Why Phillip Hughes is a bad choice

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 6, 2012: When Phillip Hughes first burst onto the first class scene, he was unbelievably good.

He had an unorthodox technique, with his feet all over the place like he was going to trip over himself, but that, if anything, was why he was so good.

Bowlers were confused as to what to do and tried to get him out but instead were hoiked over the fielder's heads, or over the boundary. Hughes would trick them and had so much freedom.

But English bowler Steve Harmison had an idea how to get through Philip Hughes by using his technique. He started off with a barrage of yorkers and yorker-like deliveries to mess with his feet and then he'd mix it up with some outswingers and inswingers, all of which require expert footwork.

Since Hughes has terrible footwork, he'd get out, either caught behind, caught at slip, clean bowled, or LBW. And it was a virtual guarantee. Hughes might get lucky and get a couple of runs out, or the balls might not land in quite the right way, but eventually they would get him.

It required a swing bowler like Harmison for it to work the best; but fast bowlers could do it too - even medium pacers. The bowler had to be a pretty good bowler to do it effectively - most first class bowlers, even if they knew how to do it, couldn't execute it. Really only top class international bowlers could do it.

The result of this, of course, is that Hughes is going to have pretty good first class results, as most first class bowlers aren't good enough to execute the Steve Harmison mode of dismissal. But whenever he came up with an international match against decent opposition, regardless of the format (though he has never played ODIs or T20s) he is going to be out cheaply.

Now, Philip Hughes isn't the only batsman ever to have his technique found out. In Australia, Steve Waugh was found out by his temptation to play hook shots and get out a lot - though he also got a lot of 6s. Waugh made a lot of runs by hooking at first class level but international bowlers were a lot smarter and it was a guaranteed out. Waugh responded by changing his technique firstly in a very simple way - he cut out the hook shot. He even cut it out from first class matches, even though most first class bowlers weren't good enough to get him out. But eventually Waugh worked out how to play the hook shot safely, even against quality international bowlers. He changed his technique.

Ricky Ponting was found out several times throughout his career, and each time he changed his technique.

Viv Richards was found out, and changed his technique several times over. Kevin Pietersen. Even Don Bradman had his technique found out - several times - and each time he changed his technique. Each time that bowlers found a way to get him out cheaply, he changed it.

The problem is that Phillip Hughes hasn't changed his technique. He has had 3 years now. He has not changed a thing.

In the past 3 years, he tried to change it but no matter what he did he kept getting found out. He was frustrated and angry and his scores plummeted. Then he decided to go back to what was working, started getting better scores, and was recalled to the international team.

Oh, he succeeded against Zimbabwe A. But Zimbabwe A were not an international side, they don't have world class swing bowlers who know how to copy Steve Harmison's techniques. They probably don't even have access to video footage to show how to get Phillip Hughes out.

Phillip Hughes was recalled to the Australian test team and failed abysmally. In his first time in the test team he averaged over 50. In his second time, he averaged 20. Bowlers kept repeating Steve Harmison's techniques and Phillip Hughes kept falling for it. Again and again he gave his wicket away cheaply.

Since then, Hughes has gone away and played in the exact same way he did before he was originally called up to the Australian test team. His technique hasn't changed. But most Australian state bowlers aren't good enough to copy Harmison's techniques. So he has scored reasonably well.

And now, somewhat blindly, the Australian selectors have recalled him.

Yet in his case numbers are irrelevant.

Hughes could be averaging 100 and it wouldn't matter. He could be in the form of his life and it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever.

While his technique is unchanged, he is going to keep getting out cheaply to any quality international bowler who can copy Steve Harmison's technique.

Now, Sri Lanka don't have a lot of good swing bowlers. I have no doubt that Lasith Malinga could copy the technique but he isn't playing in tests. It is quite possible that none of Sri Lanka's bowlers are good enough, or the right kind of bowler, to be able to copy Steve Harmison's technique.

It is quite possible that Phillip Hughes will succeed against Sri Lanka.

Now, I don't know for sure if he will. It is possible that one of Sri Lanka's bowlers is good enough, and does have enough access to video information, and good enough coaches, to be able to get Hughes out cheaply. I don't know for sure.

But even if Hughes succeeds against Sri Lanka, he won't succeed against England, or India, or South Africa, or Pakistan, or New Zealand, or West Indies. Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are the only 3 teams that don't obviously have the right kind of bowlers - but even they may be able to get him out cheaply. Perhaps Angelo Mathews or Perera can get one through. Perhaps even a spinner can use a spin variation of Harmison's technique and deal with him quickly.

It is reminiscent of the Zimbabwe-born English player Graeme Hick.

Graeme Hick, like Steve Waugh, was a happy hooker. He was great normally but kept getting out to bouncers. All that a bowler had to do to get him out was to bowl bouncers. With the right field settings, Hick was an easy victim. Hook managed huge amounts of runs at a very high average at first class level, but never played tests, because in tests they were allowed to bowl bouncers, and he was an easy out. Oh, he played a few tests with success early in his career, but once he was found out, he was a goner. But Hick ended up playing a wealth of ODI games, mainly because they changed the bouncer law for ODIs to ban bouncers. He did very well. But then, when they changed the test law to limit bouncers, they considered him again.

The problem with Phillip Hughes is that it is incredibly unlikely, nay impossible, for them to change the laws to ban bowlers doing the kinds of things that he is going to get out cheaply to.

Another problem that Hughes has is that no other batsman plays like him.

Don Bradman managed it in spite of an unorthodox technique, and in spite of no other batsmen being like him - he managed to change his technique.

But is Hughes as smart as Bradman was? Is he good enough to work out his own techniques?

If he is, good for him, and Hughes deserves a spot in the test team.

Until then, though, he needs to stay at first class level only.

