What's new

South Africa vs Australia in their prime. Pick a winner and mention reasons

pacesensation

Local Club Star
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Runs
1,956
Both aus and sa have played 6 test matches in aus and sa

They are going to play 4 match test series in aus but they wont play at sydney


SA

Kirsten prime
Amla prime
Kallis prime
Cronje prime
Devillers prime
Boucher prime
Pollock prime
Gibbs prime
Steyn prime
Donald prime
Schultz prime


Aus

Langer prime
Hayden prime
Ponting prime
Steve Waugh (prime form in batting and bowling, but he cannot play hook shot :D)
Martyn prime
Gilchrist prime
Steven Smith
Warne prime
Johnson prime
Brett Lee prime
Mcgrath prime

(i thought about warner but i think langer and hayden pair stomps warner etc)

So who would win
[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]
@Freelancecricketer
dont know about anyone else whom i should mention :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gillespie deserves to be there in Tests over Lee. Hussey definitely deserves to be there over Smith currently. Overall Australia would win I think.
 
Gillespie deserves to be there in Tests over Lee. Hussey definitely deserves to be there over Smith currently. Overall Australia would win I think.

really
dont you think hussy is better than smithy?

btw please edit aussie lineup such that you put gillespie in for lee

further

Can you be more specific why aus will win?
 
Last edited:
Are modern cricketers only allowed in the line ups?

I saw SA play from 90s till now (well from late 90s till now but i know some of their players like schultz from 90s though i have not really seen much of him)

Further i do not know pre apartheid sa team. So i decided to include player from 1992 to 2016.
I thought about adding border to in the lineup of australia but border of 1992 was not at his prime so he is not mentioned
 
Australia would win, don't think it'd be THAT close either. Aus in it's prime is the 2nd strongest test team ever after West Indies, even if you consider 90s and forward leaving out Bradman and Lillee.

The fact that SAF have Duminy "prime" in there pretty much says everything...
 
Last edited:
Australia would win, don't think it'd be THAT close either. Aus in it's prime is the 2nd strongest test team ever after West Indies, even if you consider 90s and forward leaving out Bradman and Lillee.

The fact that SAF have Duminy "prime" in there pretty much says everything...

from duminy prime i meant the one who scored 160ish against aus. So he makes the list

I think steyn donald schultz pollock will cause lots of trouble to aussie batsmen

Waugh always had a weakness against short
so did hussey

the late 90s team of australia dominated when w and w, walsh and ambrose, pollock and donald had past their peak. (wi did not have richie richardson and other players of 90s. Lara regressed in late 90s.....so...)
 
sa xi should be in following way
smith
kirsten
amla
kallis
ab
gibbs/kullinan
boucher
pollock
donald
steyn
ntini/fannie de villiers.
 
I saw SA play from 90s till now (well from late 90s till now but i know some of their players like schultz from 90s though i have not really seen much of him)

Further i do not know pre apartheid sa team. So i decided to include player from 1992 to 2016.
I thought about adding border to in the lineup of australia but border of 1992 was not at his prime so he is not mentioned

I will include Harris ahead of Lee in that line up pace brother. Terrific bowler at his peak.

As much as I admire the South African team, I think Australia would win. I rate them the most complete team ever assembled in cricket history.
 
I will include Harris ahead of Lee in that line up pace brother. Terrific bowler at his peak.

As much as I admire the South African team, I think Australia would win. I rate them the most complete team ever assembled in cricket history.

Yes. ATG batsman, ATG pacer, ATG spinner, ATG WK batsman, can't defeat a team which has an ATG in every field.
 
Australia will smash South Africa.

Forget the individual skills, the great Australian team was at a different level mentally and were ruthless.

The only mentally strong South African player in that list is Smith.
 
Australia easily .
Not even close . Australia had the greatest spinner of all time while SouthAfrica had Paul Adams / Nicky Boje.
South africa were / are one of the worst performing sides under pressure and Australia on the other hand probably the best.
 
smith>hayden
kirsten<langer
amla<<ponting
kallis>steve waugh
ab>martyn
gibbs<hussy
boucher<<<gilly
steyn=mcgrath
donald>>gillespi
pollock>johnson
ntini<<<warne
it is my assumption. that's why i would say this willbe as close as you you can think. i disagree with them who are saying aus would easily win.
 
Australia easily .
Not even close . Australia had the greatest spinner of all time while SouthAfrica had Paul Adams / Nicky Boje.
South africa were / are one of the worst performing sides under pressure and Australia on the other hand probably the best.

not in test.
 
In World Cup knockout game, Australia will definitely massacre South Africa.
 
sa xi aus xi
smith > hayden
kirsten < langer
amla << ponting
kallis > s waugh
ab > martyn
gibbs< hussy
boucher <<< gilly
pollock << warne
donald >> jonshon
steyn = mcgrath
ntini = gillespi
 
I will include Harris ahead of Lee in that line up pace brother. Terrific bowler at his peak.

