South Africa's tainted win.

The record books will show that yesterday South Africa pulled off a rare win in Sri Lanka.  Unfortunately, the history books will record a tainted, controversial win.  South Africa set up the win with a burst of wickets in the third session of the third day, with Steyn leading the way.  After play that day, Philander was charged with, and pleaded no contest to, ball tampering in the second session.  Thus the ball that Philander was alleged to have scratched with his fingernails was the same ball that moved around and got the wickets in the third session.  A ball, incidently, that South Africa saw as so advantageous they kept it in favour of getting a new ball for about 15 overs after the new ball was due.  

There are several levels to this story that are, in terms of cricket, disturbing (I am aware of the events in this world that are far far more disturbing, but they fall outside the bounds of this post). Firstly, a match official knew about the alleged tampering at the time it happened, but the South Africans were allowed to keep the ball and take at least five quick wickets with it before the incident was addressed after play.  Those five wickets meant that Sri Lanka went from a roughly even position to being well behind in the match.  They never really recovered.  Thus Philander cops a fine of a few thousand dollars for an action that could have secured his team the victory.  

Secondly, the South Africans wanted us to believe Philander was innocent, even though they pleaded no contest to the charges.  The argument is that they prefer to plead no contest and have Philander cop a fine, than contest the charges and risk a larger penalty - even though according to them he is innocent.    I for one cannot understand why an innocent man would allow himself to be branded a cheat, rather than defend the charges, unless there was a strong feeling that he could not successfully defend them.  This seems to be the case from their reported concern about harsher penalties.  If he is indeed innocent, that can only mean that they feel that the process is too biased, flawed or worse, corrupt, for Philander to get a fair hearing.  The other conclusion is that they knew or at least strongly suspected that he was guilty.  The fact that they pressured the broadcaster to not show the footage of the incident in question, footage that by all accounts proves the case against Philander, more than tends to point in this direction (I have not seen the footage, but the stills I have seen are damning: https://twitter.com/saj_pakpassion/status/490930061382782976 and https://twitter.com/saj_pakpassion/status/490928529694273536)   So it would seem that now we not only have a player who cheated to get an advantage for his team, but a team that covered it up.  

If the argument above seems overdone for something that seems settled by short burst of footage, it is done because it is not the first time that the South Africans have gone to this line of defence.  Less than a year ago, Faf Du Pleisis was charged with ball tampering in a match against Pakistan, pleaded guilty, but then argued that he was in fact innocent using the same reasoning as above.  Given the events of this week, it is less likely that many people believe him.  It also makes David Warner's outrageous ball tampering claims after the second test between South Africa and Australia earlier this year seem less outrageous.  South Africa won that test after an extraordinary spell of reverse swing bowling by Steyn, similar to this test, except the ball went reverse uncommonly early on that occasion.  The repetition of claims and charges suggests, rightly or wrongly, that there is systematic ball tampering going on by the South African team.  This is not good for the sport, especially as it seems that the South Africans look likely to regain their number one ranking at the end of this series.  It does nothing for the sport to have its best team under a cloud like this.

Perhaps most disturbingly of all, there is a line of "defence" out in the cricketing social media (not all of it by nobodies) that all teams do this, and South Africa are just the ones that have been caught.  It is to be hoped that this is not the case.  Certainly the Australians would find it hard to live down the comments by Warner, and more recently Harris, if it were ever to emerge that they were tampering with the ball in any way.  If it is true that many of the international teams are doing this, then one must conclude that either the policing and penalties for the offence are not enough (after all, the two cases involving South Africa are the only examples in the last year of anyone being charged, and it would seem that the first case was not enough to dissuade the second instance), or the law needs to be revised- after all, if it is poorly followed and poorly policed, then it may be a poor law.  

One suggestion is that the law be changed so that the fielding team is allowed to alter the ball by any means they like, perhaps with the caveat that is with parts of their body (as in the case of Philander and his fingernails) or their normal equipment (as with Faf and his zipper).  This would be easier to police as there would be much fewer illegal actions.  It would also level the playing field- both teams would have the benefit of the reverse swing generated.  It would also introduce a new (valid) skill of conditioning the ball.  However, if this were to go through I would also suggest that the ball not be able to be replaced until the new ball is due, even if it goes out of shape- the large advantage of being able to condition the ball slightly offset by no longer being able to get rid of a ball that wasn't working for you.  This suggestion would of course mean throwing away the record books, as bowling records would most likely tumble, as indeed many batting ones have as bats have become bigger.  I wonder how the history books would look on that.

Prior cannot do it alone

Dear ECB/England selectors,

You may have noticed that England are not doing so well after a prolonged relatively good period extending from about 2005.  As a concerned cricket fan, I would like to help you out with your selections for the India tour, since you seem to have made so many bad choices recently.  The main issue I want to point out is that you are expecting far too much of Matt Prior. He cannot be expected to carry the team on his own.  You have asked him to try to achieve something that has not been done since Strauss in June 2005 against Bangladesh.  That was the last test that England won with only one South African born player in the team.  Can it really be a coincidence that England's best stretch of form in decades links with the presence of between two and four South Africans in the team?  Is it any wonder that Sri Lanka beat this English team when Prior is on his own?  Indeed no English team has won with less than three South Africans since August 2008, and the majority of test wins since then have required four South Africans.  

I realise that there is a little shortage of South Africans qualified and ready to play for England at the moment, but I can suggest a couple to help Prior with the heavy lifting against India.  There seems to be a place opening up at the top of the order with the form of Cook.  Thankfully there is a South African ready to step in.  Compton is both South African and an opener.  It seemed last year that he was dropped for the sole reason that he did not fit well into the Flower-Cook style (originally the Flower-Stauss style), but this would no longer be a concern as Flower is gone already, and this way Cook would be gone too.  

