How South Africa's superior bowling made the difference in the series against India

[MCcricket]

18 hours ago, rkt.india said:

He isn't overlooking anything. He is also undermining Indian bowlers. He is just saying that if were better on first day with ball, result of this series could have been different. Once you lose first test, its very rare to win test series overseas so that first day did decide the series outcome 

I fully agree, Shami was poor 50% of time, Ishant is ave at best, BK was dropped, Indians did not bowl with similar control n most important the right length n intent initially, also we have to look at picking the right players n getting used to conditions .

[mancalledsting]

anti Kohli lobby at cricinfo will not stop at anything to undermine Kohli's captaincy. Their journalism has been shameless of late. Too many regionalist journalists. No wonder they're losing readers to Cricbuzz.

[Rightarmfast]

1 hour ago, MultiB48 said:

Though i dont agree with the author that there is a massive gap in the bowling of the 2 sides but they did blow it on the 1st day, whereas the batsmen let the team down in the 1st inning of the 2nd test, we should have had a lead of close to 100 runs.The author should have pointed out that in the past ind bowling would have been even less impressive ,so they have improved but it could have been even better.

 

Ideally ind bowling should have kept the 1st inng of 1st test and the 2nd inng of 2nd test under 200.

 

We will never match sa pacers in terms of stats due to the difference in playing conditions but we can take them on whenever we go h2h ,that's how we should judge it.

Although I dont have stats with me, however through personal experience of watching cricket I can say that no matter how great a bowling side, a visiting team does not bundle out the host team easily. You can check some stats on this.

To expect an Indian side, without any proper rest, match practise and acclimatization, how do you expect the bowlers to be bulldozing the host team throughout? Do you think the South African batsmen are stupid? Thats not how any game works. Theres always a crest and theres always a trough. 

 

I have watched many a test matches to understand this. So blaming Indian bowlers is not just naive, it kind of gives an impression of amateurishness on the understanding of the game.

[SUMO]

Our top 3 made the difference by not contributing.

Collectively I will give them 2/10

[vayuu1]

I think toss and clumsiness too played a very important part, in South African condition batting first is always advantageous, in the 1st test 1st innings pitch was on sluggish, by the next innings it quickened up considerably, coupled with movement made it difficult for our bats, in second test again the bounce started getting on the lower side, on top of that the drop catches and absurd run outs didn't help the cause either,I think more than the bowling it's the fielding and stupid runouts that cost us series along with atrocious selections.

Sent from my Redmi 4A using Tapatalk

[Vijy]

the fielding was a big factor, as was the lack of acclimatization. mining stats from 3 tests, and that too out of context, is just the kind of half-baked stuff cricinfo seems to serve up these days.

[Silva]

Kind of confused by the article. The writer himself admits the control stats for second test show that india would have probably won the 2nd test had they won the toss due to the fact that the pitch conditions dramaticly got worse after every innings, yet he comes to the conclusion that SA bowlers bowled far superior to indian ones? So had India won the toss and the series 2-1 would that still make the indian bowlers inferior? Or is he claiming pujara, rohit and co are that much superior to SA counterparts in their own conditions that they can over come the superior bowling to win a series in SA.