January 30, 2014

South Africa's invincibles

The last time South Africa beat Australia at home was nearly 44 years ago. Four protagonists from the series remember those heady days
29

Ali Bacher's first taste of Test cricket at home was against Australia in the summer of 1966. At that stage, he knew only victory. He had been part of the South African outfit that had beaten England in England for the first time in 30 years, in 1965, and sensed victory almost from the moment the Australians landed in his country. Wisden described Bobby Simpson's side as carrying a "six or seven-man tail", and having an attack that was "the weakest ever to represent Australia in South Africa".

Success came by a margin of 3-1 and earned Bacher a pay cheque he will never forget. "The whole team was given bonuses when we won. We all got R75," Bacher said. "I remember it because I was recently married and my wife and I were renting a flat in Killarney [a Johannesburg suburb]. Our monthly rent was R75. We were so excited when we found out we could cover a whole month's rent just because of cricket."

Bacher's last taste of Test cricket also came at home against Australia. It was the summer of '69. Neither he nor any of his team-mates had played any international cricket in the three years since Australia had last toured South Africa, so he still only knew what it was like to win, not lose.

And it was all that Bacher would experience at the highest level. He captained the side he calls "the best I ever played in" to a 4-0 whitewash and today jokes that all he had to do was "turn up and win the toss".

Only two times have South Africa got the better of Australia in a series at home. Since South Africa's readmission, Australia have played six series in the country, and won four. The 1969-70 tour became the stuff of legend. It showed off a South African side that Bacher said was "extraordinary in that we had so many allrounders" and revealed their dominance over a team Mike Procter called "unofficial world champions". It also marked their disappearance from the international stage for two decades.

All that history meant that though it was one-sided, the series remains one of South Africa's most cherished contests.

The build-up lasted years. With such a long gap between Test series, Procter remembered being "very excited" when he was told Australia would be touring. "There was so little Test cricket at the time that we just couldn't wait to play, especially against a team who were so highly rated. They had the world's best batsman in Ian Chappell and best bowler in Graham McKenzie."

In the preceding years, Australia had beaten almost every opposition that came their way. In 20 series between October 1956 and December 1969, they had been defeated only twice. Not only did they have form on their side, they also had recent match time. Just a month before they were due in South Africa, they completed a five-Test tour of India, which they won 3-1.

The South Africans had only played domestic cricket, so they stepped up their preparation. "We trained a bit harder," Procter said. Peter van der Merwe, the former captain, writing in the official tour brochure noted: "People who saw the Springboks prepare... were highly impressed by the business-like air in their camp."

Australia's performance in India was not a cause for worry. "In those days, a tour of India was tough," said Bacher. "Now it's magnificent, but then it was a challenge, and from that, they came straight here. We were quietly confident - not arrogant - that we would beat them."

The most obvious casualty of Australia's tour of the subcontinent was McKenzie. After finishing the 1966-67 series as Australia's leading wicket-taker, and having been their most successful seamer in India, much was expected of him. "[But] he picked up a virus or something like that in India and didn't fire as he could," said Graeme Pollock. McKenzie only took one wicket and a lucky one at that - Bacher stood on his stumps in South Africa's final innings of the series - so Australia had to rely on others to do the damage.

"Barry told us that if Gleeson had a lot of fingers over the ball, it was the legbreak and if you only saw thumb and index finger, it was the offbreak. That just showed the genius of Barry"
Ali Bacher

They had a trump card in John Gleeson, the legspinner who could also bowl a deceptive offbreak. "We'd heard that he was a flick bowler, like Jack Iverson, and he was a bit of mystery bowler," Bacher said. "Australia were clever with him because in the matches against the provinces whenever one of our Test players came in to bat, they took him off, so none of us could see him."