To get to three South Africans, and thereby give England a fighting chance there needs to be one more.  With Trott still not back this means that you will need to look elsewhere.  There is a little known player named Kevin Pietersen who looks a handy sort of player.  I believe he could even score 10000 runs in test cricket if given a chance. To squeeze him in, he could replace Joe Root.  Yes, I know Root recently scored a double hundred, but he can safely be dropped from any test not played at Lords.  In three matches at the English home of cricket he has accrued 512 runs at 102.4 including a 180 and a 200*.  His other 14 tests have only amounted to 702 runs at 28.08 with a solitary century.  So for any test at Lords he is a walk up start, but KP is a better bet overall.  And once again his main (though perhaps not only) detractors in the team were rumoured to be Cook and Flower.  

Yours almost sincerely

An Aussie Fan

Mankad sins:the Senanayake controversy.

Sri Lanka's Sachithra Senanayake committed the ultimate in cricket sins in the match against England on Tuesday.  Ever since he "Mankaded" Jos Buttler, controversy has raged.  However his sin was committed two overs earlier.  

Imagine if you will the following circumstance:  the bowler bowls, the non-striker starts to head down the pitch, the batsman hits it straight to a fieldsman who picks it up and sends it back to the bowler standing over the stumps.  The bowler doesn't break the stumps, but rather holds the ball and watches as the non-striker scrambles back to his crease.  That was a warning, don't do it again.

While it might happen in backyard cricket, especially if the non-striker was very young and the bowler very generous, if it happened in international cricket there would be an uproar.  Why did the bowler let him off like that?  He should be trying everything within the laws of the game to get the opposition batsman out, and anything less, like not running him out when he could, or deliberately dropping a catch is not acceptable.  And yet, Senanayake failed to get both Buttler and Jordan out when he had a chance.  They both were backing up too far, too early, and he did not run them out but gave them a warning.  If he sinned, it was in failing to dismiss the batsmen when it was well within his power to do so.  The next time he bowled, Buttler did it again and was run out.  For some reason that perfectly legal action is what has caused the controversy, not the fact that he did not try everything to get the batsmen out the previous two occasions.

It has been interesting to see the reaction.  The main objection it would seem is not to the legality of it, but to the violation of the "spirit of the game".  And this is mainly from the same people who were arguing strongly that Broad was well within the law not walking when he was given not out when he middled one last year.  For the record, I supported Broad on that one, like I support the Sri Lankans in this one.  Both of them were not entirely within the spirit of the game (though by giving a warning, or actually two, Senanayake comes far closer).  However, consistency means that if you supported Broad, you should support Senanayake.  Both of them acted legally (for those wanting to argue the point, it seems clear to me that 1- he was not intending to bowl by the time his back foot hit the ground, therefore he was not in his delivery stride, and 2- the umpires made the decision, so just like in the Broad incident, it is not the player that is at fault if there is any fault).  The error in both occasions was someone else's: the umpire in Broad's case (and the Aussies for having burned their referrals), and in this one, Buttler for backing up too far, too early.  The stupidity of Buttler is that he did it even after being warned, and seeing his partner warned just two overs earlier.  If the English players don't like what happened, the lesson is to stay behind the line until the ball is bowled.   

Let's replace T20 with S7

Looking at the scores for the last two international matches I had a great idea.  England and the Windies scored about 330 runs in a T20 over night.  Just before that the Aussies and the Proteas scored almost half of that in a "S7"- a T20 shortened by rain to a 1 hour slog-fest.  A match about 1/3 the length resulted in about half the runs.  Perhaps we need to move to S7 matches permanently.  That way we cut out the boring middle overs of the T20 format.  It also means that with a bit of planning you could hold 3 or four matches a night- in different stadiums if you like.  That way we could have the whole Big Cash League in about a week, and the IPL in a fortnight, so we can get back to real cricket.

SAvAUS 2014: Ghost of Cricket Past

As the teams take the field for the fourth day at Newlands, one of them will be haunted by the Ghost of Cricket Past.  Or perhaps more accurately, the Ghosts of Cricket Matches Past.  The first such ghost will be the last Newlands test between these two nations.   Captain Clarke score a 150 that most who saw it agree was his best innings to that date, one of his best ever.  The Aussies knocked over the South Africans quickly, leaving themselves a solid lead.  All that was needed was two or three sessions of quick scoring to put the game out of reach, and then to take 10 wickets.  To date, this match has gone to a similar script.  Last time the Aussies only reached the lofty heights of 47 because of a spirited, fighting innings by Lyon.  South Africa won convincingly.  Admittedly Warner scored more in the six overs they faced last night than the first nine partnerships scored last time, but their last experience here shows that there is still a fair bit of work to do.  The Aussies need a couple of hundred more as quickly as possible today.

A second match that will haunt them, especially given Faf's first innings effort here, is Adelaide 2012.  There the Aussies led convincingly, and gave themselves what looked like plenty of time to win.  Then Faf stood up and scored an excruciating 100.  He basically batted time- more than a day- to save the match.  A bowler down, the Aussies couldn't do anything about it.  So the Aussies need to give themselves plenty of time to bowl.  But then again, they don't want South Africa to do a Perth 2008, and chase down 400 plus either.  Clarke, being Clarke, will declare earlier than most would, and hope that they can bowl well enough.

