Indian tour of South Africa, December-January 2010/11

[War]

over 5 tests it would have been tough to call. the Saffers came out heavily on top statistically because they dominated the first test so massicvely.

with each match it got closer. by the third they posted nearly identical first innings scores, both held up by their star batsman, dunno how much closer people want it to be.

Lets be clear. At least on my part i said India deserved the 1-1 draw, no one & im certainly not questioning or debating that.

I was however just throwing out a synopsis based on the test series review article of cricinfo; India in South Africa 2010-11: A stalemate to savour | Cricket Features | South Africa v India | ESPN Cricinfo. In which the writer was suggesting the series could have been over 5 tests, given the anticipation the series had.

Thus i'm giving SA the edge if 5 test where played,based on factual evidence of what occurred, form of players during the 3 tests that where played.

tbh de villiers, peterson and smith were looking rather lacklustre, smith played pretty identically to sehwag, fast starts but getting out. you can't seperate the batting form of the wicketkeepers and the bowlers, while steyn and morkel were flying, harris and tsotsobe weren't. Singh on the other hand was becoming more of a threat and khan's presence was helping the seamers.

Their is big difference between the decline of runs from De Villiers, Peterson & Smith compared to situations Sehwag, Dravid & Pujara where in.

Smith was confronted by his nemesis Zaheer & may have continued to struggle in another test or two. But they key difference between him & Sehwag is that Smith is now a proven opener against quality new-ball bowling in pacer friendly conditions. Something that sir Sehwag is still struggling to eradicate after almost 9 years of test opening.

So we have the hypothetical scenario in the final two test of:

Smith:

- Continuing to struggle vs Zaheer or potentially conquering his nemesis since he has at least shown he could make runs againts quality new-ball bowling in bowler friendly conditions

Sehwag:

- Continuing to be owned by Steyn & Morkel since in his entire career he has struggled against such bowling & to date no signs of improving against it.

Not sure what to make of Petersen. Kept getting starts, but never truly look technically exposed. Nice looking player.

Cant compare ADV to Dravid & Pujara certainly. ABV never looked in trouble in the final two test, got a few good balls that it & of course he has been in tremendous form the last couple years & was under no pressure.

Dravid "wall" aura has been in decline for years now & his continues struggles in this series pretty much proves he is passed it. Another lackluster test or 2 & Dravid probably wouldn't be on IND next tour to the caribbean.

Pujara although talented like many young sub-continent batsmen was clearly struggling to adjust to the pace in 1st series. Which is no shame, but from a team pespective it was making the middle-order very vulnerable.


With the bowling as i said before. Now that Harris struggled to be a threat in final day @ capetown, basically becoming SAs Hauritz. You do realise the Imran Tahir is now qualified for SA & they have immediately picked him for the ODI series right?. So if another 2 test where to be played, Harris could have easily been dropped for Tahir.

Same things goes of Lopsy. Better bowlers like De Wet & McClaren where present to come in. Plus with a potential test @ the bouncy Jo'Burg to play. SA had the option of playing an all-pace attack like they did last year vs ENG.

You also have highlighted the problem Sharma has become for India & they certainly didnt have any quality back-up to replace him if his failures reached a point of no return.

its you that loves to pontificate on absentees due to injury war, khan was injured for the first and once he came back india's attack improved massively.

not saying india would have won, who can say, but the series got closer, no evidence india were hanging on by the skin of their teeth for it to end and escape with a draw.



furthermore on track record, india have come from behind in most series. recent aus series they won the first by the skin of their teeth but in the second they won easily, they squared sri lanka in the last test, each of the series against south africa they have come back to square the series.o. south africa on the other hand have faded as series have gone on losing winning positions in india, losing the last test in england and australia and failing to close out england in a series they were on top of.

Yes & has you also highlighted IND are known over the last couple years to be slow series starters (especially overseas) even when Zaheer was playing. So another possibility is they probably would have lost given they had no FC matches before the 1st test & may have come back in the 2nd test anyway.

SA failing to close out series in IND 2008 & 2010 doesn't show they have a habit of failing to close out series. They just coincidentally in those last final test, IND prepared dustbowls & SA batsmen struggled.

Plus im not sure how you are seriously equating the fact that SA losing the final dad rubber tests of their 2008 victorious tours to ENG & AUS as sign of them "fading". You do realise between 1995-2006/07 that great Australia team almost lost every dead rubber series test for 11 years & pulverizing every team in live tests?. Surely you are not to call that a fault?