This was the dumbest choice of the 4 options. Of the 4, I would have picked Usman Khawaja, though I wouldn't have minded Alex Doolan either. Rob Quiney had already failed so I'd hate to see him given another shot. For me, I wanted either David Hussey (who well and truly deserves it but they say is too old) or George Bailey (who has worked up to it brilliantly). For me, it should have been a choice of Hussey or Bailey. I don't know why the selectors had 4 that were all bad choices, and why they chose the worst of the 4 options.

There are good batsmen in Australia. But Hughes isn't one of them.

The success or failure of Phillip Hughes in the upcoming series will depend on whether Sri Lanka has a bowler who can repeat the Steve Harmison method, and whether they have coaches good enough to show them how to do it. If they do, Hughes will fail. If they don't, then Hughes may actually succeed - but that is if anything even worse, as then we may be stuck with him for a while.

I may be wrong and maybe Hughes has secretly worked out his technical flaws; but I doubt it.

Read More

Who can fill Ricky Ponting void in Australian cricket team?

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 6, 2012: The Cricket Australia announced Thursday Phillip Hughes as the replacement for Ricky Ponting who announced his Test retirement after the Perth Test.

TheSportsNEXT.com’s cricket analyst Adrian Meredith reviewed the candidates who looked likely to be Ricky Ponting's replacement in the Australian Test team:

George Bailey

Why he should be picked: Since his T20 debut about a year ago - as captain - he has forced his way into the ODI team as well, and has done increasingly well, with a very good average of over 40, putting a high price on his wicket, the kind of temperament needed in test cricket. He also averages over 40 in FC cricket and is in decent form.

Why he shouldn't be picked: His record in limited overs formats is considerably better than in first class formats and he is known as a limited overs specialist. Until a year ago, he wasn't even thought of as ever playing an international. He could easily fall apart, as did fellow limited overs specialist Shaun Marsh - though Faf du Plessis is a limited overs specialist, and Vernon Philander was considered to be too; so you never know.

David Hussey

Why he should be picked: He has ample international experience and, overall, has done incredibly well. He is in supreme form in all 3 formats right now. And he averages well over 50 overall. As the younger brother of Michael Hussey, Australia's best batsman, he can be guaranteed to do very well at test level, especially if the two of them bat together. He should have been picked some 5 or 6 years ago.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: He is already 35 (even though he is the younger brother) and would perhaps have 3 or 4 years in the side, at most. He is also known as a limited overs specialist - especially in T20s - in spite of his supreme FC record. If he does play, it'd be a stop gap measure, as then they'd have to find his replacement a few years later.

Phillip Hughes

Why he should be picked: He had such a great FC record, and did well in his first few tests, before failing somewhat dramatically, being dropped, coming back, and failing even worse. But he still has a better record than Ed Cowan. He is in good form in the past year or so.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: He still has that poor technique that has been found out. Until he fixes that technique, experienced bowlers at international level are going to keep exploiting it, and, no matter how good his form is, he is never going to score. His form is irrelevant while he has that flawed technique.

Usman Khawaja

Why he should be picked: He had a good start to his FC career and was somewhat prematurely thrust into the Australian team a couple of years ago, where he had a below par return. Since then his FC performances have dropped significantly; but in the past 6 months or so they have picked up again.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: After such a poor start to his test career, it is probably best to wait until he has a lengthier display of good FC returns before bringing him back. He is probably a good option in the long term but my feeling is that we should wait another year more before giving him a spot in test cricket.

Mark Cosgrove

Why he should be picked: He has been a solid batsman for several years now but since moving to Tasmania has really lifted a gear. Ed Cowan has been in the same side but Cosgrove has done better than Cowan, is in better form and has a better overall record, making many people wonder why or how Cowan could possibly have been ahead of Cosgrove.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: He is overweight and the physical demands of international cricket, especially test cricket, may be too much. Also, while he does have a better record in every way to Cowan's, it isn't much better and realistically Cowan probably isn't doing well enough to stay in test cricket, so having a similar player come in may be counter productive.

Callum Ferguson

Why he should be picked: He did very well at ODI level before injuries pushed him out of the side. He had a few good FC performances in the past few years too. He seems to be a player who lifts for the big time and if so could do well at the test level.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: His overall FC record is poor and he is more known as a limited overs specialist. On top of that, while he isn't out of form, he isn't exactly in form either.

Adam Voges

Why he should be picked: Something of a long game specialist, for various reasons Voges never played a test, in spite of doing well in the ODI setup, and showing that he is well suited to the longer formats. He is in decent form, has a wealth of experience behind him and is very solid.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: He is on the wrong side of 30 years old and, while 33 years old means he still has a few years in him, the David Hussey argument might come in. He also averages barely over 40 in FC cricket, which may make selectors nervous about picking him. He would probably do well but it could be seen as a stop gap measure, as he would then have to be replaced later on.

Alex Doolan

Why he should be picked: He has had some magnificent returns, and in that Australia A game against South Africa, when Rob Quiney "forced" his way into the team, Doolan actually had an unbeaten 160 not out. He is in fantastic form, probably only behind Ricky Ponting in domestic cricket this year. If they are serious about picking players while they are in form, Doolan has to be the choice.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: Doolan might be in form, but his overall record is somewhat less impressive. While he hasn't had a very lengthy career, it doesn't make very good reading. But then again, he played many games as a wicket keeper.

Peter Nevill

Why he should be picked: He has come on in leaps and bounds into the New South Wales squad, overtaking Dan Smith and realistically also Brad Haddin - though Haddin still gets to have the gloves, and is probably 2nd behind Wade on the wicket keeper ranks. His FC average of 43 suggests that he could make the test side purely as a batsman, and he is just going from strength to strength too. While he is a wicket keeper by trade, so is Michael Hussey, and he is becoming used to playing as a batsman. If he does end up replacing Wade, having some test experience behind him would be good too. He could be like AB de Villiers was to Mark Boucher.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: He is still regarded as a wicket keeper and it may be somewhat insulting to Wade to pick a 2nd keeper in the test side.

