South Africa in Australia Nov-Dec 2012/13

[War]

Test & series review

Well firstly let me just say i'm glad south africa has won for the simple reason & overall perspective of retaining some sanctity & sanity in world cricket that the ranking system continues to destroy.

An Australia series win would have created another fake # 1 according to the faulty ranking system, that we have seen before with England & India & another round of misguided fans, journalist, commentators would have begun celebrating some fake australia revival/return to # 1. We would have seen the ICC president or CEO giving Michael Clarke the mase & the scenes would have been utterly farcical.

Given the importance of this match, Amla's 196 has to be rated alongside Sobers's 254, Laxman 163, Lara 277 & 225, Fredericks 169, Sangakara's 192 as one the greatest innings by a visiting player in AUS. The innings was so smooth, he was like a surgeon just slowly but clinically orchestrating this masterpiece of a knock.

S Africa are the only true # 1 as i always say since Australia declined in 2006/07. They have not lost a series in 6 years now, since a 1-0 lost in sri lanka 2006. They have the depth in all facets to build a legacy now:

Smith
Peterson
Amla
Kallis
De Villiers
Du Plessis
Duminy
Philander
Steyn
M Morkel
De Lange

Thats super strong first xi. De Lange is one of the best young quicks in the world & wasn't even on this tour.

Elgar is a good player despite his working over in this test. Rudolph will fall into the back-up category after his lacklustre efforts. But Colin Ingram is another talented young bat.

Then of course they have got three very talented keepers in Heino Kuhn, Dane Vilas or Quinton De Kock, who if they played could relieve De Villiers of the gloves & ease Kallis' bowling workload.

Pace bowling wise, Ryan McClaren, Klienvelt, Chris Morris, Craig Alexander to name a few is very impressive back-up to Steyn & co.

The only issue they have is now that Tahir unfortunately hasn't lived up to his first-class hype, they dont have the world-class spinner to back-up the high quality pace depth. So now it seems Peterson might get his chance to play the role as the holding spinner, that Paul Harris did with some success before.

I just hope that fair selection continues to be the main policy for the proteas & not quota influenced selections.

Australia

I always expected AUS to lose the series. But i was always looking @ if they lost, putting up a fight might be a good sign for the future as they continue to build to next years ashes double headers.

The fight in the first 2 tests were impressive & they can take heart that S Africa (although they had some injury woes) had to work much harder to win in Australia than they did in England.

However while AUS pace bowling depth continues to look stronger with Johnson showing good signs on his return - the batting is still a big worry.

Cowan crossed a key hurdle in this series with the Gabba century by showing his defensive technique can handle quality fast-bowling in testing conditions -which argues well for the upcoming Ashes. But Warner gets me a little nervous.

Their is too much Sehwagness in Warner's test match batting approach when face good new ball bowlers. He needs to show more of the skills that brought him that century vs new zealand in hobart or else with pace bowling attack worldwide generally of a good standard - he is going to have a very scratchy test career.

No clear replacement for Ponting - although Khawaja & Hughes are the front runners.

Watson now in Ponting's retirement needs to start scoring heavily like Clarke & become Australia's Kallis.

Despite Ponting's retirement i think Hussey has a few more years left in him, he started late & i reckon he could play until age 40.

Going forward though, i'm not sure totally what a likely easy series vs Sri Lanka & a sub-continent challenge in India will do for the Ashes preparations.

 

[aussie1st]

As Ponting mentioned one bad day cost us the series. Batsmen really let the team down in the first innings and it fell apart from there with our inexperienced bowling exposed.

Series hasn't given much light on the batting, Wade has stood up but the top 3 (now top 4) is a major issue. Warner at least got out to a good ball, we can afford to have him if Cowan and Watson (assuming he stays 3) can cover when he does one of his silly looking shots. Cowan had an alright series 2 good knocks, he'll be disappointed with the way he got out this innings but certainly deserves a good stint in the side to show if he can make it or not.

And lastly farewell to Ponting, great servant of the game just not the result that he should have had but not all great players get that dream farewell.