Finally dont make it sound as if SA where struggling to beat ENG last year or something. As many of been mentioning throughout this series with the amazement that Tsotsobe being picked over De Wet & McLaren due to an unofficial quota policy. Last season was a perfect example of that policy costing SA a test series.

SA didn't have the depth to cover for losing Steyn & Kallis the bowler - thats basically why ENG managed to draw that series.

If we look back @ that series:

- In Centurion. ENG deserved that draw. SA selectors made the mistake of persisting with Ntini when he should have been dropped before that series, so they didn't help themselves with that selection. But with Steyn out & Kallis not being able to bowl, their back-ups weren't good enough to do that job on that final day.

- In Durban. ENG outplayed SA. But although Steyn came back, he was not bowling at his best. SA didn't help themselves by again making a poor selection is retaining Ntini instead of picking DeWet.

- In Capetown. ENG where lucky to draw that game. SA where on top for most of that game. Since they got their best side on the park for the 1st time in that series, esepcially in the bowling attack. Losing De Wet to injury on the final day was the difference in that game. Just like how AUS losing Bollinger @ the end of the Mohali test was difference in that test.

- In Jo'Burg. With no injuries hitting the attack & everything going smoothly for SA. SA totally smoked ENG.

So 2-1 to SA, would certainly have been a better reflection of that series.

 

[TruSachFan]

^^India only prepared a dust bowl in Kanpur 08, not Kolkata 10. SAF just collapsed on that pitch, like they always do.

 

[War]

Ye thats what i meant.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

these points are totally fair war, I'm not saying india would have won, I implicitly stated that. However, my points where valid counter-arguements to any review that stated south africa would have won the series.

that's the point, there was indicators both ways that each team could have won. Sehwag, dravid and pujara/raina were already exposed, so it's not like they were accidents waiting to happen, they'd happened every test and SA still ended up losing and drawing one without them contributing. If anything you have to worry if there was a pitch without any green on it, what if sehwag had fired?

I'm not suggesting morkel was bowling badly, but even he was beginning to have less impact by the match. The opposite was true of sreesanth and singh. overall in the series you have to admit, it was the south africans that were getting worse (except kallis and steyn) and not india. Gambhir was adapting quickly, I was actually surprised, but he was due a century if they had continued to play, de villiers on the other hand played an incredible first session and seemed to be getting out cheaply.

and the "got a good ball" arguement is used a lot, and can on the face of it seem like a batsmans unlucky, but in those cases I tend to think back to gary player when he said "the harder I practice, the luckier I get." and I don't think it's always simply a case of being unlucky to keep to get good balls.

 

[AkshayS]

these points are totally fair war, I'm not saying india would have won, I implicitly stated that. However, my points where valid counter-arguements to any review that stated south africa would have won the series.

that's the point, there was indicators both ways that each team could have won. Sehwag, dravid and pujara/raina were already exposed, so it's not like they were accidents waiting to happen, they'd happened every test and SA still ended up losing and drawing one without them contributing. If anything you have to worry if there was a pitch without any green on it, what if sehwag had fired?

I'm not suggesting morkel was bowling badly, but even he was beginning to have less impact by the match. The opposite was true of sreesanth and singh. overall in the series you have to admit, it was the south africans that were getting worse (except kallis and steyn) and not india. Gambhir was adapting quickly, I was actually surprised, but he was due a century if they had continued to play, de villiers on the other hand played an incredible first session and seemed to be getting out cheaply.

and the "got a good ball" arguement is used a lot, and can on the face of it seem like a batsmans unlucky, but in those cases I tend to think back to gary player when he said "the harder I practice, the luckier I get." and I don't think it's always simply a case of being unlucky to keep to get good balls.

Well said Sir.

Well I think that some people can't just accept that India gave a tough fight to Proteas and played really well. Though they missed their chance so does SA.

Not just War, there are many who just can't accept it.
Who knows what would have happened in the additional two tests you are talking about, War.

 

[sami ullah khan]

Cricket is a very subtle kind of a support. I don't think much can be predicted in this sport especially when it involves two of the top teams in the world. Frankly I am not sure who would have won if it was five match series.

 

[War]

these points are totally fair war, I'm not saying india would have won, I implicitly stated that. However, my points where valid counter-arguements to any review that stated south africa would have won the series.

