Will South Africa back their pace attack to do more damage than Australia’s and ask for a lively pitch in the deciding Test at Cape Town starting Saturday?
Or will the often pace-friendly Newlands deck be more placid than normal in light of Australia’s struggles on the dull surface at Port Elizabeth?
With the series on the line in this third Test, it is hard to imagine the South African camp will not have a say in the condition of the surface.
The curator at St George’s Park, Adrian Carter, said days out from the second Test how he prepared the deck would depend on what Proteas’ skipper Graeme Smith and coach Russell Domingo said.
That is the claim of Australian skipper Michael Clarke, who said Carter had made this admission to him during a conversation.
This came as no surprise.
It was not part of a sinister plot to foil the Australians and their rampant quick Mitchell Johnson, it was merely the home side exercising the advantage of being hosts.
Every Test side does it, although to varying degrees.
What then, can we expect at Newlands?
The Proteas will undoubtedly want a surface which will produce a result.
They will be desperate to overcome their hoodoo against Australia, who they have not defeated at home in a Test series for more than 40 years.
Normally a ‘result’ pitch is interpreted as one which will offer generous assistance to the bowlers.
However, the potency of the attacks boasted by both sides suggests a draw is unlikely, even on a benign surface; neither of the first two Tests made it past the fourth day.
The last time these sides crossed paths at Newlands, the Test was completed before lunch on the third day.
The pitch was so helpful to the quicks it is easy to forget South Africa were dismissed for a paltry 96 in their first innings.
Whenever cricket followers reminisce over this Test, the first number that rolls of their tongue is 47 – Australia’s second innings total.
During one period on day two of that match, the sides combined lost 19-94.
Nineteen for ninety-four.
The following summer, when Sri Lanka visited, the pitch at Cape Town was unrecognisable.
Devoid of the thick grass cover seen during the 2011 debacle, it allowed 1063 runs to be scored for the loss of only 24 wickets.
Then in February last year, a sporting deck greeted Pakistan who managed to compete strongly with South Africa before losing in a tight, four-wicket result.
My guess is the Newlands deck for this week’s Test will look nothing like its 2011 incarnation.
South Africa may have bulldozed Australia at St George’s Park, but they will remain wary of the carnage the tourists’ quicks could engineer on a green seamer.
Granted, South Africa’s pacemen would perhaps create even more destruction on a responsive pitch.
However, Test sides are now well aware that Australia are at their most vulnerable on surfaces which do not offer pace and bounce.
While Australia’s attack has had success – Port Elizabeth aside – on low, slow decks, their batsmen often lack the patience required to prosper in such conditions.
The South African batsmen do not, as we witnessed the past week.
If the Proteas are crafty they will request the Newlands’s deck offers Australia the least possible assistance in their quest to secure a 2-1 series win.
Hardy Hulley
Guest
No, but Morkel did manage to hit and intimidate the Australian batsmen on the same St. George's Park wicket that made Johnson look ineffectual. Johnson's success at Centurian probably had more to do with the unevenness of the bounce there than his pace. I don't think his pace will bother the SA batsmen on a pitch with true bounce, even if it is a fast and bouncy track. After all, they regularly face a number of bowlers who are quicker than Johnson in SA domestic cricket (Hendricks and de Lange spring to mind).
Hardy Hulley
Guest
I think most Australian commentators/viewers have the wrong impression about the St. George's pitch. It has always played the way it played in the last test. I've watched a fair bit of cricket at that ground, and there really was nothing unusual in the way it played compared to previous matches. Now, you could argue that it isn't a good test wicket (and I would agree with you), but there is absolutely no evidence that it was "doctored" with Johnson in mind. It's just a slow low wicket... always has been, always will be.
Eddy
Guest
Ranji Trophy matches have much more variation than the doctored test tracks. Some even have grass. Yes, grass does grow in hot, humid climates! The Indians have killed all their test pitches of late, and Dhoni has been caught pressuring curators. The Chennai pitch vs Aus was a true masterclass, taking pitch doctoring to a whole new level. The curator admitted watering and rolling the centre of the track to keep it hard and true to neutralise Australia's quicks, while leaving the periphery dry and unrolled so it would crumble for India's spinners. I think what we saw on the second day at Port Elizabeth was a defeatist mindset setting in by Australia, basically after having had almost every away test wicket they have played on in the last two years doctored into a dry turner. I think they are just sick to death of it. I hope they don't fall into that mental trap again. Deplorable and cowardly as all this doctoring is, you just have to get on with the game.
Eddy
Guest
I'm so sick of hearing this "everyone does it" nonsense. Dramatic pitch doctoring like we saw in the last test and in England is not done everywhere. The Indians are famous for it, but nothing close to this degree of manipulation has occurred in Australia in my memory. I'm also sick of hometown fans denying what is as plain as the nose on your face. It's not natural variation or because we had a dry winter. There is something called a hose and it has water coming out of the end. They took the strip and its natural predisposition and made it even more dry and flat than usual. Tell it like it is, Dr Phil! Smith mumbled stuff about the first test pitch favouring Johnson. The curator said he was awaiting a call from Smith. Yet we are supposed to believe the Saffas did not order the track killed? Instead of addressing how to play Johnson they produced a pitch so slow and flat that not one edge carried to a slips fielder in nearly three days of Aust bowling! How's that for solving the problem? Australia's attacking batting was also hindered, while SA's risk-free, safety first style was rewarded. All in all the perfect conditions to turn the series around. And all a coincidence, of course. Just like the dry turners in England were a coincidence. I'm predicting that the Saffas will relax amidst the avalanche of hometown backslapping and denial and forget what happened in the first test - and so lay down a reasonable track at Newlands. At least if that happens it will be a non-manipulated outcome.
