Poor Cousin RSA

[PhatBoy]

Long Post Alert - not really sure it even has a point other than just musing, but maybe along the lines that we make more of things because we are engrossed in the drama that’s around them….

Read an interesting story from Sid Monga in Cricinfo today about the India Australia rivalry over the past 25 years which was a good read but left me wondering whether SA’s contribution, as it tends to do as one of the non-power nations tends to get overlooked from the last 20 years of test cricket.

The general gist of the article DID actually acknowledge SA’s role in their rivalry with Australia which produced some excellent cricket and which took the balance of power as far as test sides go, but basically said that the most compelling rivalry belonged to India and Australia.

Caveat: I like SA whereas I’m vocal in saying I don’t like either Australia or India as teams so I Am biased so that needs to be said.

My personal view is that the most heated rivalry in cricket - of existent ones anyway because let’s be honest, India and Pakistan’s rivalry doesn’t exist - is Australia and India. That in itself gives it a compelling quality from the get go. And as Monga observes, the polar opposite conditions that the two countries play in automatically mean that wherever the teams play, one side is pushing shit uphill.

But has the actual quality of the cricket matched the intensity of the rivalry?

There HAS been some amazing moments but there’s also been some underwhelming ones. 99-00 in Australia was a non event. 01 India was obviously the peak in many ways as Australia’s team was among the best ever assembled, Gilchrist and Hayden played incredible knocks in the first test, and India produced that freak comeback on the back of Laxman and Dravid and Harbhajan in the second, and Tendulkar and Harbhajan got them going in the third. Fair play.

India did well to earn a draw here in 03-04 but it was an underwhelming series in some ways, no Warne and McGrath, bat dominated ball, Dravid played a brilliant test in Adelaide, Ganguly played a great innings in Brisbane, I can’t remember who dominated for Australia in Melbourne - Sehwag hit 195 - and then Tendulkar made a thousand in what was actually a pretty boring innings in Sydney. Laxman made a hundred too.

Australia went to India and finally won on the back of its quicks doing an incredible job as a group, Damien Martyn delivering some of the most underappreciated knocks in modern Australian history, and Michael Clarke playing a brilliant innings.

And to me, that’s kind of where things peaked in some regards.

There’s been definitely moments since but not definitive ones:

• Kohli hitting four centuries in a series was amazing. But they were soundly beaten that tour.
• his other centuries in Australia also came to nothing.
• smith has played a couple of gems in India. They haven’t led to any series wins in India and by and large the series’ in India since Australia won have veered from some run fests to a couple of lotteries where the overall quality was pretty poor and gave mediocre bowlers an easy ride. Some of the home batsmen who made runs were pretty ordinary at times while the likes of O’Keefe you would have to wonder at whether they would take wickets in any other scenario than the ones in which they did.

The obvious counter is that India has won two series here, which is fair enough. Bouncing back from the Adelaide debacle which in itself was memorable. But the win in Melbourne was a bit meh…. Rahane played a decent innings albeit not that memorable. The draw in Sydney was decent enough but seems to have grown in stature as time has gone on. Brisbane was obviously a remarkable finish.

Pujara I would say did produce some epics in the win before it.


During the years prior to the last SA tour where they were just non competitive, I would counter that the general standard of cricket was higher and if you take away the veneer of rivalry, more memorable.

Johnson delivered two of the most hostile spells in memory in Perth (8-60 or whatever it was) and then his 12 for the game at centurion against some of the greatest players of pace bowling in modern cricket.

To counter that, Dale Steyn played perhaps the best test match by a visiting specialist bowler in Australia this century when he took 5 in each innings in Melbourne, and made 70 with his team in strife to secure SA’s first ever series win here. Oh, and at the other end JP Duminy hit 150 in his second test alongside him.

SA chased down 418 in Perth with Smith and De Villiers making centuries AFTER that Johnson onslaught.

Graeme Smith comes out to bat in Sydney with the busted hand.

Australia goes back over to SA stunned having finally lost at home after 16 years - Johnson clobbers 96 not out, Marcus North makes a century on debut to win the first test and then Phillip Hughes makes back to back hundreds in his second match against the best attack in the world on their home deck as Australia immediately returns the favour.

