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.
