Cricinfo - Blogs - Different Strokes

In Test cricket, their much vaunted pace attack often fails to deliver in the opening Test match of a series. The recent Lords Test aside, Edgbaston in 1998 was one example when both Donald and Pollock got over-anxious on their ‘home ground’ (Warwickshire) and bowled poorly on a green pitch that should have suited them down to the ground. England was 249/1 at the end of play on Day 1.

The more they talk themselves up before a Test Series, the less likely they are to fulfil that potential in the first Test. Port Elizabeth 2004 v England, Cape Town 2006 v Australia, Johannesburg 2006 v India and Port Elizabeth 2007 v West Indies are all cases in point. South Africa was either favoured to win or rated themselves highly before each of those matches.

Their performances in the last Test of a series is markedly better, almost as if they are relieved to be playing without the burden of their own expectations. Their start to the current England series is following that exact pattern. Once the hype was extinguished at Lords, they fought back to salvage a brave draw and then won handsomely at Headingley. They will probably go on to win the series unless someone tells them that they are favourites again!.

In ODI cricket, especially in big tournaments, South Africa seems to react to pressure in much the same way but they take the gas at the end instead when they get to crucial knock-out games. When there’s no pressure at the start, they cruise through the early rounds and then falter once they firm as favourites. An obvious exception to this is their loss to West Indies in Cape Town in the first game of the 2003 World Cup but even here is a symmetry. Big occasion, home World Cup, favoured to win ... and what happens?

On the other hand, one only needs to look at their stunning re-entry to world cricket at the 1992 World Cup and marvel at their giant-killing deeds when no one really fancied their chances. No pressure, no expectation and they almost made it through to the Final but for a ridiculous rain rule.

Perhaps anyone with an understanding of the South African cricket mentality can help us make sense of this. It’s happened too often to be a coincidence so there must be something going on in the South African psyche that inhibits them wearing the tag of ‘favourite’ with any comfort.

Which then begs the question – why do they keep talking themselves up before an important series or a crucial knock-out game? One thing’s for sure – they seem to fight back well from a bad start. If only they could lead from the front and finish with a major trophy. Their world champion rugby team knows how to do exactly that!

I was born as South Africa neared the pinnacle of apartheid. My early adulthood started as that era was ending, and so I've come of age at the same time that South Africa was reborn. You have to understand the history of the country, and in particular - the cricketing history as opposed to the rugby one.
Rugby was the only sport in the early days. Cricket was a very cloistered sport - and garnered a small gathering.
Talent, we have. And I would even argue that we have the toughness and can cope with the pressure on occasion (438 game anyone?). What the cricketing side does is seem to apologise for doing well. Plus the sporting public are demanding of perfection. Let Graeme Smith score 30 and the hounds bay for his blood. That kind of pressure is not alleviated by winning. The rugby world cup was seen as a way to bring the entire country together. Cricket doesn’t have that kind of following, and so there is nothing to counter the pressure.

Please do me a favour, at least South Africa has cricketers who have the talent and potential to beat any team, at any venue in the world. Can we say the same about any other team excluding Australia. Nooooo....not by a long shot.
All sub continent teams struggle on pacy, bouncy tracks,Hmmm...what were you saying about a frail mentality again and of course when certain teams (did I say India) look down the barrell of an embarassing series defeat the answer always is to doctor tracks so that their conquerers have to overcome conditions more suited to farming in the Gobi desert rather than batting .. England struggles everywhere, as does New Zealand. The West Indies fluked a win last year in SA but soon returned to their no hope / loser mentality. So again do me a favour and have look again in a few weeks time when South Africa have firmly dispatched the bunch of expat cricketers masquarading as England...ho - ho...how many Aussies, South Africans etc was it again in that 'England'team

I recall Atherton saying the same thing about Hansie and his Team and subsequently loosing the series against SA. Have you watched South African performances over the past 2 seasons? I suspect not or you will have noticed their change in approach. Where some teams would have lost the Lords test, the Proteas showed strong mental application and fought back. And their new approach was evident in the 2nd test too (extracting movement on a sunny day 5 at Edgbaston, where other bowling attacks may have struggled...). Sorry Michael - you are talking about a different team to the one which I have been supporting for the past 2 years. Ps. have you noted the SA teams' low key response to media's remarks on their apparent strengths? Note how bat and ball is left to do the talking (a refreshing approach you will agree).

