Are South Africans UNLUCKY or UNTALENTED in world cups?
I told you so! I told you even before the South African team is way far overrated! And most of people disagreed. Many said that they were just unlucky in world cups. But were they really? Really folks?, really? really? Let's take every single world cup they played one by one â—1992 - Ok before the rain SA needed 22 to win from 13 balls. But after the rain, according to the rain effected match formula which was used those days, SA target has become 22 off one ball. And this may be the only occasion where u can call they were bit unlucky. But mind you one thing. Lets imagine that there was no rain. So then 22 off 13 balls means still a stiff and tough task! So yet England could have been the winner! â— 1996 - Haha here we cut to the real chase! Who can say south Africans were unlucky here at least a little bit? South Africa won all 5 robin round games and were totally out played by west indies (they lost even to kenya in the first round) in the quarter final. In other words SA were unable to win the real test, the must win game. So they failed big time! So was that unlucky? That was not unlucky at all! Wasn't it folks? ? 1999-Now lets go to the real controversial world cup. South Africa tied with Australia in the semi final. But Australia went through to the finals bcz they defeated SA in Super 6 stage. Talkng more of the semifinal it was poor communication while running between the wickets, made the run out of Alan Donald who was batting with Lance Klusner. I'd say yes run out is an unfortunate way to get out but nevertheless it's batsmen's fault. In other words "weakness". So SA couldn't win there bcz of their weakness of communicating and running between the wickets. That's not quite bcz of their unluckiness. Right? â— 2003- Some people says on this occasion SA had to go home from the first round bcz they read the D/L system formula wrong in the must win game with Sri lankans. After getting up to 229 for 6 in 45 overs they thought that they were ahead of Sri Lanks. But to be ahead of Sri lanka they should have been at 230 for 6 in 45 overs. So once again lack of knowledge about the D/L system was what made them going down and out! In other words a weakness. You know that in cricket not only the way you bat bowl and field but also the way you use your head is also gets in to play. So how come we say a student who failed the exam was unlucky if he didn't do his lessons correctly. No way! And also one more point... Did the south Africans deserve to be in the super 6's in that world cup? They lost to west indies and Newzealand too before Sri lanka match. I mean on their home soil! They only defeated Canada , kenya and Bangladesh. So keep the D/L thing aside. Yet they are not deserved to be in super 6's. Bcz at their home SA failed to defeat 2nd rated teams like NZ and west Indies on that world cup! So not unlucky really, Just untalented I'd say. â— 2007 Aha now here is another pure example of the point I am trying to prove. Where the hell did the South Africans became unlucky here? They lost to Australia in the first round by 88 runs. Then they lost to Bangladesh too in the Super 8 stage. And then finally were purely knocked out by Aussies once again in the semi final. South Africans were bowled out for some thing like 150 there! So there was no chance at hell you can say it was unfortunate. It was simply bcz they were not quite talented to be the world champions, or bcz they were not quite talented to win a single knock out match in world cups. â—2011 So moving on to this world cup Once again SA failed to win a knock out match in a world cup. they were done by Kiwis comfortably. Kiwis haven't been playing well (lost to Sri Lanka and Australia easily) but yet they thumped South Africans. So is that unlucky? really folks? really? i mean really? No, not at all. So here is a quick sum up. Ok i get it. In 1992 and 1999 they were bit unlucky. But all the other four world cups they failed to win a single knock out match not bcz they were unlucky but purely bcz they were not quite good enough! i mean it's obvious..Yeah it's crystal clear! So Look,I know that there are many Indians who said that SA was gonna play the world cup final with India. But i told you so it won't be. So here i have backed up my words. So so that's the truth, the whole truth, so wassup guys? any objections? No i have my points proving that they are just not good enough, not unlucky. They have never won a single knock out game in a world cup! Once again i am saying if they couldn't win a single must win game in world cups it simply says the entire story. No they were not unlucky. I rather want you to stick to my points and talk with some proof other than just keep on saying the South Africans were unlucky. Look i am talking with proof. Great answer from Howzzat. But look friend. i totally agree with you, no objections about the talent of South Africans. But to go through must win games in world cups you need some thing special, i mean than your normal attributes! So south Africans haven't got that ability. They have failed to go through the knock out stages.
Cricket - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
pak got this cup u ghandu choottiya indians
2 :
They were unlucky
3 :
Its there bad luck
4 :
they lost to a better side on the day
5 :
S.A's r really unlucky. Simple ex. is that They've beaten us & v ve qualified 4 semi-finals and they r not..... Frm this v kno that SA's r really talented and r really unlucky......
6 :
First of all, good long descriptive analysis. Well done. I will say that South african players are very talented players. If you talk about stamina and physic, then they will be probably number one in cricket. They are not bad at all in talent. Watch out Hashim Amla, who completed 2000 runs in odi with 60+ batting average. Also he is number one batsman in ranking. Ab de villers is the best fielder in now days. Kallis is the best all rounder all time in cricket. Nitini is the one of those bowlers who can bowl at 145+ speed for half a day with good line and length. And also destructive batsman Harshel gibbs who make team win while chasing 435 runs in one day cricket. All these players can not be called non talented in any way. The main problem in South African cricket is confidence. They lack in confidence. They dont believe on themselves. They also plays on other's strengths not on their strength. The problem is in their mind set up. I think they should appoint asian coach, who can teach them to play positive cricket. The main point is right coaching and right captaincy. Yes, you are right that they dont have special cricketers like Malinga who takes 6 wickets at once and breaks the back bone of the opponent. Like Sehwag who makes century at a flash of a second. But again point is that they have talent but they dont have positive attitude and confidence. They played negative cricket against NewZealand. I think they should forget the past and starts to do things in new ways. Things are same but the requirement is to do in new way. They should rearrange the things and should start to play cricket without any pressure, without any negativity. (I dont think and believe on term "luck") I hope that next time they will win in knock out stage(except against India)..!
7 :
unlucky
8 :
They always had best side on papers.They always start strong but they chock in knockout stages.They don't have players who can keep their nerves and play match winning knocks in Crucial matches.But I didn't expected them to crash out of world cup like they did against NZ.
9 :
Untalented
Read more other entries :