The South Africans will face their own Ghosts.  Theirs is the Ghost of Cricket Future.  A future that was already looking less rosy with the departures of coach Kirsten and all rounder Kallis looks more dire with the loss of their captain and batting mainstay Smith.  He has been out of form thus far this series, but his contribution as captain and opening batsman with an average near fifty, not to mention a safe pair of hands, will be missed.  It is a very long time since South Africa took to the field without either Smith or Kallis.  They still have De Villiers and Amla (for the moment), so they are not bereft of batting stars, but for a while their numbers are diminished.  There is also the increasing prospect of life without Steyn- who has looked less than superhuman in most of this series.  After all he has been struck down by both illness and injury, when he is usually impervious to these things.  And The South African bowling looks half as menacing without him.  It is quite possible that the spectre of this future might inspire a last effort- a fitting send off for Smith.  The timing of his announcement seems calculated to do just that.  However, they may also find this Ghost daunts them.

Of course the match will be decided by how well each team puts aside their ghosts and focuses on Cricket Present.  Australia's team of hitters will be looking to score quickly.  The Saffers will look to frustrate, hoping to induce errors, and maybe even panic.  Depending on the target set, the Proteas will bat either for the draw (more likely), or the win- if they knock the Aussies over cheap, or are set too tempting a target.  Whatever happens, the next two days are likely to be enthrall ing cricket.  

SAvAUS 2014: Newlands day 1

On the first day of the final test, Warner's bat proved to be more eloquent than, if just as belligerent as, his tongue.  His century in double quick time finally gave him significant first innings runs after more than a year of being largely a second inning specialist.  It also gave Australia the ascendency in The Decider, as this test is being called.  

Clarke started the good day for the Aussies by winning the toss, giving his team the first use of what was a good batting surface.  Warner and Rogers then set about their task like it was a short format game, racing to a fifty partnership inside ten overs.  While Doolan was struggling, Warner's run a ball fifty meant that the run rate stayed high.  However the most interesting passage of the day came after Doolan's dismissal.  First Steyn broke down with a hamstring twinge.  He was off the field for the rest of the day.  The South Africans were going to see how he pulled up this morning before working out what his involvement in the rest of the match would be- though the time he has been off the field should mean that he cannot bowl until well after lunch today at the earliest (however Morkel seemed to bypass this rule in Centurion, so who knows).  If he is ruled out of the rest of the match, that significantly weakens the South African attack, his importance to which the last test was evidence.  Following Steyn's departure Morkel finished his over and then continued with a hostile spell of bowling the likes of which I have not seen since the Windies were in the last days of their world dominance.  Seriously, if you haven't seen it, look at the highlight reel at cricket.com.au.  I realise he was imitating Johnson, but at his height he found bounce and accuracy to really worry one of the world's best batsmen for a prolonged period.  Clarke ended that five over spell battered and bruised.  But importantly, still there.  That was the main difference between Morkel on the one hand, and Johnson and the 

Windies on the other:  Morkel hurt his prey in every way but the one that counted- his wicket.  Clarke showed the kind of mettle that the English had lacked for much of the Ashes, and found a way through.  In fact, in spite of his "weakness" to the short ball, Clarke needs to be knocked over early by a vicious spell- while his back is still stiff, or it helps him focus and he often scores big.  The last time an attack really took it up to him in anything like this way was England at Adelaide: Clarke got 148.  He starts day two on 92.  Smith is with him on 50, and given his recent conversion rate, will seriously be looking for three figures again.  

While Australia are clearly on top at the moment, the Saffers are not out of it yet.  They need a calamitous batting collapse or two to help them, but Australia are just the team to do it.  Look no further than their last test innings (90 runs between the last 9 partnerships) or their last effort on this ground (don't mention the number 47).  The first hour or so of day two will be very important.  If Clarke and Smith can survive, then the Proteas will struggle to get into the match.  If the Aussies get another couple of hundred, then the South Africans will be looking for a draw.  The Aussies however will be hoping that their bowlers will use the scoreboard pressure like they have most of the summer, and take wickets.  In this they might be helped by a pitch that has reportedly been a bit up and down already (I did not see enough of this myself to comment), and had at least one ball that spun on the first day, if a it slowly.  

*edit: Morkel was injured in Centurion, not PE.

SAvAUS 2014: Third Test Preview (plus)

Well it is time for the last match of the series: the decider.  The South Africans bounced back in PE, as only they could.  Steyn lifted that little notch from almost-at-his-best to at-his-best, Morkel did his best Johnson impression (WWJD- what should Johnson do) and the Australian batting showed just how brittle it was- 10 wickets for under 100 (if you ignore the runs from the opening partnership).  It proved again why first innings runs are so important.  Warner did his best, before throwing it away, but few others really contributed in the first innings, which left Australia vulnerable.  Rogers scored his third second innings century, but it was not enough.

So to Cape Town.  With the Saffers having found a way to neutralise Mitch, I expect that the pitch will be uncharacteristically slow and low.  They will be relying on Steyn to produce some more classic reverse, and Morkel to continue to use his height to get the venom that Mitch lacked.  The Aussies will be hoping that someone steps up and scores runs in the first innings.  Smith and Haddin still look the most likely, though Warner once again teased with potential.  We need someone else to show that can do it too.  The Aussies will also be hoping that Clarke comes back from being MIA at the batting crease.  His run since Adelaide has been downright awful.  Harris has had a (for him) poor performance this series, and will be looking to lift, and Johnson will want to bounce back after PE.  

However I think the biggest key to this match will be the toss.  Clarke will be hoping it is his turn to call right given Smith's two successes so far.  The Aussies perform far better batting first, and winning the toss gives them the best opportunity to make a real contest of this match.  Their batsmen seem to struggle under the weight of chasing, and score more freely when they are ahead.  Their bowlers seem to lift with a target to bowl at.  