Bacher was the first to front up to Gleeson, on day one of the series, in Cape Town, and he immediately saw why Australia were saving him. "He was bowling from the Wynberg End, and his ball to me, I thought, was an offie but it was a leggie. This kept happening and he was making me look like a clown. Eventually I decided to just put my foot down the wicket and hoist him over midwicket and it paid off. I got to 57 not knowing what he was bowling."

The only South African who had the measure of Gleeson after that first sighting was Barry Richards. Although he did not face him much, Richards figured him out, which Bacher regarded as South Africa's own ace. "That night at the team meeting, Barry told us that if Gleeson had a lot of fingers over the ball, it was the legbreak and if you only saw thumb and index finger, it was the offbreak. That just showed the genius of Barry."

Despite Gleeson's four-for in the second innings, South Africa set Australia a massive target of 451 and won handsomely, by 170 runs. Richards made only 29 and 32.

That changed in the second Test, in Durban, a match where, Procter said, the crowds queued overnight "like at Wimbledon" to get in. Richards brought up his maiden Test century, scoring at a strike rate of over 85, and partnered Pollock in a stand Bacher describes as "batting you will never see the likes of again". "It was like Barry and Graeme were trying to outdo each other."

Richards only remembers being in the zone. "It was one of those days when you were just playing well. I always felt we should be attacking upfront and that's what I did."

He was dismissed for 140 but Pollock batted on. And on. And on. He set a new South African record for the highest individual score, 274.

"Barry set the tone and I think we put on 100 runs in the hour after lunch. It was one of those situations where things were going nicely," Pollock said. "My dad died two weeks prior to the Test series and he had always said to me, 'If you want to be seen as a top-class player you've got to get big scores. You've got to keep going. Don't give it away. Don't just get 100, 150 or even 200. Keep going.' So I did."

As the runs mounted, Richards and Pollock asked Bacher if he was considering declaring, but he refused. "I just thought of how in the past South African teams always got clobbered by Australia and I saw an opportunity to pay them back in some way," he said.

On 622 for 9, Bacher finally decided it was enough and his bowlers proved him right by securing an innings win.

Among Australia's failings on the tour, perhaps the most notable was Ian Chappell's. He had arrived in South Africa with a big reputation but managed only 27 runs in the first two Tests, with two ducks.

"During the first press conference, Bill Lawry said Chappell was the best batsman in the world but it didn't happen for him out here," Bacher said. "Even though he battled, West Indian bowlers who I came across later told me they rated him very highly and would rather bowl to his brother Greg than Ian."

Chappell's luck improved only marginally in Johannesburg, where he made 34 and 0. South Africa won by 307 runs to seal the series. It was there that they saw Australia deflate. "They arrived with high hopes but lost momentum and became dispirited," Richards said.

South Africa went for the kill. In Port Elizabeth they struck the final blow, with Procter claiming career-best figures of 6 for 73.

"I had a bit of flu that day and Peter Pollock had done his hamstring, but I was hungry as hell to do well," he said. "Like everyone in the team, I wanted to win bigger and win more. Everyone was just at the top of the game." Afterwards Procter did not have much strength left for the celebration but remembers the party being huge. "You cannot believe what a big deal it was," he said. And the payment? "I think we got bonuses of R150."

Back then money wasn't a motivating factor to play cricket, and most of the players had other jobs. Winning was the only thing that mattered, which is why everyone, including Bacher, felt that had there been a fifth Test, they would have won that too. But none of them got to play another Test for South Africa after that, and all have some regret.

Bacher wonders how South Africa would have done if they had toured Australia in 1971-72 and how they would have fared against Dennis Lillee. Procter and Richards knew that tour was never going to take place. In England, the winter after South Africa blanked Australia, they could see South Africa would be isolated. They were the only two who made a living from cricket thereafter.

Pollock could have done the same but he turned down county offers. "I was married with kids and I had a pretty good job," he said. "And I suppose I was expecting we would get back onto the international scene sooner. I don't think anybody foresaw isolation would be for 22 years." Instead, he played the rebel tours, and Bacher got on with his career as a doctor.

