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

Australia vs South Africa: Aussies tested in Brisbane Test

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) November 13, 2012: I am not going to do a day five wrap up; but instead look at the test as a whole. The major talking point that affected the test was the injury to J P Duminy. He didn't get to bat or bowl, as it happened overnight, before he was due to bat. He didn't even get to field. It meant that for the whole match South Africa had 10 men vs Australia's 11.

How different things would have been had he been able to play, or even had another player been able to be used as substitute.

In the 2nd test, South Africa will have the choice of replacing him with an all rounder or a pure batsman. I'd love to see Quinton de Kock, the under-19 wicket keeper and batsman. Though he isn't actually in the squad so, perhaps not!

The other major thing that affected the test was the rain, which, while not enormously heavy, was persistent enough to wash out day 2. Had they been able to play on day 2, the chance of a result would have been a lot higher.

With that being said, this was a match of two halves. On day 1, South Africa were very good and it all looked very easy for them as they put on a massive 2/252 off 82 overs.

After the rain, on day 3, while South Africa weren't amazing, they still clearly won the day, as they fell from 2/252 to 450 all out and then had Australia 3/40 before they recovered to 3/111.

But then, after that, Australia recovered hugely. Sure, there was some luck involved, as no less than three times South Africa took wickets - all caught behind - off no balls. Australia did too - twice in two innings - with one being clean bowled - but this affected South Africa a lot worse. Hashim Amla shouldn't have been given out - and should have reviewed.

Indeed, so many reviews seemed that they should have been reversed but weren't, due to benefit of the doubt going to the umpire - caught behinds that for all the world looked out, but you couldn't be sure.

But Australia came back from 3/40 to have two consecutive 200+ run partnerships, as Ed Cowan, who I for one didn't think should be in the team, provided a match saving 100 and he was backed up by a very lucky Michael Clarke - who managed 200 not out - and Michael Hussey capitalised with an even 100. And they did it all, in spite of being 410 runs behind with only 7 wickets in hand, at more than 4 runs per over.

The timing of the declaration was, as it always is, a bone of contention. It looked to be too early for me, as I think that they should have done it during the lunch break, as then they wouldn't lose the 10 minutes for changing innings - plus by then South Africa would have had no chance of passing the deficit. Declaring at the drinks break left South Africa with an awkward 115 run deficit, and some 80 overs to face. But it was always likely that they would overtake the deficit, thus leaving Australia with a chase. In the end, they shook hands when South Africa had a lead of 51 still with 4 wickets in hand and only 11 overs to go - 8 overs once the change of innings came.

Had Australia declared at lunch they still might have failed to win; but it would have put South Africa in a much bigger worry. The lead could have been 200, or more, with 66 overs to face, and then South Africa would have been 100% defence.

The match highlighted all of South Africa's strength - their incredibly strong batting line up, and the length of it, as well as the strength of their opening bowlers in Morne Morkel and Dale Steyn - but it also highlighted their weaknesses - that they need to have that variety in bowling, that Vernon Philander was really terrible, and that Rory Kleinfeldt had one of the worst debuts we've ever seen.

Australia's weaknesses were sorely exposed - an over-attacking David Warner, Ricky Ponting who in spite of being in great form is still terrible at the start of an innings, and Rob Quiney was far too aggressive and ultimately his score of 9 looks terrible and looks like he may never play test cricket again. Australia's bowling was also very weak, and it highlighted why Nathan Lyon, who has averaged over 50 bowling in the last 6 months, should not have been in the side. While James Pattinson was once again fantastic, Ben Hilfenhaus was only good at tying down one end while Peter Siddle most of the time was terrible, only taking wickets when the batsmen failed to take him seriously. While Ed Cowan scored a big century, and Michael Clarke a double, it really felt like Australia were lucky to escape with a draw.

But it also highlighted Michael Clarke's ability as a captain, that even with a day washed out, when everyone said that the only options were a  South African win or a draw, even when Australia were 3/40 chasing 450, he still saw a way to win. Okay so it didn't work out, but the fact that he tried, and got so close to success, shows a lot of strength.

