Everything ever written about the South African cricket team of 1969-70 that beat Australia 4-0 refers to it as “great” team that was invincible.
In the words of many writers including Mark Nicholas prominently and repeatedly and George Dobell recently, the side would have matched and thrashed the West Indies sides of 1980s.
However, very little though has been given to the background circumstances of the Australians that toured South Africa.
The Australians were a tired and ageing team who’d been touring the heat and dust of Sri Lanka and India for three and a half months staying in poor quality hotels. At the time many of the leading players from England would routinely refuse to tour India and Pakistan due to poor quality hotels, travelling, dead pitches and umpiring.
The start of the tour was in Sri Lanka (then known as Ceylon and not having Test status) on 15 October 1960 and the last Test against South Africa ended on 10 March 1970.
Riots and demonstrations on the India part of the tour were commonplace with players under regular threats from demonstrating crowds and general political unrest.
In neighbouring Pakistan, England were forced to abandon their tour in somewhat similar circumstances six months earlier. The Australians were not battle hardened but weary men.
As the captain Bill Lawry said at the time “we dropped 16 catches in four Tests and that was due to mental and physical fatigue”.
Lawry retired soon afterwards. The main Australian batsman Ian Chappell lost form just at the wrong time.
The Australian bowling attack in South Africa was shocking. Graham McKenzie was at the end of his career like Lawry and had played all the test in India.
(Photo by Morne de Klerk/Getty Images)
Apart from being tired he was also unwell throughout. Of the other pace bowlers Allan Connolly played only one more test and retired while Eric Freeman and Laurie Mayne never played Test cricket again.
Of the spinners Ashley Mallet had a successful India tour but only played one test while “mystery spinner” John Gleeson was thrashed and soon disappeared from cricket.
It is fair to say that the only mystery about Gleeson was that he managed to play so many tests simply around the hype surrounding him rather ability.
He was never threatening and, much like John Embrey and Roger Harper, played because there was no one better and at the time any spinner was seen to be “balancing” an attack.
Neither of the touring wicketkeepers ever played for Australia again.
There were issues too about pay and other matters with Australian cricket authorities
New legends of Australian cricket Rod Marsh, Greg Chappell and Dennis Lille were introduced just six months later against England and the likes of Bob Massie, Ross Edwards introduced within 12 months.
Meanwhile the South Africans hadn’t played a test match for three years and were hungry and raring to go on their home patch.
They were a good team too with the Pollock brothers, Barry Richards and Mike Proctor. No doubt they played on green pitches to suit their fast bowlers and the South African umpires would have given the benefit of the doubts to South Africa.
Above all the South Africans would have made sure that the Australians enjoyed themselves as much as possible on the party scene after three months in India.
South Africa were a very good side but no where near the class of the West Indies, perhaps they might have become a great side in time.
Greatness isn’t and should be measured over such a short period. They would certainly have been stronger with Basil D’Oliveira playing for them instead of HR “Tiger” Lance but for the apartheid quota system in place that required everyone to be white.
The South African success should be balanced against the ageing, tired Australians who had been playing and travelling in difficult conditions away from home for the best part of six months.
The Australian bowling was one the most impotent attacks ever to take the field for Australia so little wonder that South Africa put up huge scores in every test.
For the Australians it really was a tour that started in 60s and ended in the 70s.
Dunc
Guest
Can only agree with your point. I think that australia losing 3-1 in 1967 to the saffas with reasonably similar squads reinforces the legitimacy of the 1970 result. In fact, the 1967 saffa squad was just their 1970 squad minus Richards, Irvine, and we can throw Proctor in as he was a rookie and played maybe one test. So the 1967 saffas was a weaker unit but flogged a stronger aussie team.
Jay
Guest
What a lot of racist nonsense, typical Aussie claptrap.
sheek
Roar Guru
DaveJ, I regret that David Hookes went so early to WSC, but understandably, he wanted to be with his mates & heroes. However, had he resisted the temptation & stayed with ACB, & gone to India in 1979 to face top class spinners on turning wickets, his career might have been different. Although a great batsman against pace, Hookes never learnt to play spin adequately.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
I do remember a bit of the first Test of that 75-76 series. The big threat on the final day was Lance Gibbs. Ian took a lot of the strike against Gibbs, perhaps even shielding Greg a bit early on. Eventually Greg went on to make his second ton of the match, but Ian’s work early on was crucial. Fine player of spin as he showed in India.
sheek
Roar Guru
dungerBob - absolutely.
sheek
Roar Guru
DaveJ, True. It was a silly thing for Lawry to say, especially as RSA had Pollock & Richards in their camp. Even though they were philosophically different, Chappell had Lawry's back as his vice-captain. Chappelli was a wonderful scrapper, often at his best in rearguard actions, but he wasn't as skilled as his brother Greg. Although in saying this, he was still highly regarded. Interestingly, Clive Lloyd once said the Aussie batsman's scalp they most wanted back in 1975/76, was Chappelli's, & not GC's. The Windies understood the value of Chappelli to his team, even if he wasn't the best batsman.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Fair point Sheek, hadn’t realised he’d said that. But his comment wasn’t really justified by the totality of Chappell’s career to that point.
Insight Edge
Roar Rookie
Fair point and a reflection of how strong West Indies cricket was at the time. One shudders to think what their proper test team comprising Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd, Rowe, Dujon, Roberts, Marshall, Holding and Garner would done to the SA team.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
Yeah my bad... Know he was born in Durban but some reason always under the impression he was a Rhodesian citizen..
