Australia-South Africa Test Series: Top Performers

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!

Read More

The Problem With Home Ground Advantage

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) November 18, 2012: As we all know, in any sport, the home team has some kind of home ground advantage.

Some teams play better at home than others, and some teams play worse away than others; but all teams would rather play at home. This is fine. The rankings really should reflect that it is harder to win away than at home - rankings that allowed England to climb up the rankings based on playing 75% of their matches, in all 3 formats, in the past 3 years, at home, much more than any other team! But the greater problem is that sometimes the advantage of playing at home is so great that it makes it pointless to play.

Consider India, where they have slow and dusty pitches, in heat and humidity that suits people from the subcontinent. Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh can handle it, and it is really no huge disadvantage for them; but teams from outside of the subcontinent have no hope. They deliberately make pitches that suit their spinners - knowing that they can play spin a lot better than other teams. It makes it just about impossible for teams from outside of the subcontinent to win. Sri Lanka will win occasionally and Pakistan can win too; but of course Bangladesh isn't as good a team. But even the all-conquering Australia side couldn't win in India. They won once, that few even remember; but otherwise they couldn't. Such is the unfair advantage that India have at home.

England, until recently, had no clear home advantage. Conditions were similar to that in New Zealand, South Africa or Australia, and those teams found it quite easy to play. But when they modified their "home" ball, the Duke ball, to have greatly different properties, reverse swinging much earlier, bouncing a lot more, and doing all sorts of things that other balls simply don't do, all of a sudden it was verging on impossible to beat England. Of course, Pakistan managed it, because they are masters of reverse swing, and South Africa recently managed it too, by virtue of having 3 of the best fast bowlers in the world.

These two teams, India and England, with the biggest, and most unfair, dare I say "cheating" home advantages, are currently opposing each other. They did it recently, as a "battle for top spot". But the problem is that India lost every match, in every format, by huge margins, in England, while England lost every match, in every format, by huge margins, in India. They were all incredibly boring, very one sided matches. It was, essentially, a matter of "home team wins".

Home ground advantage is one thing but there has to be a limit. When a team is able to manufacture a ball to suit their bowlers, and another is able to manufacture pitches and conditions to suit theirs, it has to be considered to be cheating.

I am all for variety in conditions; but there has to be a limit. We have neutral umpires; so why not have neutral groundsmen too? Or at least have a neutral groundsman observing conditions for international matches, to make sure that they are fair. And as for a Duke ball that is very different to every other kind of ball - in my opinion it should be banned. I see no reason why there is a need to have different balls in different countries. It is clear that the Duke ball, at least the current variation of it, is not a fair ball. Other teams shouldn't have to all practice with different balls in their domestic competitions to undo this unfair advantage.

Alternatively, of course, we can just have neutral venues for ALL INTERNATIONAL MATCHES. That would make it fair; but the problem is that then spectators would lose interest - all but the most die hard supporters, of course.

So India and England in particular, you guys are on notice. You guys are effectively cheating, ensuring that you win all matches at home, and it is unfair, and it is not good for spectators. So stop it!

As for other teams with home ground advantage, New Zealand has a cold and windy climate that suits extra slow bowlers - who they happen to have a lot of. Australia have at least a couple of extra bouncy pitches - though South Africa, New Zealand, England and Pakistan do too. Sri Lanka have some kind of advantage too, though it is nowhere near as much as India has. Bangladesh have an advantage too, they just don't take advantage of it. Pakistan don't play at home at the moment; but it wouldn't really matter if they did, as they have one of the smallest home ground advantages of any team. West Indies used to have a home ground advantage, with pitches and conditions that suit fast bowlers - but not because they bounce - rather because they slide into the batsmen, hurrying them up a bit - though nowadays that advantage is limited as their players aren't so great.

There are two teams that clearly stand out as cheating in terms of home ground advantage. In my opinion the worst is England but India aren't far behind. These two teams should be forced to stop their cheating home ground advantage and, to be blunt, play fair.

Read More

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

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

Australia vs South Africa: Brisbane Test Day 4 Review

A Draw is looming at Gabba in Aus-SA 1st Test

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) November 13, 2012: I have to amend my Day 3 review by saying that Ed Cowan was almost out, caught behind off Morne Morkel, in the second last over of the day! For some reason I missed that. He was originally given not out; but the South Africans were sure that he was out and reviewed it.

Given how rarely South Africans review decisions, we knew that there had to be something about this. Replays showed that he had hit it, at least with his glove. But, on checking the no ball part, they found that it was in fact a no ball - something that the umpire also missed. As such, South Africa didn't lose their review - because they were right and the umpire was wrong - but Ed Cowan wasn't out either.

