Can Hashim Amla become the best ever non-Asian Test batsman in Asia?

[WebGuru]

He is just 1 century behind Kallis who got the most centuries in Asia. Amla got 7 centuries in Asia and none of them are against Bangladesh and in this list he got the best average.

Non-Asian Batsman with most Test Centuries in Asia

And if we exclude the first phase of his career when he wasn't a very successful batsman before 2008 he scored like Don Bradman in Asia after that. 7 Centuries in last 10 Test matches averaging 99 is some achievement.

Amla in Last 5 Test Series in Asia

 

[Scrolln]

Yup, looks like it.

One of those rare non asian players who relishes asian surfaces.

 

[lilFlip]

All South African legends are unstoppable in Asia

Kristen, Kallis, Smith, ABD and Amla.

look at number of innings played by #legend

 

[Fastandfurious]

Definitely, a legend in the making. Insha'Allah.

 

[WebGuru]

All South African legends are unstoppable in Asia

Kristen, Kallis, Smith, ABD and Amla.

look at number of innings played by #legend

Even their fast bowling legends got a very good record in Asia. Steyn, Donald, Pollock

 

[Straight_Drive]

Even their fast bowling legends got a very good record in Asia. Steyn, Donald, Pollock

if it wasn't for australia then s.a would have been ruling cricket in the last two decades....i always wonder how a well balanced team like that is bullied the way australia bullies s.a

 

[Fastandfurious]

All South African legends are unstoppable in Asia

Kristen, Kallis, Smith, ABD and Amla.

look at number of innings played by #legend

Even their fast bowling legends got a very good record in Asia. Steyn, Donald, Pollock

Now Only if they produced some decent spinners, they would be unstoppable in the SC.

 

[WebGuru]

Now Only if they produced some decent spinners, they would be unstoppable in the SC.

They already got Sir Imran Warne!

 

[WebGuru]

if it wasn't for australia then s.a would have been ruling cricket in the last two decades....i always wonder how a well balanced team like that is bullied the way australia bullies s.a

True and if we look at the last 2 decades 90s and 00s SA always remained #2 team overall just because of this mental block against Australia and this WC choke issue otherwise they always had the ingredients to be #1 team. Another factor which played a major role is the difference of mindset. Australian approach is aggressive by nature while SA most of the time go into defensive and safety first mode. I can bet if Clarke was captain or any Australian XYZ player was captain in that match against India he should have tried to win the match instead of a draw in the end. Just look at SA record in Asia as a team its much better thn Australia even though they played their first Test match in Asia in 1993 but still they remained behind Australia overall because these few factors.

 

[Hawkeye]

Yes, easily.

Historically both their batsmen and bowlers have done very well in Asia, as compared to Aus/Eng/NZ.

They rule everywhere and are one of the teams that I like apart from Pakistan. Though they have psychological issues when come on the big stage, just like Pakistan.

SA and Pak have historically been quite balanced sides, with balanced Asia/Non-Asia records. SL are also one of those. Indians are abysmal outside Asia.

 

[Mamoon]

Yeah, he's exceptionally good against spin even by South African standards. His Indian roots have surely helped.

 

[Justcrazy]

Yes, easily.

Historically both their batsmen and bowlers have done very well in Asia, as compared to Aus/Eng/NZ.

They rule everywhere and are one of the teams that I like apart from Pakistan. Though they have psychological issues when come on the big stage, just like Pakistan.

SA and Pak have historically been quite balanced sides, with balanced Asia/Non-Asia records. SL are also one of those. Indians are abysmal outside Asia.

SA are far more ballanced than Pakistan.

 

[Hawkeye]

SA are far more ballanced than Pakistan.

With their batting and pace bowling (as of now) yes.

Pak always had better bowling than them though in past. Now we are spin powerhouse, they got pace.

 

[Straight_Drive]

Yes, easily.

Historically both their batsmen and bowlers have done very well in Asia, as compared to Aus/Eng/NZ.

They rule everywhere and are one of the teams that I like apart from Pakistan. Though they have psychological issues when come on the big stage, just like Pakistan.

SA and Pak have historically been quite balanced sides, with balanced Asia/Non-Asia records. SL are also one of those. Indians are abysmal outside Asia.

lol at clubbing sa and pak together.... india have won a test series everywhere except aus and sa ...pak hasn't won in aus sa & west indies....talk about abysmal

 

[Electron]

Ofcourse. From the numbers I see above, he may already be the best non-asian batsman here.

