South Africa in Australia 2008-09

[andruid]

I think ul find that the teams and series of 2001 and 2006 weren't as good as the one south africa has now. Steyn bowls the perfect length to bamboozle ponting. ANd Ntini can get the left handers. Clarke can't handle pace and bounce along with symonds so Morkel will get them and that's about all you need to worry about my prediction is south africa 2-0. Thats on condition they will bat well but Australai's attack is no longer good Mitchel Johnson is going to get carted and won't play after this summer. He bowls to short and Smith will enjoy hitting him to the fences all summer. Clark will have terrific battlesd with Amla I think but that will subdue him alot and thus Prince De villiers And Boucher will be able to make runs off his bowling due to tiredness and I think Neil Mckenzie has the perfect game to form partnerships. Lee has lost alot of pace he can barely reach 15o these days which the proteas will also like. And Beau Casson is no different to paul harris who they paly in the netsa all the time I think they have all bases covered.

Would love to see you and briony posting in the same thread...

 

[TT Boy]

The fact that the bowler with the skill to do best, Nel, remains the worst performing, says it all.

 

[Precambrian]

Like the height (in Steyn's case), accuracy (in both's) and ability to swing the ball (in Morkel's).

Pollock's accuracy was about as good as anyone in history, while Donald's was mostly pretty good during his international days, though like most people he had his off-days. Donald was a phenomenally skilled bowler of swing, seam and just about anything else you could wish a bowler to bowl, which neither Steyn nor Morkel are yet. Donald and Pollock were both also taller than Steyn.

To date, both Steyn and Morkel are one-trick ponies. Steyn is almost totally reliant on the fast outswinger (much as this is an enormously potent weapon when he gets it right) and to date hasn't demonstrated an ability to do anything much without a new ball. He is also someone who is almost always going to go for runs due to his lack of height, and isn't the most accurate bowler you'll see either. Morkel meanwhile is almost completely reliant on bouncy, seaming decks. If he doesn't get this he offers nothing. He too can be prone to wild inaccuracy.

It truly astounds me that anyone would think they're likely to be as good as one of the best pairs of seam-bowlers in history.

Lolz, to date?

They'd been together just for one season and you are commenting as if you'd been seeing them for aeons! One-trick ponies? Goodness gracious me, if a bowlers is getting me 140 wickets @ 22 per wicket at an unheard-of-in-recent-times SR, I don't care he gets his with a trick or two tricks or just plain vanilla hard seam. It's all about deliverance.

And Donald- Pollock pair, while they were certainly destructive, cannot be classified in the league of the West Indian Quartet or the Pakistani WWs or with a slight tweak, Aussie McG-Warne. Though they indeed were SA's best bowling combo. And this pair looks promising to become that!

And as to your question of height:

Malcolm Marshall was not even 6 feet tall, says it all.

 

[Richard]

Your loving of Nel baffles me

I know it does, because one cannot understand something that one does not oneself possess. You dislike him, so you can't understand why anyone would like him, nor consider him a skilled bowler.

 

[Precambrian]

The fact that the bowler with the skill to do best, Nel, remains the worst performing, says it all.

OMG!

 

[Richard]

And you can all you want, but Nel has skills Ntini, Morkel and Steyn do not have and who knows, may never have. They are all very one-dimensional; Nel is not. Sadly, though, Nel doesn't seem to be able to get his act together any more, and too often goes off-the-boil after starting well. The inaccuracy which he has often fallen into in the last couple of years has been sad to see.

 

[Richard]

OMG!

Stick your s where the sun don't shine, TBH. Useless posts.

 

[Richard]

Dale Steyn 25 test matches. 143 wickets @ 22.51. Richard dear, you ought to read your posts again! (Excluding Bangladesh - 23 matches, 130 wickets @ 23.73) Enough to get him into any current World XI, I'd guess! And he's just 24 or 25...

As for Morne, he's just started his career, and by what i've seen of him so far (in India), he looks a dependable, all-day bolwing partner for the expresso Steyn. I think that was what initially Polly-Donald combo was about. I am not saying they're already world beaters. Going by what I've seen, I think this duo is the most exciting of young fast bowlers to come up in a while, add to that Ishant Sharma, and Tim Southee. These 4 will be the stars in another 3 or 4 years.

