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: 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.

 

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

Big Mitch's henchmen

I made a comment in an earlier blog post that the difference between the sides was Mitchell Johnson.  In many ways I stand by that comment.  His batting in the first innings in Brisbane was a key, almost as much as his bowling in the first three innings of the series.  However he did not win the Ashes alone.  He had help.  In particular he had two henchmen that have helped him change the fortunes of Australia.

Some might nominate Michael Clarke who has scored a heap and captained really well.  However he has been the only batsman consistently scoring runs this year, so Clarke scoring runs doesn't really change the team.  Several of the other batsmen have (finally) scored runs, but most of them have been second innings runs (Warner, Watson) after the English had been beaten up by the bowlers in the first innings and the pressure was largely off.  Similar things could be said for the run glut at Perth (Smith - though his was a good innings, Watson).  However Haddin, the first of the henchmen, has come to the rescue of the team in each of the first innings of the series.  Plus he has been in very good form with the gloves.  Without him Johnson would not have had decent totals to bowl at. Even if he still blew England away, the batsmen would not have had the freedom to bat the same way as their lead would not have been as convincing.

In a similar way Johnson had help with the bowling.  Four times in the series there have been a clatter of English wickets: Brisbane first innings was 5/4 in 4 overs, and the second innings was 4/9 in 4 overs; in Adelaide's first innings it was 5/18 in 5 overs; and in the second innings in Perth it was 4/17 in 6 overs.  It is these quick bursts more than anything that sunk England's hopes this series. Most people remember the first common factor: Johnson- twelve of his 23 wickets came in these bursts.  What seems to be forgotten is that the bowler at the other end each time was Nathan Lyon.  His ten wickets this series have included 7 wickets from the batsmen, and Prior twice.  Five of these wickets plus that of Swann came during these destructive partnerships with Johnson.  Big Mitch may have scared the English, but he had help knocking them over.