Joe Burns

Why he should be picked: He is a young player with a great average who is bursting through the ranks.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: Statistics can be misleading and after just one season that great average could easily slump. He has no international experience of any kind and it would be a massive risk to thrust him into the test side.

Steve Smith

Why he should be picked: He is in great form, has had success at international level and also failure and therefore is mentally strong enough to cope. He is starting to learn how to win. He also has a very good cricketing brain and knows how to make the most of any situation.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: His form isn't good enough to force his way in purely as a batsman and his failures in the tests that he did play in will make the selectors nervous. He needs another year or two of excellent performances to force his way in.

For me, the best options are: George Bailey, David Hussey, Adam Voges and Peter Nevill. Given that the selectors don't like Hussey and Voges because of their age; that leaves us with Bailey vs Nevill. I like both options actually. Bailey has shown that he has the temperament required to make it at test level and I think that his chances of success at test level are very high. Nevill is a wicket keeper by trade but he has had to fight so hard that he is developing all of the right characteristics to succeed at the highest level. Remember when AB de Villiers played for South Africa as a batsman in spite of being a specialist keeper? It worked out very well for them, and I see the same thing for Nevill. Then, if Wade is ever injured, Nevill can take over, which would make a nice easy transition.

For me, therefore, and bearing in mind the Australian selectors, I think that it will be Bailey and Nevill. Oh, and Ed Cowan is going to be dumped. Sorry, but while he did score that one century, he has done nothing else all series long and just isn't test quality.

Read More

An ode to Legendary Ricky Ponting

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 6, 2012: Growing up in Tasmania, we all knew about David Boon, the first Tasmanian to have a lengthy international cricket career.

Nobody would ever beat Boon, they said. Jamie Cox was touted in his youth as one day surpassing Boon, but, as we know, Cox didn't end up playing a single international match (though he was somewhat unlucky, as he timed his rich vein of form at just the wrong time). When Ricky Ponting came along, while some were hopeful, the expectation wasn't quite there, in light of the disappointment at Cox not playing internationally.

Ricky Ponting, like Jamie Cox, was first discovered as a teenager. But while Cox played first grade cricket at the age of 14 and was in the state side at 16, Ponting instead was learning the basics at the Australian Cricket Academy. Before he had even played first grade cricket, his coaches were saying that he would one day be the Australian test cricket captain, something that made front page news in Tasmania.

Ponting didn't play first class cricket until he was 18 years of age, which, considering his talent, was somewhat late. He was easily good enough at 15, but the Australian coaching fraternity deliberately held him back. He didn't even play first grade cricket until a few months before then.

Unlike Cox, who took some 6 or 7 years to produce at first class level, Ponting produced immediately, averaging around 40 in his very first first class season, and from there he kept improving.

In spite of this, the national selectors refused to put him in the team. In spite of being easily good enough at 18, Ponting had to wait for 2 full years of first class cricket, until he was 20, before he finally got his international debut, and only in the ODI arena.

Ponting's debut match was in New Zealand, against South Africa, where he batted at 6, instead of his customary number 3. He scored 1 off 6 balls and was clean bowled by the little known bowler Eric Simons, someone who never played a test and managed just 23 one day internationals, all within a year of each other. Yet Australia won the match, by just 3 wickets, but with almost 7 overs to spare, in a match that saw South Africa bowled out for just 123. Ponting had started poorly but he wasn't really needed.

Ponting may have failed but he was given another chance. In his second match, he scored 10 not out off 8 balls to help to set Australia up to 254, a winning score against India. And in his third match, this time batting at number 3, he sensibly made 62 off 92, showing that that is where he would prefer to bat; but sadly the team lost - their first lost that he was involved in.

After just 6 ODIs, with that 62 his top score, Ponting was given a test debut.

On his test debut, against Sri Lanka in Perth, Ponting scored an impressive 96 in his only innings, batting at number 5, ahead of Stuart Law, who managed 54 not out in what was to be his only test innings. Australia piled on a massive 5 for 617, winning by an innings plus, and Ponting's score was far from the highest score - Mark Waugh managed a century and Michael Slater a double century, while captain Mark Taylor equalled Ponting's score. Sri Lanka's Hashan Tillekeratne managed a century as well.

Ponting took a long time to establish himself. In spite of averaging in the 40s in ODIs, at a strike rate in the high 80s, unheard of in those days, Ponting still wasn't given regular opportunities. He averaged low 50s in the test arena yet still couldn't secure a place. He played often enough; but he took a long time to secure the number 3 spot, instead having to bat anywhere from number 4 to number 6. He took even longer to secure the number 3 spot in tests.

Right when Ponting seemed to be finally getting a secure spot, tragedy struck. It was 1999, 4 years after he made his debut, when Ponting was just 24 years of age. He was beaten badly outside a Sydney nightclub.

It was a time when the cricketing world was still rocking from former spin bowling all-rounder Greg Matthews being beaten outside a nightclub. And now Ponting was too. Ponting was expected to be out for 2-3 weeks due to his injuries. He was expected to help police with their inquiries. There was a growing concern that sports people were being targeted by members of the public.

But, a couple of days after the incident, Ricky Ponting shocked the cricketing world by saying that he could not remember his attackers.

Greg Matthews was outraged, as were many members of the cricketing world and the general public. The consensus was that he was lying. He knew who had attacked him but refused to name them.

Ponting went further by saying that he had a drinking problem, put himself into rehab and asked to be given a harsh penalty.

