What's new

South Africa or India - Whose overall record would you rather have?

InziFans

Debutant
Joined
Aug 24, 2018
Runs
77
Since their readmission into cricket, South Africa have consistently been brilliant in bilaterals, with their bilateral and head-to-head record maybe bettered only by Australia. They have a disappointing tournament record though, with 0 World Cup finals and only 1 major tournament win. India has a comparatively moderate bilateral and head-to-head record against other nations but have been excellent in tournaments of course, with 4 tournament wins and 7 finals in the last 25 years. So whose record would you rather have? Would you prefer seeing your team win regularly throughout the year and then choke on the big occasions or tolerate (relatively) patchy performances for lots of big game wins?
 
India's obviously.

SA will never have the dominance over other teams that Ind have had over the last 15/20 years.

SA has nothing to brag about other than a CT whereas India has been playing a different level of cricket in last 15/20 years.

In last 15/20 years India have won the CT, were the runners up of the 03 world cup, won World t20 Cup, won the world Cup again in 11, won CT for the second time became the runners up of CT yet again. In 15 wc they have lost Semifinal to a team that finally went on to win the title.

Besides this, they have done well in test cricket during this period and managed to remain no 1 test team for a prolonged period of time. SA isn't fit enough to hold a candle in front of India as a cricket team.
 
Last edited:
India's obviously.

SA will never have the dominance over other teams that Ind have had over the last 15/20 years.

SA has nothing to brag about other than a CT whereas India has been playing a different level of cricket in last 15/20 years.

In last 15/20 years India have won the CT, were the runners up of the 03 world cup, won World t20 Cup, won the world Cup again in 11, won CT for the second time became the runners up of CT yet again. In 15 wc they have lost Semifinal to a team that finally went on to win the title.

Besides this, they have done well in test cricket during this period and managed to remain no 1 test team for a prolonged period of time. SA isn't fit enough to hold a candle in front of India as a cricket team.

The answer obviously depends on how much importance you place on bilaterals compared to tournaments. I guess South Africa and Sri Lanka would be a more interesting question. Massive gap there, yet SL have been better in tournaments.
 
In ODIs, India obviously. They won 1 WC and 2 CTs as well.SA also won 1 but that's not enough.

I will say, since readmission:-

Odis:-

Australia
India
South Africa(better than SL IMO)

Tests:-

Australia
South Africa
 
In ODIs, India obviously. They won 1 WC and 2 CTs as well.SA also won 1 but that's not enough.

I will say, since readmission:-

Odis:-

Australia
India
South Africa(better than SL IMO)

Tests:-

Australia
South Africa

Since readmission, SL has won a CT, was runners up in 2007 WC, runners up in 2009 T20WC, runners up in 2011WC, runners up in 2012 T20WC, won 2014 T20WC.

So basically:

2 silver medals in the WC
1 gold in T20WC
2 silvers in T20WC

and a CT trophy as well.

So SL has 6 medals to SA's 1.

How can you say SA have done better in LOIs or even ODIs?
 
Since readmission, SL has won a CT, was runners up in 2007 WC, runners up in 2009 T20WC, runners up in 2011WC, runners up in 2012 T20WC, won 2014 T20WC.

So basically:

2 silver medals in the WC
1 gold in T20WC
2 silvers in T20WC

and a CT trophy as well.

So SL has 6 medals to SA's 1.

How can you say SA have done better in LOIs or even ODIs?

Runners up count for nothing. SA has won bilaterals ODI series pretty much everywhere.

SL have won 1 WC and 1 CT. But their bilateral record isnt good while SA's bilaterals record is fantastic. So, SA over SL in ODIs.
 
Runners up count for nothing. SA has won bilaterals ODI series pretty much everywhere.

SL have won 1 WC and 1 CT. But their bilateral record isnt good while SA's bilaterals record is fantastic. So, SA over SL in ODIs.

If runners up didn't count for nothing then ICC wouldn't just give away $2 million to them.
 
If runners up didn't count for nothing then ICC wouldn't just give away $2 million to them.

They dont get any trophy. Nobody plays for the runners spot.

There is not much difference if one team ends up in semifinal spot and other ends up in final spot when you have a broader look into things. SA have absolutely crushed teams in bilaterals home and away, which hasn't been the case with Sri Lanka.

Only in PP people underrate the bilateral performances.

While it is better to be a runners up than being a semi-finalist, that is not enough to make the difference.
 
