Australia - South Africa mental conditioning

[phoneJunky]

I have been thinking about this for a while now, but I just wanted to see how things panned out first.

Two things prompted me to write this thread, that being our inability/unwillingness to go for the win in the first test and the second being the 5-0 thrashing Australia gave England post Mickey Arthur.

Is it just me, or does Australia look scary again. Really scary. The kind of scary they looked like when they dominated the cricketing world for over a decade.

Since our reintroduction to international cricket we have done well. Statistically we are the second best after Australia from then until now in ODI and tests. But if you compare the mindset of the top two cricketing nations they are miles apart. I think that is also why Mickey failed so badly in Australia.

Watson said after the Ashes that playing for Australia is fun again. (I will take it that statement means post Arthur. You can't really look at the previous Ashes as Australia were in transition). South African cricket always had a militant style, and I don't think that really worked well within the Australian cricketing circuit. Australian players looked as though they were free to do as they pleased and I think the militancy that Arthur wanted to introduce just messed up their whole mindset. Just look at how negatively the homework punishment affected them.

We generally play safe first. The first test against India is proof to this statement. Greame also used to be much safer with his declarations as well (I am glad that this has since changed).

Now, I always felt that we have as much talent in our country as Australia or even better in some stages but we kept on losing to them. I actually think we did better against all teams excl Australia than Australia did against all teams excl us (Can't validate this, but I remember looking at it a while back, will redo my homework later). But they just drummed us.

Our best ODI/test performance were against both against Australia in my opinion. The 438 game we played well, because we couldn't play safe and the 2006 test series we were also very aggressive.

So my question is - shouldn't we change our mindset? And if not, aren't we just keeping the top spot warm for Australia again?

 

[Wall]

I don't think we need a change in my mindset. If we keep on doing what we have been doing for the last 3 years, we will wipe the floor with them. Australia have looked very good against a very average England Team. Australia success isn't built on their batting. It's on their bowlers. If South Africa have them 90/5, I can assure you, they won't make 350 like they've been doing against England.

 

[undesign]

We have learnt to win test series'. We have a stellar team, whilst the Aussies are average. Aus will be over-confident after beating a weak English team. We've successfully seen off England, Australia and India in recent times...

...so it should be even.

Seriously, Australia has always had that mental "x" factor and it is coming to the fore again. But we've grown leaps and bounds during the last few years and shown our mettle on many occasions. We will beat them.

 

[Wall]

We have learnt to win test series'. We have a stellar team, whilst the Aussies are average. Aus will be over-confident after beating a weak English team. We've successfully seen off England, Australia and India in recent times...

...so it should be even.

Seriously, Australia has always had that mental "x" factor and it is coming to the fore again. But we've grown leaps and bounds during the last few years and shown our mettle on many occasions. We will beat them.

yeah, we are very strong mentally in tests. I never lose hope with our test team... if only that could be said for our ODI unit...

 

[Baxteen]

just first thing first, you seem like you understand cricket, so then why the comment of playing to win in the first test against India?

a test is a big mental game that is played between 22 people over 5 days, the means for the mental game happens to take the form of a leather covered cork ball trying to hit small pieces of wood, while another guy tries to prevent this from happening with another piece of wood.

with the changing conditions in the first test, when we came in to bat we were in absolutely no position to win, our best hope was a draw, while a loss would have been nothing in the scheme of things, a draw would be better. so the strategy was play for a draw.
then the magic partnership happened, and a win was a possibility, but that only happened after lunch. when that partnership was broken, hopes diminished, because the ball was again ageing and the conditions were suiting the bowlers better again, there was an attempt made to win the game, but with around 44 runs to go, smith put the order out to play for the draw again due to the changing conditions.

now on to us vs the Enemy
australia was playing very average, there was not a single moment where something spectacular happened, no tactical decisions, not bowling change at a key moment everything was by the book, they played to their own strengths, and England played to theirs, unfortunately the tactic did not pay off for England, and they should have adjusted, but they soldiered on with a cup of tea as the brits do and there was a 5-0 whitewash.

the series between us and them will be close, we will feel the loss of KingKallis, and that might cause them to loose the series, however I think we have a better team, and provided we can move on from the loss we should come out on top, it will not be a whitewash for wither side, it will be a long hard faught battle where our strong middle order will win us some games, and their strong bowling performance will win them some games.

ODI and T20 is another story, they will beat us in those.

 

[undesign]

Talking of mental conditioning and psychology...surely the title must read South Africa - Australia...

 

[phoneJunky]

just first thing first, you seem like you understand cricket, so then why the comment of playing to win in the first test against India?

a test is a big mental game that is played between 22 people over 5 days, the means for the mental game happens to take the form of a leather covered cork ball trying to hit small pieces of wood, while another guy tries to prevent this from happening with another piece of wood.

with the changing conditions in the first test, when we came in to bat we were in absolutely no position to win, our best hope was a draw, while a loss would have been nothing in the scheme of things, a draw would be better. so the strategy was play for a draw.
then the magic partnership happened, and a win was a possibility, but that only happened after lunch. when that partnership was broken, hopes diminished, because the ball was again ageing and the conditions were suiting the bowlers better again, there was an attempt made to win the game, but with around 44 runs to go, smith put the order out to play for the draw again due to the changing conditions.

I am happy with the draw. I knew the game was a draw the moment Faf went out and I was happy that we actually got to that position in the first place. But that immediately showed the South African mind set. We are a safety first cricketing nation. I believe the Aussies and the Indians would have gone for it, and maybe also fail, but I think they would have had a crack at it. I think all things considering we just couldn't take the chance with an injured Morkel and Tahir's limited batting ability.