 

[Hawkeye]

lol at clubbing sa and pak together.... india have won a test series everywhere except aus and sa ...pak hasn't won in aus sa & west indies....talk about abysmal

SA are a better side, I didn't say they are the same. Just the balanced factor I talked about.

Don't pull those stats. Pak drew a Test series in WI when they were at their peak, no one could even dream of that.

Ask any Indian even they'll tell you India has been historically a poor side outside Asia. Pak was successful because of their PACE bowling powerhouse and were a very strong team in 80s/90s/early-2000s.

 

[Straight_Drive]

SA are a better side, I didn't say they are the same. Just the balanced factor I talked about.

Don't pull those stats. Pak drew a Test series in WI when they were at their peak, no one could even dream of that.

Ask any Indian even they'll tell you India has been historically a poor side outside Asia. Pak was successful because of their PACE bowling powerhouse and were a very strong team in 80s/90s/early-2000s.

i remember you posting in sa readmission thread regarding win/loss ratio of india and pak...you said remove minnows and india will come down...i posted the stats there still waiting for your reply....btw india have won 18 series lost 10 in 2000s whereas pak has won 13 series lost 8 in 90s

 

[WebGuru]

lol at clubbing sa and pak together.... india have won a test series everywhere except aus and sa ...pak hasn't won in aus sa & west indies....talk about abysmal

But the way Pakistan bullied England Home and Away for 2 decades i dont think any other asian team can do it in future.

Also Pakistan won a Test in Eng, Ind and WI in their first away tour after getting Test status within 4 years. In India Pakistan won first Test within 6 months of getting Test status thanks to Fazal Mehmood for all these victories. India had to wait till 1968 for first away Test victory.

 

[Straight_Drive]

But the way Pakistan bullied England Home and Away for 2 decades i dont think any other asian team can do it in future.

Also Pakistan won a Test in Eng, Ind and WI in their first away tour after getting Test status within 4 years. In India Pakistan won first Test within 6 months of getting Test status thanks to Fazal Mehmood for all these victories. India had to wait till 1968 for first away Test victory.

yes you guys have bullied england and nz but had 3 consecutive whitewashes in australia and were abysmal in s.a....india on the other hand has been competitive in australia barring the last tour since 2000 and have also drawn a series in s.a...to say pakistan is much better than india outside subcontinent is wrong...and don't go to the 60s or 70s talk about last 2 decades....india has been bad in 90s ....good in 2000s and the opposite is true for pak

 

[WebGuru]

yes you guys have bullied england and nz but had 3 consecutive whitewashes in australia and were abysmal in s.a....india on the other hand has been competitive in australia barring the last tour since 2000 and have also drawn a series in s.a...to say pakistan is much better than india outside subcontinent is wrong...and don't go to the 60s or 70s talk about last 2 decades....india has been bad in 90s ....good in 2000s and the opposite is true for pak

I think he was talking about overall when you quoted his post not 2 decades or 90s 00s? I am not sure but it looks like he was talking about overall.

 

[QasimAli]

Guy scores everywhere, seriously he's just a dam good batsmen.

Id happily say i don't think he is an inflated average man. Batsmen in the modern age definitely have boosted their batting averages this guy would average 50+ in most eras IMO.

 

[Straight_Drive]

I think he was talking about overall when you quoted his post not 2 decades or 90s 00s? I am not sure but it looks like he was talking about overall.

this was in context of s.a when he was clubbing pak with s.a so last two decades

 

[WebGuru]

this was in context of s.a when he was clubbing pak with s.a so last two decades

Here is what he said:

SA and Pak have historically been quite balanced sides.

 

[Straight_Drive]

Here is what he said:

even historically how can one say pak is a balanced side?...they are always bowling heavy and haven't won in 3 out of 5 nations outside asia....bullying two out of 5 is not balanced ....s.a have won pretty much everywhere...still the argument is flawed

P.S someone mentioned that pak drew a series against mighty west indies ..well india drew a series against the might aussies in 2003 when every one was losing there...pak and india are in the same boat outside aisa whereas as india is in a different league at home

 

[Energetic]

He's better than Sachin.

 

[Haz95]

Guy scores everywhere, seriously he's just a dam good batsmen.

Id happily say i don't think he is an inflated average man. Batsmen in the modern age definitely have boosted their batting averages this guy would average 50+ in most eras IMO.

Disagree... Wasn't too convincing vs Johnson who most 80s bowlers were like however he's exceptional vs spin.