Hey SA fans, I'm not saying your boys can't play. Far from it. I'm just puzzled why they seem to start poorly in Test series' and finish poorly in ODI tournaments. Even Lords was talked up as the great fast bowling demolition but they failed to deliver there but then did brilliantly when the pressure was off them a bit at Headingley.

Also, to be fair to India, they did beat Australia in Perth recently and won the VB Series. Not many teams beat Australia in Perth in Tests although strangely, Aussie one-day record in Perth is quite poor.

No one can argue with SA quality, as evidenced by rankings. That's what makes it even more odd that that they seem to be forever coming back and winning Test series after a poor start. Why do they start so poorly? Are they just slow out of the blocks and good finishers? Not in ODI cricket though where they start really well and then slip up at a crucial, cruel knock-out stage. I'm genuinely just keen to understand why - not knocking you guys.

I think this article is very one sided. It is missing one critical fact. SA are the second best team in the world. When you look at what SA cricket are up against, you will conclude that it is a miracle that they are the second best team in the world. They have the third most popular sport in SA (unlike Aussies), a very small potential of players, the rand has no chance againts the Pound, Kolpak - even 15-yrs old great potentials leave for the incentives of money, they have to live with transformation policies. So really it is to their great credit that they can compete in the way that they do, England should be dominating them, not to mention India and Australia. I take my hat off to them.

Part of it is the legacy of colonialism - the culture was instilled in people that good as you might be, you're still second class to the 'mother country'. This is more prevalent in the English-speaking community (where cricket derived most of its support and talent). Rugby, being grounded in the Afrikaans-speaking community, has much less of this inferiority complex.

I suspect that as time passes, and the majority of people in all areas of the sport transitions to those who were born/grew up after apartheid ended (with a 'new' South African culture), the self-belief needed to actually win an important tournament/series will be there, and SA won't be chokers anymore.

This article warps some facts. Yes its true some SA players seems to make silly mistakes under pressure, such as in WC ODI matches. But I think SA's record in tests are solid. In the first test at Lord's they were under tremendous pressure in their second innings, and they did very well. This completely negates the argument. SA played many other test series than the ones listed by the author, in which they did start well.

I'm sorry to say this, but some of the players that played under Hansie have been shown up under pressure conditions. For example Gibbs, Pollock, Donald and Kallis. Maybe its unfair to include Gibbs, cause his WC '99 "drop" of Steve Waugh was just plain stupidity/ignorance/carelessness.

I have to say that there are merits to Michael's comments. We also have to agree that there seem to be bogies to all South Africans' performances. Ernie has got his Tiger, the Springboks had the All Blacks (great win in Dunedin) and the Proteas do seem to have the Aussies. What can be said is that the South Africans' mental toughness do seem to be turning the corner. The Proteas do seem to take the Aussies on a bit more and hopefully the turn can be made. The Boks have finally beaten New Zealand in their backyard and hopefully this built up fear of expectation will diminish. As for Ernie, well....

No one's questioning SA's test ranking. The fact that they are ranked so highly is despite often starting poorly, esp when heavily favoured. Does anyone dispute that they don't start particularly well in Tests when they are heavily backed? Most times they'll come back strong except perhaps against Aust who rarely allow anyone the luxury of coming back, Ashes 2005 notwithstanding.

Look at SA tour of India recently. India, on a high after VB series win in Oz and yet, SA played superbly in 1st Test but against all expectations and bookies' views. And, given their undoubted talent, can anyone argue with the fact that in really big ODI tournaments, they somehow fall at a crucial stage? Compare that to Aust who (in the last 10 years anyway) seem to be able to somehow pull out big performances when it matters most. I'm a big fan of SA cricket which is why I follow their results so closely and why I ask the question. SA seem to love playing NZ though - great record against them.

