This is indeed surprising.
South Africa has never a won a Test series in England since 1991, i.e., since their readmission to International Cricket.
By now, a good Test side like South Africa with their tactics of wearing out their opposition should have won a Test series in England.
So, how do we account this statistical anomaly?
Should we credit England as a far better side or should we discredit South Africa for letting go of opportunities?
9 comments:
Javed Akhtar robbed them.
The foreign hand. :)
SA was making steady progress under kronje but after the betting charges came into the open the team couldnt quite build up. Now it is slowly improving under Smith.
Ravindran, South Africa would have won the 1998/9 series but for the umpiring of Javed Akhtar. His decision-making was atrocious - something like eight dodgy LBW's in England's favour, in a Test that England won by just 23 runs.
The other two Eng-SA series in England since readmission were drawn.
Wow! That is surprising. I couldn't understand how a side with Donald didn't win in England (until I read the comment above abt the umpire). As for other occasions, I would think South Africe let go of opportunities.
South africa should hang themselves. That umpire was canned immediately. Deja vous on all the ruckus.
I remember the Javed Akhtar series. But there was another where smith scored 2 double hundreds. What happened there? Didnt SA win that series?
That was a real see-sawing series. Smith made his 277 in the drawn first Test. His 259 led to an innings victory in the second. Then in the third both sides were skittled in the second innings - a total of 20 wickets in about 100 overs - and England won a pretty close one. Then a big South African win, then a big English win. Two-all after five.
Post a Comment