 

[Glen77]

True and if we look at the last 2 decades 90s and 00s SA always remained #2 team overall just because of this mental block against Australia and this WC choke issue otherwise they always had the ingredients to be #1 team. Another factor which played a major role is the difference of mindset. Australian approach is aggressive by nature while SA most of the time go into defensive and safety first mode. I can bet if Clarke was captain or any Australian XYZ player was captain in that match against India he should have tried to win the match instead of a draw in the end. Just look at SA record in Asia as a team its much better thn Australia even though they played their first Test match in Asia in 1993 but still they remained behind Australia overall because these few factors.

Nah.. Because SA team were inferior to Australian team. During the early 00s this is what SA and Aus teams were

Hayden -- Kirsten
Langer -- Gibbs
Ponting -- Kallis
M Waugh -- Dippennarr and no names...
Martyn -- Rhodes??
S Waugh -- ?? dunno
Gilly -- Boucher
Lee -- Dunno
Gillespie -- Ntini
Warne -- dunno
McGrath -- Pollock

Australian team was vastly superior. The Smith led SA side of recent years were much better than that SA side. In the 90s, the only ATG player in the team SA team was Donand.. Then at the end Polly played with Donald.. then Kallis kind of started to come to his own. Then with Polly gone, Steyn arrived.

I don't think at no point SA had more than 2 ATG players in the side. Since their readmission, they had only 4 ATG in Steyn, Donald, Kallis and Pollock.. and I think you can add Smith too since openers that average close to 50 is so rare. But most of them didn't play together at the same time.

AB and Amla are probably the 2nd and 3rd best batsmen after Kallis since their retirement and they arrived in 2008 or near that.

So it's just wrong to say that SA would have given Australia a run for their money. I think of SA of the 90s as an average team punching above their weight.

The run chase against India that you mentioned.. I don't think Australia would have lasted that long to go for the win. They would have been bundled out for 250. Has Australia, even that great team, come close to that chasing 400 plus? Nah..If SA were taking the safety first route, they won't have come close to that total.. They could have been 250 for 4 or 5. They wanted to win and at the end they lost some wickets.. Steyn hitting a six off the last ball made it look a lot closer to it was. Had he got out 3 or 4 balls earlier taking risks, we would be saying India needed a couple of balls to win it and SA were lucky to escape. You can never have confidence in tail enders. I mean they could have blocked a few more balls and SA won't have lost the last test to Australia.. they lost 2 quick tail end wickets and lost the series.

One more point, it was the same SA that chased down 400 plus to win the first series in Australia for a long time.
When SA drew with India in that 1st test, they should have first known or have the belief they will win the next test to win the series. If they had no confidence that they could win the next test, then they would have gone for it.

 

[Scrolln]

^ I remember Australia chasing 370 against a full strength Pakistani attack of Wasim/Waqar/Akhtar/Saqlain in 1999 Hobart. They would have done decently against this pop gun Indian attack IMO

 

[Glen77]

if it wasn't for australia then s.a would have been ruling cricket in the last two decades....i always wonder how a well balanced team like that is bullied the way australia bullies s.a

that's because they all did not play together. Australia had some great players and some ATG and they happened to play at the same time and that's the reason they were dominating.

If SA had
Smith
Kirsten
Amla
Kallis
AB
Cullinan
Boucher
Pollock
Adams
Steyn
Donald..
They would have fared better against Australia..

 

[Glen77]

^ I remember Australia chasing 370 against a full strength Pakistani attack of Wasim/Waqar/Akhtar/Saqlain in 1999 Hobart. They would have done decently against this pop gun Indian attack IMO

370 in a dead rubber?? Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Waugh brothers, Martyn(?), Gilly.. Superior batting line up to SA being beside the point.

445 in 4th innings is massive. Usually anything beyond 400 gives you a mental block.

 

[Scrolln]

370 in a dead rubber??

445 in 4th innings is massive. Usually anything beyond 400 gives you a mental block.

It wasn't a dead rubber. It was the second test and helped Aus clinch the series.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63855.html

 

[Glen77]

and Australia weren't exactly running against time.

SA needed almost run a ball with tail enders. I mean if AB and Faf were still on the crease and decided to block away, then it would have been stupid.

 

[Glen77]

It wasn't a dead rubber. It was the second test and helped Aus clinch the series.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63855.html

Thanks for correcting me.. but that was a superior batting line up and they weren't running against time and they still had lot of overs and lot of wickets and they weren't chasing anything more than 400..

