South Africa - chokers?

First topic message reminder :

I was interested to read Gary Kirsten dismissing his own side as chokers in light of their defeat to England. Given the number of high profile players missing from the SA team, it seems a pretty harsh accusation. I didn't see the game however, so can't comment on whether it looked more like SA being over-awed by the occasion or more like they simply were the lesser team. Can anyone else cast any light?

On a wider note, is the label fair for SA cricket in general? Yes, SA have failed on the big occasion a number of times. It seems to me that the majority of these supposed chokes have been on the sub-continent. Also, have SA ever truly been favourites for a tournament? I've always felt that SA have traditionally had 1 or 2 real world class players backed up by a team of highly competitive guys who are not quite of the same calibre. It seems to me that SA sports teams will always be there or thereabouts, because they're a very athletic nation and because they're incredibly competitive. However, I feel that the cricket team, rather than choking have just lacked that little bit extra to get over the line.

Mind you, Finn's last off day was in the very last game he played.

Duty281 wrote:Mind you, Finn's last off day was in the very last game he played.

And Bresnan's last on day was 3 games before his last!.

msp83 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Mind you, Finn's last off day was in the very last game he played.

And Bresnan's last on day was 3 games before his last!.

I wonder whether the stats aren't slightly skewed precisely because Bresnan being viewed as the more containing bowler plays more matches on flat pitches, hence invariably goes for more runs. I understand the reasoning of picking Bresnan above Finn, but in practice it hasn't often worked.

I do think Finn has been messed around with a bit recently. Starting with the MCC's ridiculous ruling that kicking the stumps over is a no-ball.

Alfie seems to have some serious personal love for Bresnan.
Yes, Finn can spray it around a bit in tests but his ODI record is outstanding. Compare that to Bresnan's, which is thoroughly mediocre.

Haha...not really,  Shanky...I am actually here defending the selectors , rather than Bresnan.

But perhaps I should have made a couple of things clear - or clearer.

1/ I do not think Bresnan is a better bowler than Finn.
2/ If it had been down to me , I would have actually picked Finn on Sunday.

However I was not at all surprised to see Bresnan picked , and I think it is unfair to paint that as an unreasonable choice.
Easy for those who disagreed to hop on after the fact and say "told you so !" , in light of Bresnan's failure to do anything particularly exciting in the match - they don't have to "prove" Finn would have done any better (and of course have no way to do so ) - but I doubt the poor old selectors would have won any apologies if he had , say , hit a couple of fours and won the match

Look it isn't that big a deal anyway so I won't go on ...but how many of us would have picked Bopara ? And that worked pretty well...

Selectors aren't perfect , but this lot are doing a decent job , I think.

If you look at Finn and Bresnan's ODI records then it is UNREASONABLE, alfie. They're not even comparable.

Mike Selig wrote:

msp83 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Mind you, Finn's last off day was in the very last game he played.

And Bresnan's last on day was 3 games before his last!.

I wonder whether the stats aren't slightly skewed precisely because Bresnan being viewed as the more containing bowler plays more matches on flat pitches, hence invariably goes for more runs. I understand the reasoning of picking Bresnan above Finn, but in practice it hasn't often worked.

I do think Finn has been messed around with a bit recently. Starting with the MCC's ridiculous ruling that kicking the stumps over is a no-ball.

Mike
Finn has proved himself on flat tracks in India and the UAE. Bresnan has in fact played more games in helpful conditions if anything.

ShankyCricket wrote:If you look at Finn and Bresnan's ODI records then it is UNREASONABLE, alfie. They're not even comparable.

You are entitled to your opinion, Shanky.

But that is all it is. I rate the England selection panel as , generally , better qualified than you to make such judgements (no offence intended)

Of course , that is only my opinion

alfie wrote:

ShankyCricket wrote:If you look at Finn and Bresnan's ODI records then it is UNREASONABLE, alfie. They're not even comparable.

You are entitled to your opinion, Shanky.

But that is all it is.   I rate the England selection panel as , generally , better qualified than you to make such judgements (no offence intended)

Of course , that is only my opinion

Alfie, you would have followed a lot more cricket than I have done. I am sure you can pretty much remember England selectors and their ways in the late 1980s and the entire 1990s. They played their more than fair share of role in destabilizing the England team of that time and even contributed to certain careers not really taking off.
India had a selection panel that picked a side that went on to win the world cup. But after that when the time came to push the side towards a much needed transformation, they just didn't act. The new selection panel did act. Not many of us gave India much of a chance at the beginning of this Champion's Trophy, but the side managed to win the trophy. Even if India hadn't done that, I don't think many people would have had a go at the selectors, because they had taken the responsibility expected of the selectors and started the era of transformation. Its another glad issue that the team they picked, under skipper MS Dhoni, quickly got together, played excellent cricket and won the tournament.
The point of all these is that the selectors can make mistakes. Some times the average cricket follower would get a few things right before the selectors do. Anyone remember Steven Finn's selection for the test series against South Africa? Oh and tell me, who was he pitted against? Who got it right?
Again, that's my take, you might have a different take, but if you just stick to your take and I also do the same without exchanging our views, then there is no fun on a board like this!.

That is true , msp...

Anyway I am not arguing right or wrong...it isn't always possible to be definitive about that , after all , though some seem to think things can be reduced to black and white...
Just trying to make the point that the selectionchoices in this series were not as obvious as they are being painted in some quarters. Must confess I am a little surprised that anyone should find that view contentious , but each to his own.

And that really is my final word on the subject - promise