Why do the Proteas fail in big tournaments

Noreht · 04-14-2016, 07:40 AM · 1 person reading this discussion

#1
Apart from I think one ICC trophy the Proteas seem to choke in every single tournament they play in. Why is it that some of the best cricketers in the world cannot handle the pressure of a world cup?

#2
It called a Chokers curse !

I checked the medical dictionary but they are recommending the :

Heimlech Maneuver    :-[

#3
They have performed well in the World Cup group stage over the years, but do have trouble in the knockout stages. I would say this is in part due to underperforming in big matches and also coming up against better teams. I believe they have only entered one tournament as the number 1 ranked ODI side (in 2007).

In 1992, they were eliminated in the semi-finals in farcical fashion due the Duckworth-Lewis method.

In 1996, they won their group but lost to West Indies in the quarter-finals.

In 1999, they won their group but were eliminated in the semi-finals after drawing against Australia in the most unlikeliest of fashion. This game will forever be remembered for the Alan Donald run out. Australia went on to win the tournament. This was definitely a choke.

In 2003, they failed to make it to the Super Sixes in large part due to the Duckworth-Lewis method. They lost against New Zealand with New Zealand still needing 78 from 13 overs and then drew against Sri Lanka with South Africa needing just 40 from 5 overs. Due to the interruption of rain, Mark Boucher thought South Africa were ahead on Duckworth-Lewis and blocked out the final delivery. A lack of communication cost them the win and advancing.

In 2007, South Africa entered as the number 1 ranked ODI side but lost to Australia - the number 2 ranked side - in the semi-finals. That was the match where Tait and McGrath just ripped through South Africa's top order in part due to an extremely poor game plan. South Africa's batsman came out swinging for the fences against a swinging and seaming new ball.

In 2011, South Africa won their group, but surprisingly lost to New Zealand in the quarter-finals. They were in a very strong position at 120/3 after 27 overs, needing 102 more runs from the final 23 overs with 7 wickets in hand. Jacob Oram turned that match on its head.

In 2015, South Africa finished second in their group, beat Sri Lanka in the knockout stages but lost to hosts New Zealand in an all time epic of a semi-final, with the Kiwis winning with a ball to spare.

Since South Africa's first World Cup appearance back in 1992, they have won 35 of the 55 matches played. Their winning percentage (65.45) is second best over this period, behind only Australia (75.30). They are great at reaching the knockout stages - and there is something to be said for that consistency - but indeed struggle once there.

#4
Thank you for this wonderfull analysis friend. Do you think the issue is with the players and their mentality or with the coaches over the years? My biggest issue is that it has seemed to become normal to not win the big tournaments.

How does losing become normal??

#5
[quote author=Noreht link=topic=103758.msg689519#msg689519 date=1460711367]
Thank you for this wonderfull analysis friend. Do you think the issue is with the players and their mentality or with the coaches over the years? My biggest issue is that it has seemed to become normal to not win the big tournaments.

How does losing become normal??
[/quote]
I believe mental toughness plays a role, as does self belief and confidence. There are those that will argue winning breeds winning, while others believe that talent breeds winning. More often than not, the team with the best overall talent will win. It's why the West Indies dominated the World Cups throughout the 70s and Australia since 1999.

In saying that, there is value (albeit unquantifiable) in the experience of having been there, done it and knowing what it takes to win.

Sport is made up of two components: physical and mental. The South African teams have been very strong in terms of their playing abilities but have shown mental weakness and at times sheer panic.

What hasn't done them any favours over the years is the huge amount of pressure weighing on their shoulders due to their past performances in the knockout stages. Prior to the last World Cup, they had yet to win a knockout match. Knowing that and having that rammed down your throat in the pre-match build up adds pressure and doubt, and erodes confidence. Some players try too hard, others panic, some over-think, some forget to think. Pressure effects each player differently. What separates a great player from an elite player? The ability to handle and perforum under pressure.

Malcolm Gladwell wrote the most eloquent of articles regarding the art of falure:

Quote:Human beings sometimes falter under pressure. Pilots crash and divers drown. Under the glare of competition, basketball players cannot find the basket and golfers cannot find the pin. When that happens, we say variously that people have “panicked” or, to use the sports colloquialism, “choked.” But what do those words mean? Both are pejoratives. To choke or panic is considered to be as bad as to quit. But are all forms of failure equal?

And what do the forms in which we fail say about who we are and how we think?We live in an age obsessed with success, with documenting the myriad ways by which talented people overcome challenges and obstacles. There is as much to be learned, though, from documenting the myriad ways in which talented people sometimes fail.

“Choking” sounds like a vague and all-encompassing term, yet it describes a very specific kind of failure. For example, psychologists often use a primitive video game to test motor skills. They’ll sit you in front of a computer with a screen that shows four boxes in a row, and a keyboard that has four corresponding buttons in a row. One at a time, x’s start to appear in the boxes on the screen, and you are told that every time this happens you are to push the key corresponding to the box. According to Daniel Willingham, a psychologist at the University of Virginia, if you’re told ahead of time about the pattern in which those x’s will appear, your reaction time in hitting the right key will improve dramatically. You’ll play the game very carefully for a few rounds, until you’ve learned the sequence, and then you’ll get faster and faster. Willingham calls this “explicit learning.” But suppose you’re not told that the x’s appear in a regular sequence, and even after playing the game for a while you’re not aware that there is a pattern. You’ll still get faster: you’ll learn the sequence unconsciously. Willingham calls that “implicit learning”–learning that takes place outside of awareness.