As much as I admire the South African team, I think Australia would win. I rate them the most complete team ever assembled in cricket history.

i am a huge aussie fan. I follow their domestic closely. Was following tait from 2003 when i read an article about him. (but i am more of a fast bowling fan tbh, only batsman i ever liked was punter )

Oh and i posted the thread in hurry so did not think about some players. Gibbs should replace duminy [MENTION=138379]#GreenRoars[/MENTION] rora can you replace duminy by gibbs please.


But you have to understand that the dominant aussie team of late 99 to 2007 ( or 05 whatever) had no one to challenge them, since waqar wasim, (saleem malik was finished by then)
donald fanie devillers(didnt play much after 98) were not at their peak. Cronje's issue also caused leadership problems.
Ambrose Walsh were past their best, lara had regressed,

the contemporary teams of aus during 99-2005 did not have any great players or even if they had great players they were past their prime.
 
sa xi aus xi
smith > hayden
kirsten < langer
amla << ponting
kallis > s waugh
ab > martyn
gibbs< hussy
boucher <<< gilly
pollock << warne
donald >> jonshon
steyn = mcgrath
ntini = gillespi


dude, do you know who Schultz is?
>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ylTvWF4UJ4
this is post injury schultz, ask mmhs he will tell you how destructive he was

You all are underestimating pollock+donald+steyn+schultz peak impact!
 
dude, do you know who Schultz is?
>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ylTvWF4UJ4
this is post injury schultz, ask mmhs he will tell you how destructive he was

You all are underestimating pollock+donald+steyn+schultz peak impact!

sorry i didn't watch schultz. that's why i include ntini.
i agree with you that people are understimating sputh africa. if you follow my post in this thread you will see this.
donald+pollock+steyn+schultz(if he was that good)+kallis will be better attack than mcgra+warne+ gillespi+johnson.
 
pacessaion I just made two changes in your xi
iclude smith and gibbs and exclude cronje and duminy.
 
not in test.
Even in tests .

The likes of Mcgrath , Warne , Steve waugh were mentally a lot tougher than Pollock , Donald and Kallis etc.

Southafrica i think have an ordinary record vs England and Australia.
 
i am a huge aussie fan. I follow their domestic closely. Was following tait from 2003 when i read an article about him. (but i am more of a fast bowling fan tbh, only batsman i ever liked was punter )

Oh and i posted the thread in hurry so did not think about some players. Gibbs should replace duminy [MENTION=138379]#GreenRoars[/MENTION] rora can you replace duminy by gibbs please.


But you have to understand that the dominant aussie team of late 99 to 2007 ( or 05 whatever) had no one to challenge them, since waqar wasim, (saleem malik was finished by then)
donald fanie devillers(didnt play much after 98) were not at their peak. Cronje's issue also caused leadership problems.
Ambrose Walsh were past their best, lara had regressed,

the contemporary teams of aus during 99-2005 did not have any great players or even if they had great players they were past their prime.

after the ausi dominance sa xi include four players _ smith,amla,ab,steyn. and from ausi just johnson.
you know during the time of ausi dominance rsa was the second best team and including all those players sa would be a great force neck to neck aus.
those who are saying that aus would thrash sa, i think they didn't consider the fact.
 
i am a huge aussie fan. I follow their domestic closely. Was following tait from 2003 when i read an article about him. (but i am more of a fast bowling fan tbh, only batsman i ever liked was punter )

Oh and i posted the thread in hurry so did not think about some players. Gibbs should replace duminy [MENTION=138379]#GreenRoars[/MENTION] rora can you replace duminy by gibbs please.


But you have to understand that the dominant aussie team of late 99 to 2007 ( or 05 whatever) had no one to challenge them, since waqar wasim, (saleem malik was finished by then)
donald fanie devillers(didnt play much after 98) were not at their peak. Cronje's issue also caused leadership problems.
Ambrose Walsh were past their best, lara had regressed,

the contemporary teams of aus during 99-2005 did not have any great players or even if they had great players they were past their prime.

Isn't it the case with the dominant teams of any era?
 
Even in tests .

The likes of Mcgrath , Warne , Steve waugh were mentally a lot tougher than Pollock , Donald and Kallis etc.

Southafrica i think have an ordinary record vs England and Australia.

aus was the best team from 1999 to 2006 and one of the best in the entire cricket history along with lloyds windies
so sa have a poor record against aus.
 
Australia.

Shane Warne a major difference.

I also think that players like Duminy well disadvantage South Africa a fair bit.

For various reasons neither Donald or Pollock did that great against Australia anyway and I'm not sure why that would change against that batting lineup on Australian wickets.

Peak Johnson, McGrath and Lee at the WACA is pretty imposing as well.
 
Last edited:
i am a huge aussie fan. I follow their domestic closely. Was following tait from 2003 when i read an article about him. (but i am more of a fast bowling fan tbh, only batsman i ever liked was punter )

Oh and i posted the thread in hurry so did not think about some players. Gibbs should replace duminy [MENTION=138379]#GreenRoars[/MENTION] rora can you replace duminy by gibbs please.


