Has South Africa blown up the best chance they will ever get in a final?

[vvvslaxman]

This eerily reminds me of 2016 IPL final when RCB needed 60 odd runs in 7 or 8 overs iwth 8 wickets in hand.  A chase that could have been won in singles on a large ground. I know India with a long tail could do exactly the same botch up job (like they did against west indies last year). What happened there?

[ravishingravi]

I think not. I believe they are getting closer to the title. All they have to do is win the toss and avoid batting second and avoid Australia. 

 

If you see the game, it really was battle of chokers. India really didn't play great till the last 5 overs. It was down to that. Both teams really didn't believe. SA believed lesser. Thats all. 

[Laaloo]

Yes

[mishra]

South Afica cant win. 30 runs in last 6 overs in a t20 game, how they managed to loose only they know.

[Frustrated]

They hv the skill, talent & resources to win ICC titles.  But their habitual obsession to keep playing a bowling heavy team is a problem.  No team in white ball history has ever won an ICC tournament by having 4 tail enders in the playing11.    On top of that, SA lacks game awareness.   Maharaj should not be batting ahead of Rabada in any circumstance, irrespective of the format.  

[vvvslaxman]

11 minutes ago, Frustrated said:

They hv the skill, talent & resources to win ICC titles.  But their habitual obsession to keep playing a bowling heavy team is a problem.  No team in white ball history has ever won an ICC tournament by having 4 tail enders in the playing11.    On top of that, SA lacks game awareness.   Maharaj should not be batting ahead of Rabada in any circumstance, irrespective of the format.  

yea it is easy to say "you can win with singles". New comers can't do that against pace at Barbados. But still Klaasen had the option to win in singles. 

[Lord]

Yes they choked big time due to the scars. 

[Lord]

2 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

yea it is easy to say "you can win with singles". New comers can't do that against pace at Barbados. But still Klaasen had the option to win in singles. 

 

Bumrah factor. They played him out so had to attack Hardik/Arshdeep. 

[vvvslaxman]

5 minutes ago, Lord said:

Yes they choked big time due to the scars. 

 

Yea.. GIven the fact it is a 70 meter square boundary tapping for twos was on.  Having said that with WC2023 batting line up  we would have lost in a similar position. 30 in 30 required. If we lose 5th wicket we are likely to implode as well.

[Ultimate_Game]

It's gonna haunt them for a long time... probably just like that 1999 SF. They had game in the bag towards the end - needed 30 off 20, 27 off 28, and 26 off 24 with 6 wkts in hand. And the pitch was a beauty, not the dicey surfaces like NY or Guyana.

 

They're gonna replay the match in their minds multiple times. I feel for them but they did ride their luck getting into the final.

[BacktoCricaddict]

They did not blow their chance. We poked a hole in them and let the air out.

[Lord]

2 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

Yea.. GIven the fact it is a 70 meter square boundary tapping for twos was on.  Having said that with WC2023 batting line up  we would have lost in a similar position. 30 in 30 required. If we lose 5th wicket we are likely to implode as well.

 

nah, we closed such match v NZ where we needed big 6th wicket partnership. Mentally we are still better.

 

We have lost the final vs any other team from that situation.

[vvvslaxman]

5 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

It's gonna haunt them for a long time... probably just like that 1999 SF. They had game in the bag towards the end - needed 30 off 20, 27 off 28, and 26 off 24 with 6 wkts in hand. And the pitch was a beauty, not the dicey surfaces like NY or Guyana.

 

They're gonna replay the match in their minds multiple times. I feel for them but they did ride their luck getting into the final.

 

Good point. WIth different luck they would not have even made past the first round.  They were in losing position against Bangladesh, Netherlands,. Also India/Afghanistan made sure they faced the easiest semi final opposition.

[vvvslaxman]

4 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

nah, we closed such match v NZ where we needed big 6th wicket partnership. Mentally we are still better.

 

We have lost the final vs any other team from that situation.

 

I think last year india needed 35 or something  in 30 balls with samson and someone else batting. 6 wicket sin hand. Even with Axar we couldn't close out. Lost by 4 runs.

[Lord]

4 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

I think last year india needed 35 or something  in 30 balls with samson and someone else batting. 6 wicket sin hand. Even with Axar we couldn't close out. Lost by 4 runs.

 

That was our B team. None of the regulars played. Surface was far tougher too.

[putrevus]

SA can beat any team. They are going in right direction. They too just need to get over the hump.

 

Australian team has been made into superstars by Indian bowlers.Head especially seems to have a wood on all Indian bowlers.

 

Aussies are not that great team.

[Praveen 06]

24 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

nah, we closed such match v NZ where we needed big 6th wicket partnership. Mentally we are still better.

 

We have lost the final vs any other team from that situation.

We won 2013 ct final from similar situation 

[Lord]

3 minutes ago, Praveen 06 said:

We won 2013 ct final from similar situation 

 

That was a turner. This one was flat as a pankcake as Ravi would say.

[vvvslaxman]

1 minute ago, Lord said:

 

That was a turner. This one was flat as a pankcake as Ravi would say.

Yea.. Ash put the squeeze on. But they were still ahead of the game when Ishant came up with a double strike out of nowhere.

[gattaca]

Yes. India is the easiest opposition they could have gotten. Rohit made a strategic mistake maybe his biggest of giving it to Axar knowing kuldeep got hit and Klaasen is their best player of spin. South Africa I always felt looses from a strong position. 30 of 30 with 6 wickets in hand was a strong position. It will not get easier than that.