South Africa in Australia Nov-Dec 2012/13

[War]

Even professional athletes who are at the peak of fitness have limits to how quickly they can recover for games.

In football if a ton of games are being played in a small time period, coaches regularly rest players key players even if its big games. English football star Jack Wilshire has just come back from a year long injury & Wenger has rested him from a few big games already.


Fact is the specific scenario that happened in Adelaide with Siddle & Hilfenhaus never occurred before to my knowledge. So unless you can highlight a similar scenario where a 4-man attack lost 1 bowler for an entire bowling innings when trying to bowl out a side in the 4th innings - and recover in 3 days to play another test & bowl in similar intensity - then its very disingenuous for you toe critique the aus selectors & Clarke for nothing picking either one of them. Since i'm 100% confident that the fitness team would have advised them accurately on their potential readiness to play.

Plus unlike the young aus quicks who constantly break down, Siddle & Hilfy are two of the fitter AUS bowlers over recent years. They have no notable previous injury setbacks. That alone is another very good sign that they very likey was not fit enough to bowl in Perth.

AUS also couldn't pick Cummins & Harris who is also injured (who is of similar quality to england pace bowling depth), who in a perfect world if they were fit would have been excellent replacements instead of Johnson & Hastings.

It was unfortunate situation & if they would have played & showed signs of the toil from the previous test, what would you say then? Would you criticize Clarke & the selectors for picking two obvious unfit bowlers & not picking fresher bowlers???

Anderson & Broad was recently rested for a dead rubber the test vs West Indies due to bowling overload/slight injuries in the past year in preparation for the S Africa tests. That tells me, that if a similar scenario had was to happen to England, Flower & the selectors would make a similar selection to the aussies. Them being workhorses is irrelevant, since if they are not 100% - they would be ineffective & would let England down.

 

[MUFC1987]

So you're telling me, that if England bowlers were carrying injuries and facing a big test match, they'd sit out? Have you not watched Broad in the first two Tests v India? He's been under 100%, yet battled through for the team.

And asking me to prove what you said is impossible, because I have no doubt that if I did, you'd argue that they 'didn't bowl to the same intensity' which is impossible to prove. And had Siddle and Hilfenhaus played in the last Test, I would have commended Australia for giving everything to win the Test. As it is, I will criticise them for picking a sub-standard bowling attack and expecting that to beat the best team on the planet. Many players have played down the years with injuries and with high workloads. Hell, anyone playing in England 20 odd years ago did it most weeks just to be a county professional.

 

[War]

Broad has been out of form, if Finn was fit earlier he would have been dropped. They also didn't want to pick Meaker or Onions, so its the England selectors blunder that they are playing with Broad not 100%, they could have dropped him.

Yes. Again i say. If the specific scenario of the Adelaide test happened to a the English attack - they would have been forced to make a similar decision.

So if Siddle & Hilfenhaus had played and broken down or played bowled below par & developed a career threatening injury that keeps them out of upcoming series for australia. Would you then say, them playing in one test to win a series was worth it??

I would not argue that if you could prove it. If you did & could i would accept that the duo should have played. But based on my understanding of cricket history - your stance cannot be proved. However, while you were making the unfair statement, i actually just recall the 3rd test @ capetown during the 2010 england tour to s africa. In this test is closest thing i can recall to the adelaide test ever right now.

S Africa lost Fridel De Wet for a large part of the final day as England battled for a draw. Steyn & Morkel had to bowl a few extra overs in the final two sessions of 140 + overs like Siddle & Hilfy did. But the major difference to adelaide was that the aus pair bowled with without pattinson for the entire innings of 150+ overs, which is extremely taxing.

Plus South Africa had 10 days to recover for the next test, compared to the short 3 that aus had. So Steyn & Morkel had very adequate time to recover for the final test & blow away england in jo'burg as they did.

Slightly similar also, was australia 1-wicket defeat to India in Bangalore 2010 before the ashes. Bollinger broke down on the last day, & Hilfy had Johnson had to pick up the slack for the remainder of the day. Hilfy played in this game & recovered 3 days after to bowl well in the next test, so this is more proof of his fitness & shows why the scenario in Adelaide was took alot out of him of all people whose career mantra has been to be the workhorse of the aus attack.