The problem for Australia is that traditionally they don't like to change a winning team, and yet in this case they really need to. If nothing else, Nathan Lyon cannot play in Adelaide, while Mitchell Starc must. 

They also need to get rid of Rob Quiney - and need to play an all-rounder in his place. We saw just how much Australia need that 5th strong bowling option, as they were out of ideas after the others failed. If Shane Watson has recovered from injury, then he should play; but if he hasn't then there are many other options of who could be picked, from Dan Christian to Mitchell Marsh to James Faulkner to Andrew McDonald or even Glenn Maxwell. 

Dan Christian is probably the strongest batting option and also is the most reliable, having more international experience than the other contenders, while Mitchell Marsh is probably the best player of the others; but James Faulkner is comfortably the best bowler of the others - and, of note, is a better bowler than either Peter Siddle or Ben Hilfenhaus, Andrew McDonald has the best FC record (but is prone to injury) and Glenn Maxwell is the only one of them who is a spinner. There will also be question marks over both Ben Hilfenhaus and Peter Siddle, and with so many other fast bowling options about, there surely will be a temptation to debut the 20 year old fast bowler who averages 20 in FC cricket, the son of the great Craig McDermott, Alistair McDermott. McDermott isn't the only other option either, as there will surely be a temptation to play the in-form left armer Doug Bollinger, and someone with a very good record against South Africa, Mitchell Johnson, will also be someone to consider - as he is in some kind of form of late. Clint McKay has a superb domestic and international record - bar one test match - and deserves the chance to improve his stats too.

The biggest mistake the Australian selectors could make is to name an unchanged 11 for the 2nd test. They have to recognise that they were lucky to escape from the draw, and, if it weren't for rain plus Duminy's injury, as well as a lot of luck for Michael Clarke especially, but also Ed Cowan, they could have lost by an innings. There are many options for who could be chosen but they have to realise that they need to be playing their best players, not just players with good reputations. Siddle and Hilfenhaus are England condition specialists - they don't tend to do very well in Australia - so don't pick them while playing in Australia! They are also somewhat out of form.

South Africa's biggest decision will be what to do with JP Duminy. But they will also have to decide what to do with the 4th bowling option. Surely Imran Tahir will play; but if not, then who? I don't think that they can risk Rory Kleinfeldt again. The form of Vernon Philander will be a worry too. While Philander is unlikely to be dumped, they do need to do something about his poor performance. He bowled no balls galore and was generally terrible - not even looking like getting a wicket.

Adelaide typically ends up with a draw and teams often play 5 specialist bowlers, in trying for the win. It is often a ground where all-rounders thrive, and where you may want to consider playing 2 all-rounders in the same team, instead of 5 bowlers. South Africa have Kallis but could consider a 2nd all-rounder as well - in place of Duminy. Australia may consider playing perhaps Christian and Faulkner.

There will be a lot of decisions to make, and the selections for the 2nd test will be critical in deciding the outcome.

The worst thing that the Australian selectors could do is to go in with an unchanged eleven. But, traditionally, that is what they do after a win.

Read More

The Best Aussie eleven for Brisbane Test

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) November 7, 2012: The first Test match of Australian summer is just around the corner as the Aussie cricketers will take on high-flying Proteas at Brisbane from November 9 (Friday).

-->

TheSportsNEXT.com’s Australian cricket blogger Adrian Meredith has some interesting points to make. Let’s check’em out!

Here are the best batsmen in Australia, in order:

1) Michael Hussey:

There is no need to look at his domestic record because he rarely plays domestically but internationally he has been doing incredibly well. He has done well in all 3 international formats, and is comfortably Australia's best test batsman. He averages over 50 in test cricket and is just a rock, a solid rock to depend on. While he has always played as an opening batsmen, in tests he tends to bat best at number 6, marshalling the tail, though he can cope at number 5 too.

2) Ricky Ponting:

It may surprise some to see that I currently rate Ponting as the 2nd best - after all, he has been quite terrible in tests for a good 3 or 4 years now, with only a few good periods. However, in domestic matches in the past year or so he has been phenomenal, in all 3 formats, doing better the longer the format is, and this season has averaged over 100 in first class cricket. If he had been dropped, as he almost was a year or so ago, he would be making his way back into the team now, that is how well he is going.