Do you understand the word "potential"? I'm well aware that both Morne and Steyn have just started their careers, and that Steyn in the last couple of years has been phenomenal. However anyone with an ounce of cricketing sense can assess a player and realise their limitations, limitations they will never overcome. Steyn and Morkel both possess a fair few of these; Donald and Pollock did not have very many. Even though they could perhaps become a very good combination, they will never become as good as Donald and Pollock.

No sarcasm, but coming this from a person who says Vaughan is a better opening batsman than Virender Sehwag, just because he ahs a silken cover drive, I can understand.

Going from someone who evidently can't even read basic posts (given I've never once called Vaughan a better opener than Sehwag, merely both pretty average), I can understand.

 

[Richard]

Lolz, to date?

They'd been together just for one season and you are commenting as if you'd been seeing them for aeons! One-trick ponies? Goodness gracious me, if a bowlers is getting me 140 wickets @ 22 per wicket at an unheard-of-in-recent-times SR, I don't care he gets his with a trick or two tricks or just plain vanilla hard seam. It's all about deliverance.

Well no it's not really. It's about potential. Most people who know about bowling realise Steyn is almost certain not to go on with such phenomenal figures. Because one-trick ponies tend not to, however good that trick is (and Steyn's fast outswinger is indeed a deadly ball). To see that Steyn's performances for a couple of years have been phenomenal and simply presume they can continue to be so is, well, ignorant.

And Donald- Pollock pair, while they were certainly destructive, cannot be classified in the league of the West Indian Quartet or the Pakistani WWs or with a slight tweak, Aussie McG-Warne.

They are easily the equals of Wasim and Waqar, and do you understand that a duo cannot be compared to a quartet? You know, 2 =| 4? Nor is a seamer-spinner pairing comparable to two seamers.

Though they indeed were SA's best bowling combo. And this pair looks promising to become that!

No, it doesn't. As I've said, they do not have the potential to be as good as Donald and Pollock.

And as to your question of height:

Malcolm Marshall was not even 6 feet tall, says it all.

Err, Malcolm Marshall happens to be the bowler I consider the greatest seamer in history. However, you'll have to look for a very, very long time before you can find the next truly top-of-the-tree bowler of such a short height. Just because Malcolm Marshall, the greatest seamer in history, could defy a rule that virtually all others come under, does not mean Dale Steyn can.

 

[Precambrian]

Well no it's not really. It's about potential. Most people who know about bowling realise Steyn is almost certain not to go on with such phenomenal figures. Because one-trick ponies tend not to, however good that trick is (and Steyn's fast outswinger is indeed a deadly ball). To see that Steyn's performances for a couple of years have been phenomenal and simply presume they can continue to be so is, well, ignorant.

No-one is born with skills. Steyn managed to trick (with his 1-trick as you say) the best batsmen of the ilk even in non-helpful conditions of the subcontinent. In fact he took a fifer on a road in Pakistan and he troubled the Indian batsmen galore in India (remember who had a reasonably good tour of Australia just then).

They are easily the equals of Wasim and Waqar, and do you understand that a duo cannot be compared to a quartet? You know, 2 =| 4? Nor is a seamer-spinner pairing comparable to two seamers.

That's why I added the term "With a tweak". And equals of Wasim and Waqar? Mate? You got be kidding!

No, it doesn't. As I've said, they do not have the potential to be as good as Donald and Pollock.

Blah.

Err, Malcolm Marshall happens to be the bowler I consider the greatest seamer in history. However, you'll have to look for a very, very long time before you can find the next truly top-of-the-tree bowler of such a short height. Just because Malcolm Marshall, the greatest seamer in history, could defy a rule that virtually all others come under, does not mean Dale Steyn can.

He wasn't born the greatest seamer. Nor he debuted the greatest seamer. He ended up becoming one of the greatest eamers. Young Steyn is that, a bit shortish, zippy, and quickish through the air, like Marshall, but sometimes can surprise with his bouncers. Steyn will only improve with time. And you are making no-one fool by discounting his 140 odd Test wickets at 22 a peice. These are TEST WICKETS man. Give them some due.

