On the South African limited overs team

For a while now I've been asking myself:  

What the hell's wrong with our limited overs side?

This question is usually muttered while turning away from another dismal TV broadcast, or glumly following another cricinfo commentary feed from my office desk. Once it felt like we were the team to beat in ODIs. Pundits marvelled at our home ODI series record. When T20 came around it felt like we were ahead of the curve, ready for this new format where other sides were still groping for answers.

How valid is this feeling? For a change I rolled up my sleeves and spent some time working up some numbers for you (and even this paltry exercise took too long - the child woke up, suddenly it was food, bath, etc and hours before any more cricket blogging took place).

ICC ODI ranking for South Africa in January of each year

The ICC rankings seem to back up that feeling. The Proteas ODI side seems to be in the worst mid-table slump since the years directly following readmission. I haven't done the same for the T20 rankings - you do it, gentle reader - but I bet you'd find the same.

So, why is this? I have some theories. Prop yourself up against the bar, get another beer, and I'll run them past you.

Focus on the Test side
This current golden age of South African Test cricket didn't come without a price. The performance of the Test side has been put at a premium over the limited overs teams. Players critical to Tests have been rested for ODIs and T20's; future generations will look at Steyn's record and wonder why he player so few of them. Limited overs games have been used to try out promising youngsters and likely "transformation players". The captaincy has changed hands more often and more experimentally. On the whole it's been taken a lot less seriously, and the results show it.

Other teams have gotten better
Especially at T20. These days the top sides seem to be playing a different game to the Proteas. Once upon a time the men in green and gold revolutionised ODIs with their fielding and running between wickets. T20 has come and the game has moved on. Teams around the world have identified new tactics and skill sets that are needed for winning, while we're still trying to play the same game. I have some theories about the team composition needed to win T20's (maybe worth a whole blog post), and it includes beefy baseball-style hitters, unconventional pacemen and mystery spinners. We have none of the above, instead we have...

An obsession with all rounders
All rounders have always a South African strong point. But you only need so many in a team, and we've had a lamentable tendency to pack our sides with three or four bits-n-pieces players (in addition to Kallis) instead of the best specialists available. Ever since Pollock and Klusener we've expected every provincial all rounder to deliver match-winning performances. Vernon Philander managed to escape that trap, although we're all slowly remembering that the guy can bat too. Others like Justin Kemp and Albie Morkel were victims of the expectations of the past. Cricket is a game where specialists shine - wicket takers and run makers need no extra skill (well, these days they do need to be decent fielders too). All rounders are a bonus, not a strategy.

Choking
The choking rep hasn't helped either. But the enough has already been said about that all over everywhere, which is probably part of the problem.

~

So as the Proteas proceed into the semis of the World T20, I'll be watching with low expectations. I think this team has done well to get as far as it has. Anything further will be gravy, especially against an unbeaten Indian side in their (almost) home conditions. I think there are some signs that our limited overs teams are coming out of this current funk, but there's a ways to go still until the glory days are back.