Australia were 3/111 after 26 overs, with Cowan 49 not out and Clarke 34 not out, as part of an unbeaten 70 run partnership, still 339 runs behind.

Oh for Duminy! Oh for rain not washing out day 2!

Steyn started up the day with Philander, and while it should have been hostile, it really wasn't. Cowan and Clarke were a bit more watchful than they had been at the end of day 3; but nonetheless there were no chances and it wasn't really looking like South Africa were going to take a wicket.

Morkel replaced Steyn, and even tried around the wicket to start with but still it was nothing to worry about. Kleinveldt continued his horrible debut test by bowling no balls galore.

At least the runs were drying up, as Australia's run rate went from over 4 to around 3.5 overall as Cowan and Clarke were watchful, but not really in any risk of getting out.

Kallis came on to bowl but he was no worry either. Duminy would have been an extra string in South Africa's bow - not to mention that they might have managed 50 more runs too - but without that extra bowler, with a couple struggling it was tough.

Australia got to 150, then 170, and while the runs were being added it was a bit slow going.

Graeme Smith came on to bowl - as he does 1 in every 6 test matches - far too often, given his test bowling average of over 100!

Australia got to 200. And South Africa thought that there was a chance, except that it actually came off Cowan's helmet, not his bat.

And Australia went to lunch on 3/210, no wickets or even close to a wicket, 99 runs and 0 wickets, off 33 overs, at a run rate of exactly 3, far slower than they had been for the first 26 overs.

After lunch, it seems that Australia decided to lift the run rate. It seems that they had worked out that there were enough overs left in the match for them to win it - but only if they scored at 4 runs per over. If they scored at 3, then it was going to be a draw.

Cowan, who went to lunch at 98, raced past his century, and then Clarke smashed a barrage of boundaries as he was heading for a century of his own.

Clarke got into the nervous 90s as he went from 97 to 98, still 98, 99 and then finally 100, crawling along for the last 3 runs required to get to a century.

Then it was all too easy, as Cowan-Clarke repeated the dose by South Africa's Amla-Kallis partnership, with both getting centuries, and it took a bad decision that South Africa failed to refer to get Amla, and a classic catch to get rid of Kallis. What would it take to get rid of Cowan and Clarke?

On 125, Rory Kleinfeldt all but got his first test wicket - the wicket of Ed Cowan. 4/269 would have given some hope for South Africa, while 1/65 would have looked at least respectable for Kleinfeldt. The ball flew high up into the air and either of Dale Steyn - who took that magnificent classic catch to get rid of Quiney on the boundary - or Jacques Rudolph - could have caught it. Steyn should have got it but Rudolph wanted to be the hero. Steyn made way to let Rudolph go for it but Rudolph realised he couldn't get there, so Steyn went; but in the confusion only managed to get a fingertip to it, and was unable to complete the catch. Cowan had a life, and South Africa's chances of victory were quickly slipping.

Smith and Kallis leisurely bowled the next few overs until the new ball was taken at the earliest possible time, after 80 overs. It seems that South Africa are not interested in trying to get reverse swing - or perhaps incapable of it, at least with the Kookaburra ball.

The new ball was taken but while Steyn took it, his partner should have been Morkel, not the misfiring Philander. But Philander it was, and because of that any hope that the new ball would do anything was gone.

The only thing that the new ball was doing was that whenever Clarke was facing, Cowan was backing up a long, long way, and the bowlers must have been tempted to try to run him out during the delivery stride. Ultimately, thankfully, that didn't happen - though it wasn't much better, as Clarke hit a straight drive off Steyn, Steyn got a fingertip to it, and it crashed onto the stumps, running Cowan out by a long, long way. He walked! It went for a review but he knew he was out so walked. He was out for 136 and Australia were 4/299.

South Africa still had a chance of victory, it should be noted. While the follow on had been avoided, they could still get a big lead, quickly get some runs, declare and go for a victory on the last day. But they needed quick wickets and a lead of about 100, or at least say 80.

But with Cowan out like that, it really gave no relief to the bowlers - not like it would have had Steyn been able to take that catch off Kleinveldt. A run out helps the fielding team, but it doesn't help any of the bowlers, and the batsmen know that they got themselves out - not the bowlers.

Michael Hussey walked out and immediately bashed the ball to all parts, as if to say that he was a better batsman than Cowan, it was now easy for batting, and he was going to capitalise.

