What should be Australia 11 for Adelaide Test?

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) November 14, 2012: There is the old adage "don't change a winning team", which is akin to another old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

The problem is that the team that was on display in the 1st test in Brisbane was far from ideal.

Sure, Australia ended up with a lead - with only 5 wickets down - and were in a position towards the end that they could have won the match. But that was against 10 men, it should be noted, not just for a few hours, or even for a day, but for the entire match. South Africa not only lost one of their bowling options - meaning that their bowlers got tired and when others were having bad days it was tougher to cover for them - but it also meant that they missed one of their main batsmen too. When you lose an all-rounder - even if it is only your 2nd best (after Kallis) - it hurts a lot more than just losing a batsman or a bowler. It affects the whole balance of the team.

And the reality is that, had J P Duminy not been injured, South Africa probably would have won.

Not to mention that rain robbed South Africa of any real chance of victory, and turned the tide towards Australia.

There are some players from Australia who performed incredibly well:

James Pattinsononce again did fantastically well against a very good batting side, to be the best bowler in both innings.

Ed Cowan should have been out for 46, but for a no ball that at the time wasn't called - but he went on to get a match saving 136.

Michael Clarkewas out twice off no balls, was also dropped once and was generally leading a charmed life but he still top scored with an unbeaten 259 that gave Australia a chance of victory.

Michael Husseyscored a quick fire 100 that probably would have been much more if not for him trying for quick runs that highlighted just how good his form is.

Matthew Wade had an all-round fantastic fielding performance, that ultimately lifted the team considerably in the field, highlighted by some classic catches.

That is 5 players out of 11 who did so well that they can't be dropped.

On top of that, the following other players are probably fairly safe in spite of poor returns:

Ricky Ponting may have been out for a duck but he is still top scorer in the domestic season this year, is in incredible form and there is nobody to replace him.

David Warner may have been out cheaply but he is in pretty good form and it'd be very risky to drop him.

While they could drop Ponting and Warner, it'd be very risky to do it right now, and dropping players after one bad test is very unlike Australian selectors.

That leaves four players who are not safe who performed really badly and should be dropped:

Rob Quiney looked positive in his 9, but the fact that he scored only 9 out of a high scoring affair, and the way that he got out - going for a 6 when the score was 1/30 chasing 450 - will not impress selectors. He has a poor FC record, is in poor form and was a ridiculous choice to start with - there is no way to justify his place now. Australia missed the 5th bowling option that Watson usually provides and Quiney's bowling was so horrible that it is clear that someone who can bowl must take his place.

Nathan Lyon is in terrible form this season, averaging over 50, and he looked appalling in the test, going at a very high economy rate and the only wickets he got were when batsmen failed to take him seriously. He was a burden to the side. The only possible reason to consider him for Adelaide is that it is his home ground, and it is a pitch that tends to be good for spinners - but he was so horrible that even that doesn't seem like enough of a reason.

Ben Hilfenhauswas economical but most of the time he was pretty horrible, in terms of trying to take wickets. In ODIs and T20s good economy rates are useful, and he might have been useful had there been 3 quality bowlers at the other end, instead of just Pattinson. As it was, he was quite useless and, given how many other good bowlers are knocking on the door, it is hard to justify his inclusion.

Peter Siddleisn't really in the best of form and, for most of the test, he looked horrible when bowling, only barely better than Lyon, and probably worse than Hilfenhaus - except that he was able to produce the occasional, unexpected wicket-taking ball. The main reason to include him for Adelaide would be if they want his "experience" - though in reality he is pretty inexperienced himself. He may just hold on to his place but in reality he probably should be dropped too - just that the selectors might not.

So who are the replacements?

Rob Quiney's spot:

It was clear in Brisbane that Australia missed having the 5th bowling option. In Adelaide, where it is easy to bat, they will be tempted to go with 5 frontline bowlers; but that itself has some risk associated. If Shane Watson is fit, then there is no doubt that he will play - but the selectors have said that Watson won't make the side unless he can bowl as well. So who to consider?