They all look back at the summer of '69 as the highlight of their careers. "There was such a great spirit," Pollock said. "We all got on so well," Procter said. "It was the best side I played in," Richards said. "We were formidable," Bacher said.

All four believe the current South African team have many of the same qualities and expect them to be the first since readmission to beat Australia at home. "Both teams have two outstanding attacks and I think the series will be decided on how the Australian batsmen deal with South Africa's bowers," Bacher said. "I'm not convinced about the Australian top order."

Neither is Procter, who said that although the Australian turnaround has been fantastic, he can't see them overcoming the South African attack. Richards believes even though Jacques Kallis' retirement "takes some of the edge off and that there are a few selection issues, barring any injuries, South Africa can win".

Whatever happens, Pollock predicts, "one hell of a series".

Firdose Moonda is ESPNcricinfo's South Africa correspondent

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Beertjie on February 2, 2014, 12:21 GMT

    At that time I was living abroad dreaming inter alia of being good enough to play first-class which I could never have dreamed of in my home country. For such reasons, I had always identified with the powerful Aussies and was dismayed at the outcome. Having seen most of Bacher's team play, though, I did not expect them to lose. Nor do I expect Smith's boys to lose. In fact, this would be as surprising as it would have been for their predecessors in '70, although they're not a patch on that great side. However, I think Bacher is being disingenuous to take Bill's word that Chappelli was the greatest batsman in the world. He may not have seen Sobers play, but he knew how good Pollock was. From their records it was evident how much better they were than Chappelli. More to the point having already beaten the Aussies convincingly (it would have been 4-1 but for a Joburg downpour at tea on the final day) 3 years before, SAF were undoubted unofficial champs after the fall of the WI since '68!

  • harshthakor on February 1, 2014, 10:51 GMT

    I rank the 1969-70 Proteas team in the league of Clive Lloyd's great West Indian team with its phenomenal batting depth ,bowling attack and all-rounders.Imagine Barry Richards.Graeme Pollock,Mike Procter,Clive Rice,Eddie Barlow and Peter Pollock playing in one tea.I rate that team better than the current team and the one led by the late Hanse Cronje.

    Considering their blistering form the Aussies may well continue the trend of recent history and regain their test world champion status.However I support South Africa in retaining their test crown.To me the last series played between the 2 teams in South Africa in 2010 ranks amongst test cricket's most absorbing contests of all time.Sadly it was only a 2 test series which was a shame for the game.

  • harshthakor on February 1, 2014, 10:44 GMT

    A south Africa-Australasia contest in test cricket posesses the intensity of an enthralling boxing bout between titans and the excitement of a Hollywood thriller with the ebb continuously turning either way.In recent years no 2 teams have been close to each other in test cricket like in 1993-94,1997-1998 or in 2007-08.It is ironic that Australia conquered the Proteas on South African Soil in 2009 just after the Springboks had won their first ever series on Australian soil.It just reflects the twists and turns of test cricket in the modern age.Infact it is ironic that South Africa have won 2 test series in Australia but never won a home series against the Kangaroos since 44 years.However remember the South African team of 1969-70 was comparable to the all-time great West Indian and Australian teams with their great batsmen,bowlers and all-rounders and arguably the best team in the world at that time.

  • on January 31, 2014, 12:14 GMT

    That was a truly great South African team, with Graeme Pollock and Barry Richards in it, it couldn't have been much else.

    But I remember Ian Chappell saying that he agreed the South Africans were a better team, but not by the margin of 4-0. The reason he said that was that the tour of India, which Australia won, had been quite an ordeal over several months. Then to come straight to South Africa. And finally friction with the ACB over playing a fifth test in South Africa, which gave the ACB the incentive to get rid of Lawry at the first available opportunity- which they did.

    That doesn't take anything away from the South African team - it might just have been a little bit more competitive if the Australian team was fresher.

    Without going into the politics, what a tragedy that all those years out of international cricket robbed the cricket community of the best players in the world at that time.