The Australian Cricket Board, as they were then known, weren't sure if he was lying, or if he really had a drinking problem. If he was lying, he was protecting criminals, and doing the wrong thing by Greg Matthews. If he had a drinking problem, he needed to take time off to recover. Either way, the result was that he was out of the team for the best part of 6 months, at a time when he was just starting to establish himself.

After he returned, it wasn't easy for him either. Ponting didn't go straight back into the number 3 spot - he had to start over, as it were, batting at number 6. He didn't get his test spot back either. He had to earn it. He had to earn it about 5 times as much as he had earned it before. Previously he was given multiple chances because he had talent. This time around he had to prove not just that he was the 6th best batsman in the country, but that he was the absolute number 1, and by a big margin. Only then would they consider him.

Ponting saw the challenge laid before him, and it seemed to define him. We may never know if he was lying or really had a drinking problem - and if he was lying, why he was lying. But the end result is that he did a lot better afterwards. He quickly became the best batsman in Australia, and lived up to his reputation.

Ponting was overlooked for the test captain's job after Mark Taylor retired, a job that he probably would have got if not for the brawl. Instead, Steve Waugh was given a shot, even though he was already late into his career. But Ponting learned from this too, and took it as inspiration to avoid any hint of controversy. He had to be the best batsman in the country and he had to be devoid of any hint of controversy.

When Steve Waugh was punished from Australia missing the finals in their own ODI tri series for the first time in over a decade, Ricky Ponting took over as ODI captain - but he was far from being guaranteed as the next test captain.

But, with fingers crossed, and with Shane Warne and Adam Gilchrist also strong contenders, Ponting got the test captaincy!

The relief showed as Ponting came into the form of his life, averaging over 60 with the bat, being easily the best batsman in the world, and showing that he would not repeat Mark Taylor's effort of having his batting go downhill once he took over as captain.

Eventually, though, Ponting's excitement at having achieved everything waned and his batting started to slip a bit. It started when many of his fellow greats retired, the likes of Shane Warne, Adam Gilchrist and Glenn McGrath. But Ponting took Matthew Hayden's retirement, amongst angry calls for him to be sacked due to his poor form, especially hard. Ponting pointed out that Hayden had only been out of form for a year, and in that time still had a test batting average of almost 40 - and just a year earlier was the best opening batsman in the world!

Whether it was the extra pressure on his batting caused by so many stars disappearing, or his fear that the public would turn on him quickly like they did on Matthew Hayden, Ponting went into his shell somewhat after that. Like Hayden had, Ponting's average went downwards. There were public calls for him to be sacked - though perhaps not quite as many as there were for Hayden to retire, as there was nobody really to replace Ponting. The calls grew louder and louder yet they weren't prepared to replace him.

This year, Ponting had a rebirth of sorts. He played T20 again after a long absence and did magnificently well, also doing well in domestic ODIs in spite of being cut from the national team, and in first class matches he was comfortably the player of the year.

He entered the first test against South Africa in the form of his life. His feet were moving. He was doing everything right.

But scores of 0, 14 and 6 in 3 innings did little to inspire confidence.

While it was better than the alternative (Rob Quiney managed 9, 0 and 0), it simply wasn't good enough and he has announced his retirement, rightly, before the Perth test, so that he can try to perform as well as he can, knowing that no matter how well he does he won't play again.

Perhaps Ponting should have retired 3 or 4 years ago. Perhaps he should have retired while his test batting average was still a scarcely believable 58, instead of waiting for it to fall down to 52.

But he fought it out, he tried to do the right thing. And, ultimately, he has retired, rather than being sacked.

And, it should be noted, he wasn't going to be sacked, because, quite simply, there is nobody to replace him.

While David Hussey has a better FC batting average and is in better form, the selectors are reluctant to give him a shot because of his age. George Bailey might get a shot but he still has the earmark of being a limited overs specialist. And for everyone else we have a choice of players with great long term form versus players who are currently doing well.

Ricky Ponting will go down as Australia's greatest ever captain - statistically at least - who stood over Australia during their greatest ever period, when he was their greatest player, and also, indisputably, the best batsman ever to play for Australia - after Don Bradman.

He finishes equal with Steve Waugh for most number of test appearances for Australia and second behind only the great Sachin Tendulkar for most test runs in the entire world.

His legacy is that for over a decade he was competing with Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar as the greatest batsman in the world, and for at least a couple of years, he was easily the best.

A player with great potential, he is someone who showed that potential.

He is easily Tasmania's greatest ever player, far surpassing David Boon. And he will be remembered for a very long time.

Read More

Suggested Changes in Decision Review System

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 6, 2012: I thought to go over the best and the worst of the DRS.

Good parts of the DRS:

a)           Players aren't dissenting as often if they are given a terrible decision.

b)           If they think that they are not out, they can go for a review.

c)            Dissent is forcibly stopped because you have your 2 reviews per innings and that is it. If you used them poorly, then it is your own fault.

d)           Really horrible decisions are overturned, sometimes at least.

e)           It adds an extra dimension tactically to the game - when do you use it? Early in the innings when it is crucial, or save them until later? How sure do you have to be?

Bad parts of the DRS:

a)           If it is out, in order to be changed to not out for an LBW it has to be missing the entire stumps, but if it is not out, it needs to be hitting the entire stumps to be overturned. If in doubt it goes with the umpire. And that means that for those close ones, it is absolutely useless.

b)           If it is given out for a caught behind, and it is proven that he didn't hit it - it still stays out unless the bat was a long way from the ball - if it was close to the ball it stays out - even though it clearly isn't!

c)            Bowlers can have players out and then have it overturned because of a front foot no ball, even though it was missed by the umpire at the time.

d)           A team can lose their reviews even though they were right both times simply because they weren't right by enough to have it overturned.

e)           Umpires can choose to review even without a team calling for a review, thus giving a team a bonus review.

f)              My biggest issue with the DRS is the issue of "umpire's call". The benefit of the doubt should consistently go to batsmen, not umpires. Therefore, if we are not sure if it is out or not, the decision shouldn't go to the umpire - it should go to the batsman.

