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.
Westy
Guest
Please forgive me I forgot to include the last of the WA swing trio Alderman. I wish we had him now.
Westy
Guest
Back to the article. It has been a recurring theme over the last 20 years of the lack of genuine swing bowling in Australia's ranks. One real contributing fact has been the sameness that has developed in Australian pitch preparation. Even Perth does not hold the local trepidation it once did. Adelaide Sydney and Bellerive are a batting paradise. A genuine swing bowler has to reduce pace and pitch up. It is an art and if the ball does not swing easily punished. We basically have not produced a genuine swing bowler since Massie and Malone. Remember it was Imran Khan that taught a few of the NSW boys how to reverse swing and these lessons have not been passed on. Mcgrath had an unerving accuracy at good pace . He was never a swing bowller. All bowlers can swing the ball to a degree. To be a specialist is a risky strategy and one few state teams have encouraged.
photon
Guest
Greg greatness is measured by what you do and when you do it i.e. performing outstanding feats at critical times and not just ability, that's why a player like steve waugh will be remembered as a cricketing great whereas his brother mark a far more talented cricketer will just be remembered as a good player with the most beautiful cover drive you could ever hope to see. Graeme Smith is a great cricketer the the innings' he played at headingly and melbourne and on numerous other occasions for south africa in the most difficult of circumstances and when most needed by his side prove it. He is the new Steve Waugh, and he is the primary reason for this series win. If you can't recognise that then you don't truly understand what sport is about.
Greg Smith
Guest
... as a South African... I hear you but I don't believe you... South Africa offers something you fella's DON'T really get........ cricket is NOT all wham, bam, boom, boom, AGGRESIVE, threatening, MACHO (Aussies invented this in cricket) stuff. Cricket isn't EVEN about STARS ... a determined, enthusiastic, motivated, mildly skilled and average talented TEAM can ride the UNIVERSE to victory against SUPERSTARS and that's partly the reason why Tendulkar has the LOWEST average (only 38) against South Africa... the collary - huge talent, master skill BUT without the drive and 'universe' behind him against SA I spoke a Spanish friend (who has NEVER heard of seen a game of cricket) and he said at the start of the PERTH test, 'South Africa will win and Australia will reap their COSMIC COMEUPPANCE'... I agreed, I could feel it... AND likewise for the SERIES... Australia will have to DEFY the UNIVERSE to win this series ! (It shows in 'luck' equations - Matt Hayden gets a bad decision - OUT, Brett Lee misses a regulation catch... and such and such....) The Baggy Greens FEEL they don't deserve to win HERE and NOW.... and so they won't !
Chris GS
Guest
I back up photon's observation that most of the Aussie bats always attempt to dominate and be aggressive and don't have much time for nurdling the ball around and picking up singles. Spectacular when it comes off, but now two of the main exponents of this approach are getting old and tired (Hayden and Ponting). 9 times out of 10 you could count on Gilly to rescue the side if the top order didn't fire (which did happen a bit); Haddin _could_ fill that role, but he's going to have to do it more often if the Aussies still want to bat in this manner. The next generation Aus cricket team will still win more than they lose, if they're prepared to play as if they actually respect their opposition. Therefore they won't be scoring at 3.5-4+ runs per over as often, with Clarke, Katich, Hussey shouldering the run-scoring burden for the next 2-3 years before the last 2 retire. Phil Hughes looks a great talent but seems more of an accumulator a la Langer and beyond him ... ? All the boasting in the past of the 2nd best team in the world being the Aus 2nd XI seems pretty embarrassing now. Not sure why Kallis is considered selfish - maybe not even one-paced judging by the way he seized the initiative at the end of day 4 when Krejza and Siddle were brought on for the last few overs. Surely a batsman worried only about self-preservation would have blocked his way to stumps. Isn't it more selfish (and brainless) to get out to loose shots, as if it's business as usual and that all it takes is to make the opposition fall in a heap is to plunder a six and a couple of boundaries. As for Smith's unpopularity ... strikes me as a case of some Aussies looking in a mirror and not enjoying what they see ;-) My pet theory about Lee is that he was a slip-stream bowler, judging by the number of wickets I've seen him take with batsman flashing outside off-stump. In order words batters get out attacking him - the only viable option for making runs after Warne and McGrath have strangled you. This was particularly noticeable in ODIs. Nothing wrong with being a shock weapon, but it leads to a limited future once you have to shoulder more responsibility or bowl a greater share of overs. He's done better than I thought he would leading the attack immediately after the Immortal Pair retired, mainly by keeping a more consistent length, but I always suspected that once his pace started dropping in his early 30's he would become less and less effective. I can't believe Lee's remarks that he will bowl faster in his mid-30s than ever before, because that's when sprinters reach their peak. Geez these sports psychologists and life coaches have a lot to answer for. With 3 back-to-back Tests, 3 more in SAf, the Ashes and umpteen ODIs and T20s thrown in, Lee will be lucky to bowl faster than Krejza when Xmas 2009 comes around, assuming his arm hasn't fallen off!
