India v South Africa ODI in Dhaka

[red+black]

I'm so pleased to see that South Africa have put the disappointment of the World Cup behind them, and selected a fresh captain with a view to the future. How exciting to play a team such as India who were humiliated and demoralised in the World Cup final, even better, to play them without Tendulkar. This match should be indicative of the positive direction in which South African cricket is travelling.

Sorry, what was that? What's the score?

India 4/307 in 50 overs
South Africa 6/89 in 24 overs

But at least the captain put in a true captain's knock.

GC Smith b Agarkar 1

I'd say that Pollock was twice as good a captain, as his score reflects:

SM Pollock c Mongia b Harbhajan Singh 2

nuff said.

[golions]

Originally posted by red+black

But at least the captain put in a true captain's knock.

GC Smith b Agarkar 1



Yeah and if I recall correctly, Mark Taylor made a pair in his first test match as captain...:o

[St-KriS]

Originally posted by golions
Yeah and if I recall correctly, Mark Taylor made a pair in his first test match as captain...:o

With all due respect to Greame Smith, He is no where near the level of Mark Taylor yet.

[Zombie]

Originally posted by St-KriS
With all due respect to Greame Smith, He is no where near the level of Mark Taylor yet.

Yes he is, despite being a young cricketer (22 I believe) he is already a better batsmen than Mark Taylor ever was.

[red+black]

Originally posted by Zombie
Yes he is, despite being a young cricketer (22 I believe) he is already a better batsmen than Mark Taylor ever was.
yeah, of course he is. and south africa are the best test nation going round.

[RzrBlade]

i can see the jokes are flying in this thread...

give tubby some credit, only because he wasnt the most exhiliarting batsman around doesnt mean he wasnt good, remember he holds the 334 highest score with bradman.

[red+black]

Originally posted by RzrBlade
i can see the jokes are flying in this thread...

give tubby some credit, only because he wasnt the most exhiliarting batsman around doesnt mean he wasnt good, remember he holds the 334 highest score with bradman.
it was actually 334*

[RzrBlade]

i knew that, thanx for correcting me :rolleyes:

bottom line is that taylor was a legend in his own right and should be respected :)

but graheme smith for the proteas does have a bright fututre in my opinion, and yes everyone can have the batting blues in there first major assignment as a captain of an internatinal side im sure. pressure would be paramount, so you gotta give the kid some time to fit into the mould of the job.

[red+black]

the prosecution rests your honour.

you call him a kid, but he was apparently worthy of being mad captain of arguably the best test nation in the world.

me thinks he, and south african (and english) cricket better grow up fast.

[Zombie]

It is quite simple, Smith has a test average of 55 and a first class average of 48 compared to Taylors Test average of 43 and first class average of 42.

At first class level Taylor scored a century every 11 innings, at test level every 10 innings, Smith scores a century every 7 innings at first class level, at test level every 6.

How the passing of time glorifies our perceptions of things, Taylor was a great servant of Australian cricket and probably one of the best slips fielders of all time but he won't go down as one of the all time greats on his batting ability, his was good but not great and nowhere near the likes of G.Chappell, Border, S.Waugh, etc.

Smith is a great up and coming young batsmen who has the credentials behind him to prove it, I think it is just another case of armchair Australians who can't appreciate talent from other countries, Smith is certainly better than any young player we have coming through.

[Generalissimo]

Originally posted by red+black
arguably the best test nation in the world.



The only people who would 'argue' that South Africa is better than Australia are people who have lived in Greenland without a TV or radio for the past four years.

[red+black]

Originally posted by Zombie
It is quite simple, Smith has a test average of 55 and a first class average of 48 compared to Taylors Test average of 43 and first class average of 42.

At first class level Taylor scored a century every 11 innings, at test level every 10 innings, Smith scores a century every 7 innings at first class level, at test level every 6.

How the passing of time glorifies our perceptions of things, Taylor was a great servant of Australian cricket and probably one of the best slips fielders of all time but he won't go down as one of the all time greats on his batting ability, his was good but not great and nowhere near the likes of G.Chappell, Border, S.Waugh, etc.

Smith is a great up and coming young batsmen who has the credentials behind him to prove it, I think it is just another case of armchair Australians who can't appreciate talent from other countries, Smith is certainly better than any young player we have coming through.
where your argument falls down though, is that Mark Taylor played cricket for Australia, and Smithy will only play for some poor colony known as South Africa. Smithy can have whatever dubious personal achievements he likes, fact is, he will never play cricket for Australia, and as much, will have an almost meaningless cricket career.

[red+black]

and to add insult to injury, the great man Smith scored 16 v Bangladesh. 170* to Rudolph, 131* to Dippenaar.

Rudolph, century on debut, Dippenaar, second ever test century.

i can see why Smithy struggled.

go South Africa, world's greatest test team, destroyer of all challengers.

[crudbucket]

Mark Taylor was an opening batsman who took on the best the world had to offer every time he batted....He did not play every second test match against Zimbabwe and Bangla Desh !!!

[red+black]

Originally posted by red+black
and to add insult to injury, the great man Smith scored 16 v Bangladesh. 170* to Rudolph, 131* to Dippenaar.

