By Adrian Meredith
MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 5, 2012: The high-profile Test series between the two best Test teams in the world, Australia and South Africa, has just concluded with Proteas winning the three-match series 1-0 as they won the Perth Test by 309 runs.
TheSportsNEXT.com’s cricket analyst Adrian Meredith has given marks to all the players from both sides on the basis of their performances.
9.5 - Michael Clarke (576 runs at 144.00, 7 catches) - Double centuries in each of the first two tests was the difference between Australia losing and drawing in the first and an obvious draw and a probable Australian victory in the second. He finished with some 200 runs more than anyone else in the series and his average was higher than anyone else bar Faf du Plessis - who was out just twice with two not outs. The only possible fault is that he was unable to get that win that was so needed in the second test, failing to use the bowlers properly, and also in the third test when a spectacular batting collapse - that he was a part of - put South Africa into a winning position, when before that they were losing badly. Deservedly the player of the series, he will be incredibly annoyed that South Africa ended up winning the series 1-0 in a series that Australia were ahead in for most of the series.
9.5 - Faf du Plessis (293 runs at 146.50) - You could say that he benefited from two not outs, and even had a failure in his fourth innings, but it isn't just the runs that matter but the way that he scored them. In his first innings, he top scored, then in the second he not only scored an unbeaten century to also top score but batted for the best part of two days to make sure of an unlikely draw. He didn't do quite as well in the second test but still did enough to help South Africa along to a victory. It is very picky to fault him for failing in the 2nd innings of the 2nd test, especially when South Africa already had the game won by that stage. The only real fault was that he was expected to bowl a bit to cover JP Duminy - but his batting more than made up for it.
8 - Michael Hussey (295 runs at 59.00) - From the first innings, when he scored a run a ball century to first bring Australia back to level pegging and then to get them ahead until the very end, he fought hard for his runs. In the Australian team it was him + Clarke doing most of the work and when both failed in the first innings of the third test, Australia fell apart. He may be 37 years of age but he is still Australia's best batsmen and the selectors won't let him retire.
8 - AB de Villiers (276 runs at 55.20, 8 catches, 1 stumping) - It might not look like much but A B de Villiers, when he scored that 33 in the second innings of the second test, was one of the best 33s you are likely to see, as he batted for almost an entire day, blocking everything and destroying the will of the Australian bowlers - so much so that they were unable to bowl in the third test. He capitalised with an easy century in the third test to set up the victory - his first century as a wicket keeper in test cricket since taking over from Boucher - and is showing that there is a chance that he will get to keep the gloves, rather than giving them to the young Quinton de Kock. de Kock may have to come in purely as a batsman and wait for de Villiers to retire now.
8 - Morne Morkel (14 wickets at 28.50) - The best bowler on display for either side, Morne was supposed to be the worst of the 3 South African fast bowlers but instead was the best. While Steyn was erratic and Philander hopeless - not to mention Kleinveldt and especially not mentioning Tahir - Morne just kept taking wickets. He had variety, he had depth, he had everything.
7.5 - Jacques Kallis (339 runs at 56.50, 2 wickets at 24.50, 5 catches) - He was superb in the second test, first taking two quick wickets to crush Australia, then injuring himself, and coming out to bat twice to score valuable runs to help South Africa to draw it, making sure that his injury didn't cost them much. He then came back in the third and was mature and excellent. His seniority, level headedness and determination was invaluable.
7.5 - Mitchell Starc (68 runs without being dismissed, 8 wickets at 26.12) - The calls for him to play in both the first two tests reached fever pitch when his absence almost certainly cost Australia any chance of winning the second test, after Pattinson was injured, and as a result he played in the third, was the highest wicket taker, taking 2 quick wickets in the first innings and coming back for 6 in the second to be clearly the best bowler on display. When all was lost, he then showed his batting skill, smashing 68 runs in no time flat - at a T20 strike rate of 143 - and wasn't dismissed in either innings. His performance in the third test once again showed that the Australian selectors were, once again, largely responsible for Australia's failures in this test series, as they left out their best bowler, an unforgivable act. Hopefully now Starc will not be left out again.
7 - Mitchell Johnson (6 wickets at 27.33, 4 catches) - He came back brilliantly after such a long time out of the side, and in South Africa's second innings was involved in virtually every dismissal, taking 4 catches to go with his 4 wickets. He had heart, he had intimidation, and he had accuracy. He wasn't quite as good as he was last time he played at the WACA - but it is hard for him to get much better either. A very good performance and he showed that he should have been considered as the "experienced bowler" ahead of both Siddle and Hilfenhaus for the first and second tests as well.