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Age is the price we pay for wisdom. Anytime anyone asks me “What do reckon the best age to be is?” my answer is always the same: the age you are right now.
sheek
Roar Guru
Bernie, Life is a learning exercise, & we should never stop learning. I consider myself wiser at 64 than I was at 44, or 24, & that's the way it should be. We were all 24 once, & thought, or think, we know it all. Aging is a great leveller, & the leveller comes to all of us. Sometimes I'm aggressive in my responses. I'm trying to tone that down, but it's difficult to change old habits! I'm happy that insight Edge is challenging us old-timers, which is fine. It's up to us to take the high ground of discussion/argument. Cricket is fascinating, because stats give a perspective missing in most other sports. Although baseball is similar. But those stats serve as a guide only, & we need to navigate our way around what is often many conflicting pointers. You mention Trumper & Barnes, two heroes of the 'Golden Age'. How do we successfully reconcile their achievements from so long ago, under different playing conditions & philosophies, with today's helter-skelter, see-everything fare? Ultimately, perception plays a major part, & getting your perception as accurate as possible is often the deciding trick.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Yep. or KP.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
A big unit like him could have been as intimidating as Hayden or Viv.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Baiting old timers is a good way of putting it … I am not quite one of those (old timers), having been born as recently as 1972 … I have no problem with people questioning the standing of players way back in the past, providing they can either back it up or at least show legitimate doubt based on lack of evidence. For example, we have no genuine footage of Victor Trumper. However, I have raised my rating of him in the annals of test cricket’s who’s who because people have presented some valid logical arguments. Having said that, the fact that some who saw both Trumper and Bradman play saying Trumper was better I think would be down to two things: 1. People have a tendency to be biased towards their own era and 2. Averages, or indeed stats full stop, were not part and parcel of the fascination of fans prior to televised cricket or indeed WSC. For example, nobody sitting in the stands at the MCG or SCG during the 1936-37 Ashes would have been saying excitedly to the person next to them: “Did you know Bradman’s average is back up to 97? I wonder if he can get it to 100 before the end of this series?” It just wasn’t how people thought back then. I recently suggested that James Anderson is perhaps the best ever bowler purely in English conditions. Someone else said Fred Trueman and added that he did it at genuine searing pace. A chance viewing of some videos showing some of Trueman’s best spells suggest that while he swung the ball every bit as much as Anderson, he didn’t seem to be any faster, or not significantly in any case. So now, while I accept that Trueman was as good a bowler as Anderson in English conditions, it was Frank who was called ‘Typoon Tyson’, not Fred called ‘Typhoon Trueman’. Bradman said Larwood was faster than anyone before Tyson, and Benaud reckoned Tyson in 1954-55 was even faster than Jeff Thomson in 1974-76 … however, neither mentioned Trueman in any context regarding speed. Trueman was the first bowler of anyone to 300 test wickets, Anderson the first paceman to 600. 229 of Trueman’s 307 test wickets were in England, as have been the overwhelming majority of Anderson’s test match winning performances. I watched on tv Wasim Akram’s 5 for 21 in a one day match v Australia at MCG in early 1985 when he was 18 and I watched his brilliant bowling in tests here 4-5 years later. I followed his exploits when Australia were in Pakistan late 1994 by reading journalistic accounts, and I have watched videos recently of his bowling against other countries at various stages of his career. Nothing, in the absence of footage, will convince me that Sidney Barnes was anywhere near the bowler that Akram was, whether for pace, or swing and cut. I am one of the most committed torch bearers for him whenever anyone ignorantly tries to down play Graeme Pollock’s standing in the game. There is enough good quality footage of enough of the personnel of the saffies 1970 team to leave no doubt that they were indeed a very classy outfit, one of the best from any era. There is no credible argument to the contrary.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Hick was as talented as Kevin Pietersen, but he was just too timid. He needed some of KP's onfield arrogance.
sheek
Roar Guru
Bludger, Until 1994 all RSA sporting teams were known as 'Springboks', unlike here in Oz, where we have the Kangaroos, Wallabies, Socceroos, Baggy Greens (test cricket), etc. Rugby, as the premier sport of the previous white dominated regime, was allowed to retain the Springbok nickname & moniker, but only just. Every other sport had to find a new nickname & emblem.
sheek
Roar Guru
Insight Edge, Speaking of ageing teams, RSA in 1983/84 had a few players getting on. Richards had already retired at the end of the previous season. Rice 34, replaced Kirsten 28, as captain, mid-series. Pollock was 39, opener Cook 30, paceman Le Roux 28, spinner Kourie 32. McEwen was 31 & McKenzie 35. The Rebel Windies were better than people believe. Rowe & Kallicharran were outstanding batsmen in their prime. Paceman Sylvester Clarke bowled as fast & as well as the big 4 of Marshall, Holding, Garner & Roberts might have done. Allrounder Collis King enjoyed the responsibility of being relied upon. David Murray was a better keeper than Dujon in purist terms. Spinner Deryck Parry was the best in the Caribbean. Opener Faoud Bacchus was a quality player. Croft & Julien were unfortunately injured & unable to contribute to any extent.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Yeah no worries. I wondered if you read things in the wrong order. Not the worst crime to commit by any means. Cheers
sheek
Roar Guru
Bernie - yes, I saw your correction after I had posted. Not the craziest thing I have read here today. Our author of this article is way out in front.....
sheek
Roar Guru
The RSA 3rd test team given was wrong. Trimborn came in for the 4th test only, replacing Goddard. Richards opened in the 3rd test with Goddard, with Barlow coming in at #5.