Suggested Changes in DRS

a)           If there is any doubt about a decision, once reviewed, and it is line ball, it should be NOT OUT regardless of whether it was originally out or not out. If we aren't sure if the batsman hit it or not, it is NOT OUT. If we aren't sure if it is hitting the wickets or not, NOT OUT.

b)           There should be no "umpire's call" area. There should be OUT and NOT OUT.

c)            With an LBW, most viewers agree that if it is shown to be hitting the stumps, it is OUT. If we aren't sure, make sure that, say, half of the ball has to be hitting the stumps.

d)           With a caught behind, most viewers agree that there must be one of an unexplained noise or a hot spot. If there is neither, it is NOT OUT. This should not be umpire's call because we are unsure. It should be NOT OUT.

e)           With an LBW that could be an inside edge, it should be NOT OUT if there is evidence on hot spot or snicko that they hit it.

f)              Umpires are paid to do their jobs. There is no need to stroke their egos by pretending that they are right when they are not. There are many examples when umpires get it wrong, it is proven wrong, it is reviewed, yet it stays wrong, wasting a referral, and not reversed, even though it should be! This is wrong, and it is frustrating. There needs to be consistency with DRS in order for the public to be happy with it.

In saying this, I like the idea of having the Decision Review System. It is better than the days before it. Being able to review close run-outs improved our faith in decisions, as did neutral umpires (though I think that the introduction of neutral umpires overall lowered the standards of umpiring). But DRS needs to be improved further. Remove the element of doubt. If in doubt, NOT OUT. Get rid of umpire's call!

Read More

South Africa vs Australia Test Series Review

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 3, 2012: So after three classic test matches, we finished with a 1-0 series result, with South Africa finishing victors, retaining top spot (they would have gone to second had they lost the series, and Australia would have gone to first) and, according to some, they "dominated the series".

As a quick review, the first test, in Brisbane, started well for South Africa before JP Duminy got injured, during the break between days 1 and 2, and then, after that, Australia fought back, from being way behind, to being further behind, to eventually actually being on top. Notable points were just how badly Philander was bowling for South Africa, and just how stupid the decision was to play Rob Quiney, an ODI specialist batsman, in place of the all rounder Shane Watson. Rory Kleinveldt had one of the worst debuts you will ever see - though Rob Quiney was probably worse.

The second test, in Adelaide, started well for South Africa with two early wickets to Jacques Kallis before he, too, was injured, giving Australia a chance. Australia fought back and ended up well on top. Then James Pattinson, Australia's best bowler, was out injured. It didn't seem to matter though. Kallis was batting fine, just not bowling or fielding, and that gave South Africa a chance. And Faf du Plessis, supposedly playing as an all-rounder to replace JP Duminy, highlighted that, at least occasionally, ODI specialists can make the transition to tests.

Australia had the best part of two days to bowl South Africa out but instead Faf du Plessis and AB de Villiers just went block crazy and, just barely, denied Australia victory. South Africa had a lot of luck and certainly wouldn't have won had Pattinson not been injured. The odd decision not to play Mitchell Starc really seemed to hurt more than anything, especially after Pattinson was out, and the decision to play Quiney again, in spite of Watson being fit, seemed all the more ludicrous. From South Africa's perspective, Rory Kleinveldt was horrible but Imran Tahir was worse - having the worst ever performance of a bowler ever.

The third test, in Perth, started poorly for South Africa and highlighted the difference it made for Australia having the best bowlers. But then a bad decision against David Warner early on day two - not overturned due to the inadequacies of DRS - led to a flurry of wickets with bad strokes and generally Australia lost the match by failing to bat properly.

Matthew Wade showed them how it was done and John Hastings was pretty decent too, but it was too little too late as Australia sacrificed a first innings lead.

Then South Africa somehow batted like madmen, at for a long time more than six runs per over, and then kept going and going. They blocked for a while, then went like madmen again. They must have read a book on how to bat at Perth, because, quite simply, that is what you have to do. If you are defensive at Perth, you get out. You need to be aggressive, and it is safer to score at 5 per over than to score at 2 - quite the opposite to Adelaide.

Australia batted better in their final innings but it was too little too late, and, importantly, they forgot the rule of aggression. 632 runs as a target were never going to be overhauled - a full 200 more than the highest ever chased down. Australia were never ahead in the chase, and it was only towards the end that the tail enders showed how to bat on this pitch, with Mitchell Starc getting a quick fire 60 at the death.

It wasn't even so much that South Africa outplayed them - rather they realised, like an idea bulb, how to bat at Perth. Why South Africa are better at batting at Perth than Australia is anybody's guess - but perhaps because Perth plays like many grounds in South Africa. South Africa always do well at Perth, and won their last match here too.

Player by player review:

Australia

David Warner showed that he is not out of form at all with a quick fire century, but also failed to capitalise on starts in other innings and had some low scores too. He showed potential, and seems to be a bit like a Chris Gayle or Virender Sehwag type of player, who can succeed, but, as luck would have it, he didn't really in this series.

Ed Cowan was widely praised for his 1st test effort, where he scored a century when wickets were falling all around him, though ultimately Michael Clarke's 200 and Hussey's 100 overshadowed it somewhat. He failed abysmally in every other innings and still looks out of his depth in test cricket. The guy barely averages 30 in test cricket. While he might be good at batting out a draw and stonewalling, he is never going to score very many runs and is somewhat useless for the team effort. He reminds me of the utterly useless Daren Ganga and I really hope that they dump him before it is too late.