3) Michael Clarke:

I have never really been a fan of Clarke; but he is a player who plays above himself, who has done a lot better at international level than he has at domestic level. A man for the big occasion. He still averages around about 50 at test level and has done reasonably well in the past year or so. He might not be as good, or even capable of being as good, as either Ponting or Michael Hussey at their peaks, but he is still pretty good and a good player to have in the team right now. His occasional bowling can be useful too.

4) David Warner:

Until recently he was seen not only as a limited overs specialist but a T20 specialist; but he has modified his game so much that he is now a very good test player and not only has he done well in his handful of tests so far; but he has also done very well at FC level, showing very good technique. He looks like he will raise his current test record, not that it is terrible in the first place.

5) George Bailey:

He was also known as something of a limited overs specialist but since being named as T20 captain on his international debut, in spite of being in dubious form, he has done amazingly well, very Michael Clarke-ish by playing well and truly above himself. It is very notable that he has a higher ODI and T20 international record than his domestic records in those disciplines and, if he improves on his already decent 42 in FC cricket, he could well have the same kinds of statistics as Michael Clarke does. It surprises me somewhat that he wasn't in the squad to start with, in place of Ed Cowan, but even moreso that he wasn't picked ahead of Quiney.

All being fit, which they are, these should be the top 5 for Australia. I will, however, name the next 5 best for the purposes of showing who should be the backup players.

6) David Hussey:

Oh sure he is 35 years of age, but he is still Michael Hussey's YOUNGER brother, and Michael is Australia's best batsman! David has been in dubious form of late, so bad that he was dropped from the ODI and T20 teams; but has also had a few good innings lately, and his FC average of more than 50 can't be ignored, or at least it shouldn't be being ignored.

7) Usman Khawaja:

I felt that his debut 2 years ago was somewhat premature; but it can't be denied that he is a talent who is test quality. He didn't do particularly well in the tests that he played in but he wasn't horrible either - and did do better than Ed Cowan has been going. The fact that he is a much better player than Cowan, and much younger, means that he probably should be in the team ahead of him, and certainly ahead of Quiney.

8) Joe Burns:

If you were going to pick one player out of obscurity, this is the player you would pick. Averaging 42 at just 21 years of age, he has done everything right in his 2 seasons of FC cricket. He probably isn't really ready for test cricket; but if you were going to pick someone who is untested, someone who hasn't gone through all of the build up that the likes of Bailey, Hussey and Khawaja have, Joe Burns is your man.

9) Chris Rogers:

Rogers is suffering from some injuries of late but he is still a pretty darn good player who averages around 50 in FC cricket. He is a bit older but it is a bit unfair to refuse to consider him just because of age, especially when there are others in the team who are older.

10) Steve Smith:

He did very well in his first few international appearances, then appeared in some tests apparently just as a cheerleader, did his job well, and then was promptly dumped. In spite of some very good form since then, and a very positive mindset, he has apparently been written off, at least for the moment. It seems to be something of a strange thing.

Now, on to the all-rounders. We can either have 0, 1 or 2, depending on if we want to go with 6-1-4 or 5-1-1-4 or 5-2-1-3 line ups. Australia rarely play 2 all-rounders, though was a time when Steve Waugh and Greg Matthews played alongside each other, not to mention Marcus North and Andrew McDonald playing together recently. Even Shane Watson and Andrew Symonds briefly played together.

1) Shane Watson:

Probably Australia's most valuable player, he is the best all-rounder that Australia has ever produced. He may be a way behind the best ever to play the game for any country, and his figures may look a lot better in ODIs and T20s, but he is still a very good player. His batting is better than Cowan's or Quiney's while his bowling is good enough that he has taken a 5 wicket innings at Lord's, and while he doesn't always bowl when he does he can be amazing. The only problem is his constant injuries.

