Surely the second Test between Australia and South Africa would have lured some of the T20 fans back to the purest and best form of the game.
Spectators, fans and the newly introduced watchers were treated to five completely different and entirely absorbing days of cricket. What followers saw for five days in Test cricket, I scarcely remember seeing in any T20 game.
The momentum swung back and forth for five days until only the fairest result emerged; a draw.
Day one saw a savage onslaught by the Australians after being on the backfoot in the first hour.
Day two saw a strong South African fightback.
Day three saw the game settle to be anyone’s for the taking with Australia languishing at 5/100 by stumps.
Day four saw the Australians once more claw out of the mud and set what would need to be a world record target, and have South Africa skittled to 4/55 before the evening session rearguard gave South Africa the faintest glimmer of a draw for the fifth day.
And what a fifth day. The scoreboard only tells half the story.
Yes, the scoreboard will show that South Africa grimly held on all day.
Yes, the scoreboard will show that Australia were incapable of bowling out a team in nearly 150 overs and Faf Du Plessis played a truly patient knock to reach a maiden Test century on debut.
Yes, the scoreboard showed after five days, the game was a draw.
But what the scoreboard doesn’t show, and what makes Test cricket such a glorious game, is the heroic efforts of certain players in each team.
The scorecard doesn’t show that Jacques Kallis played off one good leg and still scored his average in the first innings and survived two and a half hours in the second.
The scoreboard doesn’t show the physical anguish Faf Du Plessis felt in the final half hour of this gripping match.
The scoreboard doesn’t show that Peter Siddle was at near collapse in the evening session, yet willed himself to bowl ball after ball at full pace, and take two vital wickets to boot.
Finally, the scoreboard does not show the pressure felt by both teams for 100 overs yesterday, the pressure of Australia needing to bowl South Africa out, and South Africa needing to withstand a day of having six people within two metres of the bat for six hours.
Some people often criticise a draw asking how could you not have a result after five days?
Well, I put the second Test as my answer; how could you have a winner and loser in this match? Both teams did not want to lose and therefore neither team can win. People forget that sometimes a draw is a result.
The objective behind Test cricket is simple; take 20 wickets and have more runs than the opposing team when you do so.
What we saw for five grueling days is that this is far easier said than done. Despite their best intentions, neither team could do so. And that’s why Test cricket is the greatest game ever invented.
Sam
Guest
Great food analogy man! Couldn't agree more.
ak
Roar Guru
Yeah, that too was a wonderful match. Enjoyed it till the very end.
Nick
Roar Guru
Exactly.
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
Nick, well done on writing such a great article. I loved every bit of the second test and was glued to the whole of the last day. A draw is a result when it goes right down to the wire like that. Test cricket is a five course meal at a fine restaurant. T20 cricket is fast food from KFC.
Rhys
Guest
It's true some draws can produce some edge of the seat cricket of the highest calibre. I think the best draw I've seen was India v. West Indies, from 2011. Without looking up the match stats, India were chasing down a 4th innings total on the final day. It went down to the last over of the day, with India 8 down. They pulled level with the West Indies on runs off the last ball, and in going for the winning run lost their ninth wicket to a run out. So at the end both teams were level on runs overall. The only thing that made the difference in it being a draw and not a tie was the fact India had one last wicket in hand at the end of play. Just had a quick check of the scorecard - it was the 3rd Test, played in Mumbai. WI scored 590 in the 1st innings, India replied with 482. WI then collapsed for 134 in the second dig (on a wearing pitch), India replied with 9/242. Scores level, match drawn.
Don Corleone
Guest
I don’t think people watch T20 expecting to see the quality, depth and drama that a test match can offer. Tests and T20 are completely different formats. Test cricket provides the history, endurance and eminence while T20 offers a night of fast-paced cricket, colour and excitement. I enjoy both formats and see them as complementing each other, not competing with each other and I haven't encountered anyone yet who says they’ve been lured from tests to T20.
josh
Guest
The 5th day was just as good as the first day. Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand Test Match cricket.
Sam Brown
Roar Guru
Amen, not other sport (maybe excluding 4 day golf majors) allow for such a great swingingt dynamic of fortunes. What a great game.
ak
Roar Guru
Both the Tests ended in draws. The difference being that while the first one was a dull draw the second one was an exciting game till the last over. The second test was by far one of the best in recent years because it was after a long time that a side batted a long fourth innings for a draw. Actually in recent years test cricket has seen a number of successful run chases where the target was a big one. West Indies chased down 418, South Africa chased down 414, India managed to chase 387 & Australia chased a target of 369. However a game wherein a lot many overs were played out in the fourth innings to save a test match is something which does not happen with regularity. And the second test actually saw the South Africans playing out 148 overs for a draw. Also one may get to see a team drawing out a game wherein it had an outside chance to win the game. That is because a chance to win provides some kind of motivation. However when you know that you can at the most save the test, that is when the art of defensive batting comes into play. If this match is analysed from day one we would find that 482 runs were scored on the first day. That was quite blistering and equally blistering was the double ton from skipper Clarke. However at the end of the test Du Plessis's 110 runs at a strike rate of 29 turned out to be the crucial innings. Actually that was an innings which was equally enjoyed though for different reasons. What that also proves is that a slow innings can also give joy. Also in ODIs & T20s the number of balls taken for scoring matters the most. Lesser the number of balls used up better is the innings. A 100 off 70 balls is always going to be better than a 100 off 120 balls on the same pitch. However that is not the case in a test match. A fast ton & a slow ton both matter in a test depending upon the situation of the game. Clarke's innings gave the bowlers the extra time to bowl out the opposition while the South Africans wanted Du Plessis to play as many balls as possible. If he had got out scoring 110 in say 150 balls, South Africa could have lost the game. Ofcourse there will always be those ifs & buts. This test also saw AB De Villiers, an attacking batsman scoring 33 off 220 deliveries at a strike rate of just 15. However what an important innings that was ! Infact from amongst those innings where he scored less than 50 this was perhaps De Villiers's best innings. So even a draw can be a great result. I won't mind if the next tests also turn out to be such draws
Neuen
Roar Rookie
I think those T20 fans were waiting for the Super Over