A couple of years on and Australia goes to Capetown, makes what looks like a competitive 284 on a greenish wicket and then rolls SA for under 100.
Vernon Philander destroys Australia who are 9-21 before Nathan Lyon ‘bails them out of trouble’ to post 47 and SA win by 8 wickets in a canter as Smith and Amla make hundreds like they’re batting in the nets.

Next match Pat Cummins fresh from his primary school graduation not only bowls like the wind but guides his team home chasing 310.

The great moments keep coming between the sides:

Rabada bowls SA to victory on a featherbed in Perth

Kallis bats SA to safety in Brisbane

De Villiers and Du Plessis famously hold on in Adelaide

Philander and Abbot roll through Australia in Hobart while de Kock bats like it’s a t20 game

Clarke makes that ridiculous hundred getting peppered by Morkel in SA

And that’s just the period between 2008 and that last SA tour. I didn’t want to address sandpapergate I think it’s better left separate.

You can go back before that for some other extremely high quality cricket as well.

Do we oversell the standard of the BGT or for that matter the Ashes because of the hype and the hatred involved in them?

For me the best cricket I’ve watched consistently has always been Australia-SA

 

[Cleavy]

do you think the Sth Africa 'argument' is hurt slightly by them only playing 3 test series?

 

[PhatBoy]

do you think the Sth Africa 'argument' is hurt slightly by them only playing 3 test series?

I certainly don’t think it helps, and I could kind of see Monga’s point about the contrast in conditions but at the same time it was that closeness in the make up of the sides and conditions they grew up in yet the contrast in how they ‘traditionally’ played (Australia always had this reputation as the attacking side that dictated terms, SA as the stodgy side who tried to absorb it) that sort of lent itself to how good the cricket was. Then SA added some punch to their batting and Australia added this fearsome element to their bowling that rounded everything out perfectly

 

[Richard Pryor]

I think the reasoning purely on cricket is solid, but I think the fans play a huge role in any sporting rivalry. The atmosphere at a match can make a drubbing still feel like a carnival event (I hate the Barmy Army but they bring the same 'Ashes' rivalry atmosphere to the Fifth Test when England are 4-0 down.)

South African fans don't really have a big presence and identity and the sport is not the sport of the populace at large in South Africa so matches against South Africa don't really get elevated by the crowds. It's like how beating GWS's best team in a final with brilliant play still wouldn't be as exciting as beating Geelong with a worse standard of play.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

I’d say the relative styles of the 2 rivalries helps your point a little. SA v AUS is for the most part going to be played on quick bouncy pitches between 2 teams with very good fast bowling attacks and batting line ups that are tailor made for those conditions - it will be exciting cricket one way or another.

India v Aus in both countries is more likely to be a slow burn type (although, that is slowly changing batting wise), an arm wrestle instead of a cage match.

I think both have their respective merits, and personally don’t prefer one over the other. The off field stuff v India is definitely spicier

 

[Richard Pryor]

I’d say the relative styles of the 2 rivalries helps your point a little. SA v AUS is for the most part going to be played on quick bouncy pitches between 2 teams with very good fast bowling attacks and batting line ups that are tailor made for those conditions - it will be exciting cricket one way or another.

India v Aus in both countries is more likely to be a slow burn type (although, that is slowly changing batting wise), an arm wrestle instead of a cage match.

I think both have their respective merits, and personally don’t prefer one over the other. The off field stuff v India is definitely spicier

On off-field stuff, I think peak SA rivalry was when Faf du Plessis was captain. What a great sporting villain, man I hated that guy.

 

[Gough]

I think the reasoning purely on cricket is solid, but I think the fans play a huge role in any sporting rivalry. The atmosphere at a match can make a drubbing still feel like a carnival event (I hate the Barmy Army but they bring the same 'Ashes' rivalry atmosphere to the Fifth Test when England are 4-0 down.)

South African fans don't really have a big presence and identity and the sport is not the sport of the populace at large in South Africa so matches against South Africa don't really get elevated by the crowds. It's like how beating GWS's best team in a final with brilliant play still wouldn't be as exciting as beating Geelong with a worse standard of play.

The cricket demographic in South Africa has always been relatively small, that they've fielded such good teams over the years is to their credit but perhaps they're finding their natural level.