2) Dan Christian:

About 4 years ago a rich vein of form came across Dan Christian and he was rewarded, after 2 years of such amazing form, with a T20 call up, then an ODI call up, and he did incredibly well. He has alternated between being a batsman who rescues the innings or a bowler who bowls them to victory; but he certainly has a winning feel about him. As a batsman he is very consistent, while as a bowler he is quite unpredictable, playing a similar role to how Watson plays. While his batting average is worse than Watson's - as is his strike rate - and his bowling is worse, he is in a similar mold. He was supposed to be the next all-rounder to play if Watson was ever out. Yet, somehow or other, he has been skipped over by picking a batsman. His bowling could have been very useful in Brisbane, with very different bowling to what South Africa are used to.

3) James Faulkner:

The biggest problem for Faulkner is that he is yet to play internationally. His FC bowling record is as good as most of the full time bowlers, and his batting record is decent too. But could he handle the pressure of the big time? He is very young and it wouldn't be ridiculous for him to jump over Christian - except that it is probably too soon to pick him. If they were going to have a left field all-rounder called up, he would be the one to pick.

4) Andrew McDonald:

He made his test debut against South Africa the last time that they played each other, played the whole 3 test series, alongside Marcus North, did very well, and then was dumped while North was retained, which even at the time seemed like a bad decision. Since then, McDonald has been in phenomenal form, at least when he wasn't getting injured. But his constant injuries would be a problem.

5) Mitchell Marsh:

He has done so well at domestic level and at international level, winning games that seemed unwinnable; but he probably wouldn't be considered because of disciplinary reasons. He is a player that you want in any side though so not the worst choice.

6) Glenn Maxwell:

Maxwell has good FC numbers, though he has barely played at that level and the big problem for him is that in his international matches so far his bowling has been horrendous. He isn't a good enough batsman to play purely as a batsman and his bowling has been shown to be, at international level, not good enough for him to be considered to be an all-rounder. Nonetheless, if his bowling can be as good as the numbers suggest that are, perhaps he could be good.

Now for the wicket keepers:

1) Matthew Wade

When he started his FC career he was actually behind Tim Paine, as Tasmania had dumped their regular keeper in favour of Paine because Paine batted better - even though the guy Paine replaced was a better keeper; so when Wade came through Tasmania simply weren't interested in a pure keeper. Wade moved to Victoria, where he soon replaced Crosthwaite, who, like Paine, was more of a batsman than a keeper. But, just to be sure, Wade worked on his batting too. Soon Wade was the 2nd best keeper in the country behind Chris Hartley but in the past couple of years he has overtaken Hartley. Wade was still behind Paine and Haddin as a batsman - and probably Luke Ronchi too - but in recent times he has caught up to them with batting too. There is now no doubt that Wade is the top keeper in every way. He has also shown himself at international level, in all 3 formats, winning matches that otherwise would have been lost. He may not yet be close to as good as Gilchrist, and perhaps he never will be, but he is at least comparable to Ian Healy or Rod Marsh, who were very good keepers.

2) Peter Nevill

Poor Brad Haddin is now no longer even the best keeper in his state, as Peter Nevill came from out of nowhere in the past 2 years to go past Dan Smith to be New South Wales's 2nd keeper, behind Haddin. And, with runs galore, and great dismissals, he is realistically quite a distance above Haddin too. He might not strike quite as well as Haddin but Nevill's rise now means that this will probably be Haddin's last season, as Nevill looks set to replace him. Nevill also looks set to be the back up for Wade.

3) Chris Hartley

As at when Adam Gilchrist retired, Hartley was comfortably Australia's best keeper; but unfortunately the selectors were more interested in getting a good batsman than a good keeper; so went with Brad Haddin. Since then, about 3 or 4 years ago Matthew Wade went past Hartley and now, in the past year or so, so too has Nevill. Hartley will probably never play for Australia now, in spite of working on his batting. But Hartley has never improved his batting enough to be considered, and now it looks all over. Still a mighty fine keeper though.

As a side note, Peter Nevill's batting is probably close to good enough to make it into the Australian test side purely as a batsman, though that would send the wrong message to Matthew Wade. Brad Haddin isn't far off being good enough to play purely as a batsman too, at least in ODIs and T20s. Tim Paine is a bit too slow to play purely as a batsman in ODIs or T20s and isn't good enough to play purely as a batsman in tests.

