So who was the overall victor from India's tour of South Africa?

[IndianFan2018]

Did Ottis Gibson come to Perth airport to tell you this or Faf did?

Outch .. Guy might have got invitation directly from CSA

Just this Guy wanted we all know that he is travelling to SA ... Like few of our expats do show off

 

[Napa]

Did Ottis Gibson come to Perth airport to tell you this or Faf did?

Gibson told him that:

South Aftica’s Only priority was the Test series, and they won it inside eight days

And this:

If India had arrived when they were supposed to, South Africa could have taken the ODI and T20 series seriously.
I should know: I’m now at Perth en route to the First Test in Durban.

was obviously revealed to him by the SAA flight attendant.

Zuma, who has a lot of free time these days, confided to him over dinner:

But by arriving so late as to make the limited overs series continue until the First Test with Australia, India ensured that South Africa just put its best players in cotton wool.

 

[hadi123]

Lets get votes, i am with you, +1

At odds with post #66. You said India there now you're saying South Africa

 

[Mamoon]

India.

They annihilated South Africa in Limited Overs, and were actually the better team as well in the Test series. South Africa got lucky with the two tosses - the outcome could easily have been 2-1 to India, and that would have been a fair reflection of the series.

Undoubtedly the best team in the world at the moment (across formats) by some distance, with one of the top five batsmen of all time the peak of his powers, and a bowling unit that is probably the best they have produced in their history.

Indian cricket is in a wonderful place at the moment, all thanks to the hard work and vision of BCCI. They fully deserve their position as the kings of cricket today.

 

[Princejain191]

India.

They annihilated South Africa in Limited Overs, and were actually the better team as well in the Test series. South Africa got lucky with the two tosses - the outcome could easily have been 2-1 to India, and that would have been a fair reflection of the series.

Undoubtedly the best team in the world at the moment (across formats) by some distance, with one of the top five batsmen of all time the peak of his powers, and a bowling unit that is probably the best they have produced in their history.

Indian cricket is in a wonderful place at the moment, all thanks to the hard work and vision of BCCI. They fully deserve their position as the kings of cricket today.

We were definitely not the better side in the first two tests. We had conditions in our favour in the first test and still were 92-7 and without Pandya's knock, might have lost really really big. In the second test, we were on the worse side of the coin, but SA again was the better team though.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Ludicrous question. South Africa won the tests fair and square, the rest of it is astoundingly meaningless and no one apart from some Indian supporters will remember what happened later. En fait, the only Indian victory that will be fondly remembered a decade or so from now will be the dead test rubber at the Wanderers.

 

[Tusker]

We were definitely not the better side in the first two tests. We had conditions in our favour in the first test and still were 92-7 and without Pandya's knock, might have lost really really big. In the second test, we were on the worse side of the coin, but SA again was the better team though.

Likewise without ABD knock SA would have lost. This way I can come up with numerous IF conditions.

Bottom line is that the difference between the two sides was that dropped catch of Maharaj who added a lot of runs with tailenders. That's how close the series was. Whereas SA recvd a almighty *** whopping in the odi's like they were minnows.

 

[Mamoon]

We were definitely not the better side in the first two tests. We had conditions in our favour in the first test and still were 92-7 and without Pandya's knock, might have lost really really big. In the second test, we were on the worse side of the coin, but SA again was the better team though.

Pandya is an Indian player and he performed. We can use the same logic and state that without Kohli India would have lost the third Test as well. Similarly, without X and Y, South Africa would have lost the first two Tests.

Without McGrath, Warne, Ponting and Gilchrist, Australia would not have been invincible for nearly a decade etc. etc.

South Africa were lucky to chase in the fourth innings only on one occasion. The conditions were awful for batting, and chasing in the fourth innings was practically impossible.

 

[DeadBall]

Pandya is an Indian player and he performed. We can use the same logic and state that without Kohli India would have lost the third Test as well. Similarly, without X and Y, South Africa would have lost the first two Tests.