Last edited:
They dont get any trophy. Nobody plays for the runners spot.

There is not much difference if one team ends up in semifinal spot and other ends up in final spot when you have a broader look into things. SA have absolutely crushed teams in bilaterals home and away, which hasn't been the case with Sri Lanka.

Only in PP people underrate the bilateral performances.

While it is better to be a runners up than being a semi-finalist, that is not enough to make the difference.

I agree that SA's bilateral record is amazing. And if the difference between SL & SA in ICC tournaments was a little closer I would have given the edge to SA.

But SA are so far behind SL in tournaments it's not even funny. In this millennium, SA hasn't even made it to the semi-final as many times as SL has made it into the final of ICC tournaments.

I am not underrating bilaterals. But you can't deny that tournament performance should get more weightage overall.
 
I agree that SA's bilateral record is amazing. And if the difference between SL & SA in ICC tournaments was a little closer I would have given the edge to SA.

But SA are so far behind SL in tournaments it's not even funny. In this millennium, SA hasn't even made it to the semi-final as many times as SL has made it into the final of ICC tournaments.

I am not underrating bilaterals. But you can't deny that tournament performance should get more weightage overall.

Also SL somehow have better head to head record against South Africa when compared to Pakistan and India!
 
Also SL somehow have better head to head record against South Africa when compared to Pakistan and India!
That's because they're really strong at home conditions against teams that are not used to them + you have tournament performances. The problem for SL with facing India is that India have similar strengths and are used to the same conditions, in addition to having more resources and a much larger population to pick players from. This is why SL has a poor record against India but a very respectable record against SA.
 
That's because they're really strong at home conditions against teams that are not used to them + you have tournament performances.

That's not an excuse though. That's the very reason.

When Asian teams don't win in SENA we don't say "That's because they're really strong at home conditions against teams that are not used to them"?

If SA can't play well in Asia it's their problem.
 
That's not an excuse though. That's the very reason.

When Asian teams don't win in SENA we don't say "That's because they're really strong at home conditions against teams that are not used to them"?

If SA can't play well in Asia it's their problem.

SA have won their last two ODIs series against SL in SL(2018 & 2014), won their last ODI series in India(2015) and won their last ODI series vs Pakistan in UAE(2014) as well. So, that's an overall excellent performance in Asia as far as ODIs are concerned.

In contrast, SL never won an ODI series in SA.
 
Last edited:
I agree that SA's bilateral record is amazing. And if the difference between SL & SA in ICC tournaments was a little closer I would have given the edge to SA.

But SA are so far behind SL in tournaments it's not even funny. In this millennium, SA hasn't even made it to the semi-final as many times as SL has made it into the final of ICC tournaments.

I am not underrating bilaterals. But you can't deny that tournament performance should get more weightage overall.

You are mixing T20s in that.
 
In bilaterals, SA win% is over 50 against every opposition except Australia against whom it is 49%.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Africa_One_Day_International_cricket_records

Since 90s, SA win/loss % is a healthy 1.76 while for SL it is just 1.09. Clearly, the difference is too big to conclude on basis of ICC tournaments, where SL have just won 1 WC and 1 CT while SA also have won 1 CT(although it was knockouts).

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...1990;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team
 
Last edited:
If this is bilaterals including test matches, then South Africa very easily. South Africa can theoretically match India on the trophy count within the next eight years. Can India get their W/L ratio up to the level of South Africa in the next ten? Based on their showing in South Africa and England, it is highly unlikely.
 
If this is bilaterals including test matches, then South Africa very easily. South Africa can theoretically match India on the trophy count within the next eight years. Can India get their W/L ratio up to the level of South Africa in the next ten? Based on their showing in South Africa and England, it is highly unlikely.

Theoretically India can surpass South Africa's bilateral W/L ratio in next 5 years. But, can southafrica match India's exceptional tournament record within that period? Based on southafrica's pathetic record in icc tournaments it's very unlike that southafrica will ever match India's trophy tally even if they r given a 50 years of time frame.
 
Theoretically India can surpass South Africa's bilateral W/L ratio in next 5 years. But, can southafrica match India's exceptional tournament record within that period? Based on southafrica's pathetic record in icc tournaments it's very unlike that southafrica will ever match India's trophy tally even if they r given a 50 years of time frame.