Fast bowlers:

1) Ryan Harris

Clearly Australia's best bowler, the only issue is fitness. Unfortunately, right now he is out injured so others have to replace him.

2) Justin Pattinson

He has done very well in his few tests so far, and has also batted well. He has avoided injury and simply done everything right. He may not maintain his test bowling average of 18 but for now it is very impressive.

3) Doug Bollinger

Yeah yeah so he hit the wall, whatever. He is still an amazing bowler in fantastic form who the selectors shouldn't be ignoring.

4) Mitchell Starc

I am very reluctant to ignore a bowler just because he has a better limited overs average than a FC record, as good bowlers tend to get good figures, overall, in both. Starc looks like a very good bowler and is someone I would have in every team.

Those are the four I would pick if I was going in with all pace. Of course, Harris is out injured and the selectors hate Bollinger, so we have to expand the net somewhat.

5) Clint McKay

What a fantastic bowler he is, with guile and skill and accuracy, he can do anything. He has done fantastically well domestically in all 3 formats and internationally he has been amazing in 2 formats - but then got bad figures in 1 and only 1 test - in spite of bowling well - and now it seems that he will never play another test. More than a little unfair, as he is quite fantastic.

6) Alistair McDermott

I know he is yet to make his international debut but he is tearing up the domestic circuit and if you were going to pluck someone from obscurity, he is the one you would go with. A very good bowler!

7) Mitchell Johnson

Still a very, very good bowler, who is in good enough form, he has that intimidation factor and is someone I would always be thinking of, even if I didn't always pick him. I'd certainly pick him for Brisbane though, in conditions that suit him.

8) John Hastings

A very good bowler who did almost as well as McKay in his limited international matches before getting injured, he is yet to play a test and looks like a very good option.

Note that I didn't pick either Pat Cummins, Ben Hilfenhaus, Peter Siddle or Josh Hazlewood. They aren't particularly terrible bowlers; but I don't rate them in the top 8. Hilfenhaus is good in England and Siddle probably is too but I'd just rather someone who was more of a powerhouse. Pat Cummins had one good test, and otherwise hasn't got too much behind him, while Hazlewood really has a way to go before he is good enough in my books, though he isn't the worst bowler in the world.

Spin bowlers:

1) Nathan Lyon:

There is really no doubt that Lyon is Australia's best spin bowler. He has control and has done pretty much everything right. Oh sure so he isn't as good as spinners from other countries but he still isn't too bad. Should only play on spinning tracks though.

2) Nathan Hauritz:

I don't know what happened to him but he was doing very well for Australia then was dumped for Doherty, only to have fantastic form and be totally ignored. Why? Did he get upset with a selector? Anyway, I still rate him pretty highly, just the same.

3) Steve O'Keefe:

A very good left armer who has skill and guile and has basically been ignored, while continuing to do very well domestically, and he can bat a bit better than most of the others too. He did well in his few T20 internationals too, so why he wasn't considered for longer formats is anybody's guess.

4) Xavier Doherty:

Had a horror start to his domestic career but has improved significantly in the past few years and has done well enough in international matches too, though he had a horror 2 tests when he played at that level, meaning that he may never be considered in that format again. Spins the ball an absolute mile but lacks the kind of trickery really needed from a spinner.

So, given that Ryan Harris and Shane Watson are out injured, my team, depending on balance, would be:

David Warner

Michael Hussey

Ricky Ponting

Michael Clarke

George Bailey

David Hussey / Dan Christian

Matthew Wade

Clint McKay / James Faulkner

Justin Pattinson

Mitchell Starc

Doug Bollinger / Nathan Lyon

This allows for either 6 batsmen/1 keeper/4 bowlers or 5 batsmen/1 all rounder/1 keeper/4 bowlers or 5 batsmen/2 all rounders/1 keeper/3 bowlers and with the flexibility of playing a spinner. Of course, it might be that they decide to open with Michael Clarke instead of Michael Hussey, or with someone else again.

Michael Hussey has always opened throughout his first class career, and has even opened in a test match once; so would be the obvious choice; but he is so valued down the order that the selectors and the team may not want it.

The team that they selected for the 1st test is nowhere near as good as my team (above). Even if they had gone for the 7th and 8th best batsmen in Khawaja and Joe Burns, or gone in with the 4th best all-rounder in McDonald, it is still a good team. While I don't like Siddle and Hilfenhaus in the team - or Lyon in the squad as I don't want a spinner at Brisbane - more of a worry is the inclusion of Cowan and Quiney.

While I can understand picking a player due to good recent form, the good recent form should be a bit better than averaging 43 in the past 12 months. It should be like Alex Doolan and Ricky Ponting averaging 100 this year, or Liam Davis averaging close to 60 last year. Mid 40s as an overall FC average shouldn't be good enough for test selection - let alone if that is in the past 12 months only and is an improvement on the overall record.

Read More

Who should replace Shane Watson and Ricky Ponting?

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) November 4, 2012: Ricky Ponting is a risk of missing the first Test against South Africa due to injury - enough of a worry that he came off early in the most recent Sheffield Shield game.

Shane Watson, in comparison, has complained of a slight niggle - and is now at a huge risk of missing the 1st test - or if he does play, it could be purely as a batsman.

Before going into who will replace them, let's look at some facts about each:

Ricky Ponting:

Averages 52 in test cricket, only behind Michael Hussey in the current Australian team.

Has scored more test runs than anyone else in Australian history, and is behind only Sachin Tendulkar, in the world.

Has done very poorly in tests in the past 5 years or so, other than a few big scores recently that just barely means he is in the squad.

Has been dropped from both ODIs and T20s - permanently.

Is in fantastic form domestically in the past year, including a match winning score of 160 not out - and is averaging 100 in the current season.

Shane Watson:

Is Australia's best ever all-rounder in test cricket, ahead of Richie Benaud, Allan Davidson and Keith Miller

Is ranked 2nd, only behind Jacques Kallis, as the best all-rounder in tests in the world.

Is comfortably the best all-rounder in the world in both ODIs and T20s.

Won 4 man of the match awards in a row to start the World T20.

Breaks down with injury regularly, especially when bowling, especially in tests.

As a batsman, still averages almost 40, which is still ahead of Ed Cowan, who replaced him as opener.

Given this, we have a few points that should be accepted as true:

·  There is nobody on the sidelines who is a better player in better form than either Ricky Ponting or Shane Watson.

·  If Ricky Ponting can bat at all, he should play.

·  If Shane Watson plays purely as a batsman, he is still a better option than Ed Cowan - and in that case probably Cowan should be dropped and we play an all-rounder.

Batsmen in contention to replace Ricky Ponting:

David Hussey is the obvious choice, averaging 54 in first class cricket. His form seemed to be poor but then he just scored an even 100 in an ODI game last week - off a mere 75 balls. His recent FC form is poor but his class is good. His bowling probably isn't test level but it is a different kind of bowling and could provide relief for the fast men.

George Baileylooked the man most likely, averages just over 40 in first class cricket and has been maturing in his role as T20 captain and now a regular in the ODI side, playing above himself.

Usman Khawaja is a bit of a long shot but, unlike the other 2, he has played test cricket. He averaged only 29 from his 6 tests - but that is still better than Ed Cowan! And his FC average is better, at 42. He is in some kind of form - though nothing too exciting. It would probably be seen as too big a risk and a bit too much of a bolt from the blue to be likely - but they were going to put Peter Forrest into the test side last year and very nearly did!

All-rounders in contention to replace Shane Watson (or to replace Ed Cowan if Watson plays purely as a batsman):

Dan Christianlooks the man most likely, who has very nearly made his test debut about 10 times already in the past 2 years, and is still in fantastic form. He only averages 30 in FC cricket with the bat, and his bowling average is 34; but he is in really good form and has proved himself in both ODI and T20 level internationally. His bowling style is different and in the right conditions could be very hard to get away.

Mitchell Marshonly averages 21 with the bat in FC matches but averages 27 with the ball, and is a very tricky opponent. His bowling is significantly better than Christian's and he is borderline good enough for test level purely as a bowler; but he can bat in the top 6 and can be good. The problem is that his batting is a bit inconsistent and, with the recent headlines about his partying, he lacks discipline and probably isn't ready for test level yet. With the Australian selectors traditionally favouring discipline ahead of talent, it is unlikely that Mitch will get the nod. He is in form though.

Glenn Maxwell has come from out of nowhere to be in contention. He averages 45 with the bat and 38 with the ball in his 12 first class matches - the only one of the 3 who average better with the bat than the ball. He is also a spinner, unlike the other 2, meaning that they could then happily go in with all pace and have his spin as backup. Unfortunately, as proven in his ODI and T20 games, his bowling just isn't international quality, and his batting is somewhat erratic and inconsistent.

For me, I think that Ponting will ultimately play and that they will play Shane Watson purely as a batsman. They may drop Ed Cowan so that they can have an all-rounder, and if they do, I think that Dan Christian will play. But I think it would be a bit mean to do that and I can't see the selectors doing it.

Read More

Australia vs South Africa: 1st Test Preview

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) October 31, 2012: The teams have not been announced yet but we have a fair idea how they are going to go.

Team news:

Australia are expected to go with a spinner in Lyon and it is a choice of the in-form Mitchell Starc, who just got player of the tournament in the CLT20, but who is more well known as a limited overs bowler, or Ben Hilfenhaus, who is out of form, but is more well known as a first class specialist. Another factor is that Starc is left armed, which would add much needed variety, while Hilfenhaus is experienced, and with Siddle the only other bowler with more than 20 tests behind him, they may look for a 2nd experienced head.

South Africa still have 15 players to choose from but for them it seems likely that they will go in with a spinner, and their 3 pace bowlers - Morne Morkel, Dale Steyn and Vernon Philander - basically pick themselves. South Africa largely have a choice of Robin Petersen or Imran Tahir, as spinners. While Tahir has a great FC record and is something of an unknown to Australia, his test bowling average of 40 leaves a lot to be desired, while Robin Petersen adds batting depth but has a pretty ordinary record. They could yet go with all pace with Rory Kleinveldt in the squad, but when you have 3 pacers of the quality and form of Morkel, Steyn and Philander, it seems like it isn't really needed. In the batting stakes, they will probably go with JP Duminy, in spite of an ordinary record, largely because he did so well in Australia last time - but Jacques Rudolph may yet be fighting for his spot against Faf du Plessis - though ultimately Faf is more known as a limited overs specialist and the experience of Rudolph will probably win through. With AB de Villiers still under an injury cloud, there is the chance that he will be replaced, at least as keeper, by Tsolekile, either missing out entirely, or else de Villiers playing as a specialist batsman and probably Rudolph missing out.

Pitch and conditions:

Brisbane in times past was mostly for pace but had a "bit in it for everyone", with quality spinners able to extract something from it; but in recent times it has started to resemble the WACA more and more and is becoming a pace bowler's paradise. Perhaps that is more to do with the lack of quality spinners in the Australian domestic line up but the temptation would be huge to go in with all pace. South Africa have less of a worry as they will be confident that their top 3 will do enough pace between them not to need a 4th bowler, and they can play a spinner, even a poor one, just for the sake of variety - but it will be more of a worry for Australia, who don't have that quality. Australia's strength in fast bowling at the moment is their depth, and if they only have 3 fast bowlers then they lose that depth. Nathan Lyon did do well on this ground last year but whether that was a fluke or is something that is likely to be repeated is a big question marks. It certainly is going to be tough to bat on - especially against the fast men - and a draw looks very unlikely.

Players to watch for:

Ricky Ponting is back in rip roaring form, having just scored 160 not out in a FC match, and that was in amongst a rich vein of form. The question is whether he can translate that to test cricket. If he can, and can get anywhere near his best, then it could make a huge difference, not just to his ability to stay in the side but to Australia's chances of victory. Of the batsmen in the Australian team, he is probably in the best form of anyone, and, given that he is the 2nd best batsman in Australian history, that is very important indeed.