I guess the other question is whether the win at Centurian was a combination of the afterglow of the Asjes combined with South Africa's habit of starting slowly, or if PE was just a slip in concentration after a long summer,  So to my prediction: I have no idea- there are too many variables at the moment, but I will tip which ever side bats first to win the match.  Clarke, try to call correctly.

Other points of interest:

David Warner.  Is it just me or is David Warner trying for the Stupidest comment by a Cricketer in 2014 award.  De Villiers is a highly respected international player.  Even if you think he is doing the wrong thing, bring it up with the match referee or the umpires, don't air it in public.  You end up looking petty and a bad loser.  And this is just the latest attempt to win the prise.  Look back at the press conferences and comments he has made this year or for that matter late last year.  He certainly adds colour to the usually bland commentary in the press.  However doing this to the best test nation on earth, and on that is as proud and determined as the South Africans may be counter productive.

Vernon Philander.  One of Warner's targets has been Philander- saying he only bowls well In a limited range of conditions.  This prompted someone on twitter asking why the Aussies don't rate Philander.  The answer is simple.  It is the same reason we never rated Cullinan, didn't rate Bell until the middle of last year, and the English were hoping to face Johnson in the Ashes last summer.  We haven't seen him at his best consistently.  Cullinan was a very good batsman who just happened to run into a bowler with a flipper he couldn't pick.  Philander is a player with a record that any Aussie would love to have.  He just hasn't shown it to the Aussies yet - at least not in Australia (when most of us are watching).  His record against the Aussies in South Africa is similar to his overall (averaging 19.95 as opposed to 18.87 overall).  However in Australia he averages almost 50 (4 wickets @49.75 at a strike rate of over 100).  This in spite of the fact that he bowled on the two best pitches for his style of bowling, and missed the match in Adelaide, where the pitch would not suit him at all (hence Warner's jibe).  This gives him an overall average against the Aussies of 24.91- still very good, if a third higher than his overall average.  He is one of the top bowlers in the world for a very good reason.  The Aussies will be hoping he doesn't regain top form in the last match of this series (in which he is averaging 34).   

SAvAUS 2014: Wrong, again

Wrong, again

It seems that cricket is determined to prove me wrong this last couple of weeks.  It started when I felt that the Aussies couldn't keep up their dominant displays against a team of the quality of South Africa. I even tipped South Africa to take a close series when I did the series preview.  Then Centurian happened.  The best team in the world was blown away by Mitchell Johnson, in both innings.  And the Aussie batsmen made runs against one of the best attacks going around.  It seemed I was wrong.

Then I looked at the NZ India match, with New Zealand 5/95 in their second innings and still a long way behind.  I tweeted that without Taylor, I didn't think NZ could get out of this match.  Then McCullum happened.  

Finally, following the second innings at Centurion, I thought that South Africa had little chance to get back into the series.  They did not seem to have an answer to Johnson.  Then the St. George's pitch happened.  The South Africans found a way to nullify Johnson- prepare a pitch that would need to improve dramatically to be rated as "dead" then play slow defensive cricket on it for at least a day.  Credit to De Villiers, who once again made the Aussies work for his wicket, and this time dragged Duminy along with him.  Then the Aussie top order did what they do in the first innings and imploded.  It will be a long haul for them to get back into this match, perhaps needing another Haddin special.  If they do manage it, it is likely that the test will head towards a draw.  However, I am just as likely to be wrong.  Again.

Lyon

Lyon had the best figures of the Aussies in the first innings.  His second five-for of the summer came in the second match in which the Aussies bowled first.  Like Melbourne, Mitch was not quite at his best, and Lyon stepped up with five.  (Is there something to the idea that Johnson bowls better with a score to bowl at?). Unfortunately, De Villiers and Duminy meant that the Saffers got further in front than the English did.  The four wickets at the end of the second day did not help the Aussie cause. 

However it seems that the Aussies have been reading my comments about the undismissable Lyon.  It is over seven tests since he was last dismissed.  So Clarke put him up the order (ok so he is really playing the night watchman role) to make the most of his propensity to stick around.  Even the South Africans and the umpires want to keep his record going- he was dropped, and once when he was caught, he was given not out, and it was not reviewed.  I suspect that his run will come to an end sometime today.  If he is not out at the end of this Aussie innings, then either he will have his best score in cricket, or the Aussies will be in trouble.  I for one am hoping his undefeated century anchors a massive score for the Aussies.  I'm not holding my breath though.  

SAvAUS 2014: Centurion Wrap

In my series preview, I noted that it was hard to tell where the Australians were in the world pecking order.  After all, they had only played the English since their resurgence: an English team that has lost Trott, Swann, Prior, KP and their coach in the last few months.  While this was seen as a consequence of Australia's dominance, the loss of both players and matches could have been due to disharmony in the dressing room, or the English management style- both have been blamed- rather than the rise of Australia.  However, I think we now have an answer.  

The Australians have systematically dismantled an even more highly fancied South African team.  While the Aussie batting still looks brittle, it finds ways of making runs- even better, now it is not Haddin doing all the rescuing.  The Johnson-led bowling dominated everyone, apart from De Villiers- who is rightly rated as the best batsman in the world.  The fielding was where the difference was seen most - even more than the bowling.  Compare the three dropped catches when Warner was batting to the two screamers by Doolan, not to mention the sharp catch by Smith in the second innings.  The first three should have been caught (though G. Smith's effort was a very difficult one).  The last three were such that had they been dropped, few would have blamed the fielder.  (As an aside: the Tasmanian fielding coach must be good- I thought we would miss Bailey's close catching, but Doolan has more than matched him.)  That having been said, the Saffers are also in transition- they recently changed their coach and lost Kallis.  Still, they are a team that has a habit of not losing, and are still full of champions.  All of this points to Australia's acendancy being real, not a figment of English disintegration.  