Without McGrath, Warne, Ponting and Gilchrist, Australia would not have been invincible for nearly a decade etc. etc.

South Africa were lucky to chase in the fourth innings only on one occasion. The conditions were awful for batting, and chasing in the fourth innings was practically impossible.

Yes its very sound, if you're going for "logic". Although I doubt you listen to logic lately.

 

[Savage]

India were unlucky with toss in 2nd Test,add to that pujara(Twice) and Pandya run out.I don't think SA could've chased on 4th innings.Bumrah would've been handy with uneven bounce and "bowling bradman" could've exploited the conditions on 4th/5th day on that pitch.

At the end of the day,India had their moments but they blew their best chance of winning Test series in SA.

SA performed better than India and were deserved winners in Test.

 

[Mamoon]

Yes its very sound, if you're going for "logic". Although I doubt you listen to logic lately.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing? It is not logical for me, we cannot discount the performance of a player(s) to prove a point.

 

[DeadBall]

Are you agreeing or disagreeing? It is not logical for me, we cannot discount the performance of a player(s) to prove a point.

I was just confirming whether you were comparing Pandya with McGrath, Ponting and co.

 

[Mamoon]

I was just confirming whether you were comparing Pandya with McGrath, Ponting and co.

I was not comparing Pandya with McGrath/Ponting/Warne/Gilchrist; I was simply dismissing the logic of "if we take the performance of XYZ, the team would have lost".

Well duh. If you take out the players who actually performed, any team would lose. India were reeling but Pandya is their most talented all-rounder and he delivered. Why should it be counted against India?

 

[KingKhanWC]

India.

They annihilated South Africa in Limited Overs, and were actually the better team as well in the Test series. South Africa got lucky with the two tosses - the outcome could easily have been 2-1 to India, and that would have been a fair reflection of the series.

Undoubtedly the best team in the world at the moment (across formats) by some distance, with one of the top five batsmen of all time the peak of his powers, and a bowling unit that is probably the best they have produced in their history.

Indian cricket is in a wonderful place at the moment, all thanks to the hard work and vision of BCCI. They fully deserve their position as the kings of cricket today.

)

SA won the first two tests by good margin and Indian only won a dead rubber but in they were the better team? Your support for India is getting cringe worthy.

 

[Mamoon]

)

SA won the first two tests by good margin and Indian only won a dead rubber but in they were the better team? Your support for India is getting cringe worthy.

They were lucky to win the two tosses in the first two Tests. It was the only series in history where every single wicket in every single innings fell - chasing totals in the fourth innings was almost impossible.

The outcome of the series was pretty much decided by the toss. Had South Africa won the toss for the third time in a row, they would have whitewashed India, and it would have been the most tightly-fought whitewash in living memory (apart from Pakistan vs England in UAE 2012).

Both teams bowled equally well, but Kohli was the standout batsman in the series. Overall, India were the better side in my view, and over the course of the last two Test series between the two teams, it has been obvious that India is better than South Africa.

They decimated them in their own conditions in 2015, but South Africa could not return the favor at home. They barely scraped through in conditions that were very much to their liking.

 

[KingKhanWC]

They were lucky to win the two tosses in the first two Tests. It was the only series in history where every single wicket in every single innings fell - chasing totals in the fourth innings was almost impossible.

The outcome of the series was pretty much decided by the toss. Had South Africa won the toss for the third time in a row, they would have whitewashed India, and it would have been the most tightly-fought whitewash in living memory (apart from Pakistan vs England in UAE 2012).

Both teams bowled equally well, but Kohli was the standout batsman in the series. Overall, India were the better side in my view, and over the course of the last two Test series between the two teams, it has been obvious that India is better than South Africa.

They decimated them in their own conditions in 2015, but South Africa could not return the favor at home. They barely scraped through in conditions that were very much to their liking.

How can you be the better side when you lose the series

India lost by 72 runs and 135 runs , the margins in the context of matches were the highest innings score was just over 300 are huge. The toss doesn't come into play when you lose by such a big margin.

Your desperation and love of India is making you look a fool now.

 

[Mamoon]

How can you be the better side when you lose the series

India lost by 72 runs and 135 runs , the margins in the context of matches were the highest innings score was just over 300 are huge. The toss doesn't come into play when you lose by such a big margin.

Your desperation and love of India is making you look a fool now.

The toss does come into play in conditions like these and it did. It is not about who won the series and who did not. It was a very hard fought series in very challenging conditions. The deciding factor at the end of the day was the toss.

It is not a coincidence that the teams that won the toss also won the match. In conditions like these, winning the toss means you already have half of the game in your bag.

The roles were reversed as soon as Kohli won the toss in the third Test. If South Africa were the better side and were not dependent on winning the toss, why did they fail to win the third Test?

 

[Deewana]

India.

They annihilated South Africa in Limited Overs, and were actually the better team as well in the Test series. South Africa got lucky with the two tosses - the outcome could easily have been 2-1 to India, and that would have been a fair reflection of the series.

Undoubtedly the best team in the world at the moment (across formats) by some distance, with one of the top five batsmen of all time the peak of his powers, and a bowling unit that is probably the best they have produced in their history.

Indian cricket is in a wonderful place at the moment, all thanks to the hard work and vision of BCCI. They fully deserve their position as the kings of cricket today.

king who currently holds none of the ICC trophies?
India were never kings and never will be...beating SA C doesn't make you a king.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The toss does come into play in conditions like these and it did. It is not about who won the series and who did not. It was a very hard fought series in very challenging conditions. The deciding factor at the end of the day was the toss.

It is not a coincidence that the teams that won the toss also won the match. In conditions like these, winning the toss means you already have half of the game in your bag.

The roles were reversed as soon as Kohli won the toss in the third Test. If South Africa were the better side and were not dependent on winning the toss, why did they fail to win the third Test?

The third test was a dead rubber, SA had little motivation to win. SA won by a big enough margin which meant the toss advantage didn't come into play. SA owned India in the first two tests to win the series with ease but you think India is the new Windies or the great Aus team

 

[Mamoon]

king who currently holds none of the ICC trophies?
India were never kings and never will be...beating SA C doesn't make you a king.

They are the best team around in two out of three formats, with the best batsman in the world. They have won all the ICC trophies on offer in the last decade. 2007 WT20, 2011 World Cup, 2013 Champions Trophy.

They are likely to win one of the two World Cups next year and in 2023. They are not invincible, but they are best cricket team in the world at the moment. Our denial does not change that .

 

[Mamoon]

The third test was a dead rubber, SA had little motivation to win. SA won by a big enough margin which meant the toss advantage didn't come into play. SA owned India in the first two tests to win the series with ease but you think India is the new Windies or the great Aus team

No, they did have the motivation to win; it had an impact on their ranking. They failed to win because the toss played a huge factor in all the games.

Your convenient excuse of motivation does not fly. India is not the new Australia or the new West Indies, but they are a fantastic team and the best in the world at the moment.

 

[KingKhanWC]

No, they did have the motivation to win; it had an impact on their ranking. They failed to win because the toss played a huge factor in all the games.

Your convenient excuse of motivation does not fly. India is not the new Australia or the new West Indies, but they are a fantastic team and the best in the world at the moment.

They wanted to win but it's not the same motivation once the series is secured, its why they are called dead rubbers.

India have won nothing outside of their home , yet they are the best lol.

India lost badly to South Africa but were teh better team lol.

As I said your love and loyalty towards India is making you look a fool but carry on. There is nothing further to add here for me.

 

[Buffet]

The third test was a dead rubber, SA had little motivation to win.

Not true at all. There was a huge motivation to whitewash India. Faf was even vocal about having green pitch to ensure it. 3rd test pitch was a direct result of that. Motivation was there due to how SA was treated in India.

-----

I don't think, win the toss , win the match was 100% application. I still think that SA would have won the first 2 tests despite losing toss in hypothetical scenario. Simple reason was Indians were not prepared for SA conditions. If India had played 3-4 practice games then it could have been different. Indians got more used to conditions by the 3rd test and it helped. Toss played some part, but it was not everything.