Just on Cowan's innings - I had said that he shouldn't have played, and I wanted David Hussey or George Bailey in the side in his place. But here he was scoring 136, and having to get out run out off an unlucky fingertip. This against Steyn and Philander - ranked 1 and 2 in the world in test cricket - and also Morkel, who is pretty darn good. This against the number 1 test side. This while numbers 2, 3 and 4 all got out for under 10. This while the second best batsman in Australian history, Ricky Ponting, was out for a duck. Sure, so Clarke got more and Hussey will probably overtake him too; but Cowan did all of the work. Cowan won't be dumped for the next test. Quiney probably will but not Cowan. Not now. He is sure to play all series now.

Tea soon came afterwards and Australia were 4/306. They had scored 96 runs for the loss of 1 wicket off 28 overs in the lunch to tea session, and 195 runs for 1 wicket off 61 overs for the day so far.

Straight after lunch, Michael Clarke seemed to hit a ball through to the keeper, off Philander, with him on 126 and Australia 4/306. The umpire said not out, and South Africa reviewed it. There was a sound and also seemed to be deviation; but, while there was no alternative explanation for either the sound or the deviation, the review said that they couldn't be certain that he hit it either. He probably did, they just couldn't be certain, and benefit of the doubt still goes to the batsman if in doubt - or at least to the umpire - who had called it not out. Had it been given out originally, it probably would have stayed out on review.

Not long afterwards - with some big hitting in between - Morne Morkel had Michael Clarke definitely hit it as it was caught by the keeper - with his score on 135 and Australia 4/339. But it was a no ball. It was given as a no ball so no need to review it - though the TV replays showed that it had been hit anyway. 3 times Australian batsmen had edged it off no balls - Cowan off Morkel the day before, Clarke off Philander and Clarke off Morkel. Indeed, while Philander and Kleinfeldt were bowling no balls galore, Morkel had only bowled 2 all innings, and both of them would have had Australian batsmen given out if they weren't! Talk about costly!

The run rate was lifting, and after those two scares just after tea, it was otherwise pretty comfortable for Hussey and Clarke. Clarke had given chances - including being out off no balls - but Hussey had not, and Hussey capitalised.

South Africa went back to Graeme Smith bowling, not for that variety or trying to get a wicket, but just to give a rest to their main bowlers. Kallis didn't look like getting a wicket either, and even Hashim Amla came in to bowl - but not Jacques Rudolph who has 58 first class wickets and 12 in tests, at a decent average. Alviro Petersen had a go too. But not Rudolph, who is a better bowler than Smith, Amla and Alviro Petersen combined.

Australia went to 350, 400, and even 450 pretty easily, as they piled on the runs. The run rate increased so much that by the end of the day they were above 4 runs per over for the innings. Hussey had 86 off 109 balls, while Clarke got to a double century - 218 off 350 balls. Australia had a lead! They now lead by 37 runs, with only 4 wickets down! 4/487 with a full day's play to go, and extra overs too.

It may look like a draw, but now, suddenly, Australia look like the only team that can win - while for the first 3 days it was looking like South Africa was the only team that could win.

Australia will need to time their declaration carefully. Their best bet is to go for broke in the extended morning session and aim to declare at lunch with a lead of about 200-250. It might be easy for South Africa to get that - and if so then it will be a draw - but they might panic and get themselves out quickly. They will then have 60 or so overs to get them out - which might be enough time.

Australia lost 1/376 for the day, off 95 overs in the end. If they can go at 6 runs per over, and get about 200 runs off the 33 overs in the morning session, they can declare at lunch with a lead of 237 runs, with South Africa having to last 2 sessions, with only 10 men, missing JP Duminy.

South Africa can win, but they will need to take extra quick wickets. If Australia get to 550 even then it will be tough for South Africa, as they will need to bat quickly to set up a declaration and go for the win, but being 100 runs behind they will want to make sure they don't lose by an innings first, and that means a draw.

So most likely if Australia can bat quickly and declare at lunch, then they can hope for a win, but if anything else happens then surely it will be a draw. South Africa can win but it is very unlikely and probably 10:1 it will be a draw.

Read More

Australia vs South Africa: Brisbane Test, 1st day review

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) November 9, 2012: The opening day of the Brisbane Test started with two shocks - South Africa didn't play Imran Tahir, instead going in with an all-pace attack, with Rory Kleinveldt making his debut. Then we had the biggest shock - not only did Australia play the out-of-form spin bowler Nathan Lyon (in spite of fellow spinner Tahir not playing) but they also left in-form left arm fast bowler Mitchell Starc as 12th man.

Mitchell Starc has just completed the Champions League T20 tournament, where he took the most wickets to win the player of the tournament award. This was on top of a highly successful ODI and T20 season, at both domestic and international level, in which he has been the best bowler in the entire world.