So what does this mean for the rest of the series?  I had predicted a narrow win to the South Africans. If any team could still pull it off the South Africans can.  But it looks unlikely.  The manner of the defeat was reminiscent of the recent Ashes.  If Johnson continues to hold fitness and form, I cannot see South Africa turning the series around.  I expect Steyn to lift a bit, no longer hampered by his food poisoning. Also it would be unlikely that Johnson can keep knocking Smith over on his second ball to him.  So some improvement can be expected.  However, Petersen's dismissals did not look very good for an international opener.  MacLaren did not look even close to a replacement for Kallis, and probably needs to be replaced with a batsman.  And Peterson is not a test class spinner, and I am not sure that South Africa has one.  Overall, the Aussies are likely to run away with the series given the way South Africa folded twice this test.

SAvAUS 2014: Smith, Warner and the NSP

Another good day for the Aussies, led by Johnson, Doolan and Warner.  De Villiers did well again before falling to Johnson while trying to push the pace as he ran out of partners.  However the only other highlight for the Proteas was the opening spell by Steyn, in which he dismissed Rogers and looked threatening.  Their fielding was well below par - to give Warner one life is bad, but 3 dropped catches and a missed run out is awful.  Then there were the various misfields and overthrows.  The upshot is that the Aussies are a long way ahead and likely to declare in the first session on the fourth day, looking for the kill.

The National Selection Panel (NSP)
I'm not sure whether the NSP are very lucky or absolute geniuses.  Their latest two picks have proved really useful.  Marsh is approaching 200 runs for the match, having put on over 200 with Smith in the first innings.  Doolan narrowly missed out on a century on debut, having combined for another 200+ run partnership in the second innings with Warner.  They were picked in spite of the fact that neither of them average over 40 in first class cricket.  Marsh in particular must feel a bit lucky to be there:  His last three tests netted a total of 17 runs at 2.83 in a summer where the runs were flowing for Australia against an average Indian attack.  His red ball form was not great this year either: he was 34th on the Sheffield Shield run scorers list for this season when he was picked (he has probably dropped a few more places over the last few days).  Furthermore, over a decade of first class cricket has only resulted in 9 centuries, including the one in the first innings here. Doolan's record, whilst improving over the last couple of seasons, is not much better than Marsh's.  Yet the gamble paid off.  As did the one with Johnson earlier this summer - at the time many people questioned whether he was really up to returning to test cricket.  These three picks make the NSP look like geniuses.  But remember this is the same panel that picked Bailey, and went through several players in England, including the inexplicable move of dropping Lyon for Agar - however well he may have batted.  For the moment we will call them geniuses, and hope that their luck holds out.

Warner and Smith
Warner has now joined Smith on three centuries for the southern summer.  They have both had very contrasting experiences, however.  Warner has done better overall, scoring 650 runs at 59.09.  Smith, in a couple less innings, has only got to 427 @ 47.44.  However it is interesting to compare their performances.  Warner's centuries have all come in the second innings, each time while Australia was in the ascendancy and it was more about keeping the opposition down than wresting control of the match.  I suspect that Johnson has more than a reasonable claim on a large chunk of Warner's runs.  Overall Warner has scored 475@95 in the second innings this summer, compared with 175 @29.16 in the first.  Smith's figures are the opposite.  Smith's three centuries have all come in the first innings, with Australia in trouble and the test still in the balance.  He has scored 382 @63.66 in the first innings,  while only managing a measly 45 @15 in three completed attempts in the second innings.  Warner has the better overall record because of the number of scores he has made between 20 and 100 - five of them this summer including an 83*, a 60 and a 49.  In contrast Smith has largely been an all or nothing player.  Indeed, since his first century at the Oval, he has only passed 20 twice without getting a century, scoring 31 and 23*.  On the plus side, his conversion rate from fifty to 100 is very good in this time.  While their summers have been contrasting, they have both been very important to the team.  Smith has set up the totals for Johnson to bowl at, Warner has taken the game away from the opposition.  They will both want to work on getting more runs in the other innings, and Smith will want a bit more consistency (though 3 tons in four matches is pretty good).  However they can both be happy with the work done so far.

 

SAvAUS 2014: Smith, Lyon and Johnson

Day two was a day of wickets.  In a day shortened by a storm, 12 wickets fell, all within the space of 192 runs (from first wicket to last).  Steyn ended up with four for the innings, a very good return for someone who was sick for much of the first day.  De Villiers also rates a mention as the only batsman to look really comfortable on a pitch where batting seemed a bit of a task.  His will be a key wicket on day 3.

However there are three Aussies who get special mention today.  First Smith lodged his fourth century in his career, all in the last seven matches, and as noted yesterday, all in the first innings.  

Second, Lyon managed another "red inks".  He has not been dismissed since the fourth test in England.  This is the seventh test since then, and Lyon's average overall is above 17.  When he bowled he got Duminy (thanks to a good catch by Johnson), which means that he has at least one wicket in each of the last 11 innings he has played.  Considering the success of Harris, Johnson and Siddle over that time, his consistency is admirable.  

Finally, Johnson has done it again.  Four wickets have cut through the South African batting.  Notable here are the continued dominance of Smith - another brutal ball dismissing him, and probably giving him flashbacks to two broken hands in 2009; the fact that three of them were at the top of the order- it has largely been Harris and Lyon opening up England for Johnson to finish off while here Johnson did most of the surgery himself; and finally he took a burst of wickets with someone other than Lyon at the other end.  So far, Johnson has been at his best, while Steyn was not.  This has been one of the major differences between the teams.  

