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

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.