6 - Robin Peterson (6 wickets at 28.50) - He was considered to be the second best spinner on the tour, behind Imran Tahir, but after Tahir bombed out in the second test in helpful conditions, South Africa surprised a little by picking him - perhaps because their only other alternative was the misfiring Kleinveldt. While the conditions weren't helpful, and he wasn't the most damaging of the bowlers, he nonetheless took a lot more wickets than he was expected to. Perhaps he benefited from the work done by other bowlers but nonetheless he had good figures, even if they are perhaps a bit flattering.
6 - Matthew Wade (121 runs at 30.25, 8 catches, 1 stumping) - Wade lost the wicket keeping battle in terms of runs but still managed to stay on par with de Villiers in terms of dismissals - both finishing with 9 - and had a tidy display behind the stumps. While some of his batting was pretty poor, in the first innings of the third test, he was the only batsman that played the conditions properly, and gave some hope for Australia to still win it. He is still a bit inconsistent with the bat but he is showing that potential that he could be something very special, and in tough conditions he did very well here.
6 - James Pattinson (5 wickets at 38.40) - The figures don't look that great but he was comfortably Australia's best bowler in the first test before breaking down in the second. While Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Lyon were all hopeless, Pattinson was actually taking wickets. Ultimately, it was all too much for one young bowler, and I have to wonder if Starc had been in the side - let alone Johnson - he wouldn't have got his injury. Just the same, by becoming injured so early in the 2nd test, he cost the side any chance of victory. They still should have won, but had he stayed fit, it would have made certain of it. Sadly, he is out for the summer now, and, along with Pat Cummins, there will be real question marks over his ability to stay fit.
5 - Graeme Smith (255 runs at 42.50, 10 catches) - He defied the critics with a century in the first test, but then failed in every other innings for a somewhat disappointing series. His captaincy was good and helped to keep South Africa in the series but he will want to improve on his batting, as he led South Africa into a path of destruction far too often. Still not the worst series though.
5 - Hashim Amla (377 runs at 62.83) - Take out his final innings of 196 and he scored just 181 runs at 36.2, somewhat highlighting why he is being given such a poor rating. He failed in the first test, was ordinary in the second, and continued to be ordinary in the first innings of the 3rd test. Then, somehow, South Africa learned how to play at the WACA, seemingly overnight, as he realised that the only way to play on that ground is to attack - which is what he did with great success. If it weren't for that innings, he would have scored a 2 or 3, but he gets lifted up to a 5 for the series, and ends up with a nice little average for what was overall a pretty disappointing series for him.
4 - David Warner (206 runs at 41.20) - The figures look nice, but, other than a run a ball century in the second test, he didn't do an awful lot. He looked dangerous every time he was out there, a bit like Sehwag or Gayle, but he was too easy to out think and fell cheaply far too often.
4 - Dale Steyn (12 wickets at 30.83) - For a bowler ranked as the best bowler in the world, this was a horrible series for Steyn, as he was wayward, easily dealt with, and far below Morne Morkel. He did well while Australia were in panic mode in the first innings of the third test, which boosted his average for the series, but otherwise this was pretty disappointing for him. He lost that fear factor about him and the Australian batsmen were more worried about Morkel than Steyn.
4 - Ed Cowan (228 runs at 45.60) - Like Warner, Cowan scored a century and not much else. Unlike Warner, Cowan was scoring at closer to a run every two balls. Other than for his surprising century, Cowan looked out of his depth and he surely doesn't belong at test level. Sadly for Australian cricket fans, that century means that he won't be dumped in a hurry, and will probably play for the entire next test series, giving cheap wickets to opposition bowlers.
4 - Nathan Lyon (12 wickets at 40.50) - He actually finished as the leading wicket taker for Australia, in spite of twice bowling on pace friendly conditions, at Brisbane and Perth, when most people would have thought that Australia should have gone in with 4 fast bowlers - especially considering how talented the fast bowlers are in Australia. He did better than his overall FC record this season, which is a plus, and on occasion actually bowled well; but for the most part he was carted all around and was no threat. Sadly, with the selectors insisting on playing 2 experienced bowlers in Siddle and Hilfenhaus, he didn't have a lot of competition.
3 - Shane Watson (35 runs at 17.50, 1 wicket at 46.00) - Not the best return, but one hell of a lot better than Rob Quiney, and he added that extra genuine bowling option, as well as just adding that genuine all rounder. He didn't deliver this time around but he looked very dangerous and South Africa were clearly wary of him, both with batting and bowling.
3 - Alviro Petersen (200 runs at 33.33, 1 catch) - He ranged from bad to awful, and was very lucky that he wasn't facing Australia's best bowlers - instead only up against Hilfenhaus and Siddle. Why he is in the South African set up is anybody's guess as the guy is clearly a long way below test level. South Africa have so many much better options than him.