No, they cannot because it is far too much to achieve by a team which has shown no ability to even attempt such a feat. South Africa came within three (2011) and two (2015) matches of winning the World Cup at their last two attempts. As Pakistan showed during the Champions Trophy, these tournaments can be very unpredictable.
 
I'll take South Africa's record over India's any day. Mainly because I don't give a hoot about limited overs cricket or ICC events.
 
No, they cannot because it is far too much to achieve by a team which has shown no ability to even attempt such a feat. South Africa came within three (2011) and two (2015) matches of winning the World Cup at their last two attempts. As Pakistan showed during the Champions Trophy, these tournaments can be very unpredictable.

If winning an ICC trophy and coming close were similar then India would've won 5 worldcups and 4 champions trophy by now. Based on what southafrica has shown in past 15/20 years in icc tournaments its quite clear that they will need at lest 4/5 decades to match India's trophy count if not more.
(considering india don't win anything during this period)

But if we go by the historical data of India's win/loss ratio we will see that they have doubled their W/L ratio in last 10 years and its increasing with every passing year whereas saffers W/L ratio in Lois has decreased within the same time frame. Therefore, India will have more possibility of having a W/L ratio that's 2 times than that of SA by the time saffers manage to match India's trophy count.
 
South Africa’s by a million miles.

Limited overs competition wins are practically irrelevant compared with unbeaten series spans in Test cricket.

If you compare with English football:

Blue Riband Test series (tours of Australia, England or South Africa) are like Champions League participation.

Minor Test series are like EPL participation.

The 50 overs World Cup is equivalent to the FA Cup.

The World T20 is equivalent to the League Cup.

The Champions Trophy is equivalent to the fourth division (League 2) play-offs.

South Africa has won multiple Blue Riband series in the last decade.

India has lost almost all of them.
 
I will take India with both hands. South Africa has been a great team over the years but I can never swap their bi-lateral wins for our world cup win. India has 2 50 over World cups, 2 Champions Trophy wins, 1 World T20 win. SA just has one ICC trophy win in 1998 (I think?). Other than that they have been poor in ICC events. Reaching semis isn't great achievement. New Zealand and England have been doing that for ages without winning much (Both have 1 ICC trophy each). India may be poor in head to head records in bi-lateral events but are very good in ICC events.

People trying to down play world events to glorify bi-lateral series are once again twisting things to down India's achievements.
 
I will take India with both hands. South Africa has been a great team over the years but I can never swa bi-lateral wins for our world cup win.

People trying to down play world events to glorify bi-lateral series are once again twisting things to down India's achievements.

I could not agree less.

Pakistan’s 1992 Test series win in Englnd was worth much more than their World Cup win five months earlier.

Their World T20 victory was even more worthless - a rubbishy little competition that takes place too often and tests unimportant “skills”.

And Pakistan’s Champions Trophy win last year was just totally worthless.

The problem is that India and Pakistan only win the least important trophies!
 
Why would I consider a team who has never won a single major tournament except for one ICC champions trophy.. bilaterals have no meaning and no one care about them. there is no pressure to perform in bilaterals thats why South Africa wins them often.
India on the hand is a team full pride 2 times world cup winner , T20 cup winner with rich history in the game. it would be absurd to choose S. africa over India unless you hate India to the core.
 
I could not agree less.

Pakistan’s 1992 Test series win in Englnd was worth much more than their World Cup win five months earlier.

Their World T20 victory was even more worthless - a rubbishy little competition that takes place too often and tests unimportant “skills”.

And Pakistan’s Champions Trophy win last year was just totally worthless.

The problem is that India and Pakistan only win the least important trophies!

So t20 world cup , OdI world cup and champions trophy are worthless and Bilateral series which No one even cares of is more worth for you... :))) You should take Kapil Sharmas show as he is been sick.
 
Check the post which you quoted me. I was referring to ODIs and Tests seperately.

Yes I know. I don't disagree with your test rankings.

I disagreed with your ODI/LOI rankings that's why I've only been talking about ODI and T20 records.
 
I could not agree less.

Pakistan’s 1992 Test series win in Englnd was worth much more than their World Cup win five months earlier.

Their World T20 victory was even more worthless - a rubbishy little competition that takes place too often and tests unimportant “skills”.

And Pakistan’s Champions Trophy win last year was just totally worthless.

The problem is that India and Pakistan only win the least important trophies!

Sadly untrue.

People only remember Pakistan won the 92 World Cup.

No one even remembers a Test series vs England except you.