Overall the Aussies will be very happy with the position of the match so far.  They will want to get the South Africans out as quickly as possible today, starting with De Villiers, and then bat for a day or so to put the test beyond doubt.  The South Africans on the other hand will be wanting to eek out another 100 runs or more, feeling that if they can get within 150 or so, they can turn it around in the second innings.  Survivors of the record run chase in Perth know it is not impossible.    

SAvAUS 2014: The Rise of Smith

Shaun Marsh is, rightfully, getting a lot of plaudits for the first day of the test at Centurian.  However it is Smith's performance that is really pleasing.  For the third time in four tests Smith has put together a good first innings score, each time having come in with Australia in a bit of trouble.  If he can get another nine runs today, it would be his third century in those four matches.  In fact Smith has had a great year this year.  To add to the two hundreds in the recent Ashes and the 91* here, he has a 92 in Mohali, an 86 at Manchester and 138* at the Oval.  Interestingly, all of these were in the Aussies' first innings, as was his 53 at Nottingham.  His hundred at the Oval (his first) means that he is in a good position to record his fourth hundred in seven matches.  In fact in the last year since his return to test cricket, he has scored 924 at 44.  Only Clarke has more runs in that time, and no one has a better average.  Smith scored 810 (at 73.63) in the Aussies first innings during these tests.  All in all, not a bad effort for a player who many thought was lucky to get picked to tour India (though he was seen as a player who could use his feet to the spinners).  

SAvAus 2014 series preview

Another Australian international cricket summer has finished and the focus shifts to South Africa.  England have headed home with very little to cheer about.  The Aussies are riding high having won all three formats convincingly, and are set to take on the top nation over the next few weeks.  The recent win by New Zealand over India puts Australia very near if not actually in the unofficial second place in the test rankings (the rankings are only officially adjusted at the end of series).  However it is difficult to work out where Australia are really at.  Was this summer more about Australia's resurgence or England's capitulation?  Are the Aussies on the rise, or are the results more about England's slide?  Remember that only six months ago the Aussies and the English were in almost the reverse positions.  The Aussies had been thrashed mercilessly in India, and (though I have argued the the score line was flattering to the English) beaten soundly in England.  

However this is part of a bigger picture of confusing form lines.  The English form line has fluctuated wildly.  A couple of years ago Pakistan whitewashed them, and Sri Lanka pushed them to a drawn series on the road.  This shortly after beating the then world number one India in England 4-0.  More recently they beat India in India- almost impossible in this day and age.  However since then they barely escaped New Zealand unscathed, only to thrash them in England before the Ashes marathon started.  Their form at home has been very strong- except against South Africa 18 months ago.  Their form away has been poor- except, strangely, in India which is one of the hardest places to tour.  

The Aussies have a more consistent home form.  In the last few years we have whitewashed India, Sri Lanka and England at home, and pushed a strong South Africa in the first two tests before being beaten in the third test to lose the series. Only the draw against New Zealand was really disappointing.  The last twelve months have also produced consistent away form as well, though more of the negative than positive variety- losing seven of the nine test we played away.  

Indeed, with the odd exception, the trend to dominance at home and capitulation away seems to be increasing for all the major teams.  Only South Africa seems to consistently buck the trend, often winning away (eg their most recent tours to England and Australia), while being pushed at home by the likes of Australia and Sri Lanka on their last tours, and India in the first test of this summer.  The fact that, in spite of being pushed, they rarely lose is the main reason they are the number one team.  Indeed they rarely dominate against the top teams, but they usually win and rarely lose.  Their last series loss was by a Mitchell Johnson inspired Australia in 2009.  

A battle of the bowlers?

The question for the Aussies is whether Johnson can do it again.  In fact not just Johnson but the whole of the reported "best bowling attack in the world".  Unfortunately this is a title that has been, and probably still is held by the hosts.  The comparison of the two attacks is a bit like the comparison of their leading bowlers.  At their very best Johnson is better than Steyn, but as the years have shown since that series in 2009, Steyn is at his best far more consistently than Johnson, and his worst is still very good, unlike Johnson's.  

Similarly the Aussie attack has the potential to be better than the South African attack, but the Saffers are more consistent in the long haul.  Johnson has had a summer of consistency, like 2009, but can it continue?  Can the Aussie attack take the mantle of the best in the world?  

While the bowling has been the main focus in the lead up to this series, the difference between the sides is more likely to come not from the relative bowling strength, but the batting.  Here South Africa have the clear advantage.  Even in the absence of the prolific Kallis, there are proven champions like Smith, de Villiers, and Amla.  Only Clarke has a similar pedigree for the Aussies.  Of the rest, only Rogers and Warner average over forty.  Warner and Smith are developing, the former into a potential match winner, and the latter has played a couple of really good fighting innings.  However the Aussies will have two players with very little experience, without brilliant red ball form, and with first class averages in the thirties batting in the top six.  The only way to avoid this is to pick Hughes for his fourth attempt at test cricket.  He has the best first class average, red ball form and experience of the candidates to replace Watson and Bailey (Henriques, Doolan and Marsh are the others).  In most cases he would be an obvious pick, but his unorthodox style and perceived technical weakness (no worse than most others) mean that the selectors have shown themselves reluctant to pick him consistently.  Contrast the Aussie line up with the rest of the South African line up, where players like Faf would walk into most teams in the world.  The only area that Australia may have the advantage is in the tail.  