But you have to understand that the dominant aussie team of late 99 to 2007 ( or 05 whatever) had no one to challenge them, since waqar wasim, (saleem malik was finished by then)
donald fanie devillers(didnt play much after 98) were not at their peak. Cronje's issue also caused leadership problems.
Ambrose Walsh were past their best, lara had regressed,

the contemporary teams of aus during 99-2005 did not have any great players or even if they had great players they were past their prime.

Done bro.
 
Australia.

Shane Warne a major difference.

I also think that players like Duminy well disadvantage South Africa a fair bit.

For various reasons neither Donald or Pollock did that great against Australia anyway and I'm not sure why that would change against that batting lineup on Australian wickets.

Peak Johnson, McGrath and Lee at the WACA is pretty imposing as well.

ya, agree with you. but duminy or cronje will not be in the xi. smith and gibbs will be included.
 
Both aus and sa have played 6 test matches in aus and sa

They are going to play 4 match test series in aus but they wont play at sydney


SA

Kirsten prime
Amla prime
Kallis prime
Cronje prime
Devillers prime
Boucher prime
Pollock prime
Gibbs prime
Steyn prime
Donald prime
Schultz prime


Aus

Langer prime
Hayden prime
Ponting prime
Steve Waugh (prime form in batting and bowling, but he cannot play hook shot :D)
Martyn prime
Gilchrist prime
Steven Smith
Warne prime
Johnson prime
Brett Lee prime
Mcgrath prime

(i thought about warner but i think langer and hayden pair stomps warner etc)

So who would win
[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]
@Freelancecricketer
dont know about anyone else whom i should mention :(

Australia win win this contest, Africa team lacks a quality spinner while Australia has Shane Warne, which can be a huge huge difference.
 
ya, agree with you. but duminy or cronje will not be in the xi. smith and gibbs will be included.

And I'd back the Australian pace attack to deal with them.

Mitchell Johnson has a great record against South Africa's strongest team but South Africa was generally still able to win (though last time they toured a relatively average Australian team only lost 1-0 and was the stronger side in Adelaide) and peak Glenn McGrath and peak Brett Lee/Ryan Harris provide much better support than Siddle/Hilfenhaus/Hastings.

Are these teams meant to be best XIs since South Africa's readmission?
 
Australia because of 1 main reason - Shane Warne. That does not take away from the other great players they had but South Africa never had a decent spinner while Australia can argue they have had one of the all time best spinners ever.
 
And I'd back the Australian pace attack to deal with them.

Mitchell Johnson has a great record against South Africa's strongest team but South Africa was generally still able to win (though last time they toured a relatively average Australian team only lost 1-0 and was the stronger side in Adelaide) and peak Glenn McGrath and peak Brett Lee/Ryan Harris provide much better support than Siddle/Hilfenhaus/Hastings.

Are these teams meant to be best XIs since South Africa's readmission?
you are right. but what iam trying to say that sa xi include players which covered 24 years. amla, ab, steyn, smith from newer generation who debut in early 2004-05. onthe other hand pollock, donald,kallis, gibbs,kirsten, boucher debut in the early 90s. that's why they couldn't be a great opponent of aus whose best players debuted and retired in the same time. only johnson is from newer generation.
aus have a great advantage in warne and gilly. but will back sa pacer to out perform aus pacer. in batting dept
two teams are neck to neck.
 
you are right. but what iam trying to say that sa xi include players which covered 24 years. amla, ab, steyn, smith from newer generation who debut in early 2004-05. onthe other hand pollock, donald,kallis, gibbs,kirsten, boucher debut in the early 90s. that's why they couldn't be a great opponent of aus whose best players debuted and retired in the same time. only johnson is from newer generation.
aus have a great advantage in warne and gilly. but will back sa pacer to out perform aus pacer. in batting dept
two teams are neck to neck.

I'm not sure why you'd back the Saffer pacemen over the Australian.

McGrath and Steyn probably cancel each other out but peak Johnson and Harris/Lee (and we mean peak so the Johnson of 2013/14) performs just as well as Pollock and Donald. Especially since neither Pollock or Donald did that well against the Australian side anyway so now sure why they'd do that much better against a better batting lineup (not that Waugh is at his peak at the same time as Ponting/Langer/Martyn/Hayden etc)
 
Graeme Smith only averaged 32 against Australia.

Which you'd say is mainly because Mitchell Johnson in particular troubled him a fair bit.
 
OP bhai you're being too strict on SAF, let it be an all time XI instead of 90s and onwards that way they will have access to Graeme Pollock who will make their batting much stronger..

But also allows the use of The Don :malik so is a double edged sword for Africa. :amla
 
This is all speculation but I'm pretty sure Australia would win whether they play in Australia or South Africa. It wouldn't be a whitewash though, 2 - 1 or maybe even 3 - 2.
 