  • CliffMcTainshaw on January 31, 2014, 10:37 GMT

    I believe you will find that Dennis Lindsay was the wicketkeeper in the series. Not mentioned in the article but with 24 catches, 606 runs and 3 centuries he was the outstanding player of the series.

  • gujratwalla on January 31, 2014, 9:02 GMT

    I remember that drubbing SA gave the Aussies.There is no doubt that they had a great team and deserved to win but Australia had been through an ardous tour of India and they had to endure sub-standard living conditions and food besides being prone to tropical ailments.Most of them were jaded when they arrived on SA.India was not the dream tour it is today and the Aussies went through a match where the crowd set fire to the gound.As for recent happenings fellows please keep politics out of sport.The Australian players are not responsible for the selfish blackmail of Cricket Australia in cahoots with the English and Indian boards of Cricket.We hope it will be a thrilling series...and may the best team wins.Personaly i think Steyn and Co. will conquer the men from Oz.

  • on January 31, 2014, 0:31 GMT

    @Rasheed Khan I am an Australian but Rasheed you speak the truth. For our part in this Big 3 debacle we deserve never to win another test. I am ashamed of CA. Please remember though this not the players' fault.

  • SixFourOut on January 30, 2014, 23:23 GMT

    SA should be worried about their batting line up. Amla, Smith and AB are classy, but I'd have grave concerns about the rest.

  • on January 30, 2014, 16:32 GMT

    i'm a neutral but i'll root for south africa to beat the assies out of sight.all because of their board trying to hijack our lovely game along with india and england!!!i'll bet on s.a. anyway. there are a few things i'm afraid about though like johnson breaking smith's fingers as usual. and what is it with amla kneeling down getting bowled nonsense? and getting bowled on a regular basis. that has to be corrected at once.my other fear is that a.b. will make a truckload of runs.that is a good fear. well steyn, philander and morkel is fear itself. p.s. thank you new zealand for beating india.

  • NALINWIJ on January 30, 2014, 14:43 GMT

    This series will be the true test of Australia''s shaky top order facing the best pace attack. Australia will not be able to bully and demoralise South Africa and gain a psychological stranglehold against this side like they did to England. This will be the real test for Australia. World missed a great contest between SA and AUS in 1972. I also believe AUS/SA series should be 4 or more tests spread over 2 countries.

  • Beertjie on February 2, 2014, 12:21 GMT

    At that time I was living abroad dreaming inter alia of being good enough to play first-class which I could never have dreamed of in my home country. For such reasons, I had always identified with the powerful Aussies and was dismayed at the outcome. Having seen most of Bacher's team play, though, I did not expect them to lose. Nor do I expect Smith's boys to lose. In fact, this would be as surprising as it would have been for their predecessors in '70, although they're not a patch on that great side. However, I think Bacher is being disingenuous to take Bill's word that Chappelli was the greatest batsman in the world. He may not have seen Sobers play, but he knew how good Pollock was. From their records it was evident how much better they were than Chappelli. More to the point having already beaten the Aussies convincingly (it would have been 4-1 but for a Joburg downpour at tea on the final day) 3 years before, SAF were undoubted unofficial champs after the fall of the WI since '68!

  • harshthakor on February 1, 2014, 10:51 GMT

    I rank the 1969-70 Proteas team in the league of Clive Lloyd's great West Indian team with its phenomenal batting depth ,bowling attack and all-rounders.Imagine Barry Richards.Graeme Pollock,Mike Procter,Clive Rice,Eddie Barlow and Peter Pollock playing in one tea.I rate that team better than the current team and the one led by the late Hanse Cronje.

    Considering their blistering form the Aussies may well continue the trend of recent history and regain their test world champion status.However I support South Africa in retaining their test crown.To me the last series played between the 2 teams in South Africa in 2010 ranks amongst test cricket's most absorbing contests of all time.Sadly it was only a 2 test series which was a shame for the game.