Rob Quiney played the first two tests and was beyond hopeless. In his first test, he was aggressive and was caught going for a 6 - when his score was 9 and we had already lost an early wicket. If that stupidity wasn't bad enough, after people claiming he should replace Warner or even Ponting, based on that 9, he followed it up with 0 and 0 and was promptly dumped. This guy is a one day specialist and should never have been in contention here. He is not in form and is not a good enough player to play test matches. If this was a hunch from left field, fair enough, but once he failed he should have been dumped. He should not have been given a 2nd test. And now he should never play test cricket again.

Shane Watson only played one test, and, while he was widely criticised, he was still one hell of a lot better than Quiney. He may have only bowled 9 overs in each innings, but he is recovering from injury, and he at least took a wicket - Quiney never looked like doing that. He also scored a fair bit more than Quiney's 9, even if he wasn't totally succeeding. He is still an invaluable member of the team and one of the best players. He was injured for the 1st test but should have played in the 2nd. It is shameful that Rob Quiney of all people was preferred to him.

Ricky Ponting was supposed to be in the form of his life - domestically he has been for the whole last 12 months! But perhaps international bowlers simply know how to get him out now, because he failed worse than he ever has in his career. This was the worst 3 test series of his life. He could get some solace in knowing that he wasn't the worst player - he was still better than Rob Quiney, and also better than Imran Tahir and Rory Kleinveldt for South Africa - but he was definitely a burden and it was the right time to retire. There isn't anyone obvious to replace him though, but if the selectors think a bit and use a tried and true limited overs player, in George Bailey, they could have the answer to Faf du Plessis.

Michael Clarke played rescue man on more than one occasion. It started in the first test after Warner, Quiney and Ponting were out cheaply, and he came out with a big double century. He repeated this in the 2nd test, after Cowan, Quiney and Ponting were out cheaply. Then in the 3rd test, after Cowan was out fairly cheaply, Watson was out fairly cheaply, Ponting was out fairly cheaply, and Warner was out fairly cheaply, he failed to capitalise. Perhaps he needs the team to be absolutely in horrific trouble to get the most out of it. Or perhaps he was just out of luck. He was clearly the best batsman in the series - just ahead of Faf du Plessis - and he deserved the player of the series award as well as the number 1 ranking as the best batsman in the world - also noting that he won the ICC test and overall player of the year award. Pity that the others all failed.

Michael Hussey was batting way down at number 6 and boy would it have been nice if he was batting a bit higher. Maybe if Clarke and Hussey are the only two consistent batsmen, they should be batting at 3 and 4 rather than 5 and 6. Hussey once again had a wonderful series, once again showing that he is nowhere near retirement level, and making many of us wonder why his YOUNGER BROTHER David Hussey is still yet to make his test debut. He is too old apparently, yet Michael, 2 years older, is not. Go figure.

Matthew Wade had a poor start to the series but in the 2nd and especially 3rd test he really came out of his shell and was brilliant. Some will still be calling for Brad Haddin - or even Tim Paine - to replace him - and realistically Peter Nevill isn't far behind and is probably the legitimate 2nd best now - and he has a way to go to genuinely solidify his spot, but he still did well enough - for now.

James Pattinson had such a wonderful series, being clearly the bowling attack leader, doing so well in the first test, and then injured himself after just 9 overs of the 2nd test, and of course didn't play in the 3rd. He also batted really well. He may have to fight with Ryan Harris for the overall title of best bowler in the country, but of those that were fit, he was certainly the best, and boy would it have been nice had Pattinson been lucky enough to have had Mitchell Starc bowling alongside him. But the selectors chose to pit experience ahead of quality, so that was never going to happen.

Mitchell Starc wow he did well when he finally got to play in the 3rd test. He started off bowling up a storm with 2 early wickets that set up the innings, then he took 6 wickets in the 3rd innings - in spite of them getting over 500 - and then finished it off with 60+ not out at more than a run a ball. They were easy runs and made no difference to the result but boy is he in form. WHY THE HELL DIDN'T HE PLAY IN ALL MATCHES???? I cannot comprehend why he wasn't there. Sure, so perhaps Pattinson is better, but not by much! The fact that he was left armed and would have offered much needed variety would have made all of the difference. I am extremely confident that, had he played in the 2nd test, Australia would have won the test. We may have even won the 1st. His test bowling average is under 30 now so surely now he won't be kept out again.

Josh Hastings batted a lot better than expected and now, if you look at his stats, he looks like a top order batsman - except that his FC average suggests that he is a number 8. He bowled well enough but only took 1 wicket and perhaps demonstrated that maybe test cricket is not for him. Why not Clint McKay though? I would have thought that he would have done well. Or Alistair McDermott? But Hastings did show heart so may get another go. He did one hell of a lot better than Rob Quiney did, and Quiney got another shot. He really brought a lot to the match and his variety was very useful.

Mitchell Johnson really bowled up a storm, and, while he was a distance behind Starc, the two were so different that there is surely a justification for playing both in the same match on a regular basis. Two left armers might seem excessive but it is okay when they both bowl in a very different way. Starc is consistent while Johnson is erratic. Starc nags while Johnson strikes. Johnson was in reasonable enough first class form but it hardly demanded his selection. But the selectors went with a hunch and it really paid off. The question mark is whether it was just because it was at his favourite ground or whether he will be good at all grounds. He may be picked against Sri Lanka but it can't be guaranteed. His performances were really good though.

Nathan Lyon surprised by having much better figures than I expected, was the only Australian bowler to play in all 3 tests, and finished with the most wickets! Not bad for someone who was woefully out of form! He didn't bowl particularly well but he fitted into the team wonderfully, and his variety really hurt. It will be another matter entirely whether they want to risk him against Sri Lanka, who play spin well, but against South Africa, who play spin poorly, he did reasonably well. I still wouldn't have put him in the side as I am sure that there are fast bowlers who could have done better but if they were going to go in with 4 right armed medium fast bowlers, all same o same o, I would rather Lyon. Such a pity that Lyon didn't have the left armer Mitchell Starc to give him nice footmarks to bowl into, and to give his own variety. Would have been invaluable at Adelaide and could have won Australia the match.

