A week or so ago India won their Test against England with the biggest second innings run chase ever on the sub-continent. Now, on Sunday, South Africa have scored 414 to win the first Test against Australia at Perth, the highest winning second innings run chase ever recorded in Australia.
Where have all the bowlers gone?
In the case of Australia, only four wickets were captured in South Africa’s second innings, and Mitchell Johnson achieved the remarkable feat of taking 11 of the 14 South African wickets lost in the Test.
On the last day of the Perth Test there were three significant moments where the match could have been won by the bowling side. At the start of play South Africa were 3 for 281 with a new ball due in an hour or so of play. Wickets lost then would have exposed the frail South African tail to Brett Lee and Mitchell Johnson (the destroyer in the first innings) withe the new ball. All over for South Africa, you’d think.
The next significant moment came when the new ball was taken with the score at 4 for 361. Ricky Ponting gave Brett Lee, at this critical juncture in the Test when wickets were needed, one slip only.
Then with the score at 4 for 388, with his bowlers having the chance to rest up at the lunch break, Ponting brought back Johnson for one last assault, a cricketing equivalent of Napoleon sending his Old Guard on one final assault at Waterloo.
While all this was going on Ponting was forced to rely on Peter Siddle earlier in the day and on Jason Krejza to try and fill in when his strike bowlers were being rested. The problem with this is that neither Siddle or Krejza is up to Test standard at this time.
Siddle does nothing with the ball, although he is a whole-hearted trier. How he gets selected ahead of, say, Ben Hilfenhaus remains a mystery of the selection process.
Krejza conceded 5 runs an over in his bowling stint in the second inning, a rate that is unforgivable in a finger-spinner. Watching Krejza being sliced with the death of a thousand cuts, bleeding runs virtually every ball, my mind went back to the great off-spinners of the past, men like Hugh Tayfield who once bowled 137 consecutive balls in a Test in England and did not concede a run.
The selectors’ problem with Krejza is that he looks like the best of a mediocre bunch of spinners. Why play him? Why not play someone like Nathan Bracken to bowl rather in the manner of Derek Underwood, with catchers around the bat applying pressure on the batsmen.
For one of the features of the two run chases was the easy pickings allowed to the batsmen by Pietersen and Ponting, with defensive fields that virtually conceded a single to the batsmen whenever he got the ball into the covers or the mid-leg areas of the field. A.B. de Villers, for instance, got a third of his runs in singles.
Two other points: J.P.Dauminy, a small, neat and aggressive left-hander playing his first Test reminded me of the great Neil Harvey in his willingness to come down the pitch to the bowlers and to smack them fiercely down the ground when they over-pitched. Where is the Australian equivalent to Harvey?
Finally, a couple of years ago Cricket Australia rather abruptly told Denis Lillee his services as a fast bowling coach and mentor were no longer needed. Lillee now spends a lot of time in India successfully encouraging the development of fast bowlers there.
Given the poor display by the Australian fast bowlers at Perth (of all places!), is it too much to expect that the generally incompetent Cricket Australia will make Lillee an offer he can’t refuse to bring on the next crop of Test-winning fast bowlers?
Given Cricket Australia’s past arrogance, we shouldn’t be holding our breathe for the right thing to be done.
Highest successful fourth-innings run chases — all countries, all grounds
7-418 West Indies v Australia, St John’s 2002-03
4-414 South Africa v Australia, Perth 2008-09
4-406 India v West Indies, Port of Spain 1975-76
3-404 Australia v England, Leeds 1948
4-387 India v England, Chennai 2008-09
6-369 Australia v Pakistan, Hobart 1999-2000
7-362 Australia v West Indies, Georgetown 1977-78
9-352 Sri Lanka v South Africa, Colombo 2006
5-348 West Indies v New Zealand, Auckland 1968-69
1-344 West Indies v England, Lord’s 1984
8-342 Australia v India, Perth 1977-78
5-340 South Africa v Australia, Durban 2001-02
5-336 Australia v South Africa, Durban 1949-50
6-334 Australia v South Africa, Cape Town 2001-02
7-332 England v Australia, Melbourne 1928-29
5-326 Sri Lanka v Zimbabwe, Colombo 1997-98
Series results in Tests between Australia and South Africa since South Africa’s re-admission to Test cricket in 1992.
1993-94 in Australia — Played 3: Aus 1, SA 1, drawn 1
1993-94 in South Africa — Played 3: Aus 1, SA 1, drawn 1
1996-97 in South Africa — Played 3: Aus 2, SA 1
1997-98 in Australia — Played 3: Aus 1, drawn 2
2001-02 in Australia — Played 3: Aus 3
2001-02 in South Africa — Played 3: Aus 2, SA 1
2005-06 in Australia — Played 3: Aus 2, drawn 1
2005-06 in South Africa — Played 3: Aus 3
2008-09 in Australia* — Played 1: SA 1
* denotes series still being played.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (99)
- Media should call stumps on Rodney Hogg (93)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (86)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (151)
- Hall of Fame for Indian legend Gavaskar
- Sri Lanka to target ‘weak’ Aussie bowlers
- India backing Rohit Sharma to find form
- Game-by-game preview of round 19
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (5)
- Like father, like son: Alister McDermott on a fast track to the Test team (30)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (151)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (5)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (21)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (5)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Pakistan win shows what’s beautiful about the game (13)
LeftArmSpinner said | December 22nd 2008 @ 7:42am | Report comment
Spiro, I can but agree. However, bowlers need wikets that change character over the five days of a match. Green, fast and bouncy with a new ball on the first day, then mellowing until it starts to breakup mid way through day 4 to end up a beast (ideally equivalent to day 1) on day 5.