  • harshthakor on February 1, 2014, 10:44 GMT

    A south Africa-Australasia contest in test cricket posesses the intensity of an enthralling boxing bout between titans and the excitement of a Hollywood thriller with the ebb continuously turning either way.In recent years no 2 teams have been close to each other in test cricket like in 1993-94,1997-1998 or in 2007-08.It is ironic that Australia conquered the Proteas on South African Soil in 2009 just after the Springboks had won their first ever series on Australian soil.It just reflects the twists and turns of test cricket in the modern age.Infact it is ironic that South Africa have won 2 test series in Australia but never won a home series against the Kangaroos since 44 years.However remember the South African team of 1969-70 was comparable to the all-time great West Indian and Australian teams with their great batsmen,bowlers and all-rounders and arguably the best team in the world at that time.

  • on January 31, 2014, 12:14 GMT

    That was a truly great South African team, with Graeme Pollock and Barry Richards in it, it couldn't have been much else.

    But I remember Ian Chappell saying that he agreed the South Africans were a better team, but not by the margin of 4-0. The reason he said that was that the tour of India, which Australia won, had been quite an ordeal over several months. Then to come straight to South Africa. And finally friction with the ACB over playing a fifth test in South Africa, which gave the ACB the incentive to get rid of Lawry at the first available opportunity- which they did.

    That doesn't take anything away from the South African team - it might just have been a little bit more competitive if the Australian team was fresher.

    Without going into the politics, what a tragedy that all those years out of international cricket robbed the cricket community of the best players in the world at that time.

  • CliffMcTainshaw on January 31, 2014, 10:37 GMT

    I believe you will find that Dennis Lindsay was the wicketkeeper in the series. Not mentioned in the article but with 24 catches, 606 runs and 3 centuries he was the outstanding player of the series.

  • gujratwalla on January 31, 2014, 9:02 GMT

    I remember that drubbing SA gave the Aussies.There is no doubt that they had a great team and deserved to win but Australia had been through an ardous tour of India and they had to endure sub-standard living conditions and food besides being prone to tropical ailments.Most of them were jaded when they arrived on SA.India was not the dream tour it is today and the Aussies went through a match where the crowd set fire to the gound.As for recent happenings fellows please keep politics out of sport.The Australian players are not responsible for the selfish blackmail of Cricket Australia in cahoots with the English and Indian boards of Cricket.We hope it will be a thrilling series...and may the best team wins.Personaly i think Steyn and Co. will conquer the men from Oz.

  • on January 31, 2014, 0:31 GMT

    @Rasheed Khan I am an Australian but Rasheed you speak the truth. For our part in this Big 3 debacle we deserve never to win another test. I am ashamed of CA. Please remember though this not the players' fault.

  • SixFourOut on January 30, 2014, 23:23 GMT

    SA should be worried about their batting line up. Amla, Smith and AB are classy, but I'd have grave concerns about the rest.

  • on January 30, 2014, 16:32 GMT

    i'm a neutral but i'll root for south africa to beat the assies out of sight.all because of their board trying to hijack our lovely game along with india and england!!!i'll bet on s.a. anyway. there are a few things i'm afraid about though like johnson breaking smith's fingers as usual. and what is it with amla kneeling down getting bowled nonsense? and getting bowled on a regular basis. that has to be corrected at once.my other fear is that a.b. will make a truckload of runs.that is a good fear. well steyn, philander and morkel is fear itself. p.s. thank you new zealand for beating india.

  • NALINWIJ on January 30, 2014, 14:43 GMT

    This series will be the true test of Australia''s shaky top order facing the best pace attack. Australia will not be able to bully and demoralise South Africa and gain a psychological stranglehold against this side like they did to England. This will be the real test for Australia. World missed a great contest between SA and AUS in 1972. I also believe AUS/SA series should be 4 or more tests spread over 2 countries.