Peter Siddle bowled his heart out, but, most of the time, wasn't bowling very well. Oh, he tries. He always tries. Sometimes trying gets him wickets, but usually it doesn't. The guy just isn't test quality. The only reason that the selectors picked him is because they were scared to expose 4 new bowlers to the side and they wanted some experience up top. Personally, I'd rather quality up top. You could see the difference in the attack when he was rested for the 3rd test. I sincerely hope that he isn't rushed back into the side. He can play in England and New Zealand, in conditions that suit. Not in Australia please.

Ben Hilfenhaus offered that swing bowling option. Wow. But doesn't Mitchell Starc swing the ball, does it a lot better, is left armed, and also gives footmarks for the spinner to bowl into? Hilfenhaus ranged from hopeless to economical and really was not threatening at all. There will be no South African batsmen having nightmares about Hilfy gently plodding in. Pattinson yes, Starc yes, and Johnson certainly, but not Hilfy. Hilfy just seems like someone you want to cuddle. Save him for overseas tours, or perhaps if playing in Hobart, or certain conditions that suit. In most conditions, he is nowhere near test level.

South Africa

Graeme Smith for the most part looked like he didn't belong, though he did get a century that at the time looked valuable. The rest of the time he looked like he should be retiring and making way for a better player. His captaincy skills were still impressive though.

Alviro Petersen I have to wonder how he got in the side in the first place, let alone how he stays there. There are many better batsmen in South Africa for them to have to bother with Alviro. If nothing else, it makes it confusing if Robin plays in the same match. He was still better than his counterpart Ed Cowan though - and better than David Warner too.

Hashim Amla started poorly but then came into his own, and finished with a match winning 196 at almost a run a ball - early on it was over a run a ball - that really won South Africa the game and the series and retained the number 1 spot. He is very consistent and is hard to dislodge, as one of the best batsmen in the world.

AB de Villiers wants to keep wicket for South Africa, after spending the best part of 10 years batting but not getting to keep as one of the best ever keepers in Mark Boucher was in the side. But the problem is that while keeping wicket his batting has gone downhill. But in this series it improved. He scored one of the best 33s you will ever see, that let South Africa draw the 2nd test that they should have lost, and then scored a big century to win them the match in the 3rd. He kept pretty well too. Quinton de Kock is a better batsman and is younger and pretty soon will be knocking down the door to at least make the South African team as a batsman, if not as their keeper. But for now de Villiers kept his spot. Quinton de Kock wasn't even on the tour, thankfully for de Villiers. If he was, both would be batting; but who would keep would be a big question.

Jacques Kallis did so well when he finally bowled, getting 2 cheap wickets to destroy Australia - but then got injured! But then he did a sneaky and batted with very little problems and came back for the 3rd test and did everything. He contributed very well for the team and made sure that his absence didn't hurt anywhere near as much as JP Duminy's did. He may forever have the mantle of "2nd greatest all rounder in keeper", behind Garfield Sobers; but he is still incredibly good.

JP Duminy didn't bat or bowl or field, and somehow or other managed to injure himself between days 1 and 2 of the 1st test, something which cost South Africa any chance of winning the test. Perhaps South Africa wouldn't have won; but they might have. Hopefully he learns not to do whatever he did to rub himself out.

Faf du Plessis was not expected to do much - after all, he is a one day specialist and has a poor FC record, who was brought in mainly because he can bowl a bit - but while his bowling stunk his batting was amazing - he finished with a batting average of over 100! He started with a solid 70 then scored a very slow match saving century, then another 70 before finally a low score during their big risky scoring in the 3rd innings of the 3rd test. Wow. What a start! Surely he can't keep it up, but he suddenly made the transition from ODIs to tests very well, making me think even more that George Bailey is the man for Australia.

Jacques Rudolph wasn't totally horrible, and not much was expected of him anyway, but he was pretty bad. Oh sure, he was probably still better than Ponting, and, other than that one century, was probably better than Ed Cowan too; but he was still pretty bad. And the fact that he has a poor overall record too meant that he was dropped. Luckily for him, though, his replacement, Dean Elgar, was even worse! The problem is that JP Duminy will come back, and there won't be room for Rudolph to come back - or for Elgar, as du Plessis is there to stay, for a while at least.

Bruce Elgar did a Rob Quiney, and managed two ducks. Unlike Quiney, Elgar didn't have that magnificent 9 to fall back on, and finished the series with a batting average of 0. Luckily for Elgar, unlike Quiney, he can bowl a bit, though he stunk in his only match. Unlike Quiney, Elgar is actually a good batsman though and actually has a career ahead of him. But it may have to wait a while longer after this terrible effort.

Vernon Philander was supposed to be the best bowler in the world but what we saw was someone desperately trying to show off his average and not actually bowling well. He was horrible in the first test, and while his figures were better in the third, he wasn't exactly good. He took the second test off, but probably did that on purpose. He isn't likely to be dropped in the short term but if this form continues he sure will be.

Rory Kleinveldt was terrible and was lucky that his terrible debut was rewarded with a second match thanks to Philander's absence, when he did slightly better, but was still bad. He is going to have to improve dramatically to get another chance at the big time; but hey, at least he has the experience.

Imran Tahir missed the first test as South Africa played all pace, then played the 2nd and had the worst ever return for a bowler - 340 runs without taking a wicket. The mystery spinner was well and truly solved! Oh dear. He actually did well in the recent T20 World Cup. Is he out of form or just bad luck? Not sure, but it was certainly a bad test for him.