Matthew Wade will be under huge pressure after an avalanche of talk about whether or not he would keep his place in the team, in comparison to the last keeper, Brad Haddin. He deserves his spot but will be feeling a lot of pressure if he has paid even the slightest attention to media reports - not the least the comments by captain Michael Clarke and vice captain Shane Watson - both claiming that they preferred Haddin. Wade could respond to this by going into his shell, missing lots of chances, letting byes go through and batting terribly. Or he could come out firing. He was the only century maker in the recent test series in West Indies and is in some pretty good form; but it is a question of how he responds to this kind of pressure, and whether he can win over the Australian public.

Shane Watson is in unbelievable form in all formats, but especially in the shortest format, bowling amazingly well and batting ridiculously well. The question mark isn't whether he can translate this into test matches so much as if he can avoid getting injured. He needs a century to get his confidence up and if he can, and if he can avoid injury, he could be the difference between the two sides. But if he gets injured, especially if it is early in the match, then it could cost the team.

Vernon Philander is in amazing form, taking an absurd 63 wickets in his first 10 tests at a bowling average of 15.96! And he is listed as an all-rounder! It is the kind of form that surely can't be maintained but who knows when the bubble will burst? He is now considered a test match specialist, and his first class bowling average of 19.50 - compared to 30+ in ODI and T20 - suggests that maybe he is. Why is he so great at the long formats of the game yet so terrible at the shorter formats is anybody's guess. How someone listed as an all-rounder can be the best bowler in the world is another question again. But right now he has an air of immortality about him. If that is shattered, then it could fall apart in a heap. But if it can be maintained, let alone if it is strengthened, then it makes South Africa very, very hard to beat.

Dale Steyn was the number 1 bowler in the world, and by quite a margin after Murali retired. He has been so good for so long that many people forgot about him - but he just keeps on performing. Even when he doesn't seem to be doing much he still chips in with 1 or 2 wickets, or a sneaky 3 or 4 - then when in form he can take 5, 6, 7 or more. Such an accurate fast bowler he is always at you and he is developing that real intimidation factor. With Philander coming through he is taking a back seat somewhat but he should not be ignored. Even if Philander falls apart, Steyn is still good enough to win it by himself.

Hashim Amla was incredibly unlucky not to win the ICC player of the year award - and he probably would have if he hadn't missed half the year through injury. He is just about unstoppable in all 3 formats and his only competitors right now are Philander, Virat Kohli and Saeed Ajmal. He is such a great player. If he does fail, it is rare, and usually he still manages a sneaky 20 or 30 even when failing. But he can bat forever, can lift the side out of any kind of disaster, can bat quickly or slowly - the guy can do anything. He is a real game changer.

CONCLUSION:

The team line ups look quite similar. Australia's great weakness looks to be Ed Cowan - though Nathan Lyon could prove to be a huge weakness if he plays too - as could Hilfenhaus if he makes the cut. But South Africa have de Villiers, Rudolph and whoever they choose as a spinner as their weak points - not to mention that Smith is somewhat out of form too. South Africa have a better top 3 bowlers - but not by as much as you might think, as James Pattinson averages 18 in test cricket and isn't so far behind Philander, while Mitchell Starc (if he plays) isn't far behind - though he hasn't translated that into tests as yet. Australia probably have a stronger batting line up than South Africa - in spite of Cowan - but South Africa's bowling is overall ahead, especially if, heaven forbid, Starc misses out. There isn't much in it in either sense and even the wicket keeping is fairly tight, with A B de Villiers not far behind Wade purely as a keeper, but quite a distance ahead as a batsman. I still think that Quinton de Kock should be playing as the keeper!

At the end of the day this is in Brisbane, where Australia never lose. But this South African side don't care all that much about that kind of thing, and they could well defy the odds and do it.

It looks unlikely to be a draw - unless rain intervenes - but which way it will swing is anybody's guess.

I have South Africa ahead - just. But so many tiny things could happen to give it to Australia.

Certainly, Australia will have to be at their absolute best to win - and at least 2 or 3 players will have to play out of their skin to get them over the line.

And if South Africa are the team to bat out of their skins then they could do it instead.

But in a tight contest I have to go for my own country, and go for Australia. I am not very confident though!

Read More