I think Jeh has raised a valid point. Even if one were to allow for mischance, South Africa still haven't achieved nearly as much as they could have done since readmission: they're yet to win a series against Australia since re-admission, yet to win a series in England (which could soon be rectified). The scoreline from the last 4 series in which South Africa took on Australia read 1-10 against them.

There also was the embarrassing exit from the T20 world cup and the disastrous 2007 WC semis. And what about their performance at the Oval in 2003? Was it all chance, or a team that choked when in sight of victory?

And all this from a team that has usually had the talent to rival Australia. Any excuse for such consistent under performance from such a talented side? This talk of South Africans playing for England is a convenient argument: why on earth did the Pietersens abandon the land of their birth in the first place?

Some very interesting views from all. "Predictable" is an interesting world, because if this was the case other teams have failed in not beating SA in each and every game played.

SA started this technique in ODIs of rebuilding an innings when wickets had been lost. Initially heavily criticised, but eventually many teams followed as it showed merit. It made games more boring and made it appear as if we were just giving it away in the end sometimes, but it also meant we were still there with a chance at the end.

"Chokers" was a tag coined by Aussies in their famous off field mindgames. The media took this to the cleaners. It doesnt have merit, but is readily given as reason for any loss.

Proteas dont build themselves up before games, the media does. These entities are both mutually exclusive.

Hansie's 'Match Fixing' scandal was never actually about match fixing... again, media adulteration.

Valid points Michael, but not to the detrimental extend that you illustrate.

Lang and Yorker - fair points you both make. I concede. It's not always the SA team itself and it's not always the SA media (although to be fair, I don't have the opportunity to read SA media very often).

I suppose I should have clarified by saying that pressure from any quarter (media, team, fans, opponents) can lead to the SA team wearing that pressure like a noose (sometimes). Of course it's never 100% of the time. It was a generalisation that was never meant to be 100% accurate.

Can't agree with Lang's comment though that the Cronje Match Fixing Scandal was never actually about match fixing. Whilst he may never have agreed to actually LOSE a game, any argument about whether that is 'match fixing' or not is merely semantics. It's a good topic for another blog though!!!

Michael, I think you make a good point, and I think maybe as South Africans we are a bit defensive. Many neutrals follow South Africa and hope they beat the Poms or the Aussies, and then end up disappointed. We should be searching for answers not flaws in the question. My view is that as with our rugby we have struggled to overcome the legacy of isolation. When isolation ended insecurity on the international arena manifested itself in the early post-isolation era. Lack of belief, lack of having been there, mental frailty masked by bravado. We are now going into a golden era where we have sufficient very experienced individuals on various levels of the game combined with an abundance of multi-ethnic youthful talent. In sport if you fall behind 20 years, you should stuggle and lag behind the top teams. We have been growing extra arms and legs whilst hanging on to the coat tails of Aussie. I sense they are vulnerable, I sense we are growing up into mentally strong and determined team.

There were some really interesting points here but what i.m more concernd about is another team that we could add to the mix.NEW ZEALAND.why do we also keep "choking" in crucial games.our wc results since the first talks for itself.the 06 champions trophy,the 07 world cup and the t20 last year.why isnt this pattern changing,we are very simaliar to SAF,but atleast we did win a champions trophy.why cant our team handle the "favourites tag".most recently on that tour to england,at old trafford,when it was there for the taking,with the pressure of being in control dont know what to do,what did our guys do?choke with a once again poor batting and a lack of penetrative bowling.lets be honest this english outfit that we saw play us,playing SAF now,is a mediocre team.The ODI series we were favourites,once again the f word choked the guys again but did recover 2 win the series against a more like a county english team.nz are more than capable of doing well in all formats,but phsycollogical elements like this has the better of them.and also compare the SAF determination to our team's.not even half.For a kiwi fan/follower,i would love 2 see the SAF breed in the team.itz impressive