 

[Adil_94]

even historically how can one say pak is a balanced side?...they are always bowling heavy and haven't won in 3 out of 5 nations outside asia....bullying two out of 5 is not balanced ....s.a have won pretty much everywhere...still the argument is flawed

P.S someone mentioned that pak drew a series against mighty west indies ..well india drew a series against the might aussies in 2003 when every one was losing there...pak and india are in the same boat outside aisa whereas as india is in a different league at home

Yeah you drew because McGrath and Warne didnt play in that series.

 

[WebGuru]

Nah.. Because SA team were inferior to Australian team. During the early 00s this is what SA and Aus teams were

Hayden -- Kirsten
Langer -- Gibbs
Ponting -- Kallis
M Waugh -- Dippennarr and no names...
Martyn -- Rhodes??
S Waugh -- ?? dunno
Gilly -- Boucher
Lee -- Dunno
Gillespie -- Ntini
Warne -- dunno
McGrath -- Pollock

Australian team was vastly superior. The Smith led SA side of recent years were much better than that SA side. In the 90s, the only ATG player in the team SA team was Donand.. Then at the end Polly played with Donald.. then Kallis kind of started to come to his own. Then with Polly gone, Steyn arrived.

I don't think at no point SA had more than 2 ATG players in the side. Since their readmission, they had only 4 ATG in Steyn, Donald, Kallis and Pollock.. and I think you can add Smith too since openers that average close to 50 is so rare. But most of them didn't play together at the same time.

AB and Amla are probably the 2nd and 3rd best batsmen after Kallis since their retirement and they arrived in 2008 or near that.

So it's just wrong to say that SA would have given Australia a run for their money. I think of SA of the 90s as an average team punching above their weight.

The run chase against India that you mentioned.. I don't think Australia would have lasted that long to go for the win. They would have been bundled out for 250. Has Australia, even that great team, come close to that chasing 400 plus? Nah..If SA were taking the safety first route, they won't have come close to that total.. They could have been 250 for 4 or 5. They wanted to win and at the end they lost some wickets.. Steyn hitting a six off the last ball made it look a lot closer to it was. Had he got out 3 or 4 balls earlier taking risks, we would be saying India needed a couple of balls to win it and SA were lucky to escape. You can never have confidence in tail enders. I mean they could have blocked a few more balls and SA won't have lost the last test to Australia.. they lost 2 quick tail end wickets and lost the series.

One more point, it was the same SA that chased down 400 plus to win the first series in Australia for a long time.
When SA drew with India in that 1st test, they should have first known or have the belief they will win the next test to win the series. If they had no confidence that they could win the next test, then they would have gone for it.

Some good points i agree with you on some points but with many ATG in their 11 Australia remained behind South Africa when its about playing in Asian conditions right? Not only as a team but as individuals SA players performed batter in asian conditions without many ATG's in their 11 don't you think?

Coming to that Indian chase point South Africa came close with their approach thats right but when they lost wickets they changed the track and selected safety first approach and that 6 by Steyn was because of frustration and instructions from the dressing room in the end. SA should have gambled Philander and Steyn both can bat and 16 run in 18 ball was not a very huge task so they should have tried it because there were 2 wickets still left Morne and Tahir.

 

[Straight_Drive]

Yeah you drew because McGrath and Warne didnt play in that series.

lol.....so even without them other teams were still losing...i remember australia was unbeatable at home without those 2 as well

edit: and when has warne troubled india...only mcgrath has

 

[trogger]

The 94-98 aus vs SA battles were very close and those teams were evenly matched.

after the cronje era came to end the great aussie team really did dominate SA, from the end of that tight 1998 series in aus(1-0 to aus) till the start of the 2008 series in aus SA won just a single test match vs australia and that was a dead rubber.

 

[Adil_94]

lol.....so even without them other teams were still losing...i remember australia was unbeatable at home without those 2 as well

edit: and when has warne troubled india...only mcgrath has

mcGrath in home conditions well any conditions was a beast if AUS had him i doubt India would have drawn the series. But still it was a very good achievement.

 

[trogger]

How many series did we play at home around that time with mcgrath and warne both missing?

Can't recall many.

 

[Straight_Drive]

mcGrath in home conditions well any conditions was a beast if AUS had him i doubt India would have drawn the series. But still it was a very good achievement.

and i just checked the series which imran khan drew barring ambrose and walsh the other two bowlers were average ....so both achievements are equal..which was my original point

 

[WebGuru]

How many series did we play at home around that time with mcgrath and warne both missing?

Can't recall many.

I think only that Indian tour and the other was when Zimbabwe toured Australia in 2003

 

[Glen77]

Some good points i agree with you on some points but with many ATG in their 11 Australia remained behind South Africa when its about playing in Asian conditions right? Not only as a team but as individuals SA players performed batter in asian conditions without many ATG's in their 11 don't you think?

