The defeat, painful as it was for South Africa, nevertheless brought their legion of supporters, and the team itself, closer to reality.

The past four weeks here in England, a number of South Africans, and a whole lot of others, have actually branded this South African side as the best one-day outfit the world has ever seen. They have openly claimed this team would have beaten even the mighty West Indies team of the late 70s and early 80s.

One story doing the rounds is, even the legendary Viv Richards who professed black supremacy as ultimate, has admitted the present South African team was better than the champion West Indies team.

This is hard to believe. If anything, Richards held his team was better than even Don Bradman's Australian side of 1948! For him to accept ateam of white players bred and brought up in the apartheid regime (until 1991) is better than his fiercely proud Caribbean team would be sacrilege.

Why, just last week Richards called for the heads of half the present West Indian team on the grounds they did not understand what winning in cricket meant to the West Indian psyche. It is impossible that a person of such strong beliefs would ever subscribe to a view that a team of whites, which has won nothing of note thus far, would be better than his all-conquering team.

HIGH STAKES:

It is true there was a lot at stake for a number of South Africans. As one journalist revealed, their new government is resolved to impose ``affirmative action'' on sports teams. In the next World Cup there would be a 50 per cent representation of blacks in the team. The present squad therefore represented both the last hurrah of the old regime and the last chance for many of the individuals.

But the politics of black and white apart, is this South African team thebest ever?

Last Thursday they revealed a facet of their temperament that puts Clive Lloyd's (or Richards') West Indies streets ahead.

The South African top and middle-order batted like they were afraid to lose. They patted back deliveries that should have been smashed and defended so dourly that they allowed the Australians a toe-hold into the match.

Contrast this with the temperament of the West Indies. Even when they lost to India in 1983, it was because each batsman believed he could do win the match on his own. Overconfidence did them in on that occasion.

However, at other times, they always believed they would win, whatever the situation. Even their bowlers batted above themselves when required. They were fiercely competitive and totally aggressive. Nobody dared accuse them of choking.

Man for man the West Indies were a better bowling attack. Their four-pronged pace attack (take your pick from Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Colin Croft, Joel Garner and Malcolm Marshall) was better than SouthAfrica's Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Jacques Kallis, Lance Klusener and Steve Elworthy. The batting line-up of Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Richards, Kallicharan or Gomes, Lloyd, Collis King, Jeff Dujon was superior to Gary Kirsten, Herschelle Gibbs, Kallis, Hansie Cronje, Darryl Cullinan and Jonty Rhodes.

Where these South Africans score is with their all-rounders, the smashing Klusener and the efficient Kallis. In the fielding department too the South Africans hold the edge, thanks to the peerless Rhodes.

The relative strengths apart, what have the South Africans won?

Precious little outside their country. They have struggled despite neutral umpires in England, New Zealand, Australia, India and West Indies. The West Indies were champions everywhere (except one series in New Zealand). Champion is what champion does. That's the bottom line, you Springboks.