photon
Guest
Greg the biggest single difference between south africa and australia for the last ten years has been shane warne. South Africa is a side filled with awesome cricketers the only difference is a australian who is good is the most arrogant man in sport, and south africans are more conservative, bar smith. Kallis is not selfish he just plays cricket the south african way, he values his wicket and is the foundation upon which our innings is built, you look at that fourth innings nobody in our batting line up threw their wicket away, every wicket was earned. The Aussies bar katich believe attack is the only way and they paid for it, so many of them threw away their wicket it's not worth mentioning. The only difference this time is, there was no warne standing in the way of victory ala to many times to mention. As for India, been there done that, our record against the indians is pretty impressive. We've 1 one drawn 2 and lost 1 series on the sub continent, and also never lost a series to them at home. If we win this series in spite of what chappell, ponting or any other aussie says we will be the best side in the world
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
Yes, it's a no-brainer that the Australian bowling was lacking in this match. But I feel that the top-6 batsmen were just as much of a problem, perhaps even more so. The Cricinfo report on day 1 pointed out that Australia's first innings score was its best at the WACA in four years. Success since then has been based on huge third innings scores by Australia, viz. Brad Hodge's double century against South Africa three years ago, and the Hussey/Clarke/Gilchrist show against the English two years ago. What went wrong for Australia in this test was a pathetic effort by the top 6 in the second innings, when in very benign conditions the top score of 37 was surpassed by 5 of South Africa's top 6 in their successful run chase. Ponting admitted as much after the match when he said that he had spoken to the team of the need to score 500 before they started their second innings. Instead they slumped to 7/160, and it was only 150 runs by the last three wickets that delivered any sort of a contest. The truth is that a successful chase like this has been threatening for some time at the WACA, which - much like Ponting's home ground of Bellerive Oval - becomes a batting pitch to die for as a test match goes on. In 2001-2 Australia almost chased the target of 440 set by New Zealand even though the team did not bat particularly well. Three years ago Jaques Rudolph did not have much trouble in defying Australia for one-and-a-half days as South Africa only lost 5 wickets in holding on for a draw. Two years ago Cook and Bell gave Australia a fright on day 4 as England threatened to make 550, only for Warne magic to deliver a win on day 5. This time Australia's opponents found themselves "only" chasing 400 at the WACA and up against an attack without Warne or McGrath. Accordingly, what has been threatening for many years finally transpired. Australia needed to set at least 500 but the top 6 miserably failed to deliver such a target. Without wishing to offend any South Africans, I must ask: is there a single great cricketer in this South African side? I guess Kallis and Smith both have their admirers, but my opinion is that the former is too selfish and the latter is too limited for either to be regarded as great. I have come to admire Smith - he seems to have learned a lot from playing in India under Warne - but I never think I am watching a great cricketer when he is batting. I think we all expected the South African bowling to be dangerous, but Ian Chappell's Cricinfo report at the end of day 1 was correctly headed "SA attack lack intimidation". Indeed, if Steyn is the best bowler in world cricket, then Spiro is correct to ask "Where have all the bowlers gone?" What I am getting at above is that South Africa strike me as well-moulded team of handy cricketers that knows exactly what its limitations are and how far it can push itself. In this test they beat a team of at least equal ability but playing as a bunch of headless chooks. Well done to South Africa, as cricket is a team sport after all. The series to look forward to now is that of South Africa vs India, i.e., the well-fashioned team against the team of superior individual talents (let's be honest, when Australia lost in India it was clear that India was doing it through having superior players, but there was never such a feeling in Perth). The fascinating spice in the next South Africa-India series will be that it will be the job of one of South Africa's finest sons, Gary Kirsten, to turn the Indians into a team. Meanwhile, the Ashes 2009 shapes as a contest to determine the third best team in world cricket.
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
Ben, MacGill rates Troy Cooley as the best bowling coach he has ever had, albeit part time!! It will only be five years if nothing is done or it is done poorly! Luke W if the wicket is flat and doesnt deteriorate, a draw is the best that cn be expected if both teams are equal. In this case, the Proteas were simply better. Krejza is not a fine bowler. Until India, he had NEVER got a 5 wicket haul at first class level. At 25, this is a problem and a signal, surely!! Lee should be able to bowl clever rather than just fast. Hoy, Bowling is about patterns and tactics. Lee's speed is often mentioned but of little consequence to me if he is bolwing cleverly. Out and out pace rarely gets the good guys out at test level. Onside, Good points. Nothing like a seesaw of a game over 4 days and a good challenge for the aussies. I just dont think they are up to it. previous Aust. teams were more up for it. It was a good contest, but primarily because the Proteas took the game to Australia.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
I commend to everyone Benjamin Conkey's observation that this is the first time since March 1998 (in India) that Australia has lost the first test of a series. In fact I cannot think of an occasion since then when Australia has even looked in any danger of losing the opening test of a series.