 

[Sidilicious]

Likewise without ABD knock SA would have lost. This way I can come up with numerous IF conditions.

Bottom line is that the difference between the two sides was that dropped catch of Maharaj who added a lot of runs with tailenders. That's how close the series was. Whereas SA recvd a almighty *** whopping in the odi's like they were minnows.

India competed, and could have won 2-1, but we were not as close as you are describing it. Ifs and buts happen. And if we dropped Maharaj, South Africa did the same for Pandya. So that was not the only difference. The difference was our unprepared batting and poor selection. A couple of solid 40s in the 2nd innings of the 1st test would have given us a victory.

But SA won by being the better team over the 3 tests. There is not a shadow of doubt in that.

 

[Sadevdesai]

Had the Indians not dropped the catch of Maharaj, they would have won all the 3 formats ... !!!!! Sooooo ..... that should help you decide !!!!!

 

[cricketjoshila]

king who currently holds none of the ICC trophies?
India were never kings and never will be...beating SA C doesn't make you a king.

Who holds the ICC test mace?

You wishing India was never the king or isnt now wont make it the truth.

 

[Tusker]

India competed, and could have won 2-1, but we were not as close as you are describing it. Ifs and buts happen. And if we dropped Maharaj, South Africa did the same for Pandya. So that was not the only difference. The difference was our unprepared batting and poor selection. A couple of solid 40s in the 2nd innings of the 1st test would have given us a victory.

But SA won by being the better team over the 3 tests. There is not a shadow of doubt in that.

SA won somehow but anyone who saw the matches will agree that the matches were pretty close and could have gone either way based on just better fielding alone. Plus the sound beating in the 3rd Test - where SA went overboard in trying to prepare a pitch that would help them - were SAF were crying at one point to try and get the match abandoned was pretty telling.

Bottomline is SA went into this Test Series snarling to get revenge for the absolute thrashing they got in India and they were lucky to have not got owned in Tests as well despite poor selections.

And also the #1 Spot and the Test mace which we retained because SA couldnt win all 3 tests.

 

[giri26]

I chose India in the poll only because we are just a year and a half away from the WC. We exposed SA's LOI bench and showed that their bowling is one dimensional without variety.

No excuses from me for the test losses. India decided to select whoever they thought fit and SA came out as the better team. India competed well and had chances of winning all 3 games but came short. I hope Kohli has learnt his lessons and never thinks of dropping Rahane again on overseas tours. Also please keep Rohit away from Test matches. SA better in tests but India I guess will be happier at the end of the tour.

 

[Napa]

king who currently holds none of the ICC trophies?
India were never kings and never will be...beating SA C doesn't make you a king.

Who holds the ICC test mace?

And also the #1 Spot and the Test mace which we retained because SA couldnt win all 3 tests.

Also India took away the #1 ranking in ODIs from SA after the 5-1 series victory.

 

[Tusker]

Also India took away the #1 ranking in ODIs from SA after the 5-1 series victory.

Good point. SA were incredibly lucky to not lose the ODIs 6-0. Stupid Chahal

Also there is a $1 Million prize money that goes with the Test Mace.

 

[Hitman]

One thing I've noticed is that we Indian fans knew back in the 80's and the 90's that the Pak team of that time were clearly superior. We won the 83' WC in England defeating West Indies twice in that WC, Benson & Hedges World Championship of Cricket series in Australia in 85' beating Pakistan in the finals, Sahara Cup 4-1 beating Pakistan in 97', the Independence Cup in 98' (that too in a best of 3 finals) beating Pakistan, won all the 3 WC matches in the 90's against Pakistan, but yet we weren't delusional that we were the better team. We took a lot of pride in those victories though.

Pakistani fans on the other hand have a hard time accepting reality currently, citing their CT victory or their 2-1 victory in the last bilateral series in India.