Quite surprised that Michael Clarke didn't make the Australian team. I know he has well documented flaws but it's reached the point on pp that he's become underrated.

Especially when you consider that he averaged 67 in his 14 tests against a very strong South African side from 2008 to 2014
 
Australia played a fairly strong South Africa team away in early 2002 and steamrollered them. Shane Warne was brilliant on that tour IIRC. Would go for the Aussies.
 
Australia would win.

Also Kallis was a weak and slow ODI player, and fared worse vs the Aussies, averaging in the low 30s.

Australia played a fairly strong South Africa team away in early 2002 and steamrollered them.

Steamrolled them in 07 too, I think, when Mcgrath was old and about to retire.
 
Quite surprised that Michael Clarke didn't make the Australian team. I know he has well documented flaws but it's reached the point on pp that he's become underrated.

Especially when you consider that he averaged 67 in his 14 tests against a very strong South African side from 2008 to 2014

I agree I think he is underated also. Did well as a captain with not the best Australia team.
 
Australia would win imo. They are much stronger mentally than South Africa. Steve Waugh always scored runs in pressure situations don't forget.
 
Australia would win.

Also Kallis was a weak and slow ODI player, and fared worse vs the Aussies, averaging in the low 30s.



Steamrolled them in 07 too, I think, when Mcgrath was old and about to retire.

McGrath missed the 2007 tour of South Africa. It was Stuart Clark who destroyed them.

All of Smith/Kirsten/Gibbs/Cullinan average low 30s or worse against Australia.
Kallis averaged 41.

Though to be fair with the exception of Clarke and Waugh most the Australian batsman averaged below or at their average against South Africa (though with the exception of Hussey all above 40).

Amla and de Villiers are the two South African batsmen in contention with great records against Australia but of course they played in a time where Johnson was the only Australian bowler of note and didn't have to face up against McGrath and Warne
 
Since South African readmission

Code:
Australia
                                                                                    v RSA
    Player         Bat Bwl Mat  Runs HS   Ave   100  50  Wkts  Ave   5i 10m  Ct  St  Mat Runs HS   Ave   100  50  Wkts  Ave   5i  10m  Ct  St
1.  JL Langer      LHB RM  105  7696 250  45.27  23  30     0  --.--  0   0  73   0   11  768 126  42.66   2   2     -  --.--  -    -  11   0
2.  ML Hayden      LHB RM  103  8625 380  50.73  30  29     0  --.--  0   0 128   0   19 1486 138  43.70   6   5     -  --.--  -    -  22   0
3.  RT Ponting     RHB RM  168 13378 257  51.85  41  62     5  55.20  0   0 196   0   26 2132 143* 47.37   8  11     0  --.--  0    0  35   0
4.  SR Waugh*      RHB RM  124  8830 200  55.88  29  37    48  30.52  1   0  80   0   16 1147 164  49.86   2   7    17  15.88  1    0   9   0                     
5.  DR Martyn      RHB RM   67  4406 165  46.37  13  23     2  84.00  0   0  36   0   11  743 133  53.07   4   3     1  19.00  0    0   7   0
6.  MJ Clarke      RHB SLA 115  8643 329* 49.10  28  27    31  38.19  2   0 134   0   14 1487 259* 67.59   5   3     4  42.00  0    0  18   0
7.  AC Gilchrist+  LHB OS   96  5570 204* 47.60  17  26     -  --.--  -   - 379  37   12  754 204* 47.12   2   2     -  --.--  -    -  39   5
8.  MG Johnson     LHB LF   73  2065 123* 22.20   1  11   313  28.40 12   3  27   0   12  578 123* 38.53   1   2    64  25.64  3    2   9   0
9.  SK Warne       RHB LS  145  3154  99  17.32   0  12   708  25.41 37  10 125   0   24  460  63  13.93   0   1   130  24.16  7    2  19   0
10. JN Gillespie   RHB RF   71  1218 201* 18.73   1   2   259  26.13  8   0  27   0    7   14   6*  2.80   0   0    24  27.25  1    0   1   0
11. GD McGrath     RHB RFM 124   641  61   7.36   0   1   563  21.64 29   3  38   0   17   78  18   6.50   0   0    57  27.33  2    0   6   0

12. MEK Hussey     LHB RM   79  6235 195  51.52  19  29     7  43.71  0   0  85   0   17 1108 122  38.20   3   6     1 118.00  0    0  10   0
13. SPD Smith      RHB LS   41  3852 215  60.18  14  16    16  52.31  0   0  43   0    3  269 100  67.25   1   1     2  40.00  0    0   2   0
14. RJ Harris      RHB RF   27   603  74  21.53   0   3   113  23.52  5   0  13   0    4   63  26  12.60   0   0    14  29.85  0    0   1   0
15. SCG MacGill    RHB LS   44   359  43   9.69   0   0   208  29.02 12   0  16   0    4   63  29  15.75   0   0    18  28.44  0    0   2   0