Well the cricinfo review nor i have said that SA would have won the 3 match series. Both them & i have said IND deserved the 1-1 draw here.

I'm just giving SA the edge if another test or two since conditions would have favoured them more & based on the form of certain players.

that's the point, there was indicators both ways that each team could have won. Sehwag, dravid and pujara/raina were already exposed, so it's not like they were accidents waiting to happen, they'd happened every test and SA still ended up losing and drawing one without them contributing. If anything you have to worry if there was a pitch without any green on it, what if sehwag had fired?

Except we know for sure the pitches in the final two test @ Port Elizabeth & Johannesburg would not have been flat.

In P.E you have a pitch very similar to Durban.

While Jo'Burg in the modern day Perth of the 70s, 80s, mid-early 90s. Where as i mentioned before SA would have had the option of unleashing a 5-man pace attack like did last year vs ENG: 4th Test: South Africa v England at Johannesburg, Jan 14-17, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Thats ultimate home court advantage, which is equivalent to IND preparing a dustbowl with 3 spinner & unleashing on the SA batsmen. Which they sort of did @ Kanpur 08 & Kolkotta 2010.

You would expect the home side to prevail in such conditions.

I'm not suggesting morkel was bowling badly, but even he was beginning to have less impact by the match. The opposite was true of sreesanth and singh. overall in the series you have to admit, it was the south africans that were getting worse (except kallis and steyn) and not india. Gambhir was adapting quickly, I was actually surprised, but he was due a century if they had continued to play, de villiers on the other hand played an incredible first session and seemed to be getting out cheaply.

and the "got a good ball" arguement is used a lot, and can on the face of it seem like a batsmans unlucky, but in those cases I tend to think back to gary player when he said "the harder I practice, the luckier I get." and I don't think it's always simply a case of being unlucky to keep to get good balls.

Morkel was bowling consistently throughout the test series & was unlucky not the get more wickets to his name. His first spell on the last day of the final test to Gambhir was one of the best ive ever seen. Which is what made Gambhirs batting so impressive, since its a sign of good opener usually, who can survive such testing new-ball spells. Morkel IMO had another 5 for waiting to happen.

Overall i disagree with the assessment that certain SA where getting worse. As i mentioned before, compared to their IND counterparts. They weren't being technically exposed or anything, while evidence (although we can never 100% predict what can happen in the future) leads to conclusion that they would have handled conditions better over 2 more tests. Along with the fact the SA had quality inform replacements for people like Harris & Tsotsobe, while IND didn't have for certain people.

 

[War]

Well said Sir.

Well I think that some people can't just accept that India gave a tough fight to Proteas and played really well. Though they missed their chance so does SA

Not just War, there are many who just can't accept it.
Who knows what would have happened in the additional two tests you are talking about, War.

Wow. I guess i have type if bigger & bolded. Since im pretty sure i have said numerous times in the last couple of pages that IND deserves their 1-1 draw.

IND no doubt earned this 1-1 draw in SA & both sides where even over 3 tests

Lets be clear. At least on my part i said India deserved the 1-1 draw, no one & im certainly not questioning or debating that.

So i'm not sure how you are managing to deduce any lack of acceptance on my part.

Secondly i've already stated my POV on what could have happened over 5 test for everyone to read. If you disagree or are one of those folks which isn't a fan of indulging in the world of hypotheticals, thats fine.

 

[War]

Cricket is a very subtle kind of a support. I don't think much can be predicted in this sport especially when it involves two of the top teams in the world. Frankly I am not sure who would have won if it was five match series.

Well yes cricket as the great old adage goes is game of "glorious uncertainties" & almost every series something that we dont expect happens, that may leave pundits, journalist, fans, arm-char experts in awe.

But cricket is also a game where consistent trends repeats themselves over & over & far more often than a "glorious uncertainty". Such as:

- In test history. We generally expect batsmen with solid textbook techniques to become good test players. So when we see a young talented batsman come on the scene displaying these qualities, we all get excited.


- In test history. We generally expect 90 mph who swing the ball consistently to be good test bowlers. So when we see a young bowler displaying these qualities, we all get excited.


Few batsmen & bowlers in test history have been successful without doing this.

When teams in the modern game with video & computer analysis plan for a series, they plan for opposition players based on consistent trends of their careers. So if now when the series starts, the oppositon player dominates them, they team accepts that & thats a glorious uncertainty.