 

[Richard]

No-one is born with skills. Steyn managed to trick (with his 1-trick as you say) the best batsmen of the ilk even in non-helpful conditions of the subcontinent. In fact he took a fifer on a road in Pakistan and he troubled the Indian batsmen galore in India (remember who had a reasonably good tour of Australia just then).

Steyn actually cleaned-up the Indian tail after someone had surged to 319, then cashed-in on a green wicket that was considerably less subcontinent-like than it was South Africa-like, then bowled relatively moderately in the one true subcontinent-esque surface of the series. Steyn's performances in Pakistan and Sri Lanka were notably poor, really, though in both two-Test series' he managed one withering burst. He performed well though not exceptionally in his stop-start 2006/07 summer at home to India and Pakistan. The rest of his wickets, and the figures which were phenomenal, have come against the weak batting-line-ups of New Zealand and West Indies on seaming, uneven and sometimes both surfaces. And he bowled distinctly moderately in his truncated series in England.

Steyn will very probably be a very fine Test bowler, but the next Allan Donald or Shaun Pollock? Not a chance.

That's why I added the term "With a tweak". And equals of Wasim and Waqar? Mate? You got be kidding!

Nope. Wasim and Waqar when at their best were slightly more deadly, sure, but over the course of their careers Donald and Pollock's achievements equalled the Ws's at worst.

He wasn't born the greatest seamer. Nor he debuted the greatest seamer. He ended up becoming one of the greatest eamers.

Well no-one becomes the greatest seamer on their Test debut, and while Marshall's maiden Test series wasn't good at all, it's hardly surprising given he was basically playing for West Indies' Second XI and clearly wasn't much chop yet. As soon as he was picked post-Packer, it was very obvious that here was a bowler of rare skill and his results were instantly excellent. He was also likely slightly quicker than Steyn and was very, very obviously far more accurate.

Young Steyn is that, a bit shortish, zippy, and quickish through the air, like Marshall, but sometimes can surprise with his bouncers. Steyn will only improve with time. And you are making no-one fool by discounting his 140 odd Test wickets at 22 a peice. These are TEST WICKETS man. Give them some due.

Steyn will not only improve with time. Steyn is about as good now as he can be, really. I don't see him getting all that much more accurate. He certainly isn't going to get any taller. He will never have Marshall's accuracy, and that's what made Marshall the greatest of them all.

 

[Swervy]

I know it does, because one cannot understand something that one does not oneself possess. You dislike him, so you can't understand why anyone would like him, nor consider him a skilled bowler.

I don't dislike him at all, he is a great character to watch...and whether I dislike or not is irrelevent. I enjoy him getting clobbered about the place after he is chatting crap on the field as if he is the best bowler that ever set foot on a cricket pitch. I just think he is pretty overrated by you

 

[Swervy]

Well no it's not really. It's about potential. Most people who know about bowling realise Steyn is almost certain not to go on with such phenomenal figures. Because one-trick ponies tend not to, however good that trick is (and Steyn's fast outswinger is indeed a deadly ball). To see that Steyn's performances for a couple of years have been phenomenal and simply presume they can continue to be so is, well, ignorant.

This is what confuses me...a lot of people could see the potential in Brett Lee, and for many it was completely conceivable that he could bowl in the way he has done in the last year or so. You dismissed that notion..and yet now, you say its all about potential with Steyn. Make your mind up please.

The guy is young, he is currently the most successful quick in the world game at the moment. There is every chance he will develop other 'tricks' as time goes on. I seem to remember Allan Donald being merely a yound tearaway in the late 80s/early 90s, and yet he developed his game, dont see why this cant happen with Steyn. It might not happen of course, but that certainly wouldnt mean you are right now.

Err, Malcolm Marshall happens to be the bowler I consider the greatest seamer in history. However, you'll have to look for a very, very long time before you can find the next truly top-of-the-tree bowler of such a short height. Just because Malcolm Marshall, the greatest seamer in history, could defy a rule that virtually all others come under, does not mean Dale Steyn can.