Rudolph, century on debut, Dippenaar, second ever test century.

i can see why Smithy struggled.

go South Africa, world's greatest test team, destroyer of all challengers.
south africa declare 2/470, rudolph 222* on debut (2nd best debut), dippenaar 178*.

The 429 run partnership:
- south africa's best partnership for any wicket against any nation
- the 3rd best 3rd wicket partnership by any nation
- the 5th best partnership for any wicket by any nation

seeing as it's not even lunch on the 3rd day, and bangladesh are already going to have to chase 300 just to catch up, south africa really could have batted for another day and a half and still won.

surely someone will break lara's record if the captain really wants to chase records.

looks like another innings defeat for Bangladesh. Thanks Dalmiya.

[EagleBlue]

Interesting to note, I just checked out the official Test Championship joke (oops sorry, table) and it states that Australia will go top should it defeat the WI even if SAF beat Bangladesh, how does that equate ??????

[Unwritten_Law]

Originally posted by Zombie
It is quite simple, Smith has a test average of 55 and a first class average of 48 compared to Taylors Test average of 43 and first class average of 42.


That is one of the more amusing things that I have read today.

Comparing averages between a great servant of Australian cricket (104 matches) and a rookie who has played 8 tests. On top of this Smith's test series have all been played at home in South Africa with 6 of his games against Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Sri Lanka are useless away from home (or slow pitches) and you can never be sure which Pakistan team will show up on the day. Out of his 606 runs, 224 were against the cricketing superpower of Bangladesh. Taylor didn't have the luxury to boost his average against that sort of attack. Pull your head out of your arse.

[Unwritten_Law]

Originally posted by EagleBlue
Interesting to note, I just checked out the official Test Championship joke (oops sorry, table) and it states that Australia will go top should it defeat the WI even if SAF beat Bangladesh, how does that equate ??????

Last series we played against WI away we drew, so if we win another test (or two) we pick up points. I'd imagine South Africa will just be playing to retain their points because they beat Bangladesh last time around and hence we leapfrog them.

[EagleBlue]

Originally posted by Unwritten_Law
Last series we played against WI away we drew, so if we win another test (or two) we pick up points. I'd imagine South Africa will just be playing to retain their points because they beat Bangladesh last time around and hence we leapfrog them.

You mean to say that (hypothetically) an Australian win against SAF would not earn as many points as say beating India (at home) because India beat us last time. This system is even more ridiculous than I thought, I thought it may have been due to the fact that beating a higher ranked side, in this case WI would earn more points than SAF beating Bangladesh. But then again I have never been able to understand this ridiculous championship table

[Unwritten_Law]

It is the same sort of principle as the Tennis world rankings. The points carry over from the previous home/away series against any particular team.

So yes we would earn more points beating India away then defeating SA, a win against SA would only retain points. That is why SA are on top at the moment because we need to play both Zimbabwe and Bangladesh in home/away series to gain points.

That's my understanding anyway....

[St-KriS]

Originally posted by Unwritten_Law
It is the same sort of principle as the Tennis world rankings. The points carry over from the previous home/away series against any particular team.

So yes we would earn more points beating India away then defeating SA, a win against SA would only retain points. That is why SA are on top at the moment because we need to play both Zimbabwe and Bangladesh in home/away series to gain points.

That's my understanding anyway....

I think you've hit it on the head.

Also, we're still a bit away from gaining maximum points right? Because we havent defeated WI (yet), India, Sri Lanka & Bangladesh away and Bandladesh at home. So we could end up with a massive lead over the next team.

Am I correct in thinking that? :confused:

[Unwritten_Law]

According to Cricinfo - the series we can gain points in:

Home:

Bangladesh (*)
Sri Lanka (*)
Zim (*)
New Zealand (Last series drawn)

Away:

Bangladesh (*)
Zimbabwe (*)
India (Last series lost)
Sri Lanka (Last series lost)
West Indies (Last series drawn)

(*) - denotes yet to play.

More than you would have thought on first impressions.

[red+black]

the system really is quite easy to understand. 2 points for a series win, 1 each for a drawn series, 0 for a loss. A series must be of at least two tests. A series win away to South Africa is worth 2 points, just as a series home win against Bangladesh is. If you last defeated a team, then you need to do so again just to keep the status quo.

The inevitable series win against the West Indies will indeed be worth two points, but last time we drew (1 point), so that will merely change to a win (2 points), in effect, a positive 1 point differential.

There is nothing wrong with the system, although it may not be the best system. South Africa are on top simply because they have played the minnows, not because they won on the sub-continent, as they would lead us to believe. Give it twelve months, and we will be back on top with such a lead, South Africa will put behind them thoughts of being #1 and simply be doing their best to remain as the #2 test team in the world.

[DaveW]

South Africa have never played Bangladesh in Bangladesh before, so whilst they can gain an extra two points, it also increases their series played, so it will only increase their points per series by a small amount. Australia can increase their points by one, but its still divided by the same amount of series played, since the series draw against the West Indies four years ago is disregarded.

Currently

South Africa 27/17 = 1.59
Australia 20/13 = 1.54

If both teams win their current series, the new standings are

Australia 21/13 = 1.62
South Africa 29/18 = 1.61