South Africa vs Australia

So, 3-3 for the summer. Are we content to say that the teams are level?

Hard to say without Smith.

With Smith, I'd say SA have the edge.

Saffie live match wins came after being behind and built on freak performances. Aus led from the front in the wins.

Aus are better for mine.

Though I think SA have the better bowling attack. Perhaps it evens up when Clark plays...

Demelza wrote:Hard to say without Smith.

With Smith, I'd say SA have the edge.

Wasn't it 3-2 to Aus with Smith and SA had their most emphatic victory without him

But they didn't have Prince and Smith.

Fair dos

if Ashy doesn't want to open he has totally forked himself

Saffies won their test in a dead rubber ... (as was their reasoning when England beat them in the final test last year) ... so the Aussies shade it for me.

The hope is that Punter and Mussey continue with their 'form' into July-Sept and that Brycie tours and plays in all 5 Ashes tests!

"Wasn't it 3-2 to Aus with Smith and SA had their most emphatic victory without him"

2 of those 3 losses with Smith were with Smith crocked.

PRetty even over the summer. I tend to agree that Aust probably shaded it given they really should/ could have won Perth and Melbourne too.

My main observation though is that the Saffie attack is totally overrated. Without Steyne they would struggle to bowl sides out twice.

I think they are level...two great series which everyone bar the odd banindian and ret. English Col. deep in his port has enjoyed

The scoreline says 3-3, so in my book that makes them even. Both teams bottled it at home in the first 2 live tests of each series, and both teams secured a dead rubber victory in the final test.

If South Africa had played Prince ahead of McKenzie in Johburg and Durban, I think things could have been different. But there are many 'ifs'. 3-3, some great cricket, some poor cricket.

They're pretty much dead even.

Yep - they were two great series between two evenly matched sides.


I think the future for batting looks brighter for Saf (JP was brilliant and AB is starting to step up) but the future for bowling looks brighter for Aust (Midge was magnificent and Siddle is showing he could be really excellent).

South Africa have a worrying lack of bowling depth which was shown when Albie Morkel was selected in this test as the third seamer.

There's Lonwabo Tsotsobe, and Wayne Parnell, who show promise, and there's also a guy called Basheer Walters who has a bit of pace, but apart from that things are bare. They need an in form Morne Morkel.

Two evenly matched sides - fair result

Henry wrote:South Africa have a worrying lack of bowling depth which was shown when Albie Morkel was selected in this test as the third seamer.

There's Lonwabo Tsotsobe, and Wayne Parnell, who show promise, and there's also a guy called Basheer Walters who has a bit of pace, but apart from that things are bare. They need an in form Morne Morkel.

Yeah - hence my earlier comment re the Saf bowling being overrated. Steyne is outstanding but the Morkels are works in progress.

Sadly, Ntini's time seems to be nearing an end - he was barely a factor in the whole two series. Hopefully he'll keep some form up to get his 100 tests and 400 wickets.

Ntini bowled well in this test without much luck.

Merlin wrote:Saffies won their test in a dead rubber ... (as was their reasoning when England beat them in the final test last year) ... so the Aussies shade it for me.

Obviously you missed the Sydney test.

We were more competitive at home than they were in the corresponding test which were lost but us winning all six tosses probably counterbalances that. So it's a case of the 1962 Melbourne Cup winner.

What's the record for the most tosses won by a captain in a row?

spangler wrote:Saffie live match wins came after being behind and built on freak performances. Aus led from the front in the wins.

Aus are better for mine.

As this is increasingly being thought of as a six test series the rubber was at no stage dead.

I agree, however, that the first two SAF wins were great comebacks and Australia's wins were generally the more convincing. Against this the SAF side looks better when comparing player for player.

aus shades it for me. as has been mentioned the saffies needed freak performances to win the live tests while the aussies dominated in their wins

at the end of the day though its a series apiece. and thats what matters

The One wrote:aus shades it for me. as has been mentioned the saffies needed freak performances to win the live tests while the aussies dominated in their wins

at the end of the day though its a series apiece. and thats what matters

At the end of the day, Aus also pulled out some big wins when needed and kept the No. 1 ranking . . . as much as some poeple might pooh-pooh that, it is a matter of some pride for Punter and the boys . . .

Well in two of the Aussie wins SA effectively played with 10 men.

Moral victories, then.