There were question marks about whether Mitchell Starc could turn this into performances at test level, with some labeling him as a short form specialist - yet his first test had poor figures and he has since improved on his test record. There were also some highlighting the fact that Starc had lost six kg in weight to suggest that he didn't have the stamina to last a 5-day test match.

Ben Hilfenhaus hadn't played any first class games in six months either, and both Hilfenhaus and Starc played in Australia's last test match, for both of them their last first-class match. The difference is that Hilfenhaus has done considerably worse than Starc in the meantime - while Hilfenhaus hasn't been horrible, he hasn't exactly been in great form - averaging mid to high 20s in the limited overs format. But Hilfenhaus is generally known as a long format specialist, not to mention that he is older, and with Australia's players lacking experience, the selectors wanted an old head.

Whether fitness was an issue, or lack of experience, or just a hunch that Starc isn't a Test bowler, the selectors didn't say. The end result, though, is that they played the out-of-form Lyon, who has averaged over 50 in the past half year or so, a spin bowler, while leaving out our only left-arm bowler in Starc, the only bowler likely to bring fear to the South African batsmen.

Australia were already controversial in their selections, by picking both Ed Cowan and Rob Quiney, and the absence of Starc just compounded these problems.

Not to mention that Siddle and Hilfenhaus are not the only old hands that Australia could have played - they could have tried Doug Bollinger and Clint McKay, for example. They could have tried in-form bowlers with great records, who are also experienced.

South Africa won the toss and batted and early on Alviro Petersen looked in all sorts of troubles against James Pattinson in particular. Graeme Smith looked incredible early.

Then Pattinson should have had Smith out caught behind, against the run of play. It was given not out, was referred, and should have been given out, but wasn't. A bit of a shocker but hey! Smith was generally playing well other than that though.

Then Hilfenhaus had a second chance against Smith, this time LBW. It was originally not out, was referred, and was correctly given out. Smith looked good other than that but it almost seemed he was lulled into a false sense of security.

Alviro Petersen kept surviving and after Smith's dismissal, with Hashim Amla's quality coming in, Petersen's batting improved. With Siddle and Lyon coming in to replace Pattinson and Hilfenhaus, the pressure was off and South Africa really capitalised. Petersen got to his half century and Amla looked immovable.

Then, just as it looked like it would be one wicket down at the end of play, Alviro Petersen lost concentration and lobbed a ball from Nathan Lyon over to Michael Hussey. It wasn't a good ball, there was no build up, it was just a bad shot from a batsman that lost concentration.

Lyon was the worst of the bowlers but Siddle wasn't much better, spraying it all over the place. At least Hilfenhaus was accurate, if not likely to take a wicket.

Lyon did nearly take a wicket late in the day though, when Hashim Amla edged it between keeper and 1st slip. Michael Clarke didn't even move. He was on 62 at the time.

Not long afterwards, Peter Siddle had Jacques Kallis out caught at mid off - only to have it referred in case he had bowled a no ball - and he had! He was on 44 at the time.

Later still, Peter Siddle dropped a chance off Hashim Amla when he was on 74.

At the end of the day, South Africa finished on 2/255. James Pattinson was easily the best of the bowlers but Hilfenhaus at least tied up one end. Siddle and Lyon were all over the place; but Siddle had two chances - one he dropped and the other was taken but it was a no ball, while Lyon got a wicket off a bad shot and had another one edged.

The optimistic Australian fans might say that those chances should have gone the right way for Australia, and, if they had, South Africa could have been 5 down. But there was really only 1 drop - the others were no balls and edges. Even if South Africa were 3 down they would still be a long way on top.

At the end of the day, this team that was selected never had any chance of beating South Africa. They had to pick Mitchell Starc for starters, but really needed the variety of two left-armers, and should have played either Mitchell Johnson or Doug Bollinger alongside him. They also needed to have a genuine 5th bowling option, whether it was Dan Christian, Andrew McDonald, James Faulkner or even Glenn Maxwell - it was just a question of how much batting they wanted to lose versus how much bowling - Faulkner is a better bowler than Watson but a much worse batsman, while McDonald is only a slightly worse bowler but not that worse as a batsman, Maxwell is only a bit worse as a batsman but a much worse bowler, while Dan Christian is a similar player to Watson but worse in both disciplines - but has the benefit of being a different kind of bowler that South Africa wouldn't be used to.

With the wrong bowling attack - not to mention the wrong batting line up - Australia never had a chance. No amount of trying from the likes of Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Lyon, or odd bowling options in Quiney and Hussey - were ever going to get through the South African batting line up.

With only one day gone and a whole four days to go the best that Australia can hope for is a draw, and it would take a huge effort to get to that from here.

Read More