While this series is billed as the battle of the bowlers, it is more likely that how the two batting line ups cope with the expected high class bowling will be the difference.  On paper South Africa should be ahead in this battle, and I predict that they will go on to win the series by one match (1-0 or 2-1).  However, as watchers of the Australian international summer will attest, cricket is not played on paper.  That is why this should be a series well worth watching.  

** edited to include Warner as averaging over 40 before this series.

English Report Card

(For the Aussie Report Card click here)

It is hard to say where it all went wrong for England.  They have been outplayed in every area of the game.  Their batsmen scored a thousand less runs than the Aussies (2158 vs 3189 including extras).  Their bowlers took 23 fewer wickets (77 vs 100 including runouts), and they only took 20 wickets in Sydney where the Aussies were practically giving them away to hasten the end of the series.  They dropped more catches and missed more stumpings, and these errors cost them more than the Aussies' errors cost them.  Even their captain lost four tosses out of five.  

The problem is not skill or experience.  England have shown over the last four or five years that they have the skill.  They even (briefly) reached number one in the world.  They were also by far the more experienced line up that started the 'Gabba test.  Nor was age a factor.  Australia had the oldest players, and the higher average age.  No, test cricket is played as much between the ears as in the middle, and one suspects that it is here that the problem lies.  Perhaps the team is jaded.  Having just won the Ashes in England, it may have been hard to try to climb that mountain again.  Perhaps the pressure of the dressingroom culture is wearing thin.  Exacting standards are much easier to handle when you are in the ascendancy, but can become a burden when things are not working out as you would like.  Perhaps the team believed the publicity that had people like Botham predicting a 5-0 scoreline for England, not against it: They just needed to turn up, watch Australia roll over and collect their trophy - but were shocked when it was their team on the back foot (both literally and figuratively).  From shock came panic which compounded the problem.

Aussie Report card

The Aussies have made a clean sweep: 5-0.  It was against the prevailing wisdom, and against the result of the last series only a few months earlier.  It was not just the wins, but the extent of the wins.  The closest match was won by 150 runs after the Aussies declared at the end of an over in which Bailey equalled the record for the most runs in an over (28).  Then there was the fact that, unlike the previous whitewash in 2006-2007, the Aussies were relatively inexperienced at test level, and England was the team with the proven champions in every department of the game.  It was an amazing series for the Aussies.  However there are still areas to work on as will be seen below:

Batting:

The batting was a mixed bag this series.  The team scored an impressive 10 centuries and 15 fifties, with only Lyon and Siddle failing to pass fifty in the series.  However  no one went past Clarke's 148 in Adelaide, and six of the centuries were in the second innings after England were already down.  The most troubling statistic is that of the 52 completed innings by the top six, 18 were at 10 runs or below, and 26 (or half of them) at 20 or below.  

Team Batting Grade: C+

Chris Rogers (5 Matches, 10 innings, 0 not out, 463 runs@46.3, 2 hundreds, 3 fifties: 4 Catches)

Finally he is starting to feel at home in the test arena.  After a slowish start, he ended the series with scores of 54, 61, 116, 11 and 119 to take him to the most runs of any batsman across the two series.  Rogers faced more balls more than any of the other Aussies with Warner's 703 balls second to his 945.  The openers did their job this series in blunting the attack, absorbing 1648 deliveries between them.  Both of Rogers' hundreds came in the second innings and he scored almost two thirds of his runs (307)  in the second innings.  He will want to convert some of his late form into first innings runs in South Africa.

Grade: B

David Warner (5M, 10I, 1NO, 523@58.11, 2x100, 2x50: 4 catches)

Showed a good start to the series when the Ashes were still in play, but tailed off in the last couple of matches as Rogers got going.  He displayed a bit more maturity with his batting than he has done any time previously (with the exception of Hobart a couple of years back).  He scored over two thirds of his runs in the second innings (360).  Like Rogers he will want some more runs in the first innings going forwards.

Grade: B+

Shane Watson (5M, 10I, 1NO, 345@38.33, 1x100, 2x50: 3 Catches) {4wickets@30.5}

Another frustrating series from Watson.  He scored a hundred in the second innings in Perth, but ended the series with only Bailey of the top seven averaging less.  This was one of his best series for a while but still averaged under forty.  The frustrating bit was that he looked as good as he has for a long time, but still didn't quite manage a very good series.  Hopefully this is the start of Watson the Improving.  His bowling was useful, with his knack for breaking partnerships and keeping it tight, though he was not needed that much.  

Grade: Batting: C, Bowling C+, Overall: C

Michael Clarke: (5M, 10I, 1NO, 363@40.33, 2x100, 0x50: 8 Catches) [5 Matches, 4 Tosses, 5 Wins]

Started the series with a bang scoring hundreds in Brisbane and Adelaide.  However, apart from these hundreds, Clarke failed to pass 24 in the rest of his innings.  However, he scored more than half his runs in the first innings, and over 300 runs while the Ashes were still up for grabs.  His captaincy was astute, and his team performed well above expectation. 

Grade: Batting: C+, Captaincy: A Overall: B

Steven Smith: (5M, 9I, 1NO, 327@40.87, 2x100, 0x50: 7 Catches) {1@58}

Smith started slowly, but picked up his game in Perth.  He scored two hundreds in impressive fashion - both of them in the first innings, and both when Australia were in trouble.  However his 31 in the first innings at the Gabba was his only other score over 20.  He scored 282 runs in the first innings across the series compared to only 45 in the second innings.  His bowling was barely called on, but he still contributed with a wicket.  He is also a fielding asset.  His first innings contributions get him a better grade than his totals might otherwise have warranted.  

Grade: B  

George Bailey (5M, 8I, 1NO, 183@26.14, 0x100, 1x50: 10 Catches)

He has benefited from the fact that the Aussies were winning, and so were able to pick and stick.  However he has by far the lowest totals of the top seven, and is the only one not to score a hundred.  Furthermore, well over half his runs (119) were scored in the second innings in spite of the fact he only batted in three of them.  His highlight was one over where he tore apart Anderson in a spectacular way.  However he will be lucky to keep his spot in South Africa.  His fielding, especially his close catching, has been his main contribution this series.  

Grade: D

Brad Haddin (5M, 8I, 0NO, 493@61.62, 1x100, 5x50: 22 Catches)

For my money Haddin was the player of the series, though it was close with Johnson.  He set up every win by rescuing Australia in the first innings of each test match and giving the bowlers something to work with. For this reason he is being classed as a batsman rather than a separate category of wicket keeper.   More than three quarters of his runs (307) came in the first innings.  He had another great series behind the stumps, taking some blinders, and generally being reliable.  

Grade: Batting A+  Keeping: A  Overall: A+

Bowling

The bowling was really what won the series.  The team took all 100 wickets on offer - a feat that is apparently unique in the history of the game.  They bowled to plan and with great discipline.  The times when England's batsmen were on top were few and brief.  Furthermore the bowlers operated as a team.  Harris did not take a wicket in two innings, and Siddle missed out in the last innings of the series, but otherwise the four main bowlers each took a wicket or more in each innings of the series.  Lyon and Johnson took at least one wicket every innings - and were regularly bowling in tandem when England collapsed.  Watson and Smith were required for less than 60 overs between them, but picked up 5 wickets and generally kept the pressure on.  

Team Bowling Grade: A

Mitchell Johnson {37W@13.97} (5M 8I, 2NO, 165@27.5, 1x50: 4 Catches)
Named man of the series, and though I would have just given it to Haddin, he deserved it.  He bowled with pace, hostility and the most amazing of all, accuracy.  It yielded 37 wickets, often in bursts with Lyon.  More than that his bowling seemed to put England into a bit of shell shock from which they never fully recovered.  His batting, especially in the first innings at the Gabba, was also important.
Grade: A+

Ryan Harris {22@19.31} (5M 6I 1NO, 117@23.4, 1x50: 4 Catches)
A class act.  One of the best bowlers going around, and has finally been able to string together a full series.  He is quick and accurate, and moves the ball just enough to cause trouble.  The perfect foil for Johnson.  His enthusiastic batting (his strike rate was the highest in the team) was also worth watching at times.
Grade: A

Peter Siddle {16@24.12} (5M 7I 1NO, 38@6.33: 0 Catches)
A quiet series compared to the other bowlers, and also with the bat.  However he often took an important wicket to break a partnership, and his bowling to Pietersen was an important contribution to the team.  He had the best economy rate of all the bowlers - keeping the pressure on.
Grade: A-

Nathan Lyon {19@29.36} (5M 6I 6NO, 60runs no average: 5 catches)
Easily the best performed spinner in the series.  He took a large percentage of top order wickets (11 batsmen, 3 wicketkeeper batsmen), and was the bowler at the other end when Johnson ripped through the English on several occasions.  He was also a reliable fielder, and the undismissable batsman.
Grade: A

Sydney test preview

The Aussies are trying for a clean sweep- the second in three home Ashes and only third 5-0 scoreline in Ashes history-, and to jump to number three in the world.  The English are playing for pride and to keep the third place on the test rankings (for which they need a win here).  So a quick look at the teams:

Australia

Only a couple of injury worries would see the team change.  Harris's knee could see Coulter-Nile make a debut, and Watson's injury could see Doolan take his place at three, and Faulkner take his place (and Bailey's) as an all-rounder.  However they both seemed to be on track to keep the same team together for the fifth straight match.  

England

It seems likely that Ballance will get a run in the team given the repeated failures of the top six.  The question is who he replaces.  Carberry seems to be the favourite, though Root has been just as bad. England really cannot afford to have two slow scorers in the top three. Some people are still singling out KP, but he was by far the best in Melbourne.  I suspect Root will open with Cook, and Ballance will either slot in at three, or swap with Bell.  

Bairstow proved me wrong when I said that he couldn't do worse than Prior.  The shame is that England have several good keepers going around, but picked part-timer Bairstow as the back up as they thought he could be a back up batsman as well.  I guess they could not believe that Prior would be in such bad form for so long.  However, I think they will give Bairstow a second chance.  

The bowlers are an interesting problem.  Borthwick is likely to get a run.  Firstly, Panesar injured himself, so may not be available.  Even if he is, Cook showed no faith in him in Melbourne bowling Root in two spells before finally bringing Panesar on with only 30-odd left to defend.  If they are going to have a specialist spinner they don't trust, it might as well be one that bats and fields better the Monty, and is a chance to develop for the future.  As for the quicks, having brought Finn and Rankin, at least one of them really needs to play.  They would need to replace Anderson or Bresnan.  Anderson needs the rest and Bresnan was particularly unimpressive.  I doubt that both will be replaced, and realistically if the other changes are made, the English are unlikely to make a change here.

Prediction

Having put up a good fight for the first two and a half days in Melbourne, getting themselves into a position to control the match, England fell apart spectacularly to lose inside four days.  Given that, it is hard to see any result other than another Aussie win, though if they can find the early fight from Melbourne it would be a better match.  I am not usually this optomistic but I am looking at a clean sweep (which probably means England will find a way to win, but I still think that is unlikely).