These two learning systems are quite separate, based in different parts of the brain. Willingham says that when you are first taught something–say, how to hit a backhand or an overhead forehand–you think it through in a very deliberate, mechanical manner. But as you get better the implicit system takes over: you start to hit a backhand fluidly, without thinking. The basal ganglia, where implicit learning partially resides, are concerned with force and timing, and when that system kicks in you begin to develop touch and accuracy, the ability to hit a drop shot or place a serve at a hundred miles per hour. “This is something that is going to happen gradually,” Willingham says. “You hit several thousand forehands, after a while you may still be attending to it. But not very much. In the end, you don’t really notice what your hand is doing at all.”

Under conditions of stress, however, the explicit system sometimes takes over. That’s what it means to choke. When Jana Novotna faltered at Wimbledon, it was because she began thinking about her shots again. She lost her fluidity, her touch. She double-faulted on her serves and mis-hit her overheads, the shots that demand the greatest sensitivity in force and timing. She seemed like a different person–playing with the slow, cautious deliberation of a beginner–because, in a sense, she was a beginner again: she was relying on a learning system that she hadn’t used to hit serves and overhead forehands and volleys since she was first taught tennis, as a child. The same thing has happened to Chuck Knoblauch, the New York Yankees’ second baseman, who inexplicably has had trouble throwing the ball to first base. Under the stress of playing in front of forty thousand fans at Yankee Stadium, Knoblauch finds himself reverting to explicit mode, throwing like a Little Leaguer again.

Panic is something else altogether. Consider the following account of a scuba-diving accident, recounted to me by Ephimia Morphew, a human-factors specialist at nasa: “It was an open-water certification dive, Monterey Bay, California, about ten years ago. I was nineteen. I’d been diving for two weeks. This was my first time in the open ocean without the instructor. Just my buddy and I. We had to go about forty feet down, to the bottom of the ocean, and do an exercise where we took our regulators out of our mouth, picked up a spare one that we had on our vest, and practiced breathing out of the spare. My buddy did hers. Then it was my turn. I removed my regulator. I lifted up my secondary regulator. I put it in my mouth, exhaled, to clear the lines, and then I inhaled, and, to my surprise, it was water. I inhaled water. Then the hose that connected that mouthpiece to my tank, my air source, came unlatched and air from the hose came exploding into my face.

“Right away, my hand reached out for my partner’s air supply, as if I was going to rip it out. It was without thought. It was a physiological response. My eyes are seeing my hand do something irresponsible. I’m fighting with myself. Don’t do it. Then I searched my mind for what I could do. And nothing came to mind. All I could remember was one thing: If you can’t take care of yourself, let your buddy take care of you. I let my hand fall back to my side, and I just stood there.”

This is a textbook example of panic. In that moment, Morphew stopped thinking. She forgot that she had another source of air, one that worked perfectly well and that, moments before, she had taken out of her mouth. She forgot that her partner had a working air supply as well, which could easily be shared, and she forgot that grabbing her partner’s regulator would imperil both of them. All she had was her most basic instinct: get air. Stress wipes out short-term memory. People with lots of experience tend not to panic, because when the stress suppresses their short- term memory they still have some residue of experience to draw on. But what did a novice like Morphew have? I searched my mind for what I could do. And nothing came to mind.

Panic, in this sense, is the opposite of choking. Choking is about thinking too much. Panic is about thinking too little. Choking is about loss of instinct. Panic is reversion to instinct. They may look the same, but they are worlds apart.

http://gladwell.com/the-art-of-failure/

#6
[quote author=dillinger10 link=topic=103758.msg689447#msg689447 date=1460654916]
They have performed well in the World Cup group stage over the years, but do have trouble in the knockout stages. I would say this is in part due to underperforming in big matches and also coming up against better teams. I believe they have only entered one tournament as the number 1 ranked ODI side (in 2007).[/QUOTE]

For whatever reason, in their infinite wisdom, the ICC has decided not to make the historical ODI rankings publicly available. Fortunately, I was able to gain access to them, and can confirm that South Africa entered a World Cup as the number one ranked team on three separate occasions - 1996, 1999 and 2007 (when they were tied with Australia). Impressively, South Africa held the number one ODI ranking spot from May 1996 to February 2000.

#7
[quote author=dillinger10 link=topic=103758.msg689791#msg689791 date=1460928859]
Fortunately, I was able to gain access to them,
[/quote]

I have faith in you 007

M

#8
Perhaps foolishly, I picked South Africa to reach the finals of both the last two World Cups (T20 and ODI). Both times, they looked impressive in the build up and thought they would finally get over the hump. Unfortunately, they lost in heartbreaking fashion to New Zealand in Auckland, and then crashed out of the T20 World Cup in the group stages. If nothing else, they can say that they have been involved in five of the most memorable World Cup matches, sadly for them and their fans, all times on the losing end.

#9
I think they would win the final of any World Cup if they actually could make it to the final, but my question remains, why are they not able to get over the hump, get to that first final and win that first World Cup?

#10
[quote author=dillinger10 link=topic=103758.msg689791#msg689791 date=1460928859]
In 2011, South Africa won their group, but surprisingly lost to New Zealand in the quarter-finals. They were in a very strong position at 120/3 after 27 overs, needing 102 more runs from the final 23 overs with 7 wickets in hand. Jacob Oram turned that match on its head
[/quote]

AND that was at HOME : I still have the Vuvuzela and other memorablia. :-[

From The Archives

Older threads about similar topics


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)