South Africa
Code:
South Africa
                                                                                    v AUS
    Player         Bat Bwl Mat  Runs HS   Ave   100  50  Wkts  Ave   5i 10m  Ct  St  Mat Runs HS   Ave   100  50  Wkts  Ave   5i  10m  Ct  St
1.  GC Smith*      LHB OS  117  9265 277  48.25  27  38     8 110.62  0   0 169   0   21 1328 122  32.57   3   5     1  77.00  0    0  36   0
2.  G Kirsten      LHB OS  101  7289 275  45.27  21  34     2  71.00  0   0  83   0   18 1134 153  34.36   2   5     1 112.00  0    0  12   0
3.  HM Amla        RHB OS   92  7358 311* 51.45  25  29     0  --.--  0   0  78   0   14 1280 196  51.20   5   4     0  --.--  0    0   8   0
4.  JH Kallis      RHB RFM 166 13289 224  55.37  45  58   292  32.65  5   0 200   0   29 2061 147  41.22   5  10    51  37.56  0    0  37   0
5.  AB de Villiers RHB RM  106  8074 278* 50.46  21  39     2  52.00  0   0 197   5   20 1641 169  48.26   5   9     0  --.--  0    0  39   1
6.  DJ Cullinan    RHB OS   70  4554 275* 44.21  14  20     2  35.50  0   0  67   0    7  153  43  12.75   0   0     -  --.--  -    -   5   0
7.  MV Boucher+    RHB RM  147  5515 125  30.30   5  35     1   6.00  0   0 532  23   21   89 779  22.26  66   2     -  --.--  -    -  66   2
8.  SM Pollock     RHB RFM 108  3781 111  32.32   2  16   421  23.12 16   1  72   0   13  517  67* 28.72   0   2    40  36.85  1    0   7   0              
9.  DW Steyn       RHB RF   82  1143  76  14.11   0   2   406  22.54 25   5  22   0   14   76 290  16.11   0   1    69  27.13  2    1   5   0
10. PL Harris      RHB SLA  48   460  46  10.70   0   0   103  37.87  3   0  16   0    6   92  39  10.22   0   0    24  32.58  1    0   2   0
11. AA Donald      RHB RF   72   652  37  10.69   0   0   330  22.25 20   3  18   0   14   98  21   7.54   0   0    53  31.08  2    0   3   0

12. HH Gibbs       RHB RFM  90  6167 229  41.95  14  26     0  --.--  0   0  94   0   15  947 104  31.57   1   6     -  --.--  -    -  13   0
13. WJ Cronje      RHB RM   68  3714 135  36.41   6  23    43  29.95  0   0  33   0   12  788 122  39.40   1   6     5  49.40  0    0   2   0
14. M Ntini        RHB RF  101   699  32*  9.85   0   0   390  28.83 18   4  25   0   15  152  28* 10.13   0   0    58  34.74  2    1   2   0
15. VD Philander   RHB RFM  32   725  74  25.00   0   4   126  22.09  9   2   8   0    7  218  51* 31.14   0   1    25  30.24  2    0   1   0
16. BN Schultz     LHB LF    9     9   6   1.50   0   0    37  20.24  2   0   2   0    1    2   2   2.00   0   0     6  15.17  0    0   1   0

Enough said.

Steve Waugh was the only player in my squads to have made his debut before South Africa's return to cricket
 
Both aus and sa have played 6 test matches in aus and sa

They are going to play 4 match test series in aus but they wont play at sydney


SA

Kirsten prime
Amla prime
Kallis prime
Cronje prime
Devillers prime
Boucher prime
Pollock prime
Gibbs prime
Steyn prime
Donald prime
Schultz prime


Aus

Langer prime
Hayden prime
Ponting prime
Steve Waugh (prime form in batting and bowling, but he cannot play hook shot :D)
Martyn prime
Gilchrist prime
Steven Smith
Warne prime
Johnson prime
Brett Lee prime
Mcgrath prime

(i thought about warner but i think langer and hayden pair stomps warner etc)

So who would win
[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]
@Freelancecricketer
dont know about anyone else whom i should mention :(

Not necessarily I think these are the players I would have picked since 90s - for example, for SAF I'll definitely pick Smith over Cronje & make him captain, also Makhya or Fanie De over Shultz; while for AUS, I'll probably'll pick Slater over Langer; Mark over Martin & definitely Gillespe over Lee & Clarke over Smith - or Martin over Clarke/Smith; but that's separate discussion.

In a 6 Test series (timeless Test, played for result, or at least 6 day Test) on either venue (as the wickets are almost identical - SAF has a bit more grass on wicket, but their grounds are smaller; normalizing, both venues should be almost identical); in AUS, hosts probably'll win 5-1; while in SAF; visitors (AUS) would win 4-2.

It can be 4-1 & 3-1 on a standard Test with 1 draw in AUS & 2 in SAF.