2.5 - Peter Siddle (9 wickets at 38.00) - He has heart. He can bowl forever. All great if trying was an important factor in test cricket. The problem is that it is all about skill and the ability to turn that skill into results. Peter Siddle doesn't have either of these. He might be okay bowling for a weaker side but right now he is outside of the top 10 best fast bowlers in Australia and should not have been considered. He bowled terribly all series long, shocking batsmen with that odd decent ball, that a couple of times took wickets, simply because the South African batsmen didn't take him seriously. He was included because the selectors were afraid to have too many inexperienced youngsters. But his inclusion was a large part of what cost Australia the series. The difference in quality between the attack in Perth and that shown in the first two tests was huge.
2 - Ben Hilfenhaus (6 wickets at 35.50) - He was economical and helped other bowlers to take wickets. That is always a good thing. The problem is that the only bowler good enough to take wickets was James Pattinson, who was doing it all alone. Hilfenhaus might be useful if the other 3 were all quality bowlers, but when you have Siddle and Lyon as 2 of the 3, simply being economical isn't good enough. The guy should not have been in the mix for this series, and it is shameful that he was given two tests.
1 - John Hastings (1 wicket at 153.00, 52 runs at 26.00) - He looked to be bowling quite well but after an early breakthrough he didn't manage another as other bowlers took wickets and when South Africa were going berserk, he, like everyone else, couldn't get a breakthrough. He batted quite well, it must be said, but unfortunately he was mainly there as a bowler. Like Clint McKay, he may now be considered to be a limited overs specialist. Given his poor ODI and T20 record, though, he may not be playing much more internationally in any format though.
1 - Vernon Philander (4 wickets at 49.75) - At least he took a couple of wickets in the third test, after being hopeless in the first test and then having a rest for the second (sorry, injured!) The guy looked a shadow of his former self and perhaps he will never return to that level. He was supposed to be one third of the best fast bowling trio in world cricket, but instead it became pretty much a one man band.
1 - Jacques Rudolph (74 runs at 18.50) - He was very lucky to last two tests, or indeed to be given the first test, and really seemed to be superfluous to requirements, as the frontline bowlers were batting better than he was. Luckily for Rudolph, his replacement, Dean Elgar, did worse; but unfortunately for him, when JP Duminy comes back, Rudolph will go, as, unlike Rudolph, Faf du Plessis is going to keep his place in the side.
0.5 - Rory Kleinveldt (4 wickets at 60.75, 1 catch) - He had one of the worst bowling debuts ever seen and then, after Philander pulled out on the morning of the second test, earned a surprise second test! He did slightly better but was still hopeless and surely will never play for South Africa again. He really looked out of his depth.
0.5 - Ricky Ponting (32 runs at 6.40) - He had his worst ever series at home, in spite of being in the form of his life domestically, and, along with Quiney's hopeless form and the inconsistency of the openers, left far too much to do for Clarke and Hussey and the tail. He retired at the right time, but perhaps should have retired after Matthew Hayden retired some 4 years earlier, as since then Ponting's heart hasn't been in the game.
0 - Rob Quiney (9 runs at 3.00) - Apparently his 9 off 10 balls in the first test was a "good 9". Nonsense. He was out trying to hit a 6 when the team was already in trouble after an early wicket. He did take a couple of good catches, but followed up his poor judgement in the first test with some outright terrible batting and, fingers crossed, will never play international cricket for Australia again. A poor choice to start with, there was no justification to keep him for the second test, and now, hopefully, that will be it.
0 - Imran Tahir (0 wickets, 260 runs) - It is rare that 2 players get a score of 0, but such was the difference between good and bad players in this series that we had this. Imran Tahir scored more runs than Quiney but nonetheless he was there as a bowler and he now owns the record for most runs conceded in a test without taking a wicket. Oh dear.
0 - Dean Elgar (0 runs at 0.00) - He had the perfect debut - in reverse - getting out for 0 in both innings - as did Rob Quiney - though at least Quiney had managed 9 runs in the previous match. You don't get much worse than this. Elgar was also supposed to be an all-rounder but didn't manage a wicket, and he capped off a trio of hopelessness, along with Quiney and Tahir, to highlight that this was the test series that selectors got wrong.
N/A - J P Duminy (did not bat, did not bowl, did not field) - He actually played in the first test, which, despite his returns, did not wash out and was not abandoned. JP Duminy was fit and healthy heading into the second day, after South Africa were still batting at the end of the day, but then injured himself during post-game practice! Oh dear! He couldn't bat, or bowl, and turned South Africa from a winning position to one where they were lucky to escape with a draw. Unlucky perhaps, but perhaps they should be more careful about how they are practising!