World Cup is Champions League of Football.

End of.
 
No, they cannot because it is far too much to achieve by a team which has shown no ability to even attempt such a feat. South Africa came within three (2011) and two (2015) matches of winning the World Cup at their last two attempts. As Pakistan showed during the Champions Trophy, these tournaments can be very unpredictable.

Considering there are only 8 good teams, I suppose West Indies also came within 2 or 3 games of winning an ICC trophy too.
 
Even India came very close to winning last two "bilateral" test series against England and South Africa! That's also some kind of achievement is it? See how stupid it becomes when you say "very close" :)))
 
Considering there are only 8 good teams, I suppose West Indies also came within 2 or 3 games of winning an ICC trophy too.

Even Bangladesh has come 3 games close to winning the WC and 2 games close to winning the CT.

SA's ICC tournament record is by far the worst of any team considering they are the 3rd oldest cricket team in the world.
 
Last edited:
It is a cultural thing. People in the SC value the World Cup over Test series wins. Imran Khan is remembered today for the 92 World Cup and not the Test series wins.

Similarly, Kapil and Dhoni are remembered for the World Cup glories. Wasim Akram became a legend because of those two deliveries in the World Cup Final etc. etc.

However, the ECB also seems to be very desperate to win the World Cup on home soil next summer, but will they trade it for the Ashes next summer? I don’t think so.

Similarly, Australia would prefer to win the Ashes in England after 17 years instead of winning their 6th World Cup.

Would India prefer to win the Test series in Australia or the World Cup next summer? I think most people would go for the World Cup, and certainly almost ever casual follower who make up the vast majority of the cricket population.

Personally speaking, I would rather have Pakistan win the World Cup than a Test series in Australia, England or South Africa.

The only exception could be winning a Test series in India, since it is the biggest challenge in cricket today.
 
South Africa like to hunt single animal caught in its sight! But it gets out of sorts when plenty of different animals surrond it! In other words South Africa prepare well for bilaterals knowing the same opposition and similar conditions. But when it encounters different teams in a lesser span of time don't seem to have the dynamics to make necessary adjustments! (I guess they lack certain specific players like - quality spinner, reverse-swing bowler, pinch hitter like Jayasuriya/Gilchrist, etc)
 
Sometimes, it's not so much about having the right squad as it is about choking. They often lose to teams who are way worse than them, so even not having the most well-rounded of squads does not explain their failures. It seems to be a culture-related thing. Maybe missing out on so many opportunities in the 60s/80s has something to do with it. Of course, once you start choking it gets only worse with time as the combined pressure of the previous chokes starts getting to you.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes, it's not so much about having the right squad as it is about choking. They often lose to teams who are way worse than them, so even not having the most well-rounded of squads does not explain their failures. It seems to be a culture-related thing. Maybe missing out on so many opportunities in the 60s/80s has something to do with it. Of course, once you start choking it gets only worse with time as the combined pressure of the previous chokes starts getting to you.

I wouldn't call it choking. They aren't simply good enough.

Firstly they never had the players of Tendulkar or Ponting's calibre who could take all the pressure of an ICC tournament and could perform above their average. They have players who can do well in meaningless bilaterals where nobody expects anything from them and winning or losing means next to nothing to either of the teams.

Cricket is 50% psychological and 50% technical game. Saffers are efficient in technical department but extremely poor in the later one. Hence they r miles behind a all round team like India.
 
That's because they're really strong at home conditions against teams that are not used to them + you have tournament performances. The problem for SL with facing India is that India have similar strengths and are used to the same conditions, in addition to having more resources and a much larger population to pick players from. This is why SL has a poor record against India but a very respectable record against SA.

I was actually comparing head to head between SL vs SA is better than Ind vs SA and Pak vs SA. SL have won more matches against SA compared to India and Pakistan!
 
I was actually comparing head to head between SL vs SA is better than Ind vs SA and Pak vs SA. SL have won more matches against SA compared to India and Pakistan!
Yes, I was talking about SL. SL for much of the late 1990s and 2000s tended to be very strong at home conditions thanks to their spin attack, which could dismantle even the best of defences at times because SL had even more spin-friendly conditions than India. This is why SA's great record didn't matter in SL, since they didn't have a top spinner to do the same damage. Now SL's home advantage is nullified against India as India are used to the same conditions. This is why SL have a better record against SA than India, even though SA itself has a better head-to-head record than India.
 