 

[PhatBoy]

I’d say the relative styles of the 2 rivalries helps your point a little. SA v AUS is for the most part going to be played on quick bouncy pitches between 2 teams with very good fast bowling attacks and batting line ups that are tailor made for those conditions - it will be exciting cricket one way or another.

India v Aus in both countries is more likely to be a slow burn type (although, that is slowly changing batting wise), an arm wrestle instead of a cage match.

I think both have their respective merits, and personally don’t prefer one over the other. The off field stuff v India is definitely spicier

That’s a good point, things tend to unfold slowly before reaching a crescendo in the Aus-India games.

The cricket demographic in South Africa has always been relatively small, that they've fielded such good teams over the years is to their credit but perhaps they're finding their natural level.

Not suggesting they’re anywhere close to being back to what they were during the Smith-Steyn-Kallis-ABDV years but they have very quickly rebounded into something competitive at least based on their recent results. It doesn’t look huge on paper but going to Bangladesh and flogging them for a team who’s batting is developing and has always been somewhat suspect against spin was a big step forward.

Getting their best team on the park series after series however might prove something of a hindrance….

 

[Gethelred]

I don't like SA, and in particular I don't like the ugliness that series between the two teams generates. I don't like the urge both nations seem to have towards wanting to out-alpha their opponents; I don't like the fact that both teams want the moral high ground whilst doing whatever it takes; I don't like that whole segments of games can be reduced to 'can this fast bowler knock this batter's helmet off?' even as I appreciate the bowler's quality.

Rabada, Steyn, Morkell, Philander et al have all been brilliant. There was a 5 year patch in which Amla was my preferred bat to watch globally. Smith is my personal pick to bat for my life, as while there'll be better bats there will never be a bloke with as much iron. Kallis is the most underrated of the Tendulkar/Ponting/Lara group; he's the Joe Root to their Smith, Kohli and Williamson.

I dunno. I've always felt like tests between Australia and SA are hard ****ing work. They're tension, they're stress, there's no enjoying them; they're pugnacious, aggressive slogs without remittance.

But then I'm also a weird one in that I thoroughly prefer to watch Australia go down or win in India mastering a completely alien playstyle than simply watch a dialed up to 11 version of the Vics vs NSW rivalry.

 

[PhatBoy]

I don't like SA, and in particular I don't like the ugliness that series between the two teams generates. I don't like the urge both nations seem to have towards wanting to out-alpha their opponents; I don't like the fact that both teams want the moral high ground whilst doing whatever it takes; I don't like that whole segments of games can be reduced to 'can this fast bowler knock this batter's helmet off?' even as I appreciate the bowler's quality.

Rabada, Steyn, Morkell, Philander et al have all been brilliant. There was a 5 year patch in which Amla was my preferred bat to watch globally. Smith is my personal pick to bat for my life, as while there'll be better bats there will never be a bloke with as much iron. Kallis is the most underrated of the Tendulkar/Ponting/Lara group; he's the Joe Root to their Smith, Kohli and Williamson.

I dunno. I've always felt like tests between Australia and SA are hard ****ing work. They're tension, they're stress, there's no enjoying them; they're pugnacious, aggressive slogs without remittance.

But then I'm also a weird one in that I thoroughly prefer to watch Australia go down or win in India mastering a completely alien playstyle than simply watch a dialed up to 11 version of the Vics vs NSW rivalry.

As always I can appreciate where you’re coming from. I didn’t think the ‘ugliness’ got to a real bad level until the hallway incident where neither team covered themselves in glory and the SA officials and home fans disgraced themselves with the Candice stuff.

I didn’t really have much of an issue with the Rabada/Smith set-to as it was the most minimal physical confrontation imaginable and no that’s not just ‘Phat Boy defending a non Australian’; I simply didn’t think there was much in it. I found the other stuff much worse with the masks etc.


As far as the fast bowling stuff goes and the high octane aggression, I loved it. Maybe it is residual from being a lifelong West Indian fan and not having them to fall back on I guess I’m not sure.

Agree about the moral high ground stuff but I see that in almost every big series, not least of all the ashes and the India series.