  • DeckChairand6pack on January 30, 2014, 13:20 GMT

    Wonderful team and a great piece. The passing of time has doubtless increased some of the romance. The real shame is that The Proteas have taken 44 years to get back to the top of the pile, and that we have not been able to beat Australia at home more consistently. And that's before you consider people queuing to get into Kingsmead to watch a test! When did that last happen? Great to see the Natal players doing so well in that team. Looking forward to the start of the upcoming series.

  • on January 30, 2014, 12:13 GMT

    Dave, i don't know that you can get any perspective from series that happened in the 1960's. Their schedule of training and playing was nothing like it is now.

  • on January 30, 2014, 11:04 GMT

    Interesting to read that Australia had played 5 tests in India just a month prior. Puts England's fatigue whines of the present into a bit of perspective.

  • on January 30, 2014, 8:32 GMT

    Barry Richards, Trevor Goddard, Ali Bacher (capt), Graeme Pollock, Eddie Barlow, Lee Irvine, Mike Proctor, Ray Lindsay (wk), Tiger Lance, Peter Pollock and John Traicos. 12th man : Colin Bland.

    The world's best team in 1969. Hands down !!

  • dillyk on January 30, 2014, 8:23 GMT

    45yrs on and some ozzies still come up with excuses of why they were pummeled so badly, deal with it & move on. Sport is cyclical. Sometimes other teams are just better, sometimes your just better. But there is no need to ascribe every loss as an anomaly. Denial shows weak character. Conditions...blah..blah..... bah...blah.... itinerary. Sa just had a far superior team to aus in '69 just like aus had a superior team for 90's & 00's

  • BellCurve on January 30, 2014, 8:19 GMT

    SA has been the most consistent Test team in the world for the last 50 years - and that despite missing arguably their best years - with Pollock, Procter, Richards, Barlow, v/d Bijl, Rice, Cook, Irvine, Le Roux, etc. The W/L ratios for the top 3 teams for the last 50 years are: 1 SA 2.09; 2 Aus 1.77; 3 Pak 1.18. SA is clearly the best team of this era. Forget about the WI and Aus.

  • on January 30, 2014, 8:16 GMT

    If one looks at the current SA team and the amount of world class players of colour they have. One can only imagine how much greater the teams of the 60s and 70s could have been had the best of the so-called black players been available for selection.

  • riaz.m on January 30, 2014, 7:37 GMT

    I grew up in Hampshire and spent many happy days at the Northlands ground watching Richards and Greenidge crush the opposition. I never saw Richards mistime a ball and every stroke seemed to race to the boundary,he was about the only batsman in the period to handle Underwood on wet wickets. But how many players have had great starts to their careers only to fade away by loss of form, constant pressure of touring and test match,the barrage of really fast bowlers around at the time and many other things which can arise. In spite of these though Richards would have been outstanding,perhaps even great. His record in WSC was a pretty good illustration of his ability.

  • muzika_tchaikovskogo on January 30, 2014, 6:54 GMT

    I think Australia have much cause for concern. Their top order has been shaky since a long time now- its doubtful whether the middle and lower order can rescue them each time against strong attacks like South Africa's.

  • Drew2 on January 30, 2014, 6:53 GMT

    What makes me laugh, is that South Africa brag that Australia came to them full of match practice from India in 1969-70. If you delve into the autobiographies, you will find that the Australian cricketers were fatigued and sick after that tour of India which didn't have the hotel comforts of today. They had to front up against the South Africans without a break in completely different conditions. Although South Africa was a superior side at the time, the scheduling greatly inflated the final result. Funny how people have selective memories.

  • AltafPatel on January 30, 2014, 6:49 GMT

    World cricket missed to watch greater side playing due to isolation from 70s. A very very big loss to the world cricket and never could see greats of greats like Graeme Pollock, Bary Richards, Mike Proctor etc. If it would have not been so, contest between SA and WI would have been like between Federer and Nadal or Björn Borg and McEnroe.

