A history of choking - Yarps in the CWC

Take your pick...

1992 – 2nd Semi Final – South Africa v England – England won by 19 runs (revised)

South Africa where cruising, needing 22 off 19 balls when the rain came. The target was then revised to the impossible task of scoring the remaining runs off one ball, and England advanced to the final (where they are beaten by Pakistan).


1996 – 3rd Quarter Final – South Africa v West Indies – West Indies won by 19 runs

South Africa lost their first match of the tournament (and are eliminated), falling to a Windies side that had been humiliated by Kenya in an earlier game. Windies go on to lose to Australia in the Semis.


1999 – 2nd Semi Final – South Africa v Australia – Tied

That tied match. Australia go on to win the Cup.


2003 – Pool B Match – South Africa v Sri Lanka – Tied

That other tied match. Had Boucher taken a single off the last ball of the last over and not tapped the ball straight to mid-wicket, South Africa would have won the match. Sri Lanka go on to lose to Australia in the Semis.


2007 - 2nd Semi Final – South Africa v Australia – Australia won by 7 wickets

Saffies once again implode. Batting first they are reduced to 5-27 in the 10th over, eventually crawling to 149. Australia reach the total with over 18 overs to spare. Australia go on to win the Cup.

Your thoughts on the Ashes, Zim?

Henry wrote:Your thoughts on the Ashes, Zim?

It's a miracle.

Timmy is brought back to life only 2 weeks after the Ashes.

Any offers for the genuine Shroud of Perth I have in my possession.

He was briefly back when they were winning at Perth. Or was it Brisbane when things were looking good? Can't remember.

Mysteriously vanished once things went tits up again though.

Anyway it's a stupid post. I am basically the only Saffie here and have admitted for years that we have choked in WC's.

Maybe he is striving for a Hilditch of quntishness.

He's just self medicating. Rocking back and forth in his chair, deathly pale and shivering as he contemplates what happened in the Ashes. Probably thought highlighting the Saffies history of choking would do him some good, the poor lad.

Still taips, the man makes a point. You would be happy if they could go through a WC tournament by being beaten fair and square with no choke or go onto win the farker, shirley?

FTR, 20 odd posts since 1 December, most in the 2nd Test thread (which we lost didn’t we?)…

Nice to be missed tho

vilkrang wrote:

Henry wrote:Your thoughts on the Ashes, Zim?

Missed my post on 14 Jan? For shame...

Yup, apologies.

No worries, we're all busy these days...apart from the usual suspects of course.

skully wrote:Still taips, the man makes a point. You would be happy if they could go through a WC tournament by being beaten fair and square with no choke or go onto win the farker, shirley?

Unfortunately I can't rule it out Skulls.

With the squad likely to be selected, it is a raging certainty

2003 – Pool B Match – South Africa v Sri Lanka – Tied

That other tied match. Had Boucher taken a single off the last ball of the last over and not tapped the ball straight to mid-wicket, South Africa would have won the match. Sri Lanka go on to lose to Australia in the Semis.

This one may well have been the funniest of the lot.

1992 – 2nd Semi Final – South Africa v England – England won by 19 runs (revised)

South Africa where cruising, needing 22 off 13 balls when the rain came. The target was then revised to the impossible task of scoring the remaining runs off one ball, which was fully deserved for deliberately under bowling overs at the end of the England innings at a time when the mighty coke-head Dermot Reeve was despatching them to all parts.

Fixed for non historical revisionists...

One of the main things I'm looking forward to in the next world cup is how SA are knocked out. I think they might have something special in store, particularly with that long tail.

Failing to chase down 120 it is then.

probably after being 100-2 in 25 overs

JKLever wrote:1992 – 2nd Semi Final – South Africa v England – England won by 19 runs (revised)

South Africa where cruising, needing 22 off 13 balls when the rain came. The target was then revised to the impossible task of scoring the remaining runs off one ball, which was fully deserved for deliberately under bowling overs at the end of the England innings at a time when the mighty coke-head Dermot Reeve was despatching them to all parts.

Fixed for non historical revisionists...

Question JKL - by under bowling do you mean they slowed the over rate drastically?

SA are sh!t. We know that.

Just nice to see the poms shouting the odds.

furriner wrote:

JKLever wrote:1992 – 2nd Semi Final – South Africa v England – England won by 19 runs (revised)

South Africa where cruising, needing 22 off 13 balls when the rain came. The target was then revised to the impossible task of scoring the remaining runs off one ball, which was fully deserved for deliberately under bowling overs at the end of the England innings at a time when the mighty coke-head Dermot Reeve was despatching them to all parts.

Fixed for non historical revisionists...

Question JKL - by under bowling do you mean they slowed the over rate drastically?

Yes, it was able to be done then fully in the knowledge that you would be chasing the score set and you wouldn't lose any overs yourself. England had scored 47 off the previous 4 overs, think there was still 5 overs left to be bowled when SA went over time. The last 10 overs of the England innings were bowled pathetically slowly so as not to bowl more.

The way in which the 22 off 1 ball flashed up on the scoreboard was a farce, but lets also remember SA chose to bat last with rain around all day.

Edit: reading Crocinfo it seems under the Duckworth/Lewis rules now SA would have been chasing 275 rather than 250.

Reread the rule of that tourney JKL.

When the overs were reduced to say 40. You chased the highest score set in a consecutive 40 overs set.

And the biggest cheats of the tournament were once again Pakisatn.

They slowed the overs down so much against England that no result was possible, and thereby stayed in the WC.

taipan wrote:Reread the rule of that tourney JKL.

When the overs were reduced to say 40. You chased the highest score set in a consecutive 40 overs set.

Oh, the rain rules were total Bollocks granted... you can't deny the last 10 overs in Englands innings took an age though so unsurprisingly I don't have as much sympathy with SA as I may otherwise have had. That 1992 WC game is a bugbear of mine

and mine.

Stupid Aussie rukes as it had to fit into their TV schedules.

Was the first WC I watched and said before it, the rain rules were a fark up

As i suspected, we don't have to worry about the choke factor.