Coming to that Indian chase point South Africa came close with their approach thats right but when they lost wickets they changed the track and selected safety first approach and that 6 by Steyn was because of frustration and instructions from the dressing room in the end. SA should have gambled Philander and Steyn both can bat and 16 run in 18 ball was not a very huge task so they should have tried it because there were 2 wickets still left Morne and Tahir.

Thanks buddy. I agree with you. SA didn't have the players Australia had but SA as a team and individuals had better record in Asia. Even Pakistan had better team than SA in the 90s, arguably.

Well regarding that chase.. I was thinking that when I wake up, India would have won because that was a huge total.. but was surprised to find that it was a draw. I think both sides have a point. After coming close, they should have won. After almost saving the match, why would you lose the match and potentially the series? I don't know.. We, fans, usually want to see something spectacular.. I would have wanted them to chase it down because we can talk about it for many years.. But cricket captains have to answer a lot of people when their team loses. I mean if SA lost the match, we would all be laughing at them for coming close to saving it and then losing it. So I don't know..

 

[trogger]

I think only that Indian tour and the other was when Zimbabwe toured Australia in 2003

I actually find it interesting some indians remember that series fondly.

our bowling was a mess in that series as bad as it was at any time from the golden era and the upcoming waugh retirement seemed to have a negative impact on the team, we were there for the taking and were outplayed in that series and india with the slightest aggression at sydney could have and should have finally won a series in australia.

For me it's a tour indians should see as a big missed opportunity not a positive achievement.

 

[WebGuru]

Thanks buddy. I agree with you. SA didn't have the players Australia had but SA as a team and individuals had better record in Asia. Even Pakistan had better team than SA in the 90s, arguably.

Well regarding that chase.. I was thinking that when I wake up, India would have won because that was a huge total.. but was surprised to find that it was a draw. I think both sides have a point. After coming close, they should have won. After almost saving the match, why would you lose the match and potentially the series? I don't know.. We, fans, usually want to see something spectacular.. I would have wanted them to chase it down because we can talk about it for many years.. But cricket captains have to answer a lot of people when their team loses. I mean if SA lost the match, we would all be laughing at them for coming close to saving it and then losing it. So I don't know..

That's a solid point so basically there are 2 angles to look at and both are right IMO. For fans maybe they wanted to see SA chase it down even if they lose in the end while trying but for the Team it was a 2 matches Test series and losing that Test mean you can't win the series all you can do is try to forget what happened in this match and try harder to win the second Test to at least draw the series so Smith decision was right too it's just that we look at it from different angles.

 

[WebGuru]

I actually find it interesting some indians remember that series fondly.

our bowling was a mess in that series as bad as it was at any time from the golden era and the upcoming waugh retirement seemed to have a negative impact on the team, we were there for the taking and were outplayed in that series and india with the slightest aggression at sydney could have and should have finally won a series in australia.

For me it's a tour indians should see as a big missed opportunity not a positive achievement.

Yea that was the best opportunity for India to win the series australian bowling attack was average in that series. An Australian attack without Warne and McGrath in that era was average to good but never great or very good just look at the 5th Test which was a dead rubber in Ashes 2003. No McGrath or Warne in that match and England won that Test by 225 runs after being 0-4 in the series.

 

[SL_Fan]

He was a nightmare to dismiss in the 2nd Test Was awesome in ODIs as well. Seems to be back in the run machine mode. The best Test bat going around atm imo.

 

[QasimAli]

Disagree... Wasn't too convincing vs Johnson who most 80s bowlers were like however he's exceptional vs spin.

Johnson was going though a red hot streak doubt anyone would have handled that MJ, after blowing away England single handedly.

I still remember that first ball duck MJ gave Johnson when s.a. toured aus swung in and left Hash dead. In 08-09 i think not the recent tour

But we can agree to disagree on this, Hash plays pretty well against short bowling but id say his strength is spinning and swinging wickets

 

[Haz95]

Johnson was going though a red hot streak doubt anyone would have handled that MJ, after blowing away England single handedly.

I still remember that first ball duck MJ gave Johnson when s.a. toured aus swung in and left Hash dead. In 08-09 i think not the recent tour

But we can agree to disagree on this, Hash plays pretty well against short bowling but id say his strength is spinning and swinging wickets

Agree 100%- he's great vs spin and swing but only fails to ATG level fast bowling(bounce and pace)- but then again, who wouldn't?
However when Johnson was ripping through SA in the first test, I remember AB de Villiers casually whacking him for 6s- the only person(and KP) who can play a rampaging Johnson from what i've seen.

