In cricket, as in any field of endeavour, there are victories that in time undermine the premise of the battle.
Why bother wielding bat and bowling ball when the odds are obscenely insuperable? Does it make sense for mounted cavalry to take to the field against tanks? When waged in conditions of total war, cricket loses its appeal.
It doesn’t so much remain a battle as a slaughter, a lame excuse, in fact, to begin the battle. The paying public might as well stay home and keep their earnings for some other spectacle. Titanic victories are as boring as indeterminate draws.
South Africa’s cricket captain Graeme Smith is one of the worst exponents of the game in that sense. He might be leading a team at the top of the international cricket tree but his imagination is impoverished.
He allows matches to assume a somnambulist quality at stages. He meanders, and allows his team to wander into rudderless waters. Smith often places the game on autopilot, waiting for the wicket rather than changing the environment that will allow the wicket to fall. When cornered, he hopes that a barnacled defence against an aggressive attack will work.
When he has moved into an unassailable position, Smith attacks in the hope of annihilating his enemy. To him, inventive thinking in times of crisis is unspeakably foreign. He has the unvarnished tactical acumen of Field Marshal Montgomery (of World War II fame) and the blundering disposition of General George McClellan (Union commander during the US Civil War).
Cricket’s captaincy is filled with Tories, liberals and radicals. It is also packed with opportunists and bandits. Surely the worst of any of these must be the conservative captain who lacks faith in his own team to charge to the finishing line unless you have all the bases secured.
This is often a product of fear – previous defeats hang heavily over leadership. They constitute the syphilis of tacticians.
At times when Allan Border’s Ashes sides were annihilating his opponents, there is little doubt that lurking in his bruised psyche was the spirit of Ian Botham. It did not matter than Botham was past his best or even playing in the side – what mattered was the past, with its asphyxiating weight.
Many decisions are often made not on a moment’s change of circumstances but on a moment’s reflection of the past.
The most notable radical captain was no doubt cricket’s greatest all-rounder, West Indian darling Sir Garfield Sobers.
In 1968, in the fourth Test in Port of Spain, Trinidad, he set England a target of 215 runs with 165 minutes to spare. The West Indies at that point were a comfortable 2/92. The dour English side, who had, in Sobers’ own opinion, done so much to kill off interest in the series, won with seven wickets to spare.
Sobers, himself the finest appellation of beautiful, attacking cricket, was pilloried despite having a series of peerless majesty with bat and ball. Not even the West Indian management or senior players claimed to know of his ideas behind the declaration. The talented and the daring are punished for their initiative.
The first two Test matches of this South African-Australian series showed Smith in all his shades of command: brute power, unreflective field placements, baffling bowling changes and an overly cautious declaration.
A few wickets in the Australian top order would fall. An indifferent South Africa then would allow Mike Hussey and Michael Clarke to mark their ascendancy. For a few years now, the Australian top order has proven brittle, making the overworked middle order vulnerable. This was not something Smith’s team exploited, for the most part.
Smith was fortunate to have a determined Faf du Plessis get the South Africans out of well-deserved gaol with his fighting century on debut in the second Test. Their victory in Perth is a deception of grand proportions, though the cricketing chroniclers will no doubt say that good, and even great sides, need their moments of ‘luck’, a fabled nonsense if ever there was one.
At Perth, the Proteas, having survived the second Test, proceeded to make short work of the Australians. The South African pace attack, remarkably meek despite having such figures as the lauded Dale Steyn, fired. (If a well regarded pace bowler can’t fire at the WACA, why fire at all?)
It could be argued that Smith’s refusal to declare, allowing the Australian side to bowl out the South Africans, was testament to his opponents. Be wary of Warner, Hussey and Clarke. And there might be an off-chance that Ricky Ponting might mark his final Test match with a blinding century.
This, however, is false logic, if one considers Smith as having any logic to being with. In continuing to bat to the point of making Australia chase a total over 623 runs in the final innings, he conceded the weakness of his side. One might be the best cricketing outfit in the world, but don’t trust that label.
It was the reaction of a brute – the bully who fears that his day will come, and his bluff called. Best, then, to bloody and batter your opponents into submission, snuffing out any chance of a counter attack. This, in the end, is not the cricket we need.
Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.
GaryGnu
Guest
Graeme Smith - negative? This is the same guy who declared in both innings of the Sydney test two tours ago while trying to force a series levelling win. On that day he ran into a steadily improving SCG pitch and a very hot RT Ponting in the 4th innings. It's also the same guy who then came out to bat next time round at Sydney with a broken arm to try and save a test. I think your sentiments are misplaced Binoy.
mds1970
Roar Guru
I don't see why Smith would have declared. When South Africa were bowled out in that second innings, the game was still in the third day. They left themselves more than two days to bowl Australia out. If Australia had batted all the way through Monday and all the way through Tuesday, finishing the game 8 or 9 out and nowhere near the run target, then you could criticise Graeme Smith for not declaring. But not when they win the Test with more than a day to spare.
Suzy Poison
Guest
A well written article, but Smith batting to the end, was out of respect for Australia. He probably had in the back of his mind, how the Aussies tore up the Protea attack in the previous two tests. Also as a Saffa, I am proud of the result, and South Africa did have injuries in the first two tests. But it is also worth pointing out, Australia lost their main strike bowler too. Global season is having a major impact on injuries, just like in Rugby.
Jay
Guest
"Many of you who are now hailing Smith, are the self-same people who have lampooned him for mistakes in the past" So what? That's called giving credit where credit is due.
dansa
Guest
Agreed, psychologically it was ideal, because: - It delayed the Aussie openers from mentally getting ready - It allowed the SA bowlers to have a crack at the openers without massive damage. If Warner and Cowan batted for say 30 overs and scored 130 runs then they only had to make 500 odd runs then next day. Cowan and Warner came out and Warner had a little bit of a crack but could not fully get into a rhythm because he had limited overs.
dansa
Guest
I think the bowling stats are misleading as Kallis has been bowling less the last few years to give his batting longevity. Also Kallis was a medium fast bowler in the beginning and a medium bowler now. Sobers was a fast medium initially but later a spin bowler.
Muhammad
Guest
I rate Kallis as a pure batsman ahead of both Ponting and Tendulkar-consider that Kallis carried the S.A batting for many years.Also he often had to walk in very early to blunt the new ball in seaming S.A conditions.Ponting never had to face the best bowlers in world cricket (his own!) and Tendulkar had the luxury of slow Indian pitches.He wasn't effective on the bouncy wickets in S.A who didn't have a tough time dismissing him.Ponting,when he faced the 1st real fine attack of his career (England 2005) was not the same player.Additionally neither Sachin nor Ricky had to bowl regularly and often over 140 km's!
mactheblack
Guest
This guy is just eloquently elucidating Smith's sometimes conservative approach to the game. Many of you who are now hailing Smith, are the self-same people who have lampooned him for mistakes in the past. Example, after bowing out of the World Cup after that horrendous result against New Zealand in the last WC, he zoomed straight off to Ireland without facing the nation back home. How respectful is that. How patriotic is that? We all know why they call him "Biff". A lot of the time it's about the man himself ... he wields too much power. But congrats to the Proteas, no one can argue about their No 1 status. How much bet whether they will be able to hold onto the mace? I've got a hunch it won't be too long. Also those guys who are now punting guys like de Kock and Morris, should slow down a tad. We are all aware of the gulf between four-day cricket at home in SA and the real McCoy - test arena. Ask guys like Dean Elgar and Tahir.
John Berry Hobbs
Guest
I find it a little presumptuous of the writer to decide which "kind" of cricket we do and don't need. The last two series that South Africa have participated in have been thoroughly captivating. In fact I always enjoy watching the Proteas. But of course this is just my opinion. This cherrypicking piece gets bogged down by a very tenuous premise and an avalance of pseudo-intellectualism. But of course there is more than just a hint of intentional pot stirring!
