Do Aussies Have Competitive Edge Over Proteas?

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) November 13, 2012: The problem that South Africa have faced when coming up against Australia since readmission is that both sides have a similar make up.

Both have an array of marvellous batting, both bat very deep, both have fantastic fast bowlers, good spinners and a wicket keeper.

During Australia's heydey, they boasted a better spinner (Warne), better batsmen and an equal wicket keeper (Gilchrist vs Boucher was a close contest), only Australia's keeper, Gilchrist, could bat a fair bit better than Boucher.

South Africa were ahead with all-rounders; but Australia were able to combat that.

South Africa kept losing their top order cheaply and kept fighting back at the end. While that worked okay in ODIs (T20s didn't exist in those days), it tended to fail in tests. And South Africa lost both home and away, as they couldn't really prepare pitches to favour their players, as Australia had the same strengths.

At various times South Africa used to have better bowlers (Allan Donald etc.) but Australia always had more on offer for their Proteas opponents.

And now, the situation is much the same. Both teams have similar make ups. The problem is that South Africa have it better.

If Shane Watson was playing, it could be argued that he is the equal of Jacques Kallis, at least with the form Watson is currently in. Kallis is a better batsman but Watson is a better bowler; so they kind of cancel out. Maybe Kallis would still win; but not by much. But without Watson - and without any attempt to even play an all-rounder, South Africa win that battle easily.

Amazing batsmen (average 50+):

South Africa have 3 (Smith, Amla and Kallis) while Australia have 3 as well (Ponting, Hussey and Clarke). The problem is that Kallis averages a lot more than 50 (about 58) and while Ponting used to average that high, it is now down to around 52 or so. So South Africa win this one, though it is a close contest.

Good batsmen (average 40+):

South Africa have 5 (the above 3 + Alviro Petersen and A B de Villiers) while Australia have just 4 (the above 3 + David Warner), and Warner only just makes the cut. South Africa therefore win this one quite comfortably.

Ordinary batsmen (average 30+):

South Africa have 7 (the above 5 + J P Duminy and Rudolph) while Australia have just 5 (the above 4 + Matthew Wade), so South Africa win this one too.

Weak batsmen (average 20+):

South Africa have 8 (the above 7 + Philander) while Australia have probably 8 (the above 5 + James Pattinson, Ed Cowan and probably Rob Quiney).

So, in other words, Australia are going to have the same number of players scoring big runs but really struggle when they get to the lower order. Had Starc played, they would have had all 11 with batting averages over 10, and been ahead of South Africa; but Lyon is a bit of a bunny.

There is really no way that Australia can win based on their batting. Sure, so Michael Hussey, Michael Clarke or Ricky Ponting could play blinders and win; but overall South Africa are going to be on top.

Even with home ground advantage, it is going to be tough.

Wicket keeper:

Australia's Matthew Wade is a pure keeper and hence should be ahead of South Africa's A B de Villiers. Had Wade been up against Mark Boucher, though, he would have lost. The problem is that, back when he first played, de Villiers was a full time keeper, and, while he is a bit out of practice, he is still a decent keeper. Wade might be slightly ahead, but Wade isn't exactly used to the big time yet, and the fact is that de Villiers bats a lot better than Wade, so he wins that battle. Of course, de Villiers is included for his batting already (above) so perhaps Australia wins this battle. They should take more catches and have less mistakes in the field. Perhaps. But Australia's fielding under Haddin and Paine fell so far that they are unlikely to catch up this quickly.

Fast bowlers with supreme averages (under 20):

South Africa have 1 (Philander) while Australia have 1 (Pattinson) - though Pattinson is actually over 20 now after the first day of the first test. Philander's average of 15 is a lot better than Pattinson's 18 anyway. It is a bit of a close contest though.

Fast bowlers with great averages (under 25):

South Africa have 2 (Steyn + the 1 above) while Australia still just have 1. Pattinson vs Philander might be close but Philander + Steyn vs Pattinson by himself is a bit of a mismatch.

Fast bowlers with good averages (under 30):

South Africa have 3 (Morkel + the 2 above) while Australia have 3 (Siddle and Hilfenhaus + the 1 above). Australia are equal here, presuming that Kleinveldt ends up being terrible. If he is decent, though, then Australia are behind. It should be noted that Australia's spinner (Lyon) also averages just under 30; so Australia wins, yay!

Bowlers of any kind with decent averages (under 40):

South Africa have 6 (JP Duminy and Kallis + the 3 above, and Kleinveldt, you would think, would be under 40 too) while Australia have 5 (Michael Hussey averages under 40, amazingly + the 4 above). Of course, with JP Duminy out injured, it gets back to 5 each, so Australia are in the hunt.

Spin bowlers:

Australia has 1 (Lyon).

Summary: How are Australia better?

1) Wicket keeper (Matthew Wade) is probably slightly better purely as a keeper than A B de Villiers, though he is considerably worse as a batsman.

2) Spin bowler (Lyon) is better than any spinners that South Africa might use.

So, put simply, Australia will need for the ball to spin a lot in order to have any chance of victory. Make it so that, suddenly, the wickets don't support pace. It has rained, so if they can just leave the pitch uncovered, the spinner could come into play.

They do have some chance now that a day has been washed out and JP Duminy is injured, without either batting or bowling. But it is pretty difficult.

Moving ahead to the 2nd test, what could Australia do to be better?

It is in Adelaide, which is usually very good for batting, and decent for spinners. But South Africa's spinners (Tahir and Robin Petersen) are better than Australia's (Lyon), and they will surely play at least one of them. It is a ground that you'd play an extra bowler, just to go for the victory, and you'd go in with 3 batsmen and 2 bowlers. It is a ground that Australia could consider playing James Faulkner as a bowling all-rounder as well as Glenn Maxwell as a batting all rounder that bowls spin. They could then play 5 proper batsmen - with Watson one of them if he is fit - plus keeper makes 8, Lyon makes 9, and your 2 best fast bowlers - Starc and Pattinson. Doing that, Australia would have the edge with both batting and bowling, as well as by having the extra spinner and more variety.