 

[QasimAli]

Agree 100%- he's great vs spin and swing but only fails to ATG level fast bowling(bounce and pace)- but then again, who wouldn't?
However when Johnson was ripping through SA in the first test, I remember AB de Villiers casually whacking him for 6s- the only person(and KP) who can play a rampaging Johnson from what i've seen.

Yh agree but in fairness to Hash batting at 3 is a hell of a lot harder than 5-6 where ab used to bat which Jacque in-between. But AB just a freak and my favourite batsmen to watch across all 3 formats, this S.A. batting side (with Jacque) was monstrous i am surprised they didn't dominate world cricketer earlier how England and India got ahead is very strange.

 

[Glen77]

Disagree... Wasn't too convincing vs Johnson who most 80s bowlers were like however he's exceptional vs spin.

He smashed Johnson in his near double ton in Australia. Also scored 2 hundreds in consequetive tests back in 2011. In 2009, Amla wasn't the batsman he became since. If you go by his earlier standards, SA shouldn't pick him to represent SA because he was terrible in his early part of the career and improved by leaps and bounds. He also killed the hype about the GOAT bowler Jimmy and Swann.

 

[Haz95]

Yh agree but in fairness to Hash batting at 3 is a hell of a lot harder than 5-6 where ab used to bat which Jacque in-between. But AB just a freak and my favourite batsmen to watch across all 3 formats, this S.A. batting side (with Jacque) was monstrous i am surprised they didn't dominate world cricketer earlier how England and India got ahead is very strange.

5 near ATG/ATGs in a team is monstrous with Steyn, Smith, Hash, AB, Kallis. I guess its just the rankings. And yeah, AB plays outrageously good shots and is imo the best in the world altho the SL series was a bit low key for him.

He smashed Johnson in his near double ton in Australia. Also scored 2 hundreds in consequetive tests back in 2011. In 2009, Amla wasn't the batsman he became since. If you go by his earlier standards, SA shouldn't pick him to represent SA because he was terrible in his early part of the career and improved by leaps and bounds. He also killed the hype about the GOAT bowler Jimmy and Swann.

His near run a ball 190 odd with AB was pure annihilation however that was a more battered Aussie side, That johnson was quite different to the current one.

 

[Glen77]

Amla was getting out to the Indian bowlers fairly easily and having bad judgement of his off stump. Wasn't he? That was so unusual of him.

 

[Glen77]

5 near ATG/ATGs in a team is monstrous with Steyn, Smith, Hash, AB, Kallis. I guess its just the rankings. And yeah, AB plays outrageously good shots and is imo the best in the world altho the SL series was a bit low key for him.

His near run a ball 190 odd with AB was pure annihilation however that was a more battered Aussie side, That johnson was quite different to the current one.

No it wasn't battered Aussie side. Amla battered them into submission. When AB walked in, they were done.

 

[speed]

Amla biggest achievement is Giving Sa their first series win in lanka on his first try.

 

[Buffet]

Answer to OP is Yes.

Amla biggest achievement is Giving Sa their first series win in lanka on his first try.

Second series win.

 

[WebGuru]

There is a big chance for Amla to become the first Non Asian Test batsman to get 10 Test centuries in Asia. The surprising thing is he failed to score even 1 century against Bangladesh in 4 Test innings while scoring runs for fun against India and Pakistan...

He can also become the first SA and 4th Test batsman overall to score more than 1000 Test runs against India in India

 

[Strike Rate]

Yeah, he's exceptionally good against spin even by South African standards. His Indian roots have surely helped.

How that counts for someone born in SA and played all his cricket there from childhood? His game against spin is even better than many indian greats.

 

[Mamoon]

How that counts for someone born in SA and played all his cricket there from childhood? His game against spin is even better than many indian greats.

It doesn't. Just a fun comment to highlight his Gujrati ancestry.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Proud to see an Indian South African getting to this level. Terrific bloke as well.

BTW, just look at that eye sore of a stat from Ponting. Probably the only thing that separates him from, Tendulkar and Lara.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Amla biggest achievement is Giving Sa their first series win in lanka on his first try.

There are so many points to give Amla credit but not this one.

Did SA win due to Amla's brilliant captaincy? Nah.

They won due to their awesome team and a decent/good captaincy by Amla.

 

[Mamoon]

^ and ball tampering.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Yep...ball tampering played a role in SA's win too.

 

[Bilal7]

There are so many points to give Amla credit but not this one.