Robin Petersen was Tahir's replacement and actually did pretty well. He can bat a bit too. He wasn't amazing but he was a lot better than he was supposed to be.

Dale Steyn is meant to be the world's best bowler but he was a bit off as well. But then in the 3rd test he was a bit better. Still not up to his usual standard but not so terrible.

Morne Morkel was easily South Africa's best bowler. Without him, South Africa would have lost 3-0. He made Australia's out of form batsmen look terrible, and scared the in form ones too.

Overall:

The scoreline says South Africa but the series was very close. The 1st test had Australia in the position to win at the end but it finished in a draw. The 2nd test Australia were so far ahead it wasn't funny but South Africa remarkably fought out a draw. The 3rd test Australia were on top early before South Africa got slightly ahead, then capitalised, and finished up winning by a decent margin. Overall, Australia did better, but the scoreline is what matters and South Africa win it 1-0. It was a very close series with many twists and turns. Both teams had holes. But somehow South Africa covered theirs better.

Read More

Home Ground Advantage

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) November 18, 2012: In the past three years, these are the results in test cricket:

India: At home: 10-1 (90.9%) Away: 3-12 (20%) Improvement at home: 70.9%

Pakistan: At home: 5-1 (83.3%) Away: 7-10 (41.2%) Improvement at home: 42.1%

Sri Lanka: At home: 3-3 (50%) Away: 1-6 (14.3%) Improvement at home: 35.7%

West Indies: At home: 3-4 (42.9%) Away: 1-6 (14.3%) Improvement at home: 28.6%

England: At home: 12-3  (80%) Away: 7-6 (53.8%) Improvement at home: 26.2%

New Zealand: At home: 3-5 (37.5%) Away: 2-6 (25%) Improvement at home: 12.5%

Australia: At home: 10-4 (71.4%) Away: 7-4 (63.4%) Improvement at home: 8%

South Africa: At home: 5-4 (55.6%) Away: 6-1 (85.7%) Improvement at home -32.1%

Notes:

(1) Bangladesh have not won any games in the past 3 years, either home and away and hence have no home ground advantage.

(2) Zimbabwe have only played 3 tests, which is too small a data set to be useful.

(3) Draws are not included in the analysis - many of these are rain affected anyway and it is difficult to determine their usefulness.

Conclusions:

India have really unusual home conditions that other teams can't handle:

India is certainly a bit warmer and more humid than most other cricketing nations (though it can be hot and humid in the West Indies too) and their pitches tend to be dry and dusty, with slow and low bounce that suits spinners, and makes it hard for players that are used to higher bounce. South Africa, Sri Lanka and Australia have done the best in India; but still worse than they have done in other countries. It has been argued that there is nothing unfair about it - that other teams could also make pitches and conditions that are difficult for their opponents to handle too, they just haven't done it as well as India have. There is nothing in the rules to prohibit doctoring pitches and conditions to suit the home team and India are doing nothing wrong in doing it.

India are terrible away from home:

Most teams do a lot of work to try to get used to foreign conditions. Pakistan and Australia are even looking at using England's Duke ball in their domestic games so that England don't have such a huge home ground advantage. Teams practice on low and slow bounce pitches. They practice against spinners. And so forth. Yet apparently India don't, or at least not as much as other teams, and not as effectively. Perhaps this is due to money. Perhaps India's BCCI are poorer than most national boards and can't afford this level of coaching and preparation. Some fans claim that teams such as Australia (with only an 8% advantage at home, the second lowest) secretly cheat against India, and only India, by secretly preparing different pitches against them so that they can win every game against India at home, as some kind of secret revenge - something that they don't bother doing against anyone else.

South Africa are the fairest team:

It has long been stated that England, South Africa and Australia have the fairest home conditions for visiting teams, because each ground that they use are vastly different, some suiting pace, some spin, some swing, some good for batting, others good for bowling, and so forth. But now we have evidence to prove it. South Africa look very good out of this, and Australia look pretty good too - disproving any claims that Australia ever doctored their pitches. It does look bad for England too, another piece of information that the Duke ball is a very different ball to the others and grants England a huge home ground advantage. England, however, do not statistically have the greatest home ground advantage.

Pakistan don't suffer too much from not being able to play at home:

Pakistan was actually a pretty fair place to go to, cricketing wise, in terms of the playing surfaces used. While in the past they were accused of having biased umpires, not to mention that food and drinking water affected the health of some visiting teams, all of that has been dealt with now and it is quite fair. Sadly, of late, the fear of terrorism and violence against teams - since 9/11 but more recently with the attacks on the Sri Lankan team bus - has meant that nobody is prepared to play against them. Somewhat surprisingly, they now have the 2nd biggest home ground advantage, something that certainly wasn't the case in the past!

England vs India matches are the most pointless of them all:

Since the Future Tours Program started, there are a lot more one sided test series (and other international series) than there used to be, as teams are forced to play against each other when they often don't want to. Remember when Sri Lanka were terrible and nobody wanted to play against them? They complained bitterly, but the reality was that it forced them to improve and be good enough for other teams to want to play against them. This is no longer an incentive for Zimbabwe or Bangladesh. And, unfortunately, it means that we have to go through these hum drum pointless series that probably wouldn't be played if not for the Future Tours Programs. I might be wrong, of course, as perhaps there is some interest in India to see their team decimate an English team who never have any hope of winning in India, and perhaps similarly English fans enjoy winning every single game by huge margins in India. Nonetheless, if the Future Tours Program was dropped, then teams could "vote with their feet", so to speak, by refusing to play against teams that have unfair home conditions, either with an unfairly different Duke ball, or with unfair conditions. There are many reasons to get rid of the Future Tours Program, and I can't think of a single legitimate reason to keep it - but this just adds to the reasons for why it should be taken out.

Read More