The star crossed Proteas

One cannot really make excuses for such a feeble attempt at posting a decent and defendable score.

I honestly thought this team, with that batting line up, with Parnell not playing, had the full capacity to win this tournament.

De Kock

Amla

De Villiers

Faf

Miller

Morris

Duminy

Just these guys alone convinced me we had a great shot, especially with a foundation of 116/1.

Boy was I wrong

A total collapse.... of epic proportions

Without a doubt, a choke, no excuses

Well done India, you played phenomenal cricket

One win..... in 19 attempts in all ICC competitions, since the inaugural CT was won by SA

What a shocking and dismal stat

The problem is Beeno

There is always "that" one incident that most refer to, which led to some other collapse, panic or loss in these compos.

We should have had at least 4 - 6 trophies from any of these previous 18 competitions

There can no longer be excuses, it's a mentality.... not sure why, but it is there.

Here's the thing Beeno

At the beginning of that chase, not even the Proteas thought they would win that 438 game, of that I have no doubt.  Their body language said everything when they left the field after the Aussie innings. 

But, they had free reign to "try" and chase it down, (what else could they do, bat out the full 50 overs to get to 300?) and against all odds, they did, winning off that last ball, for what will always be, the greatest ODI of all time.

Maybe that is what they need, or more of it........, free reign to express themselves without the pressure of being dropped or a quota player replacing you, should you fail a few times. 

That is not an excuse, this recent display from them was beyond pathetic, and they deserve to come home early, but we need to look at what and why this is constantly happening on every big stage.

Mike, you are wrong here

Amla was on 35 off 54 balls when he got dismissed at 17.3 overs, after he had just hit that four, when he went out, for an actual strike rate of 64.81%

At that precise moment when Amla went out, de Kock was on 35 off 51 balls for a strike rate of 68.62.

You cannot say now, that because de Kock played a further 21 balls and ended up on 53 off 72 balls before getting dismissed at 24.2 overs, that he was far superior to Amla because of a now 73.61% strike rate.

From the time that their partnership was broken, the difference is absolutely minimal, and it's a big shame that you rate a 3.81% difference in strike rate to ridicule Amla's contribution.

Whose to say what Alma would have done if he himself had faced those same extra 21 balls that de Kock did.

Really Mike

To be selective with Amla's shots, with what he hit, and when he hit it, is seriously pathetic....

And to correct you again.... he did not hit a 6 and a four, then go out

You asked me if I watched this game.....Did you even watch the game at all?

Amla hit a 6 at 14.1 overs

Amla hit a 4 at 14.5 overs

Amla hit a 4 at 17.3 overs

After a no run, then he went out

Let's also look at their efficiency at the crease then, when they were still batting together until Amla went out.

Amla, 35 in 69 minutes.... equates to 50.72%

de Kock, 35 in 69 minutes.... equates to 50.72%

Then Amla goes out........

de Kock, ends up scoring 53 off 97 minutes..... equates to 54.63%

I know it all depends on who gets the strike, but again, these numbers clearly show that there is a minimal difference between the two batsman........ because de Kock's difference of 3.91% here, is from the extra 28 minutes he spent at the crease without Amla..... facing these extra 21 balls that he did.... after Amla had already gone.

Therefore,  with Amla being gone, it clearly made no difference to de Kock's game as their difference in strike rates before Amla's departure was also just 3.81% difference.

Stop being so pathetic here Mike, at least give the man his due when he deserves it, that's all I ask  

Bollocks Mike

The Proteas were 116/1 after 24 overs with exceptional talent coming in right down the order.

The foundation was set, even if it was a bit slow getting there.

Losing our last 8 wickets for about 50 runs.

That is what cost us the game...... not one player's "slow. ish" scoring.

With your logic, you are now going to berate players who hit 4's and 6's to up their strike rate during any game.

Pedantic and pathetic if you ask me....

I understand Denny

I am not saying it was quick, but I am saying it is pedantic and pathetic for Mike to single out, and blame, one batsman for that loss and saying that he put the pressure on all the other batsman because of his slow pace.

Bollocks

How many international sides at this Champions Trophy would not hesitate in taking 116/1 off 24 overs with all those big hitters in their side.

I would think most captains would jump at that opportunity.