Finally yes many players have played with workloads & injuries down the years & done well for their team. But overworking even the best of players can cause them to play poorly/average if they are not 100%. And that benefits no-one.

- Glen McGrath played vs west indies 2003 not 100% & had one of the worst series of his glorious career

- sachin tendulkar between 2003-2007 test career suffered due to his tennis elbow woes & many people during this period felt was past his ultimate best.

- andrew flintoff never got to his ultimate all-rounder peak after the 2005 ashes, because of the multiple series he played not 100% because of his importance to england, before he eventually gave up in 2009.

- shane warne bowled poorly in test between 98-2001 because he played while having two shoulder surgery's he had in this period, which reduced his potency

This is just a few examples to come to mind currently.

 

[War]

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

Yea they are really. Ntini/Steyn was quite good also for a good 3 years & of course Aamir/Asif before their sad bans.

 

[midgetwars]

But Siddle and especially Hilf have no particular long term injury. If it were Clarke it'd make sense because of his back but Siddle and Hilf have played a long time without much injuries.

They should of played the "Grand Final". Who goes into a grand final with 4 changes and those 4 changes haven't played for a long time.

 

[spooony]

My favourite Ricky Ponting moment was when he high fived me after taking a catch during a test match then asked, ?who the hell are you?

 

[spooony]

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.

Are you a sport psychologist? Yes no No? Ok you really need to learn the difference between choking and panicking.
gladwell dot com - the art of failure

Cheers

----------

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.



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.

It is not how you start a test match but how you finish it. I suggest you look up Mohammad Ali vs George Foreman Rumble in the Jungle.

You might learn something

 

[sifter132]

^Yep SA won the biscuits, can't dispute the result. I give them the credit for hanging in there in the first 2 Tests, and then showing their class in the last couple of days in Perth. But I can dispute their 'clear #1 status' based on the way they played over all 13 days of cricket.

Fact is the specific scenario that happened in Adelaide with Siddle & Hilfenhaus never occurred before to my knowledge. So unless you can highlight a similar scenario where a 4-man attack lost 1 bowler for an entire bowling innings when trying to bowl out a side in the 4th innings - and recover in 3 days to play another test & bowl in similar intensity - then its very disingenuous for you toe critique the aus selectors & Clarke for nothing picking either one of them. Since i'm 100% confident that the fitness team would have advised them accurately on their potential readiness to play.

Preach it brother

Just on the idea of rotation in general...if CA just applied it more consistently, then there would be no problems! Instead they do this every summer, get to a point where injuries hit and panic. If they rotated from the start, clearly map out the schedule for bowlers and stick to it, then it would work - and be much more accepted by players and fans eg. for this SL series rotate Johnson out in Hobart, Starc in Melbourne, Hilfenhaus in Sydney - and Siddle in Sydney too if he needs it. Instead, they'll go through a 'bowl-off' in the Hobart nets to see who plays, then discover after Melbourne that all 3 of their pacemen are tired and they need to find some fresh ones...

 

[spooony]

^Yep SA won the biscuits, can't dispute the result. I give them the credit for hanging in there in the first 2 Tests, and then showing their class in the last couple of days in Perth. But I can dispute their 'clear #1 status' based on the way they played over all 13 days of cricket.



Preach it brother

Just on the idea of rotation in general...if CA just applied it more consistently, then there would be no problems! Instead they do this every summer, get to a point where injuries hit and panic. If they rotated from the start, clearly map out the schedule for bowlers and stick to it, then it would work - and be much more accepted by players and fans eg. for this SL series rotate Johnson out in Hobart, Starc in Melbourne, Hilfenhaus in Sydney - and Siddle in Sydney too if he needs it. Instead, they'll go through a 'bowl-off' in the Hobart nets to see who plays, then discover after Melbourne that all 3 of their pacemen are tired and they need to find some fresh ones...

Then how about this one. South Africa have not lost a Test series overseas since 2006. Is that not good enough for you? Who do you think is the no. 1 team? India? England?