Neil
Guest
I'm pretty certain that we will be doctoring the pitch. We will get a roller, and potentially a hose, and then use those to both flatten the grass on the pitch, whilst not killing the grass itself entirely. I'm also pretty certain that we will cover the pitch in plastic wrapping to prevent it from becoming wet during bad weather.
Hardy Hulley
Guest
Your comment about Faf is misleading. He shone the ball close to his zipper; neither the umpires nor the match referee (David Boon) found any evidence of ball-tampering. In Boon's words "[it] was not part of a deliberate and/or prolonged attempt to unfairly manipulate the condition of the ball." Under the understanding that he would only receive a slap on the wrist (which is what happened), Faf was advised not to contest the charge. Had there been any actual evidence of ball-tampering, he would certainly have received a substantial ban.
in god we trust
Guest
bb, my first comment pointing out that the burden of proof sits with the accuser and both yourself and Felix have no need to explain or defend abdv was moderated. the second follow on comment pointing out warners admission of cheating was aimed at the self righteous 'the aussies only lose when the other team cheats' brigade asking jf they were confortable with the cheating aussies.
Buk
Guest
Kapil Dev a rare exception. He at one time held the world record for test wickets, taking it off Hadlee. Hadlee's comment was something like Dev really deserved the record, having bowled on so many dry wickets. What I can't figure out is how come Pakistan produces so many fast bowlers comparative to India. Are their wickets any less dustbowls ?
Buk
Guest
Woops my physics is stuffed up on reverse swing. Should read that the air travels faster over the smooth side, resulting in decreased air pressure on that side, therefore pushing the ball in that direction.
stumpy
Guest
I remember the bowlolgist talking about reverse swing and principles behind it. When the rough side gets rough enough, it creates air pockets around the ball. Air on air has the least amount of friction (compared to leather on air - on the other side ) Think golf balls
jason8
Guest
Unfortunately its well documented in the press here in SA that we have long felt that the grounds curators are not doing enough to prepare pitches that suit our team. Smith has stated that he has given up on even bothering ask ! So yes by all means a little home ground advantage why not ? will it happen ? not bloody likely !
Vic
Guest
Underdone is not the word, Alan, I agree. It lead to a very disappointing test, for which they were badly lambasted by their own fans, who expect a much better performance than that.
RWB
Guest
Here's something to ponder. (Robbo, with respect) Why is it OK to wet and polish one side of the ball to get it to swing BUT it's not OK to allow or help one side to roughen and avoid getting it wet to get reverse swing? Either way something is being done to the ball to get it to do something to assist the bowler. As long as bottle tops, murrays mints,and long fingernails are kept away from the ball then we should be good. The jury is really still out on why the ball reverses anyway.
Assad
Guest
This third test will be on a flat seam track. The game will be over by day 3 as South Africa win by an innings. SOUTH AFRICA -- GREATEST CRICKET TEAM IN THE WORLD AND ALL TIME!!!!
TembaVJ
Guest
Sheek you have to admit Johnson has been a one man army the last while with a few cameos from others in the team. The team needs to better, more adjustable. They cant just rely on MJ I remember about 14-15 years ago maybe more the Aussie played at Centurion, I was at the game. Shane Warn was the thorn in the SA side and SA prepared a good spin pitch. Hansie Cronje hit two 6's in a row of Warnies first over... it was awesome, Rhodes played SW well but the openers shivered in their boots. Sport is changing for the worse, ill agree with you but its not only SA
So he is moaning because we did it better than they did? How does that make sense? Must the umpires now remind Australia to tamper better, or remind SA to tamper less?
Buk
Guest
Chris Agree with most of your points, especially re the seam angle (and therefore the resulting turbulence). But Mr Trescothick's suger stuff about weighing one side down, causing it to swing, I doubt. Gravity works in one direction - to pull a ball down - it cannot pull a ball sideways. If one side is heavier than the other, gravity can only pull that side of the ball down ie cause the ball to rotate so the heavy side will "fall" to the bottom. (Lawn bowls "swings" a bowled "ball", on the basis of one side being heavier than the other; but the ball is being held up at all times by a flat surface. Turbulence is irrelevant to a lawn bowl, as it has zero seam and no turbulence factor. That's why you can't "reverse swing" a lawn bowls "ball"; it will only swing in the direction of the weighted side.) (1) I would suggest what you call new ball swing and conventional swing are both the same and largely dictated by the slight angling of the seam (in the direction of the desired swing) and the resulting difference in turbulence between the two sides - more turbulence caused by the seam "roughing up" the air flow on the side the seam is angled towards. Traditional swing coaching books seem to support this. You need an effective seam to achieve this. Shining the ball on one side or the other at this stage has negligible effect. We used to use a plastic ball in practice, where both sides were very smooth, and only a moderate (but consistent) seam; it would swing considerably at even low speed. (2) For reverse swing, I would suggest the seam somehow becomes less important in causing turbulence, and the rough side is roughed considerably, causing far more relative turbulence; This "slows" that side of the ball down, and it "reverse" swings in the direction of the rough side. Moisture on such a ball would lessen the reverse swing, as it would tend to fill in the pits causing turbulence
AlanKC
Guest
Fair go Vic, I thought your seuns were "under done" at Centurion?
AlanKC
Guest
:)
In God We Trust
Guest
Also, Warner in that press conference admitted that the aussies cheat by deliberately throwing the ball into the wicket square to rough it up. He said both teams did it. So get off your high horse. If mega-mind Warner is comfortable with Australia's ball tampering activities, surely you must be too?