 

[shravi]

The commentators were talking about how this should have been a 5 match series. I couldn't agree more but that's slightly unrealistic in modern cricket. However, I would have thought at least a four match series was possible. Disappointing.

 

[alexczarn]

The commentators were talking about how this should have been a 5 match series. I couldn't agree more but that's slightly unrealistic in modern cricket. However, I would have thought at least a four match series was possible. Disappointing.

It should've been longer...I agree. 4 Tests.

 

[mrtwisties]

Still pretty gutted by Ponting's departure. Deep down I was probably hoping he'd smoke a double, un-retire, win in India and England and cap it off with a series of victorious farewell Tests at home. Not to be, sadly - but you can't script these things and that's why the magic moments (when they come) are as good as they are.

War, you're absolutely right about which team is the clear number one. I'm so impressed by this South African side and I think they have a real shot at greatness. Even just having one genuine all-rounder (eg Kallis, Gilchrist) gives you tremendous batting depth, but in De Villiers they have a second! No wonder they don't lose too many. I'm a bit more worried about their bowling, though: where's the spinner, and where's the depth? That goes double when they have to adjust to life without Kallis.

 

[shravi]

Australia clearly misses the stability of Katich and Watson at the top order. I know that Katich's age and his spat with Clarke hasn't made him popular in the dressing room, but I don't feel he should have ever been dropped. Warner is far too hit and miss and Cowan doesn't inspire confidence. Sure, he's gritty, and he tries hard but I don't see him having a long test career. Ponting has obviously been out of form for a while now. I know he had a great series in India, but he wasn't great in the West Indies and this series showed why he had to retire. While Pattinson, Starc and Cummins promise much, two of them are perpetual injury candidates which makes it difficult for Australia to play their best side. Perhaps a few seasons of continual state/county cricket away from the international set-up will serve them well as their constant injuries destabilizes the side.

Clarke, Hussey and Wade were all positives for me. I know he didn't perform great, but the fifty in the first innings showed some great signs. I still have a soft spot for Tim Paine who I thought acquitted himself very well in his limited test match experiences, but Wade does have a better first class record. Clarke is a great tactician and I think he's a natural captain but sometimes he gets a little trigger-happy and isn't patient enough with his plans. I understand not wanting to let the batsmen get into a rhythm but bowlers too, have rhythms which he frequently disturbs.

 

[venom2011]

Well firstly let me just say i'm glad south africa has won for the simple reason & overall perspective of retaining some sanctity & sanity in world cricket that the ranking system continues to destroy.

An Australia series win would have created another fake # 1 according to the faulty ranking system, that we have seen before with England & India & another round of misguided fans, journalist, commentators would have begun celebrating some fake australia revival/return to # 1. We would have seen the ICC president or CEO giving Michael Clarke the mase & the scenes would have been utterly farcical.

Given the importance of this match, Amla's 196 has to be rated alongside Sobers's 254, Laxman 163, Lara 277 & 225, Fredericks 169, Sangakara's 192 as one the greatest innings by a visiting player in AUS. The innings was so smooth, he was like a surgeon just slowly but clinically orchestrating this masterpiece of a knock.

S Africa are the only true # 1 as i always say since Australia declined in 2006/07. They have not lost a series in 6 years now, since a 1-0 lost in sri lanka 2006. They have the depth in all facets to build a legacy now:

Smith
Peterson
Amla
Kallis
De Villiers
Du Plessis
Duminy
Philander
Steyn
M Morkel
De Lange

Thats super strong first xi. De Lange is one of the best young quicks in the world & wasn't even on this tour.

Elgar is a good player despite his working over in this test. Rudolph will fall into the back-up category after his lacklustre efforts. But Colin Ingram is another talented young bat.

Then of course they have got three very talented keepers in Heino Kuhn, Dane Vilas or Quinton De Kock, who if they played could relieve De Villiers of the gloves & ease Kallis' bowling workload.

Pace bowling wise, Ryan McClaren, Klienvelt, Chris Morris, Craig Alexander to name a few is very impressive back-up to Steyn & co.