Steyn is 6 ft tall, 1 inch shorter than Richard Hadlee, was Donald particularly tall? Andy Roberts? Larwood? How tall was Waqar?

How tall was Derek Pringle?

 

[Richard]

I don't dislike him at all, he is a great character to watch...and whether I dislike or not is irrelevent. I enjoy him getting clobbered about the place after he is chatting crap on the field as if he is the best bowler that ever set foot on a cricket pitch.

Which is odd TSTL. If someone is "a great character to watch" it's strange that someone who considered them that would "enjoy them getting clobbered about the place". Not that he often "gets clobbered about the place" anyway, though he has been ineffective where wicket-taking is concerned mostly in recent times.

I just think he is pretty overrated by you

Well he's not. I rate him exactly as he is - a once potentially excellent bowler who is now near enough certain to achieve nowhere near what I'd thought he could.

 

[Richard]

This is what confuses me...a lot of people could see the potential in Brett Lee, and for many it was completely conceivable that he could bowl in the way he has done in the last year or so. You dismissed that notion..and yet now, you say its all about potential with Steyn. Make your mind up please.

Well people thought they could see it in Lee, and they turned-out to be right. I see no potential in Steyn to be any better than he is now - he's about as good as he can be. That's very good indeed, but because someone is as rarely skilled as he at a relatively young age people assume he can get better still. It doesn't work that way. Broadly, he's in the same boat as Monty Panesar. Both of them can only hope to continue on the way they've managed so far, not get any better.

The guy is young, he is currently the most successful quick in the world game at the moment. There is every chance he will develop other 'tricks' as time goes on. I seem to remember Allan Donald being merely a yound tearaway in the late 80s/early 90s, and yet he developed his game, dont see why this cant happen with Steyn. It might not happen of course, but that certainly wouldnt mean you are right now.

Ah, but Steyn has little that can be developed the way Donald did. He's about as good now as he could be, really. Well, he could learn an inswinger and he could get better with reverse-swing, but that's something you almost expect of a bowler these days.

Steyn will always remain a vulnerable bowler, subject to wild inaccuracies. Virtually no bowler has ever cured that tendency. Donald may have been less accurate in his early days than he was later on - near enough everyone has said that (though he wasn't playing Test cricket at the time, fortunately). But he wasn't, couldn't, ever have been as wayward as Steyn can be not irregularly.

Steyn is 6 ft tall, 1 inch shorter than Richard Hadlee, was Donald particularly tall? Andy Roberts? Larwood? How tall was Waqar?

Waqar was notably different from all of the aforementioned, and similar to Steyn. He suffered from the exact same problems Steyn will do, even though he had far more attacking arsenal at his disposal (more so than Steyn is terribly likely to), and it meant that in the end he was only a truly top-of-the-tree bowler (rather than second-tier) for a short period in his career.

I don't think Roberts, Larwood, Donald or several others were giants, but they sure as delivered the ball from a greater height than Steyn does. Not only is Steyn fairly short, but he has very short levers and a low-slung action. Donald sent the ball down from a fairly considerably greater height due to longer levers and a perfect high arm and leg action. Roberts and Larwood gave a similar impression, too, though I can't say I've ever undertaken extensive analysis of their actions.

How tall was Derek Pringle?

Don't have a clue, but I'm guessing from the Laugh smiley he was pretty tall. Which is irrelevant really - no-one has claimed every tall bowler was good.

 

[subshakerz]

Steyn actually cleaned-up the Indian tail after someone had surged to 319, then cashed-in on a green wicket that was considerably less subcontinent-like than it was South Africa-like, then bowled relatively moderately in the one true subcontinent-esque surface of the series. Steyn's performances in Pakistan and Sri Lanka were notably poor, really, though in both two-Test series' he managed one withering burst. He performed well though not exceptionally in his stop-start 2006/07 summer at home to India and Pakistan. The rest of his wickets, and the figures which were phenomenal, have come against the weak batting-line-ups of New Zealand and West Indies on seaming, uneven and sometimes both surfaces. And he bowled distinctly moderately in his truncated series in England.