How about this? South Africa have played ten Tests in 2012, nine away, and have not lost one. Still not good enough to be number 1?

 

[angryangy]

- shane warne bowled poorly in test between 98-2001 because he played while having two shoulder surgery's he had in this period, which reduced his potency

Indeed. Warne was even dropped in 1999, in the West Indies, replaced by Colin Miller. He was certainly overworked in the late 90s, leading up to his shoulder blowing.

By all accounts, Peter Siddle was not fit to play; they had only a couple of days to recover and he was hobbling around at training. They might have been closer to picking Hilfenhaus; I think he would complement the left armers with his outswinger, but I don't really think anyone was adamant that Hilfy would have won the match.

It's within the player's right to complain about being dropped, to declare themselves fit, but no player is totally objective about their own fitness. Objectiveness is the selectors' job.

 

[spooony]

Indeed. Warne was even dropped in 1999, in the West Indies, replaced by Colin Miller. He was certainly overworked in the late 90s, leading up to his shoulder blowing.

By all accounts, Peter Siddle was not fit to play; they had only a couple of days to recover and he was hobbling around at training. They might have been closer to picking Hilfenhaus; I think he would complement the left armers with his outswinger, but I don't really think anyone was adamant that Hilfy would have won the match.

It's within the player's right to complain about being dropped, to declare themselves fit, but no player is totally objective about their own fitness. Objectiveness is the selectors' job.

Amla was in one day mode. You could have chosen Shane Warne's left testicle it wouldn't have made a difference.

 

[mrtwisties]

Ok you really need to learn the difference between choking and panicking.
gladwell dot com - the art of failure
Cheers

Why? Gladwell's distinction between choking and panicking never caught on - but even if it had it wouldn't matter.

The point I made was "I think South Africa are inconsistent, not chokers". I'm not wrong about the inconsistency: Steyn is equally as likely to give you 2-90 as 3-34, and almost never turns in an average performance. You can measure these things - the standard deviation in his bowling returns is fully twice that of Glenn McGrath's, which is just a ridiculously large figure.

Did you even read what I wrote, or did you just see the word "choke" and suddenly see red?

 

[sifter132]

Then how about this one. South Africa have not lost a Test series overseas since 2006. Is that not good enough for you? Who do you think is the no. 1 team? India? England?

How about this? South Africa have played ten Tests in 2012, nine away, and have not lost one. Still not good enough to be number 1?

I think South Africa is #1 - my problem is not with the rank. They have a better recent track record than any other nation, and a team with lots of talent. Definitely fair enough to crown them as #1 team in the world.

My problem is with people saying that they are now 'clearly' #1, or that now 'they'll be #1 for a while', and saying those things based on what they did in this series. Yes they won this series, but I thought overall they weren't impressive eg. conceding almost 500 runs in a day in Adelaide (and would have if they'd bowled all their overs...) or going a whole day in Brisbane without a bowler getting a wicket. I reckon even Bangladesh could count on one hand the amount of times that would have happened against them.

So to me this series just proved that the top of world cricket is pretty close, but most people seem to want to get on the SA hype train. The ICC ranks say the rankings gap has increased, but my eyes say that Australia played them very closely for the most part, and a 1-0 series result flatters South Africa.

 

[spooony]

I think South Africa is #1 - my problem is not with the rank. They have a better recent track record than any other nation, and a team with lots of talent. Definitely fair enough to crown them as #1 team in the world.

My problem is with people saying that they are now 'clearly' #1, or that now 'they'll be #1 for a while', and saying those things based on what they did in this series. Yes they won this series, but I thought overall they weren't impressive eg. conceding almost 500 runs in a day in Adelaide (and would have if they'd bowled all their overs...) or going a whole day in Brisbane without a bowler getting a wicket. I reckon even Bangladesh could count on one hand the amount of times that would have happened against them.

So to me this series just proved that the top of world cricket is pretty close, but most people seem to want to get on the SA hype train. The ICC ranks say the rankings gap has increased, but my eyes say that Australia played them very closely for the most part, and a 1-0 series result flatters South Africa.