I liked that just unrelenting aspect of the classic Aus-SA series and how there were so many counterpoints and even amidst all the superstars there were moments for the lesser lights to shine - Ashwell Prince making runs here and there or as I mentioned Marcus North making an often forgotten unglamorous debut hundred in a match a lot of people expected Australia to lose, Steven Cook from memory made a really really dog ugly century in one match albeit after the sides had peaked,

 

[Sea fog]

I do we quickly forget that SA beat us 3 times in a row here given that they are now being dismissed as irrelevant in cricket terms. I agree their shortened test series does not help but we did used to have that trans Indian 3 tests in each country back after readmission that produced serious cricket.

Re. the point about the iron will of Smith, he strikes you as an ultra alpha leader and he did say he would step down as captain and play his last tests as just a pleb in the team but never did which means he holds the record for the most ever tests as skipper and only played 8 at the beginning of his career without the captaincy. He is probably one of a kind to emerge from the republic.

 

[PhatBoy]

I do we quickly forget that SA beat us 3 times in a row here given that they are now being dismissed as irrelevant in cricket terms. I agree their shortened test series does not help but we did used to have that trans Indian 3 tests in each country back after readmission that produced serious cricket.

Re. the point about the iron will of Smith, he strikes you as an ultra alpha leader and he did say he would step down as captain and play his last tests as just a pleb in the team but never did which means he holds the record for the most ever tests as skipper and only played 8 at the beginning of his career without the captaincy. He is probably one of a kind to emerge from the republic.

That’s true, though he did quit when he was only 33 and on the back of some injury/surgery issues and then a disaster of a series with the bat against the Aussies so it was probably understandable that he just didn’t bother playing on full stop by that stage with or without the captaincy

 

[eltrain]

I think the reasoning purely on cricket is solid, but I think the fans play a huge role in any sporting rivalry. The atmosphere at a match can make a drubbing still feel like a carnival event (I hate the Barmy Army but they bring the same 'Ashes' rivalry atmosphere to the Fifth Test when England are 4-0 down.)

South African fans don't really have a big presence and identity and the sport is not the sport of the populace at large in South Africa so matches against South Africa don't really get elevated by the crowds. It's like how beating GWS's best team in a final with brilliant play still wouldn't be as exciting as beating Geelong with a worse standard of play.

I half agree with this. The rivalries we have with England and India are definitely elevated by the fact that they both have a huge amount of boisterous and often obnoxious supporters either living in or travelling to Australia (and particularly with India, in online spaces as well). It’s kind of like if you live in certain parts of the northern suburbs of Melbourne, you’re likely to be either a Collingwood or Carlton fan, and you probably hate the other team more because of the fact that you’ve got their supporters in your face when you lose to them.

However, when it comes to matches in SA itself, their fans definitely make themselves known. Remember Merv clashing with some scumbag fans at the Wanderers when walking up the race, so that for future Australian tours they had to cage the thing. But then even with the cages in place they still spat on Gilly and Damien Martyn. Then there was the Warner stuff on the last tour. They bloody hate us over there and any test we play in SA is intense on and off the field. It’s just that in Australia, they get overshadowed by the poms and Indians in terms of off field rivalry.

 

[revo333]

I think the reasoning purely on cricket is solid, but I think the fans play a huge role in any sporting rivalry. The atmosphere at a match can make a drubbing still feel like a carnival event (I hate the Barmy Army but they bring the same 'Ashes' rivalry atmosphere to the Fifth Test when England are 4-0 down.)

South African fans don't really have a big presence and identity and the sport is not the sport of the populace at large in South Africa so matches against South Africa don't really get elevated by the crowds. It's like how beating GWS's best team in a final with brilliant play still wouldn't be as exciting as beating Geelong with a worse standard of play.

It makes a difference for sure.

I watched the highlights on youtube of the Australia v South Africa series where Ntini badged both Langer and Symonds and it felt like there were about 50 people at the ground.

Watch highlights of Australia vs England or India since 2000 and everything is magnified because there are crowds there.

 

[Trojan90]

Some great cricket between these sides. Harris in Capetown around 10 years ago, winning the series for us with a busted body (knee?).

I feel like England/South Africa have played some memorable series this century too. The 2004/05 one of my all time favourites.

 

[010203]

In my eyes, Australia vs South Africa was the number 1 rivalry in test cricket from 2008-18. You could make a case too that it's been the best rivalry in cricket since 1992, the year South Africa returned to international sport, with many hard fought test series, one day series and an epic World Cup semi final in 1999. I think South Africa appreciated and celebrated the rivalry far more than Australia did.