Yes, I was talking about SL. SL for much of the late 1990s and 2000s tended to be very strong at home conditions thanks to their spin attack, which could dismantle even the best of defences at times because SL had even more spin-friendly conditions than India. This is why SA's great record didn't matter in SL, since they didn't have a top spinner to do the same damage. Now SL's home advantage is nullified against India as India are used to the same conditions. This is why SL have a better record against SA than India, even though SA itself has a better head-to-head record than India.
Whoops, misread your post, sorry. But as I said, SL have even more spin-friendly conditions so maybe SL's home advantage over SA is bigger than India's home advantage over SA.
 
I wouldn't call it choking. They aren't simply good enough.

Firstly they never had the players of Tendulkar or Ponting's calibre who could take all the pressure of an ICC tournament and could perform above their average. They have players who can do well in meaningless bilaterals where nobody expects anything from them and winning or losing means next to nothing to either of the teams.

Cricket is 50% psychological and 50% technical game. Saffers are efficient in technical department but extremely poor in the later one. Hence they r miles behind a all round team like India.

This may apply to matches against the best teams but to beat mid-tier teams you don't need too much pressure-absorbing. You have to massively punch below your weight to lose to them.
 
Head-to-head records are very interesting though. Every team except Aus has a bogey team. Pakistan's is England in LOIs. In the Windies' heyday, they managed to somehow always lose to England in ODI bilaterals, even though they dominated the Tests. SA's is SL. NZ have historically punched above their weight against India. Then you have Pakistan's record vs India in tournaments. England dominate NZ in Tests but have a negative head-to-head record in LOIs. It seems the overall record against a nation in a format or a tournament has an impact when you play them, regardless of current form.
 
It is a cultural thing. People in the SC value the World Cup over Test series wins. Imran Khan is remembered today for the 92 World Cup and not the Test series wins.

Similarly, Kapil and Dhoni are remembered for the World Cup glories. Wasim Akram became a legend because of those two deliveries in the World Cup Final etc. etc.

However, the ECB also seems to be very desperate to win the World Cup on home soil next summer, but will they trade it for the Ashes next summer? I don’t think so.

Similarly, Australia would prefer to win the Ashes in England after 17 years instead of winning their 6th World Cup.

Would India prefer to win the Test series in Australia or the World Cup next summer? I think most people would go for the World Cup, and certainly almost ever casual follower who make up the vast majority of the cricket population.

Personally speaking, I would rather have Pakistan win the World Cup than a Test series in Australia, England or South Africa.

The only exception could be winning a Test series in India, since it is the biggest challenge in cricket today.

I can gurantee given a choice ECB will drop Ashes next year for a world cup glory. Dont go by what people like Junaids and Robert say. I live here too and the only reason why ECB pretends Ashes is more important bcoz they have never won a world cup. If they manage to win it (which I highly doubt), they will hype it like no tomorrow.

Last year English women team won the women's world cup and it created a massive hype. Sky sports still going gaga over that win. They created the same hype when Eng won the T20 WC in 2010. Umpteen time they have debated how close they were in winning the 2016 T20 WC. Now imagine the hype and media attention if they win the big fish (50 overs Mens WC).

Deep down inside Eng burns that it never won a world cup if a game they invented. Given a choice they would anyday swap an Ashes for a world cup.
 
Considering there are only 8 good teams, I suppose West Indies also came within 2 or 3 games of winning an ICC trophy too.

Yes, exactly. I'm not saying it's just South Africa who can win a World Cup on the basis of three good matches, any of the top eight can. The outright best team does not always win the World Cup and there have been several instances when a relatively weaker team has done it simply because it was their day (month).

However, to have an impeccable overall record like South Africa does, a team has to be one of the best in the world for several decades and this is far harder to achieve than a World Cup victory.
 
India's record is nothing impressive. They win like half of their games, and lose the other half of their games. India is an overrated team.
 
The ODI teams rankings since 90s should be:-

Australia
India
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Pakistan
England
New Zealand
West Indies
 
It is possible to win bilateral and then win the World Cup as well lol.

But if I had to pick 1 , I would rather win tournaments than win bilaterals. Tournament victories are remembered forever, let's be honest winning a bilateral series can be forgotten as another one is usually round the corner and not all teams take bilateral series serious. Which team doesn't take the World Cup serious ?

Trophies over JAMODI anyday.
 
Back
Top