Neuen
Roar Rookie
Because his bowlers do not bowl at 3rd and 4th slips they probe a certain line discussed in meetings after thousands of hours of analysis.
Ryan
Guest
Wow you might swell have just wrote " I don't like Graeme, he's a poopy head" because this piece of toilet paper article is so biased and ridiculous that it appears to have been written by a jealous 10 year old thats throwing his toys out of the pram! Clearly you dislike Graeme so why write about him. Im pretty sure hes not writing anything or even thinking, about you or the likes,May I also add your want to use big words completely takes from the point you're actually trying to get across! Write with more flow, put down the dictionary for goodness sake. Silly man with a giant chip.
Arthur Fonzarelli
Guest
Smith's own side had just made 560 at 5 an over. The pitch was still great. There was immense time left. Australia has a batting line up capable of big, quick runs. Why would Smith declare ???? And credit to his side for their very attacking batting where weaker, softer outfits would have just batted time and set Australia a smaller target in maybe less time. Who would have ever thought 2 teams would score 430+ in an ODI. It happened. Modern circket is about high run rates, its a matter of time till a team scores 500+ to win a test. Why would you give the Aussies any sort of a sniff at chasing 450 or 500 when it was unnecesssary. Well written article though even if I disagree with its theme.
Neuen
Roar Rookie
Totally agree. If one look back Smith did it twice before and won both that tests. Against England he made sure they batted till there was only a couple of overs left in the day then sending the opposition in where they will be defensive, nervous and more vulnerable. Also the next day his bowlers will be fresh with a new ball and will be able to use the early bit of assistance which one normally get in the mornings to knock over a few and it worked for the third time.
Samkelo, East London
Guest
True...Its "TEST" cricket...."TEST" TEST"....Put the opposing team under as much pressure as possible..... If possible dangle a carrot before them that they can't take while leading them to the pit of no recovery and slaughter... I'd have loved to see Steyn& Philander go for the kill against Starc & Lyon..... We've suffered too much from these Aussies.. Job well done by SMith...
Samkelo, East London
Guest
Nick, I agree with mate... Especially on the issue of give AB De Viiliers enough time to rest........ That was a very good move....Captain Marvel did good job....
Kallis bowling average 32.57, strike rate 68.9 Sobers bowling average 34.03, strike rate 91.9
Andy Roddick
Guest
With more than 2 days of play still left why would Smith declare? Doesnt make sense what this dude wants to say.
IvanN
Roar Guru
What was the difference in their bowling averages ? some stats ?
Yeah, my brother hates him, he recons he is arrogant. I do get nervous when he sticks his bat out at anything, but then Biff has never been called a classy batsman has he? I was checking Kallis' strike rates and scores over the past 6 years with Amla as his batting partner. Kallis had a strike rate of 42 prior to Amla joining. Which says a lot about his role then Since Amla, his strike rate went to 52 and he scored 20 centuries and 16 fifties in his last 94 innings. Kallis has only gotten better with age.
Blackie
Guest
The difference between Sobers and Kallis is that on average Kallis has contributed 20 overs per test over his career as an allrounder whereas Sobers contributed 38 overs per test over his career.That is more or less twice the workload than Kallis as a bowler and yet Sobers has a similar batting average.Sobers has contributed the work load of an extra bowler per test immeasurabley helping the the other bowlers and the team. Sobers is ahead hands down. On the point Australia have the problem that they are playing Watson as an allrounder yet he is only contributing on average 16.6 overs per test to the bowling effort. To compare Greg Chappell contributed 10.2 overs per test over his career and Chappell was not more than a part timer.Whilst Watson is producing solid figures as an allrounder he is simply not putting in the contribution with the ball to be designated as such.Note other allrounders such as Botham (35 overs per test) and Imran Khan (36 overs per test) have put in far stronger efforts over long career.