mike borchardt,

How long will you keep saying India cant play on bouncy tracks. They won a test series in England, matched Australia during the last 2 away series, won a test and the T20 WC in SA and you keep saying India cant play on bouncy wickets.

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

I can't believe how precious South Africans can be (my fellow countrymen). The point that Mr Jeh is making is that we do not have a very good test record. Beating everybody in South Africa with the exception of Australia (or that one series in South Africa when England actually looked like a unit) does not count. Only when we finally dispatch England at home and Australia can we actually stand up and say "We are a good test nation."

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.

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!!!

South Africa chasing down 438 at the Wanderers doesn't prove they can handle pressure - quite the contrary! Had Australia scored anywhere in the 300's the pressure would have been on South Africa and without doubt they would have failed. Chasing 438 was a challenge no-one thought they could do, so they played without any pressure at all - just watch the replay - and won.

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.

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?

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.

When did SA actually talk themselves or their pace attack up before the lord's test? If you actually did research on it, you would see it was the British media and not us who talked up the pace attack. And what did you expect from 2 inexperienced bowlers who haven't played at Lord's and an older, bowler who's losing it? I agree that SA don't like being called favourites, but don't say that we talked ourselves, when if anything we were the ones trying to make the least fuss over it.