South Africa and the usual anticlimactic ICC affair

South Africa and the usual anticlimactic ICC affair

Well, you could say that South Africa has made a South Africa. This means that they have won a series after the series between the ICC events, creating a formidable team that was framed by several players who could be considered big ODI, only to implode as soon as things have proven true during a Great tournament Who did not see this coming?

Their tournament started quite well, when they marched to victory over Sri Lanka. Hashim Amla and Faf du Plessis had throwing races ruined Sri Lanka, although they had the courage to vigorously begin – and all seemed sumptuous air.

However, as soon as Pakistan has managed to unleash some energy with a strong performance in the field, South Africa began to fade. The batters lost windows in a soft and increasingly strange way and the players’ runners – except Morne Morkel – have not been able to adapt to different conditions, while the opposing hitters had the opportunity.

In truth, however, there were signs that South Africa was not in shape. They used the three-game series against England as a warm-up and make a lot of mistakes as they lost 2-1.

It was quite clear that they were rusty after a two-month break from the international cricket (in which no player has had a major impact on the Premier League of India), and never really rusted the rust.

So who is responsible?

AB de Villiers takes fire. He played two bad shots in the first two games, but was more disappointed to his captain.

De Villiers insists that he is a good captain. Russell Domingo agrees and says that people do not see the good work Villiers performed “in the chamber”.

However, it seems hard to defend Villiers when he made school mistakes, as if he did not attack the Pakistani hitters in what would always be a hunt interrupted by the rain.

Wayne Parnell preferred Morne Morkel with the new ball and was hammered. When Morkel was taken, it took 2 for transport 7 to five from South Africa in the game. Despite being in a ferocious rhythm, it was taken by Villiers.

Pakistan recovered and, when Morkel returned for a second stage, it was too late, even if Mohammad Hafeez was removed.

“If I had known it would be only 27 in off, I would have attacked more on the field,” De Villiers said. Still, the forecast – and the clouds around the ground – has always suggested that this was not a game of 50 times, and South Africa’s total lean Villiers was to attack anyway.

This does not mean that De Villiers is totally responsible. South Africa has many players with exceptional backgrounds on the day, which failed when they were needed most.

Why then?

Oh yes, the question asked through South Africa, and no one on the team or the whole team may not respond. Russell Domingo said the Proteas had produced their worst performance of last year against India. “You just have to play well on the day, that’s the end result,” he said.

But he had no answer to the question of why South Africa play so well in the playoffs. He hinted when we talk about the reaction to the locker room to Villiers AB’s abandonment in the game in India.

“I was not there at the 2011 World Cup, but there may be players who were:” Well, we’ll be back. ”

This fear of failure that has now gone through two or three generations of players certainly plays its part. But there is more than that – there seems to be a deeper discomfort in the culture of the South African cricket.

Instead of reaching these tournaments with the confidence and bragging that one would expect from a team that recently won 12 games on the trot, eager to impose on the opposition that could be found, South Africa continues to play with some doubts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *