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.
No comments:
Post a Comment