  • riaz.m on January 30, 2014, 6:34 GMT

    People often refer to these matches as proof of undoubted SA superiority. But, firstly,almost everyone over looks the fact this Australian team had been in India for several months disgruntled with food hotels and everything Indian, even the cockroaches. The Aussies could not wait to get out of India ( how times have changed) and then were sent packing to take on SA in their own backyard for virtually no additional money. They didn't want to go! Secondly the Aussies were a fading side anyway in transition with barely any decent bowling except the fading McKenzie. No wonder the SA had huge scores in every test. The only mystery about Gleeson was that he actually played as long as he did before people realised there was no mystery!! SA were a good side anyway at the time but you have to put their performance in context of who they were playing. It be like South Africa playing Pakistan now!!

  • dillyk on January 30, 2014, 6:16 GMT

    It is one of sports greatest tragedies that the SA team of the 70's never got to battle it out with the WI's. Instead WI's just had to pummel a limp eng & overrated aus. The toughest/best contests of the 70's just never happened..... very sad!

  • redneck on January 30, 2014, 6:03 GMT

    two of the saddest things in crickets history barry richards only played 4 tests!!!and that south african team of 1969/70 never got to tour anywhere never mind ever playing the west indies in their plomp! all the tendulker fan fair last year and the string of articles comparing him with other past greats and yet barry richards - never mentioned!!! he should have been mentioned in the same breath as the chappells, king viv and the like from those times he was just as good, his county and shefiel shield exploits clearly show this. and then the greatest series that never was bachers south africa vs lloyds/richards west indies. what could have been???

  • Sir_Francis on January 30, 2014, 5:52 GMT

    People forget that after playing in tough conditions of India they went straight to SA to play the best team in the world without a break. Lucky to lose only 4-0

    Also, if you compare the teams, Australia had 4 good batsmen, a reasonable WK and one good bowler (Mallett only played one test)

    And in SA Richards & Pollock were far superior to any Australian batsman. Same with Proctor & P. Pollock with the bowling (& Trimborn). What a shame they never got to play the West Indies of the late 70s.

  • Nuxxy on January 30, 2014, 5:52 GMT

    @tinkertinker: Stop putting words in their mouths... Bacher: "Both teams have two outstanding attacks and I think the series will be decided on how the Australian batsmen deal with South Africa's bowers". Richards: "Barring any injuries, South Africa can win". Pollock: "One hell of a series". No one is saying Australia have no chance, except you. And odds were good for SA to win in 2011 if it had been a 3 match series. 2 match series are always stupid.

  • Cantbowlcantbat on January 30, 2014, 5:17 GMT

    That '69 SA team was a great one and it is a pity we could not see them duke it out with the Australian and WI teams of the 70s. I think, though, to say the '69 Australian team were unofficial world champions is a bit of an overstatement. Sure they held the Ashes (but only after a lucky drawn series in '68) and had recently beaten the WI and India, but players like Lawry, Taber, Gleeson, McKenzie and Connolly were past it, soon retired and Australia lost the Ashes a year later.

  • ShutTheGate on January 30, 2014, 4:22 GMT

    I agree, it should be one hell of a series.

    It's such a shame that the series won't be televised on free to air.

  • tinkertinker on January 30, 2014, 4:18 GMT

    No surprise all those former SA greats think the aussies have no chance, thats exactly what they said in 2009 and 2011 and SA lost one and drew the other.

    Even in that 47 all out series SA couldn't get the job done and win the series and the aussie batting was a complete shambles then.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • tinkertinker on January 30, 2014, 4:18 GMT

    No surprise all those former SA greats think the aussies have no chance, thats exactly what they said in 2009 and 2011 and SA lost one and drew the other.

    Even in that 47 all out series SA couldn't get the job done and win the series and the aussie batting was a complete shambles then.

  • ShutTheGate on January 30, 2014, 4:22 GMT

    I agree, it should be one hell of a series.