Well conceding 500 runs in the beginning of the Aussie summer where the pitches would be new and flatter than a table with almost no assistance for the bowlers. Even on the last day the bounce was like it was during day 1 and 2. So our attack was basically neutralized with just the doctoring of the pitch. Then Kallis bowled beautifully and pulled up with a injury. Steyn pulled up with one. Philander was out injured for 2nd test. Which left us with Morkel, Tahir and Kleineveldt for basically on day 1 of the 2nd test. 480/1 on day 1. 9/80 on day when Steyn returned.

We batted with Kallis on 1 leg and playing a debutant. Not how you start a test it is how you end it. Australia could not take 20 wickets or take advantage when we had injury problems. Rope-a-Dope. Australia fired all their bulllets in the 2nd test and like the Ali Foreman fight it was round 5 and they punched themselves out. Lost by 300 runs inside 4 days what more do you want? That was a thrashing. Back to back series wins in Australia and in England.

----------

Why? Gladwell's distinction between choking and panicking never caught on - but even if it had it wouldn't matter.

The point I made was "I think South Africa are inconsistent, not chokers". I'm not wrong about the inconsistency: Steyn is equally as likely to give you 2-90 as 3-34, and almost never turns in an average performance. You can measure these things - the standard deviation in his bowling returns is fully twice that of Glenn McGrath's, which is just a ridiculously large figure.

Did you even read what I wrote, or did you just see the word "choke" and suddenly see red?

No one sees red. I just explained to you the difference between choking and panicking. Besides this is test cricket has nothing to do with ODI's.

For inconsistency. Well how can you expect much from bowlers on pitches that were as flat as a table on the first and 2nd test? Do not mention Mcgrath or try to compare because those test were normally played in December and not November where the pitches will be spanking new and not played on a couple of times. So they are flat bowlers graveyards. And no we do not believe in ball tampering to get reverse swing early. Also they made the tracks with more assistance for bowlers in it as Australia were the favorites and the best team in the world back then. Not any more. We won back to back series in England and Australia is that not consistent enough for you? Remember we also lost Kallis which gave us the extra batsman and bowler over other teams. Show me a batsman who ave over 50 with over 200 wickets in odi and test cricket? Plus when he bowled really well he got injured.

 

[War]

I think South Africa is #1 - my problem is not with the rank. They have a better recent track record than any other nation, and a team with lots of talent. Definitely fair enough to crown them as #1 team in the world.

My problem is with people saying that they are now 'clearly' #1, or that now 'they'll be #1 for a while', and saying those things based on what they did in this series. Yes they won this series, but I thought overall they weren't impressive eg. conceding almost 500 runs in a day in Adelaide (and would have if they'd bowled all their overs...) or going a whole day in Brisbane without a bowler getting a wicket. I reckon even Bangladesh could count on one hand the amount of times that would have happened against them.

So to me this series just proved that the top of world cricket is pretty close, but most people seem to want to get on the SA hype train. The ICC ranks say the rankings gap has increased, but my eyes say that Australia played them very closely for the most part, and a 1-0 series result flatters South Africa.

Its undeniable that S Africa did not play fantastic in this series. No doubt about it.

But the interesting thing is to be is that S Africa thrashed a far better English team in England a few months ago. So that tells me that even great teams may have series were they may not destroy every team in their path. They may have series when they may lose, draw or have scratchy wins.

Australia in their glory days between 95-2006/07 lost in india twice (98 & 2001), the ashes 05 had scratchy draws vs windies 99 & n zealand 2001.

Windies of 76-95 had a scratchy 1-1 home series draw vs pakistan in 1988 which according to all reports, poor umpiring was the main reason why pakistan didn't win that series.

The Great England team of who went unbeaten from 1951-1958 had scratchy overseas draws in windies 1954 & south africa 1956.

Also from my view, i was not rating south africa as the clear # 1 based on this series win either. You know my position on the ranking system. I have consistently said since australia's era ended after the 2006/07 ashes - s africa have been the most consistent test team having lost just one series in the last 5 years & have not lost overseas since 2006.