Steyn will very probably be a very fine Test bowler, but the next Allan Donald or Shaun Pollock? Not a chance.

Steyn will not only improve with time. Steyn is about as good now as he can be, really. I don't see him getting all that much more accurate. He certainly isn't going to get any taller. He will never have Marshall's accuracy, and that's what made Marshall the greatest of them all.

I'm sorry, but I think you dismissing Steyn as a one-trick pony is pretty baseless. He's done as well as one can expect from his first tours to the subconinent, while Brett Lee has yet to impress there. What I don't understand is you adamant assertion that he will simply NOT improve, at all. Based on what?

You say that accuracy cannot be learnt. But it took Brett Lee seven years to transform from a reckless tearaway to the well-rounded fast bowler he is. Richard Hadlee was all over the place when he started, and later developed into the most accurate bowler of all time. How many greats have started as tearaways but became more organized later on? The fact that Steyn is a successful tearaway now is merely to his credit.

And far from what you say, he has more than just the deadly outswinger. He also has displayed pace, a sharp bouncer, a penetrative yorker and inswing as well. It's harder to see him slipping now to the Brett Lee of old than building on his gifts.

 

[Burgey]

Just heard on the radio the test series between Aus and SA has been "condensed" and some games moved to accommodate the T20 Champions Bull****.

Not sure on details yet, other than it's a crock of ****.

 

[grapedo]

Err, I know pretty much every South African line-up of the last 10 years. The team of 2001/02 had Kirsten, Gibbs, Kallis, McKenzie, Boucher, Klusener and Pollock, quality players all. They also thought they might have Donald, though sadly they were mistaken (he did play, but he wasn't the real Allan Donald any more). That they didn't make the Super Six (not Eight) of WC2003 was a) totally irrelevant as that's a ODI competition and the Australia Test series was, astonishingly enough, a Test series and b) not due to the inadequecies of that team.

As for 2005/06, Smith was less out of form than merely not playing terribly well at that time. The way he repeatedly played at wide deliveries, something he virtually never did in 2003, and something he's still doing far more than I'd like to see right now, caused him near enough all his problems. Kallis suffered with an injury in a whole 1 Test (and though he played 2 good innings', he was wrongly criticised for not upping the pace despite being pretty well incapable of doing so thanks to his lack of fitness) and simply did not bat as well as one might hope he would. ABdeV was a decent player, so was Prince, neither of them performed - it happens. Kemp played a whole 1 Test.

Now, there is Smith (who as I say has still not completely convinced me the way I'd like him to have), McKenzie (who has still to convince as an opener, pretty well all his big runs coming on stupidly flat wickets), Amla (who has still to convince full-stop), Kallis (who's just had a poor series where his long-standing failure to sight very full balls has been exposed, a weakness you can bet your life the Australians will look to repeat exploiting and which I hope he'll make an effort to address), Prince (a good player but who might have put all his eggs in a basket for now) and de Villiers (an opener batting at six). That could be strong, but it could be weak as well.

And the bowling-attack remains very much to convince. The fact that the bowler with the skill to do best, Nel, remains the worst performing, says it all.

The bowling attack is aweswome Steyn morkel Ntini nel dosen't make the team anymore. And I think u need to realise that those series happened ages ago south afriac have improved now. Amla bats like a sub continent player. Mckenzie has a very patient skillful game smith is an absolute gun and back to ihs best. Kallis needs to recapture the form he had last calendar year where he hit over 1000 runs. And the team in 2001 was very similar to the worl dcup team so get ya facts wright you wan****

 

[grapedo]

No. They've done nothing of the sort. There is not a prayer in hell of either Steyn or Morkel being as good as Donald or Pollock. It simply is not going to happen. They do not have sufficient basic skills.

Yes thay have they will be better than donald and pollock steyn especially

 

[grapedo]

Just heard on the radio the test series between Aus and SA has been "condensed" and some games moved to accommodate the T20 Champions Bull****.

Not sure on details yet, other than it's a crock of ****.

8Yeah i know wh gives a **** bout 20 20 leagues