Greg Smith
Guest
...how can WE believe you ? You Aussies are SUCH a mouthy lot I give up ! Listening to ALL the Aussie pre-PERTH banter leaves me skeptical and I double-check if an Aussie CLAIMS the sky's blue... but hey... maybe YOU'RE right... he, he Aussiness gotta love it - the New Texans can't help themselves, ha, ha !
Gatesy
Guest
I didn't see much of the game, apart from late night highlights on days 1 and 2. What's happened to Bollinger? If memory serves, he was a bit of a gun last year, but doesn't seem to rate a mention. As I recall, (at least last year) he was ahead of Hilfenhaus, and the Melbourne wicket suits him?? Am I missing something?
Chaos
Guest
Its simple that selectors do not know how to think laterally when the time gets tough. Mcgrath and Warne are luxeries. Lee has never really swung the ball. Being the third (attacker only) behind the for mentioned two (plus a pretty good Gillespie) is easier then being the lead man, when the opposition is just as good (or smarter) as you. They really treasured thier wickets! Oh for a Alderman who doesn't tackle pitch invaders and go on illegal tours. He had 180 wickets and could swing on such a dead wicket (he did know how to use a Femantle doctor). Add another 40 for the Ashes in England he missed due to SA. Then you relise that his style would complement whats lacking in Aussie Cricket. Other then the fact we have no spinner... If I bowled anything other then slow nude nuts with the occasional pie, I reckon I could be in line for test selection. Reminds me of pre-Warne days. Sleep, Mcintyre, Taylor, Hogg Mk 1, Robertson etc... The Blond haired bogan has changed how spinners are seen. For the better, but in the late 80's we couldn't spin a basket! (Don't tell Greg Matthews). Incidently I loved Sounder, but mainly because he got that 90 odd batting... For Boxing day I would keep the same batting line up, but play Watson, Hillfenhous, MJ (that leftie whos pretty good) and any club spinner who can keep the run rate under 3.5... I imagine it actually will be Lee, Hillfenhous, MJ and Hautiz. Haydos deserves to go ot on his own choosing, but Healy and Junior didn't get that luxery...
onside
Guest
Spiro has listed sixteen games of the highest successful fourth innings run chases. I bet anybody at those games would say that it was one of the best Test matches they had ever seen,regardless of which team they supported. Successfully chasing a high fourth innings total to win a game is crickets Everest. Its rarely achieved.Of the sixteen games,the first was in 1928/29.Thats eighty years ago. Of the many hundreds of international Test matches played in the last eighty years, only a measly sixteen teams have recorded penultimate success.'Cricket enthusiasts should be in raptures about the Perth Test being one of only sixteen in eighty years.'The result of the Perth Test must sourely be far greater than the sum of its parts.Great Test match victories are impossible without great Test match failures.Its the yin and yang of cricket.And yet the focus is on the parts, that hypothetically changed, would alter an outcome previously seen only sixteen times in eighty years.. There is no pleasing some people.
Benjamin Conkey
Editor
Oh and well done to South Africa. I did say I couldn't see them winning on Australian soil so they've already proven me wrong. But what they really want to do is win a series and we all know how tough that is. At several stages throughout that 1st test I thought they were ready to choke. After Mitchell Johnson's amazing spell in the first innings to come back in the second and bat like they did was superb. Smith got the monkey of the back with that century, which will scare the Aussies and Kallis threw in some uncharacteristic cavalier shots for good measure.
Benjamin Conkey
Editor
Australia missed Stuart Clark in this Test and will continue to miss him. The media has been a little harsh on Brett Lee (and Ponting for that matter). Of course he isn't as fast as he used to be, but that spell on the fourth night when he got Amla out was superb. He was extremely unlucky, which seems to be a pattern in his career. I think I'm right in saying that this is the first time Australia has lost the opening match of a Test series since 1998. It's no surprise that South Africa won by playing agressively. They need to keep it up if they are to win. As 'Onside' said we shouldn't judge Australia until the end of the series. As you said Spiro SIddle did nothing with the ball and should make way for Hilfenhaus.
sheek
Guest
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.
Hatchet
Guest
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!
ohtani's jacket
Guest
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?
positive b sample
Guest
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.
onside
Guest
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.