Ian Noble said | December 22nd 2008 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Spiro
Too many squares are prepared with the batter in mind, presumably because if you have a bowler friendly wicket then a test match could be over in two days; lost revenue and all that. From a bowlers point these batter friendly squares encourage defensive bowling, slow over rates and generally poor test cricket. There has to be balance, perhaps we should return to days of uncovered wickets in England that would help the bowlers and be a real test of the technique of the best batters.
Hoy said | December 22nd 2008 @ 8:39am | Report comment
I was so disappointed with the loss. Apart from Johnson, it looked like we had no clue as to what to do.
I think Ponting lacks a bit as captain. He doesn’t seem to have an idea of what to do when the opposition get the upper hand. He just seems to plod along and hope for the best.
Ben said | December 22nd 2008 @ 9:00am | Report comment
yep, not only are we light on fast bowling and in need of someone like Dennis Lillee involved as coach, we equally need Shane Warne or Stuart MacGill signed as a coach to build our spin bowling ranks.
Australian cricket is in for at least 5 years of pain………………
Luke W said | December 22nd 2008 @ 9:29am | Report comment
I agree with Ian. The WACA pitch did absolutely nothing for five whole days. There was no seam movement, uneven bounce was extremely rare and the only player to get any sort of swing was Dale Steyn with the new ball at the start of the Australian second innings (no bowler was able to get any reverse swing, which can be a pace bowler’s most lethal weapon).
But I think we have been spoilt for choice when it comes to bowlers in the past. Jason Krejza is a fine finger spin bowler. You have to remember that a WACA pitch is hard enough at the best of time for spinners, let alone a dead WACA pitch like the one we saw. However, we were lucky enough to see the greatest spinner of all time in our lifetime, who no doubt would have picked up at least 6 or 7 wickets in the match at a very economical rate.
The bowlers we have now are still very good. We can’t compare them to Warne and McGrath.
onside said | December 22nd 2008 @ 11:04am | Report comment
Dont change a thing.I loved every bit of this test match.It is the first one I have watched every day for ages.
I wanted South Africa to win simply to see what Australia are capable of in the next two tests.
Reserve judgement until the end of the series and perhaps the return series in South Africa.
Whereas Spiros article does not infer something is wrong because Australia did not win,many in the sporting media
are saying exactly that. Win =good,(write about the good Auussie bits)Loose =bad,(write about bad Aussie bits)
The once amature game of cricket valued the contest more than the result.
This match will be remembered for the contest as much as the result. lets hope the next two tests produce similar
contests.And if Australia does not win it does not really matter so long as the test cricket is riveting.
positive b sample said | December 22nd 2008 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
I hope we can skip all the hype about the bouncy pace friendly WACA wicket next year. We gave the springboks (and well done to them) a headstart by providing them with early breaks courtesy of Hayden which exposed our middle order, combined with Brett Lees inability to take wickets with the new ball. If you take out the 2 tests against NZ Lee was terrible in India and the selectors should remember how quickly Gillespie faded in the last ashes series.
If our quicks had done a better job Krejza could have enjoyed bowling with more pressure on the batters and more attacking fields. The coach and selectors should come in for a bit of stick as well. The lineup has been all over the place lately. Will they go back to the old days against the windies when we picked 3 openers next ? Hilditch made some appauling decicions as a test player,whats he doing selecting? Could he be a double agent for the rest of the world?
I think Rodgers should come in for Hayden and give him time to settle.On form we are going to loose this series so why not have a cull. Lee and Siddle need to go. Bollinger was sensational in the NSW side that lost to Tassie in the shield final 2 years back and would be great with the new ball. Hilfenhaus moves the ball around and needs to be in the team for the next ashes series. Symonds doesn’t value his wicket or his spot in the team. Ditch him for a hungry young player.
Bob Simpson and Allan Border built up a team with players prepared to dig in and fight. Brad Haddin fits this mould as does Stuart Clarke and Mike Hussey. Michael Clarke has good form but you have to worry about a bloke who buys his model girlfriend an aston martin. Did AB, Tubby or Steve Waugh ever do something that womans dayish?
I think that covers everything.
ohtani's jacket said | December 22nd 2008 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
South Africa took 20 wickets in the Test. India benefited from some poor batting before England’s declaration. They managed to take 19 wickets. Both Tests had fantastic results. What exactly is the problem?
Hatchet said | December 22nd 2008 @ 4:24pm | Report comment
I agree with the comments about the bowling. I think that we are missing out on some aspects of the performance though.
What about the batsmen? SA made 414 look easy on the last day. Our batsmen? apart from Haddin (another great wickie/batsman to hide the poor performance of the first five) no-one scored.
The selectors?? Why not select on performance rather than cricket theory – only one left arm fast bowler in a team, Indians ‘eat’ leg-spin etc.
Just select on performance in the shield.
Incidently, the selectors should be sacked. They are just well-turned out no-hopers!
sheek said | December 22nd 2008 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
Eras end apparently for no other reason than an opportunity for the Gods to teach humans humility. A lesson that needs reinforcing at regular intervals.
A successful era eventually mirrors original sin. A team or individuals having enjoyed sustained success, forget the things that got them to the top in the first place. So the Gods need to bring them back to earth!
A workmate wondered why, with our much vaunted cricket structure, we didn’t have at least two players threatening every position? I don’t have an answer, except to wonder why myself?
One or two theories are as follows. Our shield players don’t get to play with & against the test players. Consequently, it’s difficult to know how good a well performing shield player really is. Also, there are few traditional tours to blood ‘next generation’ players into the team setup.