Do Aussies Have Competitive Edge Over Proteas?

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) November 13, 2012: The problem that South Africa have faced when coming up against Australia since readmission is that both sides have a similar make up.

Both have an array of marvellous batting, both bat very deep, both have fantastic fast bowlers, good spinners and a wicket keeper.

During Australia's heydey, they boasted a better spinner (Warne), better batsmen and an equal wicket keeper (Gilchrist vs Boucher was a close contest), only Australia's keeper, Gilchrist, could bat a fair bit better than Boucher.

South Africa were ahead with all-rounders; but Australia were able to combat that.

South Africa kept losing their top order cheaply and kept fighting back at the end. While that worked okay in ODIs (T20s didn't exist in those days), it tended to fail in tests. And South Africa lost both home and away, as they couldn't really prepare pitches to favour their players, as Australia had the same strengths.

At various times South Africa used to have better bowlers (Allan Donald etc.) but Australia always had more on offer for their Proteas opponents.

And now, the situation is much the same. Both teams have similar make ups. The problem is that South Africa have it better.

If Shane Watson was playing, it could be argued that he is the equal of Jacques Kallis, at least with the form Watson is currently in. Kallis is a better batsman but Watson is a better bowler; so they kind of cancel out. Maybe Kallis would still win; but not by much. But without Watson - and without any attempt to even play an all-rounder, South Africa win that battle easily.

Amazing batsmen (average 50+):

South Africa have 3 (Smith, Amla and Kallis) while Australia have 3 as well (Ponting, Hussey and Clarke). The problem is that Kallis averages a lot more than 50 (about 58) and while Ponting used to average that high, it is now down to around 52 or so. So South Africa win this one, though it is a close contest.

Good batsmen (average 40+):

South Africa have 5 (the above 3 + Alviro Petersen and A B de Villiers) while Australia have just 4 (the above 3 + David Warner), and Warner only just makes the cut. South Africa therefore win this one quite comfortably.

Ordinary batsmen (average 30+):

South Africa have 7 (the above 5 + J P Duminy and Rudolph) while Australia have just 5 (the above 4 + Matthew Wade), so South Africa win this one too.

Weak batsmen (average 20+):

South Africa have 8 (the above 7 + Philander) while Australia have probably 8 (the above 5 + James Pattinson, Ed Cowan and probably Rob Quiney).

So, in other words, Australia are going to have the same number of players scoring big runs but really struggle when they get to the lower order. Had Starc played, they would have had all 11 with batting averages over 10, and been ahead of South Africa; but Lyon is a bit of a bunny.

There is really no way that Australia can win based on their batting. Sure, so Michael Hussey, Michael Clarke or Ricky Ponting could play blinders and win; but overall South Africa are going to be on top.

Even with home ground advantage, it is going to be tough.

Wicket keeper:

Australia's Matthew Wade is a pure keeper and hence should be ahead of South Africa's A B de Villiers. Had Wade been up against Mark Boucher, though, he would have lost. The problem is that, back when he first played, de Villiers was a full time keeper, and, while he is a bit out of practice, he is still a decent keeper. Wade might be slightly ahead, but Wade isn't exactly used to the big time yet, and the fact is that de Villiers bats a lot better than Wade, so he wins that battle. Of course, de Villiers is included for his batting already (above) so perhaps Australia wins this battle. They should take more catches and have less mistakes in the field. Perhaps. But Australia's fielding under Haddin and Paine fell so far that they are unlikely to catch up this quickly.

Fast bowlers with supreme averages (under 20):

South Africa have 1 (Philander) while Australia have 1 (Pattinson) - though Pattinson is actually over 20 now after the first day of the first test. Philander's average of 15 is a lot better than Pattinson's 18 anyway. It is a bit of a close contest though.

Fast bowlers with great averages (under 25):

South Africa have 2 (Steyn + the 1 above) while Australia still just have 1. Pattinson vs Philander might be close but Philander + Steyn vs Pattinson by himself is a bit of a mismatch.

Fast bowlers with good averages (under 30):

South Africa have 3 (Morkel + the 2 above) while Australia have 3 (Siddle and Hilfenhaus + the 1 above). Australia are equal here, presuming that Kleinveldt ends up being terrible. If he is decent, though, then Australia are behind. It should be noted that Australia's spinner (Lyon) also averages just under 30; so Australia wins, yay!

Bowlers of any kind with decent averages (under 40):

South Africa have 6 (JP Duminy and Kallis + the 3 above, and Kleinveldt, you would think, would be under 40 too) while Australia have 5 (Michael Hussey averages under 40, amazingly + the 4 above). Of course, with JP Duminy out injured, it gets back to 5 each, so Australia are in the hunt.

Spin bowlers:

Australia has 1 (Lyon).

Summary: How are Australia better?

1) Wicket keeper (Matthew Wade) is probably slightly better purely as a keeper than A B de Villiers, though he is considerably worse as a batsman.

2) Spin bowler (Lyon) is better than any spinners that South Africa might use.

So, put simply, Australia will need for the ball to spin a lot in order to have any chance of victory. Make it so that, suddenly, the wickets don't support pace. It has rained, so if they can just leave the pitch uncovered, the spinner could come into play.

They do have some chance now that a day has been washed out and JP Duminy is injured, without either batting or bowling. But it is pretty difficult.

Moving ahead to the 2nd test, what could Australia do to be better?

It is in Adelaide, which is usually very good for batting, and decent for spinners. But South Africa's spinners (Tahir and Robin Petersen) are better than Australia's (Lyon), and they will surely play at least one of them. It is a ground that you'd play an extra bowler, just to go for the victory, and you'd go in with 3 batsmen and 2 bowlers. It is a ground that Australia could consider playing James Faulkner as a bowling all-rounder as well as Glenn Maxwell as a batting all rounder that bowls spin. They could then play 5 proper batsmen - with Watson one of them if he is fit - plus keeper makes 8, Lyon makes 9, and your 2 best fast bowlers - Starc and Pattinson. Doing that, Australia would have the edge with both batting and bowling, as well as by having the extra spinner and more variety.

Read More

Australia vs South Africa: Aussies tested in Brisbane Test

By Adrian Meredith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

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