The only issue they have is now that Tahir unfortunately hasn't lived up to his first-class hype, they dont have the world-class spinner to back-up the high quality pace depth. So now it seems Peterson might get his chance to play the role as the holding spinner, that Paul Harris did with some success before.

I just hope that fair selection continues to be the main policy for the proteas & not quota influenced selections.

Add to that the likes of Tsotsobe and Parnell, who still has a big future in my opinion but he needs to put in the hard yards.

Batting depth is good too with the likes of Duminy, Rudolph, Faf, Ingram, Elgar and it shouldn't be too long before Quinton de Kock is showing the world his potential.

Spin is still an issue but in Robbie P I believe we have someone who can really contribute. He has matured well over the last few years. Decent with the bat, can hold up an end and unlike Harris he shows some guile and can get some drift.

It has been a good series with good moments for both teams. Test cricket really needs more of these contests and less of the one-sided variety.

 

[sifter132]

I know I said that Hilfenhaus shouldn't be playing but I forgot that Johnson and Starc leak runs a lot and Hilfenhaus is quite economical.

Main question of the match: Who led the bowling attack?

Starc I guess - he bowled the most overs. Is this a trick question?

I thought the idea that Hilfenhaus should have rested in Adelaide to play him in Perth to be a sound one. Bowling outswing into the breeze in Perth is the perfect role for him, pounding into a flat Adelaide pitch - not so much.

War, you're absolutely right about which team is the clear number one. I'm so impressed by this South African side and I think they have a real shot at greatness. Even just having one genuine all-rounder (eg Kallis, Gilchrist) gives you tremendous batting depth, but in De Villiers they have a second! No wonder they don't lose too many. I'm a bit more worried about their bowling, though: where's the spinner, and where's the depth? That goes double when they have to adjust to life without Kallis.

And yet SA played BELOW their stature for most of this series. I can't see how this series is some justification of the rankings. If anything it tells me that SA aren't really THAT good - best team in the world? Yes I think so. Really good team though? Not really. They had the worse of 2 draws, when their team is brimming with star power and they got to play on the 2 pitches that suit them best in Aus: Brisbane and Perth. eg. How many Aussies would make the SA side? Clarke, Hussey and ??? Lyon maybe?

Anyway, put me in the still not convinced camp. If Pattinson hadn't been injured in Adelaide, I think they get rolled.

And just to add more sourness, I'll note that in 2008/09 Australia were also on top in the first 2 Tests and couldn't finish SA off...good tenacious stuff by SA, but I dream of a world where Australia finally play 5 days of good cricket - or a least 5 without 1 really bad day.

 

[midgetwars]

Starc I guess - he bowled the most overs. Is this a trick question?

I thought the idea that Hilfenhaus should have rested in Adelaide to play him in Perth to be a sound one. Bowling outswing into the breeze in Perth is the perfect role for him, pounding into a flat Adelaide pitch - not so much.

No it isn't a trick question. A bowling attack needs a senior bowler that leads the attack.

Starc's playing his 2nd match, not much of a leader yet.

 

[mrtwisties]

How many Aussies would make the SA side? Clarke, Hussey and ??? Lyon maybe?

This is true: South Africa have all-time-great players but have frequently underperformed that billing both on this tour and in general (they might be undefeated away, but their home record isn't as impressive).

I don't think it's a "choking" behaviour, either - their best players (eg Steyn) just seem to be pretty inconsistent regardless of the level of pressure being applied. Have you seen Steyn's series averages? It's a combination of sub-20 and 40+ scores, with very little in-between. Compare that with McGrath, who basically averaged ~20 in every series he played.

It's still a very impressive side, but I think that consistency could be the difference between them being remembered in the same breath as Australia of the 1990s or not. That, and a spinner.

 

[angryangy]

And yet SA played BELOW their stature for most of this series. I can't see how this series is some justification of the rankings. If anything it tells me that SA aren't really THAT good - best team in the world? Yes I think so. Really good team though? Not really. They had the worse of 2 draws, when their team is brimming with star power and they got to play on the 2 pitches that suit them best in Aus: Brisbane and Perth. eg. How many Aussies would make the SA side? Clarke, Hussey and ??? Lyon maybe?