    It's such a shame that the series won't be televised on free to air.

  • Cantbowlcantbat on January 30, 2014, 5:17 GMT

    That '69 SA team was a great one and it is a pity we could not see them duke it out with the Australian and WI teams of the 70s. I think, though, to say the '69 Australian team were unofficial world champions is a bit of an overstatement. Sure they held the Ashes (but only after a lucky drawn series in '68) and had recently beaten the WI and India, but players like Lawry, Taber, Gleeson, McKenzie and Connolly were past it, soon retired and Australia lost the Ashes a year later.

  • Nuxxy on January 30, 2014, 5:52 GMT

    @tinkertinker: Stop putting words in their mouths... Bacher: "Both teams have two outstanding attacks and I think the series will be decided on how the Australian batsmen deal with South Africa's bowers". Richards: "Barring any injuries, South Africa can win". Pollock: "One hell of a series". No one is saying Australia have no chance, except you. And odds were good for SA to win in 2011 if it had been a 3 match series. 2 match series are always stupid.

  • Sir_Francis on January 30, 2014, 5:52 GMT

    People forget that after playing in tough conditions of India they went straight to SA to play the best team in the world without a break. Lucky to lose only 4-0

    Also, if you compare the teams, Australia had 4 good batsmen, a reasonable WK and one good bowler (Mallett only played one test)

    And in SA Richards & Pollock were far superior to any Australian batsman. Same with Proctor & P. Pollock with the bowling (& Trimborn). What a shame they never got to play the West Indies of the late 70s.

  • redneck on January 30, 2014, 6:03 GMT

    two of the saddest things in crickets history barry richards only played 4 tests!!!and that south african team of 1969/70 never got to tour anywhere never mind ever playing the west indies in their plomp! all the tendulker fan fair last year and the string of articles comparing him with other past greats and yet barry richards - never mentioned!!! he should have been mentioned in the same breath as the chappells, king viv and the like from those times he was just as good, his county and shefiel shield exploits clearly show this. and then the greatest series that never was bachers south africa vs lloyds/richards west indies. what could have been???

  • dillyk on January 30, 2014, 6:16 GMT

    It is one of sports greatest tragedies that the SA team of the 70's never got to battle it out with the WI's. Instead WI's just had to pummel a limp eng & overrated aus. The toughest/best contests of the 70's just never happened..... very sad!

  • riaz.m on January 30, 2014, 6:34 GMT

    People often refer to these matches as proof of undoubted SA superiority. But, firstly,almost everyone over looks the fact this Australian team had been in India for several months disgruntled with food hotels and everything Indian, even the cockroaches. The Aussies could not wait to get out of India ( how times have changed) and then were sent packing to take on SA in their own backyard for virtually no additional money. They didn't want to go! Secondly the Aussies were a fading side anyway in transition with barely any decent bowling except the fading McKenzie. No wonder the SA had huge scores in every test. The only mystery about Gleeson was that he actually played as long as he did before people realised there was no mystery!! SA were a good side anyway at the time but you have to put their performance in context of who they were playing. It be like South Africa playing Pakistan now!!

  • AltafPatel on January 30, 2014, 6:49 GMT

    World cricket missed to watch greater side playing due to isolation from 70s. A very very big loss to the world cricket and never could see greats of greats like Graeme Pollock, Bary Richards, Mike Proctor etc. If it would have not been so, contest between SA and WI would have been like between Federer and Nadal or Björn Borg and McEnroe.

  • Drew2 on January 30, 2014, 6:53 GMT

    What makes me laugh, is that South Africa brag that Australia came to them full of match practice from India in 1969-70. If you delve into the autobiographies, you will find that the Australian cricketers were fatigued and sick after that tour of India which didn't have the hotel comforts of today. They had to front up against the South Africans without a break in completely different conditions. Although South Africa was a superior side at the time, the scheduling greatly inflated the final result. Funny how people have selective memories.