Beating Australia was and probably always will be South Africa's pinnacle but I don't think Australia has ever regarded a test series win over South Africa as the pinnacle. Even the series win in South Africa to usurp the Proteas as the #1 test side in the world was overshadowed in significance by whitewashing an England side on the way down 5-0 a few months earlier. Maybe Cricket Australia struggled to commercialise the rivalry with the Proteas in a way they wouldn't with England and India. The rivalry with RSA will remain in tact in white ball cricket, I'm not sure about test cricket.

Part of what makes a rivalry though is what it means to see your team beat another particular team. With England, it's about the Ashes, beating our oldest cricket and sporting rival as well as sporting supremacy over the motherland. With India, and I'm going draw a laugh from some as it'll look like I'm painting Australia as the plucky, brave underdogs of world cricket but Australia beating India in a series or to win an ICC event means a country of 25m or so beats a country of over a billion people. That's going to foster a sense of national sporting pride.

The 2001 series is probably where the rivalry with India really started to take hold. You had India stopping Australia's 16 match winning streak in the famous Eden Gardens test, Harbhajan's 'hat trick' and a nail biting series deciding test. The Sydney test in 2008 is probably where the rivalry with India really took off. It's when India basically said to Australia 'you might still be more powerful than us on the field but we'll show you how powerful we are off it'. India's attitude after that test is probably the source of any resentment some people have towards India in a cricket sense, even close to 2 decades on from that test, which will always ensure the rivalry bubbles along.

 

[Gough]

In my eyes, Australia vs South Africa was the number 1 rivalry in test cricket from 2008-18. You could make a case too that it's been the best rivalry in cricket since 1992, the year South Africa returned to international sport, with many hard fought test series, one day series and an epic World Cup semi final in 1999. I think South Africa appreciated and celebrated the rivalry far more than Australia did.

Beating Australia was and probably always will be South Africa's pinnacle but I don't think Australia has ever regarded a test series win over South Africa as the pinnacle. Even the series win in South Africa to usurp the Proteas as the #1 test side in the world was overshadowed in significance by whitewashing an England side on the way down 5-0 a few months earlier. Maybe Cricket Australia struggled to commercialise the rivalry with the Proteas in a way they wouldn't with England and India. The rivalry with RSA will remain in tact in white ball cricket, I'm not sure about test cricket.

Part of what makes a rivalry though is what it means to see your team beat another particular team. With England, it's about the Ashes, beating our oldest cricket and sporting rival as well as sporting supremacy over the motherland. With India, and I'm going draw a laugh from some as it'll look like I'm painting Australia as the plucky, brave underdogs of world cricket but Australia beating India in a series or to win an ICC event means a country of 25m or so beats a country of over a billion people. That's going to foster a sense of national sporting pride.

The 2001 series is probably where the rivalry with India really started to take hold. You had India stopping Australia's 16 match winning streak in the famous Eden Gardens test, Harbhajan's 'hat trick' and a nail biting series deciding test. The Sydney test in 2008 is probably where the rivalry with India really took off. It's when India basically said to Australia 'you might still be more powerful than us on the field but we'll show you how powerful we are off it'. India's attitude after that test is probably the source of any resentment some people have towards India in a cricket sense, even close to 2 decades on from that test, which will always ensure the rivalry bubbles along.

South Africa and England went to war, it was a long time ago now but beating them will always matter to the South Africans more than beating us.

 

[Hamingja]

The cricket in SA is usually good because of the life in the pitches. We have generally rolled out roads over a 20 year period and the Indians doctor them hard core which both reduce the spectacle.

 

[sherb]

I'm old enough to remember (vaguely) the Aussies getting clobbered in South Africa in 1970 (albeit on the back of a gruelling 5 Test tour of India), which was their last series of Test cricket for over 20 years, and then remember (vividly) the cancellation of the 71-72 South African tour of Australia.

There's no doubt in my mind that South Africa would have been a force in world cricket in the 70s if they hadn't been exiled. I've often wondered how South African cricket would have fared longer term if they had indeed dominated in the 70s - it could have fostered some serious rivalries with other countries.

It's all hypothetical I know, and I'm not offering commentary on the merits or otherwise of the ban on South African sport due to apartheid. But I do wonder nevertheless.