Player to player comparison doesn't give the true picture - the impact of Warne with ball & Gilly batting at 7 can't be measured in player to player comparison. Every match should go down to wire & that extra edge by Gilly & Warne should be decisive.

It's an outstanding collection of 22 players - BUT, only 2 players are almost unanimous in all time best Test XII - Warne & Gilly; that makes the difference; otherwise it's really tough to separate these 2 units.
 
SA win 3-1.

Most of these players are picked from 1990s to 2007 period - an era when SAF failed to win a single series even at home (from 1993 to 2007). In fact, in 1998, failed to win from 1-0 lead after 1st Test & 170/0 (100/0 with 70 1st innings lead) situation at the end of Day 3, in 2nd Test - lost that Series 1-2 at home. How do you justify your prediction?
 
Most of these players are picked from 1990s to 2007 period - an era when SAF failed to win a single series even at home (from 1993 to 2007). In fact, in 1998, failed to win from 1-0 lead after 1st Test & 170/0 (100/0 with 70 1st innings lead) situation at the end of Day 3, in 2nd Test - lost that Series 1-2 at home. How do you justify your prediction?

South Africa fan who hates Australia.

The fact that all the South African batsmen averaged in the 30s or lower against Warne and McGrath and Donald, Pollock and Kallis average in the 30s with the ball against Aus and South Africa don't have a spinner makes the result pretty clear

de Villiers, Amla and Steyn couldn't ever win a series against Australia in South Africa either
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Australia will win.

However, Steyn, Pollock, and Donald is one of the best fast bowling attacks on paper and is better than any pace bowling attack of Australia in the last 25 years.
 
Most of these players are picked from 1990s to 2007 period - an era when SAF failed to win a single series even at home (from 1993 to 2007). In fact, in 1998, failed to win from 1-0 lead after 1st Test & 170/0 (100/0 with 70 1st innings lead) situation at the end of Day 3, in 2nd Test - lost that Series 1-2 at home. How do you justify your prediction?

That team didn't have AB and Amla and SA have the better bowling lineup for the conditions they'll be playing in.

Not much between the batting. SA have great depth and will recover from any collapse.

Kirsten
Smith
Amla
Kallis
AB(WK)
Cronje
Gibbs
Pollock
Schultz
Steyn
Donald
 
A peak Australian team would beat any other team in the world at their respective peaks. As others have mentioned, they might lose a match here and there but over an entire series, they would almost certainly win every time.

The individual skill in that lineup is pretty difficult to match as it is but combine that with their ruthless winning mentality, it's hard to look past them.
 
Australia wins easily. They dominated world cricket for close to a decade, SA haven't really come close to that level of domination even for a stretch of a couple of years.
 
That team didn't have AB and Amla and SA have the better bowling lineup for the conditions they'll be playing in.

Not much between the batting. SA have great depth and will recover from any collapse.

Kirsten
Smith
Amla
Kallis
AB(WK)
Cronje
Gibbs
Pollock
Schultz
Steyn
Donald

A pity all those South African batsmen generally failed against Warne and McGrath in real life.

And Pollock and Donald.

AB and Amla can't even beat a pretty average Australian side in South Africa and to be perfectly honest, while the last day defiance in Adelaide was great Siddle/Hilfenhaus and Lyon aren't McGrath and Warne.

And Australian conditions absolutely do favour leg spinners.

So the Australian batting lineup is better, the pace attacks are at best equal but Warne makes the Australian attack better given he is about 10 times the bowler any South African spinner is
 
A peak Australian team would beat any other team in the world at their respective peaks. As others have mentioned, they might lose a match here and there but over an entire series, they would almost certainly win every time.

The individual skill in that lineup is pretty difficult to match as it is but combine that with their ruthless winning mentality, it's hard to look past them.

Are you sure? - I pick 2 teams of 12, my choice -

Hayden, Trumper
Bradman, Greg, Ponting, Miller
Gilchrist,
Benaud (C), Warne, Lillee, Mac; Lindwall

VS

Grineedge, Kanhai
Viv, Lara (C), Weekes, Sobers
Doujon
Marshall, Holding, Ambi, Roberts; Gibbs

Can't tell about other places, but in AUS itself, I'll put the 2nd team favourite.
 
A pity all those South African batsmen generally failed against Warne and McGrath in real life.

And Pollock and Donald.

AB and Amla can't even beat a pretty average Australian side in South Africa and to be perfectly honest, while the last day defiance in Adelaide was great Siddle/Hilfenhaus and Lyon aren't McGrath and Warne.

And Australian conditions absolutely do favour leg spinners.

So the Australian batting lineup is better, the pace attacks are at best equal but Warne makes the Australian attack better given he is about 10 times the bowler any South African spinner is

To be fair, Johnson certainly wasn't average at that stage (2014) :P
 
Australia wins quite easily IMO. They are just a while lot tougher than the Saffers have ever been.
 
To be fair, Johnson certainly wasn't average at that stage (2014) :P

Fair call. Johnson generally did turn up against South Africa as did Harris on the rare occasions he was fit enough to play.