The same way before this series myself expected Sehwag to fail/struggle based on trends of his career, im sure the SA camp planned those ways to get him out.

While a glorious uncertainty would be Alastair Cook runs in the recent Ashes. Like Sehwag i expected him to struggle in AUS, given consistent trends of his career since the 2006/07 Ashes. But he surprised everyone.

So i guess in summary. Cricket hypotetical scenarios that may happen in the future or could have happened in the past - backed up by historical evidence. Is just as valid & rational as cricket events that actually did happen. Of coruse the cards will not always fall the way you theorize, but more than 70-80% time in test history they do, thus its generally safe to use it as a guide.

 

[relentless_rock]

Dravid and Ponting both seem to be going through this extended ordinary patch! May be the reason is similar, that both are taking their failures way too seriously and not enjoying their cricket as much as Sachin seems to be doing. While Dravid has no pressure of captaincy, don't understand why Ponting is so hell bent to put that added pressure on himself.
This may be out of place, but I'll like to say this, I always compared Dravid to Ponting than the usual Tendulkar comparisons. Tendulkar was fun comparing to Lara and Mark Waugh.

Hoping fortunes turn for good for Dravid in next series against WI.

 

[AkshayS]

Lets be clear. At least on my part i said India deserved the 1-1 draw, no one & im certainly not questioning or debating that.

Then what for those ifs and buts there?
How can you say SA would've won it had it been a five-match series.
You're going against Indian team at every moment and anybody can tell it to you. I don't mind but too many ifs and buts and then those paragraph long B.S. trying to defend what you said. That is annoying.

 

[War]

Then what for those ifs and buts there?
How can you say SA would've won it had it been a five-match series.

Because theorizing whether SA would have won over 5 tests is a different debate from questioning whether IND deserved to draw the current series over 3 test.

You're going against Indian team at every moment and anybody can tell it to you. I don't mind but too many ifs and buts and then those paragraph long B.S. trying to defend what you said. That is annoying.

I am not against nor do i go against IND @ every moment with anything. This is just a simple cricket discussion, where IND happen to be on receiving end of my POV.

Secondly my paragraph may only be annoying to you & whoever else since you are an Indian fan & this thread & forum has far more Indian fans than SA fans.

Last i checked only one S African poster regularly posts in this thread compared to about 10-15 regular IND posters. So unfortunately any hint of criticism towards IND in general will never be treated objectively.

 

[Adarsh]

And....killer blow - he plays the minority card. Game, set and match. Well played, War.

 

[AkshayS]

I am not against nor do i go against IND @ every moment with anything.

Everyone can see what you are doing.

This is just a simple cricket discussion, where IND happen to be on receiving end of my POV.

I agree it is simple cricket discussion but the theories are baseless.

Secondly my paragraph may only be annoying to you & whoever else since you are an Indian fan & this thread & forum has far more Indian fans than SA fans.

Doesn't make any sense, those were annoying because they were baseless and about if's and buts.

Last i checked only one S African poster regularly posts in this thread compared to about 10-15 regular IND posters. So unfortunately any hint of criticism towards IND in general will never be treated objectively.

Again makes no sense, most of the fans here are ready to accept criticism like we have a really bad bowling attack, fielding standards are low etc. etc.
We are ready to accept what is actually truth but not exaggerated facts. And surely not yours ifs and buts......

----------------------------------

questioning whether IND deserved to draw the current series over 3 test.

And Why are you actually questioning when they have done it. And don't tell me your theory isn't actually a big question. You're questioning India's performance or I must say you just can't accept it.

The other moment you said:

At least on my part i said India deserved the 1-1 draw, no one & im certainly not questioning or debating that.

You should know War, that your theories are based on if that would have happened or I should say they are baseless.
Well I don't care anymore for your paragraph long baseless B.S., and probably won't reply back to you and keep myself in check.

 

[sohum]

Who knows what would have happened in the additional two tests you are talking about, War.

It would have rained for 10 days straight.

----------

Also, this current discussion leads me to use the word dire, which I think should be banned from cricket fora.

Honestly, we have no idea what would have happened. We don't even know if Kallis would have played, for example, given that he was playing injured and may have over-stressed his body. Yes, there were trends that South Africa would do well, but like StinkyBoHoon said, there were also trends that India was finally acclimatizing.

I guess this is the sort of discussion that will happen when all we've got are some pointless ODIs remaining.