For me, Glenn Maxwell is a good option, because he is in pretty good FC batting form; but also can bowl spin. While his spin bowling was ripped apart in his ODI and T20 performances in the last few months, nonetheless he could sneak one through in the test match. If he doesn't get a wicket, he could at least hold up one end.

Another option could be Dan Christian, who continues to be in good form with both bat and ball, and realistically should have been picked for the Brisbane test ahead of Quiney. The problem is that he is worse in both batting and bowling than Watson and Adelaide is unlikely to suit his style of bowling - though Brisbane would have. He could still be considered, but it might be a long shot.

Mitchell Marsh has been in fantastic form with both bat and ball, and, if it wasn't for his indiscretions, he would be a very strong option. But the problem is that the selectors would look bad if they picked him - not to mention that his overall FC average is barely over 20. I think it is unlikely that he will be considered but you never know.

There is also the possibility of James Faulkner though for me his batting is far too weak to be considered as a top six batting option. He may be considered if they want to go in with five out and out bowlers though.

Nathan Lyon'sspot - and also Ben Hilfenhaus and Peter Siddle:

There will be the temptation to go in with a spinner, especially given it is in Adelaide, which is good for spinners - but the problem is that Australia have no viable spinning options. Xavier Doherty, Jason Krezja, Michael Beer and really all other spin bowling options are just not up to test standard. Nathan Lyon is - but he is woefully out of form and would be a huge risk. Nathan Hauritz seems to have disappeared so can't really be considered either.

James Faulknerfor me looks like the favourite for this spot - though the selectors may disagree. He is in very good bowling form and, especially if they play an all-rounder in Quiney's spot, they will probably want to have another guy who can bat to back him up. Two all-rounders may be a good option in Adelaide, where it is easy to bat on, and where you need that extra bowling option.

Mitchell Starcseems certain to play, it is just a question of which slot he takes. He is in such fantastic form and was really missed in Brisbane - not the least for the simple fact that he is a left armer - giving much needed variety.

Josh Hazlewood is officially in the squad and probably will play, though he really shouldn't, as he averages over 30 in FC cricket and isn't in particularly good form. If he does play, it would be a hunch only - as he is clearly a worse bowler than either Hilfenhaus or Siddle - and they should be moving forwards not backwards.

Mitchell Johnsonis another left armer who has an amazing record against South Africa, and can also bat a bit, which could be very useful in Adelaide, especially if the selectors go with 5 front line bowlers. He is in decent form, though nothing amazing. But his being left armed will be very useful.

Doug Bollingerwon't be selected but I would like to consider him anyway. He is in great form, is left armed, and has a proven quality record in all formats of the game - not to mention he is experienced. In Adelaide, I'd prefer him to Johnson, though if the selectors hate Bollinger then Johnson would be okay.

Alistair McDermottis just 21 years old and already averages 20 in FC cricket - not to mention that he is the son of the former bowling coach Craig McDermott - who himself used to be a great test cricketer. McDermott looks ready and this could be a good time to bring him in - he is a lot better than Hazlewood.

Clint McKay is another option that should be considered - but won't be because the selectors consider him an ODI/T20 only bowler. In spite of a fantastic FC record, and producing very well at international level, he won't be considered because of poor returns in one test.

So for me, this is the team that they SHOULD select:

David Warner

Ed Cowan

Ricky Ponting

Michael Clarke

Michael Hussey

Glenn Maxwell

Matthew Wade

James Faulkner

Mitchell Johnson

Mitchell Starc

James Pattinson

However, I don't think that they will. I think that Rob Quiney will play again (big mistake) and that Peter Siddle will keep his spot (smaller mistake). However, I think that Mitchell Starc will play and there is a good chance that Mitchell Johnson will too. I think it may be out of Mitchell Johnson vs Josh Hazlewood for the 4th and final bowling spot - though Nathan Lyon will be in the 13 man squad too, in case they want to keep spin. Luckily for Johnson, Hazlewood is a pretty terrible bowler and comparing the two it is easily going to be Johnson. I don't think that they will risk Lyon again.

Read More

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.

Read More