Anyway, put me in the still not convinced camp. If Pattinson hadn't been injured in Adelaide, I think they get rolled.

And just to add more sourness, I'll note that in 2008/09 Australia were also on top in the first 2 Tests and couldn't finish SA off...good tenacious stuff by SA, but I dream of a world where Australia finally play 5 days of good cricket - or a least 5 without 1 really bad day.

Also depends how you look at the rankings. If Australia had won, they'd have gone to top spot. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT, WITH YOUR PRECIOUS SCIENCE? So yeah, the rankings are justified in the sense that anyone who gets the top spot is only one or two matches away from losing it.

 

[MUFC1987]

Were Siddle and Hilfenhaus injured or just tired before the last Test? If it's the latter and I know there was only a couple of days between, it's a bit soft. I doubt that would have happened back in times when Australia dominated.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

I agree with War here. SA are a really strong team atm. With the 4 quality quicks + Kallis, do they really need a spinner?

Plus, I love the Steyn-Philander opening combination. Might be the strongest opening combo since the retirement of Wasim and Waqar.

 

[War]

And yet SA played BELOW their stature for most of this series. I can't see how this series is some justification of the rankings. If anything it tells me that SA aren't really THAT good - best team in the world? Yes I think so. Really good team though? Not really. They had the worse of 2 draws, when their team is brimming with star power and they got to play on the 2 pitches that suit them best in Aus: Brisbane and Perth. eg. How many Aussies would make the SA side? Clarke, Hussey and ??? Lyon maybe?

Anyway, put me in the still not convinced camp. If Pattinson hadn't been injured in Adelaide, I think they get rolled.

Well yes S Africa were outplayed in Brsbane no question. It was their worst group bowling performance probably since that match in Sri Lanka 2006 when Jayawardene scored 374 vs them.

Same in the second test too. But of course both sides had weird injured in that test. We don't know how lethal a spell Kallis could have been on the verge of if he hadn't broken down in the 1st innings @ Adelaide - balances out with Pattinson's major injury on the last day. So with both teams at the end a key player short, that draw was appropriate.

One can argue that for that if AUS had its first choice pace attack in Perth it could have helped. But bowling was never AUS problem - it was always the batting. The fact that 2nd string attack put aus in the driver seat by bundled the proteas in the 1st innings - it was always the batting which didn't come to the party.

----------

Were Siddle and Hilfenhaus injured or just tired before the last Test? If it's the latter and I know there was only a couple of days between, it's a bit soft. I doubt that would have happened back in times when Australia dominated.

Ha not at all. Back in Australia's dominant days, never did a scenario occur when any 3-man pace attack (McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Fleming, Kasprowicz, Clark etc), while enforcing a follow on vs any team - ever lose one of the bowlers @ a similar crucial phase of a test.

What happened to Siddle & Hilfy was the first time i've ever seen/or heard of him test history, a bowling attack a man short be put under so much pressure at such a critical stage to try a win a test.

That effort, made it very logical & understandable that they would not recover in time given the short turnover between test. Absolutely nothing soft about it. If England's attack lost one of its 3 quicks in similar circumstances the same would occur i'm sure - along with any other national team.

 

[MUFC1987]

How I forget, no one has ever been injured in the history of the game.

The point I was making, no matter how much they bowled was that surely one or both of them still could have played in the last Test match. Instead, Australia go in with a very inexperienced (Hastings and Starc) and frankly, pretty average (Johnson) bowling attack, trying to beat the best batting lineup in the world. I mean, how did they expect that to go? Bowling a lot or not, there were 3 days in between Tests. These are PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES, surely they're fitter than that? Just seems poor to me. And I'd disagree about England too. If Broad and Anderson had to bowl so much in a Test, you could guarantee that they would turn up for the next one, because they're work horses who wouldn't want to let the side down. And I'd also argue that we'd have better players to bring in, yet they'd still want to play.