The safety first mentality is also why a lot of people around the world don't want to give Kallis his dues. And it is there in black and white. He is the best cricketer of our generation better batsmen than Tendulkar too. Only Sobers really compares to him.

now on to us vs the Enemy
australia was playing very average, there was not a single moment where something spectacular happened, no tactical decisions, not bowling change at a key moment everything was by the book, they played to their own strengths, and England played to theirs, unfortunately the tactic did not pay off for England, and they should have adjusted, but they soldiered on with a cup of tea as the brits do and there was a 5-0 whitewash.

the series between us and them will be close, we will feel the loss of KingKallis, and that might cause them to loose the series, however I think we have a better team, and provided we can move on from the loss we should come out on top, it will not be a whitewash for wither side, it will be a long hard faught battle where our strong middle order will win us some games, and their strong bowling performance will win them some games.

ODI and T20 is another story, they will beat us in those.

Kallis didn't really do that well in the last two years (in his standards average of 44 and not really a lot of wickets) and if we can just get a batsmen that can average more than that we should be fine.

I think we will still probably end up on top, but they are shaping up quite nicely and it seems like they will challenge for top position quite soon.

 

[phoneJunky]

Talking of mental conditioning and psychology...surely the title must read South Africa - Australia...

I phrased it that way because I only wanted to start by speaking about Australia and then put in South Africa there because I made so many comparisons with us.

 

[Devill]

I think we should take the series. I just hope we start with a bang not like we normally do, with a whimper.

Also we need to get the balance of the team right post-Kallis.

I think that on any wicket that is not extremely batting friendly we can have Faf and Duminy send off 20 overs between them (helping the dedicated spinner Robbie P or Tahir with the work load if needed) to give Morkel / Steyn / Vern a rest.

My team:

1) Smith
2) Alviro
3) Amla
4) AB (moving AB to 4 adds more pressure on him , so this might change)
5) Duminy
6) Faf
7) I am thinking of either introducing Q de Kock over the next season or so if he proves himself good enough in the first class arena, or adding a batsman and perhaps moving AB to a no 5 slot to make it less stressful on him
8) Robbie P. / Tahir
9) Vern
10) Steyn
11) Morkel

 

[skimread]

Oz bowlers have been very inconsistent over the last couple of year. Sure Harris and mitchell Johnson supported by Siddle played very well during the last series and some are calling them the best bowling attack and if they bowl that well here will be a close series but that is on the assumption they will bowl well. They are just as likely to break down or Johnson reverting back to his old ways. Steyn, philander and Morkel have been very consistent thats why we are the no 1 test team in the world.

 

[OzzieCapie]

now on to us vs the Enemy
australia was playing very average, there was not a single moment where something spectacular happened, no tactical decisions, not bowling change at a key moment everything was by the book, they played to their own strengths, and England played to theirs, unfortunately the tactic did not pay off for England, and they should have adjusted, but they soldiered on with a cup of tea as the brits do and there was a 5-0 whitewash.

Sorry, which series did you just watch. If there is one thing you can ascribe the 5-0 to it was the tactical differences between Clarke/Aus and Cook/Eng
They had a plan against every batsman which is why their bowling was so good. There are examples of where a wicket was taken and immediately the wicket taker was taken off to put a specific bowler against the new batsman.
They played to Pietersen's ego, Bell's weakness, Cook etc etc...it wasn't a fluke. Specific field placements for specific batsmen and a particular bowler.

Cook on the other hand is a terrible captain, always chasing the game instead of dictating.

Do not underestimate their batting. Their best batsman had an 'average' series, if you can call it that, however Warner and Rogers played very well and complemented each other and Haddin was at his best ever. If you take the throttle off like Cook did then he takes the game back away from you.

I hope proteas succeed but do not underestimate the enemy.

 

[Rubberpigg]

They had a plan against every batsman which is why their bowling was so good.

I agree.
The Aussies also started also started pressurizing them psychologically long before the series started.
All planned, of course.

 

[Rubberpigg]

My team:

1) Smith
2) Alviro
3) Amla
4) AB (moving AB to 4 adds more pressure on him , so this might change)
5) Duminy
6) Faf
7) I am thinking of either introducing Q de Kock over the next season or so if he proves himself good enough in the first class arena, or adding a batsman and perhaps moving AB to a no 5 slot to make it less stressful on him
8) Robbie P. / Tahir
9) Vern
10) Steyn
11) Morkel

I would rather go with another fast bowler than a spinner.
I we need some spin we can go with Duminy.

 

[Midnight_choir_drunk]

I for one think we can easily crumble under the same type of pressure. Johnson could roll us and then with their tails up who knows if can come back.

 

[Devill]

I for one think we can easily crumble under the same type of pressure. Johnson could roll us and then with their tails up who knows if can come back.

We currently have 4 players averaging above 50 in our top six.... we had five before JK retired.

You do not get to have an average of 50+ if you are scared of a short ball or a bowler who can get to the 150km/h mark...

It is not impossible but I highly doubt Johnson will have the same success against us as he had against the Pomms.

 

[WaxLyrical]

Is it just me, or does Australia look scary again. Really scary. The kind of scary they looked like when they dominated the cricketing world for over a decade.

Don't put them on such a high pedestal.

Remove Johnson from the equation and you've got nothing, especially away from home.