 

[UN talkz]

At odds with post #66. You said India there now you're saying South Africa

Diverse )

 

[Princejain191]

Pandya is an Indian player and he performed. We can use the same logic and state that without Kohli India would have lost the third Test as well. Similarly, without X and Y, South Africa would have lost the first two Tests.

Without McGrath, Warne, Ponting and Gilchrist, Australia would not have been invincible for nearly a decade etc. etc.

South Africa were lucky to chase in the fourth innings only on one occasion. The conditions were awful for batting, and chasing in the fourth innings was practically impossible.

Think you are missing the point and wrong on quite a few. We had conditions in our favour in the first test. Batting in fourth inning was not impossible, in fact pitch had freshened up cos of overnight rain and batting 3rd was much more difficult. Again, batting in first inning was tougher than it was in 2nd inning.

And we did not deserve to win simply cos we bowled fairly average in the first inning (all apart from Bhuvi) and 280 on that pitch was probably 80 above par. Then as a team, we were again below par when we were batting. Pandya played a once-in-a-year kinda knock (dropped twice early on) but the team overall batted without any patience. We definitely did not deserve to win there.

Then pitch was probably more in our favour in the second test, though there was good reverse swing throughout and batting in 4th inning was tougher. Still, we as a team were again average and Virat just did enough to keep us in the game. SA as a team bowled, batted and fielded better there. We deserved the two losses.

We will probably adjust better to English conditions cos most of our batsmen will be playing county cricket for some time and we'll have ODIs before tests. Plenty of time to adjust

 

[Princejain191]

Likewise without ABD knock SA would have lost. This way I can come up with numerous IF conditions.

Bottom line is that the difference between the two sides was that dropped catch of Maharaj who added a lot of runs with tailenders. That's how close the series was. Whereas SA recvd a almighty whopping in the odi's like they were minnows.

Read reply to Mamoon ^

 

[MRSN]

Even in the test series India were very competitive. It's definitely India's tour. This tour will definitely give them confidence on their overseas tours in the future.

 

[IndianFan2018]

Even in the test series India were very competitive. It's definitely India's tour. This tour will definitely give them confidence on their overseas tours in the future.

By listening to commentry of SA Cheerleader Mike Haysman in decider T20 ...you can understand who was the overall winner of the tour

 

[Nikhil_cric]

A test series win in SA would have meant more i think. I still think with better selection and proper preparation it could have been 2-1 in our favour. No point talking about tosses when we dropped catches and failed to prepare. Absolutely no excuse for that!

 

[Ab Fan]

I dont agree with claim that test matches is the only thing which is relevant and the rest part is absolutely meaningless.

As I already said in my previous posts, both teams would have been happy(India obviously more).

SA would be fine because it wasn't their 'A' team that lost the LOIs and atleast won the test series before third test begin.

India would be happy to dominate SA in SA in odis and T20s both and were competitive in test formats too.

It is the matter of what and how you look.

 

[IndianFan2018]

I dont agree with claim that test matches is the only thing which is relevant and the rest part is absolutely meaningless.

As I already said in my previous posts, both teams would have been happy(India obviously more).

SA would be fine because it wasn't their 'A' team that lost the LOIs and atleast won the test series before third test begin.

India would be happy to dominate SA in SA in odis and T20s both and were competitive in test formats too.

It is the matter of what and how you look.

Also small matter of realisation by SA having lack of quality players in pipe line. Coach Gibson also made statement recently about difference between domestic and international standards, lack of talent in SA for LOI.

 

[Bilal7]

South Africa, in my opinion. They beat the #1 test side in the world comprehensively, which caps off their recovery from that disastrous tour of India two-three years ago.

If the Indians think that winning a few ODIs against a team missing almost all its star players outweighs the lost opportunities in the tests, then good for them.

 

[shaz619]

Virat Kohli for me

 

[IndianFan2018]

South Africa, in my opinion. They beat the #1 test side in the world comprehensively, which caps off their recovery from that disastrous tour of India two-three years ago.

If the Indians think that winning a few ODIs against a team missing almost all its star players outweighs the lost opportunities in the tests, then good for them.

Most of Indian supporters have posted about missed opportunity in Test series, SA did not had recovery from last Ind tour...

SA got escaped from humiliation in home test series...

Ind by derailing SA's Vision 2019 given enough headache to take care 2

PS: ODI series win 5-1 >> 2-1 (read you bragging about Pak's win here in PP, when Ind bettered it, now it's not so important)

 

[Tusker]

South Africa, in my opinion. They beat the #1 test side in the world comprehensively, which caps off their recovery from that disastrous tour of India two-three years ago.

If the Indians think that winning a few ODIs against a team missing almost all its star players outweighs the lost opportunities in the tests, then good for them.

Comprehensively? This is why it helps to actually watch the matches. And its not India's fault that SA prepared crappy pitches in Tests which the Indian fast bowlers utilized to the max and hurt SA batsmen who couldnt bat in the ODI's. Thats credit to India. Might have been very painful to watch your beloved Amla bhai struggle against Indian fast bowlers who you like to ridicule which was made harder by Kohli beating the life out of SA's fast bowlers.

India is beat SA 5-1 ... only Aus have done that before. Deal with it.

 

[Tusker]

If the Indians think that winning a few ODIs against a team missing almost all its star players outweighs the lost opportunities in the tests, then good for them.

There is a poll at the top of this thread ... even if you take out all the Indians who voted for India yet keep the Indians who voted against India the tally is still in favor of India.

I know these are very difficult times for you but it helps to recognize and acknowledge the reality and find ways to deal with it.

 

[Madplayer]

I voted India. Indians should curse virat's test selections otherwise we wouldnt be discussing this thing right now. Dont think some people realize how well Indians competed in every single match including the 1st 2 tests.

 

[New Yorker]

I dont agree with claim that test matches is the only thing which is relevant and the rest part is absolutely meaningless.

As I already said in my previous posts, both teams would have been happy(India obviously more).

SA would be fine because it wasn't their 'A' team that lost the LOIs and atleast won the test series before third test begin.

India would be happy to dominate SA in SA in odis and T20s both and were competitive in test formats too.

It is the matter of what and how you look.

Barring the one ODI in which rain and a rookie batsman intervened on SAs side, SA never looked like winning the ODIs; none of the batsmen, including their first choice picks, came to terms with the Indian wrist spinners; they always looked mediocre, it is as simple as that. And SA knows it. The injuries don't change a thing. Having said this, I don't think, if given the choice ahead of the tour, that SA would have traded a Test series win for a triumph in the ODIs and T20s, nor would India. Not because it would have been an easy choice, far from it. They lost something in the end. Because LOIs are far from insignificant, and this was an epic and historic win by India. Overall both parties won and both parties lost, but India would have come away happier one feels, SA would have felt this was one of their weaker home series performances.

 

[Big Mac]

Saffers won the tests and that's what really counts.

Doesn't mean that India shouldn't be pleased by how they managed to compete in the tests and delighted by finally winning an ODI series in Safrica.

I couldn't care less about the T20s.

 

[soso_killer]

[MENTION=132982]soso_killer[/MENTION]

Your opinion?

5-0 drubbing is never nice, especially at home. But I would take a series win any day of the week.
People often talk about the "great" South African side of 2007-2014 and what great travellers they were. Not losing a series away from home for 8 years etc.

However in between that period there were a few drubbings. England have humiliated SA (twice?) after they won a Test series. I think SA were bowled out for 60 having won the series in England 2008. Lost 4-1.
India did spank SA in India a few times as well with South Africa having performed admirably in Tests.

But nobody remembers those, at least I'm not losing sleep about it. I would not swap those series victories for anything. I would swap the 2015 ODI series win in India for a Test series everyday. That's not to say don't be competitive in ODI's though. But Tests are ever lasting, I remember what it felt like winning in India in 2000, the same for Australia 2008. Can't remember anything in particular about the 2015 ODI series except that we won it.