Siddle/Hilfenahaus/Lyon/McGain/Hastings whatever on the other hand aren't McGrath and Warne.

South Africa deservedly defeated Australia last time you toured here.

But on the last day in Adelaide the Australian attack was Siddle/Hilfenahaus and Lyon (Pattinson broke down injured on the first day).
A long way from facing Warne on day 5.

In the third test which you won (Ponting's last test) the attack was Johnson, Starc, Hastings and Lyon.

Johnson was still in the midst of rebuilding himself but performed quite well.
Starc was a raw talent and nowhere near good enough and ended up getting a fivefer by default (aka he bowled long enough that he eventually picked up 6 for 150 odd).

Hastings was bog average and at the time Lyon was pretty bog average. AB and Amla and Steyn were far too good (the Australian batting lineup at the time was literally just Michael Clarke).

The thing with this comparison is that we pretty much saw most of these players against each other and when Warne/McGrath/Waugh/Gilchrist/Hayden/Ponting/Langer/Martyn etc were around Australia always won.

In fact South Africa didn't beat Australia until 2008 when only Ponting and Hayden were left and Hayden was completely passed it and was playing his last series (he played 9 tests that season and averaged 23 with no centuries).

While the test matches would all be hard fought Australia would win all the series as happened in reality.

And let's face it Cullinan is in a South African best XI of this period so any Australian side with Warne in it would have a free wicket
 
Are you sure? - I pick 2 teams of 12, my choice -

Hayden, Trumper
Bradman, Greg, Ponting, Miller
Gilchrist,
Benaud (C), Warne, Lillee, Mac; Lindwall

VS

Grineedge, Kanhai
Viv, Lara (C), Weekes, Sobers
Doujon
Marshall, Holding, Ambi, Roberts; Gibbs

Can't tell about other places, but in AUS itself, I'll put the 2nd team favourite.

strong argument for Davidson over Benaud.

It might also be worth going for O'Reilly ahead of Lindwall because the few Australian test victories of the Windies in the mid/late 80s were based on spin. Warne and O'Reilly would be a very formidable pair and a big improvement on Holland and Border's part time spin
 
The Australian side of the late 90s and early 2000s was a stuff of legends.

I didn't see the Windies peak but they would have had to be exceptionally good to be better than the above mentioned Aussie side.
 
Australia will win.

However, Steyn, Pollock, and Donald is one of the best fast bowling attacks on paper and is better than any pace bowling attack of Australia in the last 25 years.

Is it?

Pollock is a metronome - extremely economical length-line bowler who has only 1 Ten fer & 16 5fers in a career over 108 Test, with a SR of 58 - that too, many played in SAF. His average is low because of 2.4 economy in an era where best bowlers' economy is ~3; but SR under 50. He averages 21 in more than half of his Tests played on SAF wickets, which are tailor made for him. Only 7 5fers in ~50 Test outside SAF doesn't give much confidence. Outside Statguru - take a second look in the matches played by him & servery among players from 90s - he won't get many votes in a contest against Bishop, Walsh, Gillespi, Gough or Faine De Villiers; as a bowling threat. I am not even comparing with the group, a level higher.

"Modern" poster's 'll get upset, if I put my real assessment on Styen's average/SR for a possible career starting 15 years back - when cricket was less "Globalised" & Top 3 of the Test sides were idiot enough to know where their off-stick was. This is the reason, I had forbidden myself from posting in Wasim vs Styen thread.
 
strong argument for Davidson over Benaud.

It might also be worth going for O'Reilly ahead of Lindwall because the few Australian test victories of the Windies in the mid/late 80s were based on spin. Warne and O'Reilly would be a very formidable pair and a big improvement on Holland and Border's part time spin

Miller was a genuine pacer - Benaud makes it a fantastic balanced attack. Moreover, I picked him for his leadership.

:) I am well aware of 1985's SCG Test - a Test played after WI made it 3-0 :(
 
Australia...They were simply better. Even during SA's prime in the mid to late 90's they struggled to beat Australia home or away. Australia was simply better than anyone in the world during their prime. No comparison really as a team. A bowling attack of McGrath, Gillespie, Warne with a support cast of Flemming, Kasper, McGill, Lee et all. They were hard to beat home and away. Their batting was absolutely devastating. Langer, Hayden, Slater, Martin, M Waugh, S Waugh, Gilly, Ponting, Mark Taylor etc..The list goes on. Gilly at number 7 alone made them stronger than most of the teams.
 
Miller was a genuine pacer - Benaud makes it a fantastic balanced attack. Moreover, I picked him for his leadership.

:) I am well aware of 1985's SCG Test - a Test played after WI made it 3-0 :(

Yeah but Davidson also provides that left arm option while Benaud is another leg spinner to partner Warne. O'Reilly is also a leg spinner but bowled leg spin at medium pace and was sufficiently different, but still highly effective.
With Bradman at 3 and Gilchrist keeping the batting difference between Benaud and O'Reilly is pretty irrelevant.
 
