South Africa in Australia Nov-Dec 2012/13

[sifter132]

^That sounds pretty right, no team can be great ALL the time. That Aus-NZ series in 2001 was one I thought of straight away. SA proved in Perth that when their big guns fire they will be a team that's hard to beat - ALL their stars shone in Perth: Steyn, de Villiers, Smith, Amla. The good thing for them is they didn't throw away the matches where they weren't playing well.

And yep spoony you're right, things didn't go SAs way with injuries in Adelaide but saying Australia doctored the pitch is a bit extreme - SA could have won the toss just as easily. Almost 500 runs in a day is an astounding amount, Kallis or not. Steyn came back and bowled a few overs that same day (managed 17.1 for the day), so his injury wasn't serious.

Just to add some interesting facts:
Numbers Game : Numbers Game: Left-arm spin's resurgence, and series runs in vain | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo
The table at the bottom of the article shows that Australia averaged 43.42 with bat over this series vs SA's average of 39.35 - one of the few instances of the team that averaged more losing a series. The worst example being the 2009 Ashes - that series still annoys me greatly... Australia's batting average was 6.49 higher than England's over that series. Just couldn't get out fricken Monty...

 

[mrtwisties]

No one sees red. I just explained to you the difference between choking and panicking. Besides this is test cricket has nothing to do with ODI's.

For inconsistency. Well how can you expect much from bowlers on pitches that were as flat as a table on the first and 2nd test? Do not mention Mcgrath or try to compare because those test were normally played in December and not November where the pitches will be spanking new and not played on a couple of times. So they are flat bowlers graveyards. And no we do not believe in ball tampering to get reverse swing early. Also they made the tracks with more assistance for bowlers in it as Australia were the favorites and the best team in the world back then. Not any more. We won back to back series in England and Australia is that not consistent enough for you? Remember we also lost Kallis which gave us the extra batsman and bowler over other teams. Show me a batsman who ave over 50 with over 200 wickets in odi and test cricket? Plus when he bowled really well he got injured.

Correct, we're not talking about ODIs. Well spotted. But all over the world, and particularly in the last few years, it is not uncommon to see Steyn return figures of 1/100+ runs in a Test match innings.

That gets balanced out by the occasional 4/40 and 5/56 to give him excellent bowling averages overall, but the fact remains that his not-so-infrequent bad days at the office are costing South Africa both match and series wins. For example, his 1/98 in Jo'burg and 2/94 in Durban arguably allowed England and Australia to each come away from SA with a drawn series. If you're playing the best team in the world at home, that's basically a victory.

I'm not saying that those losses are all on him, or that the McGraths and Marshalls of this world didn't also have off days - but Steyn has worse bad days more frequently than the greats of the past, and that's a big part of the reason why SA aren't the clear number one side that they ought to be on paper.

 

[spooony]

^That sounds pretty right, no team can be great ALL the time. That Aus-NZ series in 2001 was one I thought of straight away. SA proved in Perth that when their big guns fire they will be a team that's hard to beat - ALL their stars shone in Perth: Steyn, de Villiers, Smith, Amla. The good thing for them is they didn't throw away the matches where they weren't playing well.

And yep spoony you're right, things didn't go SAs way with injuries in Adelaide but saying Australia doctored the pitch is a bit extreme - SA could have won the toss just as easily. Almost 500 runs in a day is an astounding amount, Kallis or not. Steyn came back and bowled a few overs that same day (managed 17.1 for the day), so his injury wasn't serious.

Just to add some interesting facts:
Numbers Game : Numbers Game: Left-arm spin's resurgence, and series runs in vain | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo
The table at the bottom of the article shows that Australia averaged 43.42 with bat over this series vs SA's average of 39.35 - one of the few instances of the team that averaged more losing a series. The worst example being the 2009 Ashes - that series still annoys me greatly... Australia's batting average was 6.49 higher than England's over that series. Just couldn't get out fricken Monty...

Wow stop the bus there. Australia did not doctor the pitch. It is the start of the Aussie summer and the pitches will be flatter than a table in November compared to December where they would have been used for a couple of times. Nothing much bowlers can do on a pitch that still have en bouncce on the 5th day.

Batting avg of one team vs another do not mean anything. Taking 20 wickets in a match means much more and South Africa took 20/485 in the last test. Let me show you what is the difference between no 1 and no 3.

15/616
18/637
20/794

They could only take 20 wickets once. It is not how you start a test match but how you finished a test match. Also those stats are cherry picked and heavily inflated by one batsman scoring 2 double hundreds.

If you have a look at the SA top order vs Australian top you will get this

HM Amla - 377 - 62.83
JH Kallis - 339 - 52.96
F du Plessis - 293 - 146.50
GC Smith - 255 - 42.50
AN Petersen - 200 - 33.33

That is our top 5 now for Aus top 5

MJ Clarke - 576 - 144.00
MEK Hussey - 295 - 59.00
EJM Cowan - 228 - 45.60
DA Warner -206 - 41.20
MS Wade - 121 - 30.25

Now do you see how the stats hide the reality? Clearly with this series two things were shown.
1. Australia's ability to of take 20 wickets were exposed
2. Australia relied heavily on one man Clarke to be competitive.
3. SA beat Australia in a team sport with a thing we called working together as a team.

----------

Correct, we're not talking about ODIs. Well spotted. But all over the world, and particularly in the last few years, it is not uncommon to see Steyn return figures of 1/100+ runs in a Test match innings.

That gets balanced out by the occasional 4/40 and 5/56 to give him excellent bowling averages overall, but the fact remains that his not-so-infrequent bad days at the office are costing South Africa both match and series wins. For example, his 1/98 in Jo'burg and 2/94 in Durban arguably allowed England and Australia to each come away from SA with a drawn series. If you're playing the best team in the world at home, that's basically a victory.

I'm not saying that those losses are all on him, or that the McGraths and Marshalls of this world didn't also have off days - but Steyn has worse bad days more frequently than the greats of the past, and that's a big part of the reason why SA aren't the clear number one side that they ought to be on paper.

That was years ago and we were not no 1 or nearly as good as we are now. And at home we do not give anyone any instructions on preparing pitches. We believe in a fair contest and not creating ones that suite our attack only. They will be a suprise to our batsman just as they would be to any country visiting South Africa's batsman. And no we did not lose a series. We drew it its not losing. We did not get the no 1 spot that way. You forget we only got it off England this year after beating them at home. We have not lost a test this year and that is why we are the number 1 ranked team. Nothing else

BTW Steyn's ave was higher in the wins vs England and Australia than what they where in those drawn series. If you go look up further those grounds are very hard to defend on as Joburg is a small ground where you toe end a ball to the boundary. That WR 438 chase in that ODI springs to mind. That pitch is normally as flat as you can get. What cost us those series was one we did not score enough runs two we did not take 20 wickets and three we did not work together as a team where everyone pitched in with a contribution hence your stats of Steyn suggesting he cost us the match which is nonsense.