabada was a rookie.
Amla was out of prime.

Despite all this South Africa won the series.

 

[Shady Slim]

a series that if you scorecard watch looks meh but when you appreciate it having watched it live it was really good

australia none for 100 odd and then steyn nabs warner on the ball he breaks down on triggering a mighty collapse, big vern giving us a whooping in hobart in the first innings with smith being the only thing saving us from setting a record-low score, callum ferguson getting his one and only test, keshav maharaj getting smith lbw at the WACA halfway down the pitch, and so on...

 

[Pup Clarke]

I mean...not really. Rabada wasn't really a rookie by then, everyone knew his quality and Australia would have been well aware of it. Also Australia's batting was extremely brittle - it was basically Smith and Warner expected to score the bulk of the runs (middle order comprised of Khawaja, Voges, M Marsh and Nevill if I remember). Think Renshaw scored a few runs from memory in the 3rd test

 

[honestbharani]

It was one of the most unlikely losses for Australia at home for sure. But I felt there was no way England will win that 2010-11 Ashes in Australia either, so.........

 

[Daemon]

Kabbott and to a lesser extent Maharaj were really really good on that tour iirc.

 

[Prince EWS]

It was one of the most unlikely losses for Australia at home for sure. But I felt there was no way England will win that 2010-11 Ashes in Australia either, so.........

Yeah it depends how recent "recent" is. If we're counting that home Ashes loss it's that, otherwise it's this.

 

[Aaron510]

I remember abbot doing very well!! Definitely unexpected one for me!!

 

[quincywagstaff]

The soft runs Australia got in the 15/16 home summer just made their batting lineup look much better than it was and tougher conditions in Sri Lanka and tougher opponents like South Africa exposed Burns, Voges and the indulgence of trying to make Mitch Marsh a Top 6 bat.

 

[stephen]

The soft runs Australia got in the 15/16 home summer just made their batting lineup look much better than it was and tougher conditions in Sri Lanka and tougher opponents like South Africa exposed Burns, Voges and the indulgence of trying to make Mitch Marsh a Top 6 bat.

You can see why the selectors desperately wanted Marsh to come good. He is a good enough bowler to almost make the side on that alone. If he could average 35 instead of 25 with the bat he'd be one of the best all rounders in the game. Hell, if Gilchrist were in his prime we could play Marsh at 7 and he'd be a huge asset.

 

[Nintendo]

You can see why the selectors separately wanted Marsh to come good. He is a good enough bowler to almost make the side on that alone. If he could average 35 instead of 25 with the bat he'd be one of the best all rounders in the game. Hell, if Gilchrist were in his prime we could play Marsh at 7 and he'd be a huge asset.

Yeah no, marsh isn't close to being a good enough bowler to make the test side, bloke averages 39 with the ball AFTER that 5fer vs England last ashes.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Mitch Marsh bowling > Jimmy Anderson

Heard it here first

 

[Nintendo]

Mitch Marsh bowling > Jimmy Anderson

Heard it here first

Mitch marsh has a bowling average of 15.66 in England to James anderson's 23.83, and we all know how poor Anderson is without his clouds. Stats speak for themselves.

 

[stephen]

Yeah no, marsh isn't close to being a good enough bowler to make the test side, bloke averages 39 with the ball AFTER that 5fer vs England last ashes.

I think that average under sells him a bit though. He only gets the ball after all the other quicks have put 40+ overs on the ball in normal circumstances. He'd probably average low 30s if he focused on his bowling and was picked as a bowler (not that he would be given the depth of the Australian pace battery).

And you must remember that at the time he first came into the scene our bowling attack was significantly worse than it's been in the last three years. We've gone from Johnson/Siddle/Hilfenhaus to Cummins/Hazlewood/Starc in the space of a few years.

 

[stephen]

And having said that, if Marsh were averaging 35 with the bat at test level, he'd be an all rounder with a 35/39 average, which is extremely handy to have for most sides.

 

[Prince EWS]

"If Marsh was much better than he is then he'd be great" is a weird line of posting, true as it is.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If Mitch Marsh was my balls he'd have an uncle

 

[OverratedSanity]

"If Marsh was much better than he is then he'd be great" is a weird line of posting, true as it is.

Its actually If Marsh was much better than he is then he'd be "handy". Which is kind of sad.

 

[stephen]

"If Marsh was much better than he is then he'd be great" is a weird line of posting, true as it is.

Yeah he's not very good but my point was that the selectors were hoping he could be better than he was.

 

[honestbharani]

You can always see why most selectors and cricket communities get excited by a fast/fast medium bowling allrounder tbh.

 

[TheJediBrah]

"If Mitch Marsh was better, he'd be better "

Insightful