It's always going to be Australia in my view. At their prime, they're unstoppable as they proved between 1999 and 2007.
 
Is it?

Pollock is a metronome - extremely economical length-line bowler who has only 1 Ten fer & 16 5fers in a career over 108 Test, with a SR of 58 - that too, many played in SAF. His average is low because of 2.4 economy in an era where best bowlers' economy is ~3; but SR under 50. He averages 21 in more than half of his Tests played on SAF wickets, which are tailor made for him. Only 7 5fers in ~50 Test outside SAF doesn't give much confidence. Outside Statguru - take a second look in the matches played by him & servery among players from 90s - he won't get many votes in a contest against Bishop, Walsh, Gillespi, Gough or Faine De Villiers; as a bowling threat. I am not even comparing with the group, a level higher.

"Modern" poster's 'll get upset, if I put my real assessment on Styen's average/SR for a possible career starting 15 years back - when cricket was less "Globalised" & Top 3 of the Test sides were idiot enough to know where their off-stick was. This is the reason, I had forbidden myself from posting in Wasim vs Styen thread.

Read my post again. I said <b> Steyn, Pollock, and Donald is one of the best fast bowling attacks on paper </b>

I did not say each of them is the greatest of all time bowler.

Their varying bowling styles complement each other well. Pollock keeping it tight from one end, Steyn bowling beautiful out-swingers, and then Donald coming in and bowling those nasty bouncers is a complete bowling attack.
 
Is it?

Pollock is a metronome - extremely economical length-line bowler who has only 1 Ten fer & 16 5fers in a career over 108 Test, with a SR of 58 - that too, many played in SAF. His average is low because of 2.4 economy in an era where best bowlers' economy is ~3; but SR under 50. He averages 21 in more than half of his Tests played on SAF wickets, which are tailor made for him. Only 7 5fers in ~50 Test outside SAF doesn't give much confidence. Outside Statguru - take a second look in the matches played by him & servery among players from 90s - he won't get many votes in a contest against Bishop, Walsh, Gillespi, Gough or Faine De Villiers; as a bowling threat. I am not even comparing with the group, a level higher.

"Modern" poster's 'll get upset, if I put my real assessment on Styen's average/SR for a possible career starting 15 years back - when cricket was less "Globalised" & Top 3 of the Test sides were idiot enough to know where their off-stick was. This is the reason, I had forbidden myself from posting in Wasim vs Styen thread.

steyn is the only fast bowler among those i have seen who was able to single handedly ( in the bowling department) win 2 tests for his side in india. and that was not against "modern" batsmen. it was against the batting line up which is widely regarded as our best ever. i have also seen mcgrath ambrose wasim and donald bowl in indian condition. they did not match steyn in india while sometimes facing worse batting line up.
 
steyn is the only fast bowler among those i have seen who was able to single handedly ( in the bowling department) win 2 tests for his side in india. and that was not against "modern" batsmen. it was against the batting line up which is widely regarded as our best ever. i have also seen mcgrath ambrose wasim and donald bowl in indian condition. they did not match steyn in india while sometimes facing worse batting line up.

I know which 2 Tests you are talking about - I have seen both Tests almost by ball. The 1st one was at Motera 2008, when Kumble can better tell why he opted to bat on a damp wicket with over night rain - Styen ran through India with 5 wickets, but Ntini bowled better - took Jafar, Ganguly & VVS in opening spell. That was a Test ST missed. By the time 2nd innings started, wicket dries up Styen too 3 wickets Ganguly, Bhaji & RP Singh, not before 80 overs were bowled.

2nd one was at Nagpur, when he ran through Indian tail with old ball reverse swing, after SAF had put 550+ in 1st 2 days on a crumbling wicket - an Indian line up of

Gambhir, Sehwag, Murali Vijay, ST, Badrinath, MS (playing as specialist bat), Saha, Bhaji, Zak, Mishra & Ishant.

I don't think those 2 Tests actually reflects "best" ever Indian lineup though.

Ambi I don't think ever played Test in India; Wasim played in his later stages - his Madras & Kolkata spells were perfect examples when wickets' tali doesn't tell the full story. Mac as one who would always struggle on dead life less wickets.

Styen averages 28 in AUS, 32 in UK & 33 in UAE (PAK) - has 142 wickets at ~17 against BD, ZIM, NZ & WI.

One of the greats of the game indeed, but his career peak was the 10 years when World Test cricket was at it's lowest in last 45 years at least that I can compare. Apart from IND, ENG & AUS - none of the teams would have made it to 5th day against their respective teams of 80s & 90s - OK, apart from Bangladesh. And, current the AUS team also would struggle to make Day 5 if they were to compete with their countrymen from 1999 till 2005 Ashes.
 
WI in their prime >>> Australia & SA in their prime.

To the question. Any top 7 side in their prime > SA because SA can't handle pressure prime or not.
 
Back
Top