Did SA win due to Amla's brilliant captaincy? Nah.

They won due to their awesome team and a decent/good captaincy by Amla.

His captaincy was very good throughout that series and he played a match-saving and therefore, series-winning innings in the second match.

How that counts for someone born in SA and played all his cricket there from childhood? His game against spin is even better than many indian greats.

It doesn't. Just a fun comment to highlight his Gujrati ancestry.

It actually does. His wrists are typical of an Indian/Pakistani batsman, which allows him to play the turning ball quite late. You can see this with Moeen Ali and Sikander Raza too.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

His captaincy was very good throughout that series and he played a match-saving and therefore, series-winning innings in the second match.

Give credit for batting and not captaincy (which was fine but not something that turned things around).

This is like saying Dravid's biggest achievement was leading India to England series win after a long time.

While he did lead us, it doesn't mean much cos Dravid's captaincy isn't lauded for the win.

 

[Bilal7]

I think most of the South African players will be mentally and physically exhausted, by the time the tests start, so I expect the Indians to win the tests quite easily. Amla is probably going to fail this series and the same will probably happen with de Villiers. Having the test series at the end of a tour is a horrible decision by the suits.

 

[Bilal7]

Give credit for batting and not captaincy (which was fine but not something that turned things around).

This is like saying Dravid's biggest achievement was leading to England series win after a long time.

Factually true but means nothing cos Dravid's captaincy isn't lauded for the win.

It obviously means something because Amla's captaincy was one of the reasons South Africa won. I didn't watch all of the series you referred to so I can't comment but if Dravid's captaincy was good then there is no reason why he should't be given credit.

Misbah is given credit for all his victories, Cook and Clarke have been given their due too. Why shouldn't Amla and Dravid?

 

[Mamoon]

His captaincy was very good throughout that series and he played a match-saving and therefore, series-winning innings in the second match.





It actually does. His wrists are typical of an Indian/Pakistani batsman, which allows him to play the turning ball quite late. You can see this with Moeen Ali and Sikander Raza too.

Genetically yes but I think the pitches you grow up on play a bigger part. South Africans are good players of spin because you often get dry wickets in Cape Town and Durban.

Moeen isn't tested on dry wickets yet, but he's a sweet timer of the ball.

 

[Hawkeye]

[MENTION=129948]Bilal7[/MENTION] vs. [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] encounters are the real deal. Fun to read.

Good posters.

 

[hussain123]

Proud to see an Indian South African getting to this level. Terrific bloke as well.

BTW, just look at that eye sore of a stat from Ponting. Probably the only thing that separates him from, Tendulkar and Lara.

But you don't consider mullahs as indians??

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

It obviously means something because Amla's captaincy was one of the reasons South Africa won. I didn't watch all of the series you referred to so I can't comment but if Dravid's captaincy was good then there is no reason why he should't be given credit.

Misbah is given credit for all his victories, Cook and Clarke have been given their due too. Why shouldn't Amla and Dravid?

Yes when you develop a good sample set and reputation for captaincy you get credit.

Unless you do something really awesome in your first series.

Amla was fine. Didn't screw up. Rotated the bowlers well.

Special credit needn't be given till he develops some sample or does consistently well.

Mathews was hailed as someone who has turned a corner in captaincy due to England series win and look at him now.

 

[Bilal7]

[MENTION=129948]Bilal7[/MENTION] vs. [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] encounters are the real deal. Fun to read.

Good posters.

Thankyou, you're a good poster too and if your username is a reference to Marvel's Hawkeye, then

Genetically yes but I think the pitches you grow up on play a bigger part. South Africans are good players of spin because you often get dry wickets in Cape Town and Durban.

Moeen isn't tested on dry wickets yet, but he's a sweet timer of the ball.

England have dryer pitches at Old Trafford, The Oval, etc but they are pretty horrible at playing spin. The Aussies have access to similar pitches too but they are woeful. South Africans have just been better at producing batsmen, especially after the decline of Australia's ATG team.

With Amla, genetics plays a part and makes him exceptional.

 

[Bilal7]

Yes when you develop a good sample set and reputation for captaincy you get credit.

Unless you do something really awesome in your first series.

Amla was fine. Didn't screw up. Rotated the bowlers well.

Special credit needn't be given till he develops some sample or does consistently well.

Mathews was hailed as someone who has turned a corner in captaincy due to England series win and look at him now.

Well no, there is no such criteria. Amla was very good in that series and deserves credit for it. Read Firdose Moonda's piece of his captaincy in that series.

You can have a good series as captain and then you can have a poor series as captain. Clarke was a good captain throughout his career but was clueless in the UAE and got criticized for it. Cook has had ups and downs throughout his career. I don't see how the Matthews example proves anything here.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Well no, there is no such criteria. Amla was very good in that series and deserves credit for it. Read Firdose Moonda's piece of his captaincy in that series.

You can have a good series as captain and then you can have a poor series as captain. Clarke was a good captain throughout his career but was clueless in the UAE and got criticized for it. Cook has had ups and downs throughout his career. I don't see how the Matthews example proves anything here.

Captains are always rated after a while only.

Anyways, I am not saying he shouldn't be given credit for captaincy at all. Every captain who wins a series gets credit. Everyone. Goes without saying.

But let's not make that a feature of Amla yet.

He had a good team and he was fine as captain.

See speed's comment.

 

[Strike Rate]

Captains are always rated after a while only.

Anyways, I am not saying he shouldn't be given credit for captaincy at all. Every captain who wins a series gets credit. Everyone. Goes without saying.

But let's not make that a feature of Amla yet.

He had a good team and he was fine as captain.

See speed's comment.

but question is also why other SA captains with better or almost same quality Test team didn't achieved it in SL.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

but question is also why other SA captains with better or almost same quality Test team didn't achieved it in SL.

Because of

1. Team performances where they clicked better (Steyn gun, Duminy marathon and other knocks)
2. SL being weak

Peak No 1 India (filled with ATG batting) in 2008 LOST to SL away.

The current can't play spin Indian team won 2-1 in SL (that too could have been whitewash if for DRS).

Does that mean Kohli's captaincy was the difference?

Yes his 5 bowler strategy was new (something others didn't do) but was that the difference?

Not really. It was a combination of other factors (weaker opponent, better team performances, etc).

Same thing for SA.

 

[Strike Rate]

Because of

1. Team performances where they clicked better (Steyn gun, Duminy marathon and other knocks)
2. SL being weak

Peak No 1 India (filled with ATG batting) in 2008 LOST to SL away.

The current can't play spin Indian team won 2-1 in SL (that too could have been whitewash if for DRS).

Does that mean Kohli's captaincy was the difference?

Yes his 5 bowler strategy was new (something others didn't do) but was that the difference?

Not really. It was a combination of other factors (weaker opponent, better team performances, etc).

Same thing for SA.

But every win and lose comes with a combination of different factors. For example remove Johnson from Ashes 5-0 and Clarke captaincy goes out of the window.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

But every win and lose comes with a combination of different factors. For example remove Johnson from Ashes 5-0 and Clarke captaincy goes out of the window.

Exactly. Which is why if captaincy is sooo awesome that it jumps out, one gets credit after 1 series.

Otherwise, bigger sample set is needed to judge captaincy and tactics (that too is judged only with context).

SL being weak is a big factor in them losing so many series at home.

 

[Strike Rate]

Exactly. Which is why if captaincy is sooo awesome that it jumps out, one gets credit after 1 series.

Otherwise, bigger sample set is needed to judge captaincy and tactics (that too is judged only with context).

SL being weak is a big factor in them losing so many series at home.

exactly context is necessary or we will have to call Ponting the best ever Test captain or at least the best ever captain from Australia.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

exactly context is necessary or we will have to call Ponting the best ever Test captain or at least the best ever captain from Australia.

I completely agree bro.

Fleming with some bad win loss records (I heard) was considered a great strategist while Ponting wasn't (though he was considered to possess great man management skills).

I was just saying to speed and Bilal that....credit Amla for batting and leading the team well (during the series) but don't make captaincy a highlight after one series.

Such stuff happens. Dravid gave us an England away win after a long time. Kohli gave us a SL away win after 1991 or something. Can't say much with that alone.

 

[Strike Rate]

I completely agree bro.

Fleming with some bad win loss records (I heard) was considered a great strategist while Ponting wasn't (though he was considered to possess great man management skills).

I was just saying to speed and Bilal that....credit Amla for batting and leading the team well (during the series) but don't make captaincy a highlight after one series.

Such stuff happens. Dravid gave us an England away win after a long time. Kohli gave us a SL away win after 1991 or something. Can't say much with that alone.

Yes Fleming was a great tactician there are 2 types of captains one fall under better tacticians and others come under better leadership/man management skills. Miandad was a great tactician but on other side Imran was a great leader with good tactics (not a great tactician like miandad) but these 2 skills together made Imran a better captain because Miandad was never good at handling his players and a tactician alone can't be a great captain if he don't knows how to get best out of his players and how to manage them.