The Roar has thrown up some fantastic articles dissecting the Test series some good debates in the comments, but I would like to throw in my thoughts on where I think Australia trumped South Africa.
Australian opener David Warner’s 543 runs at 90.5 including three centuries is a fantastic return, but what interests me is his strike rate of 86.74. He put immense pressure on the South Africa bowling attack from the outset.
The challenge for an opening batsman is pressure. How can you absorb it and how can you transfer pressure back onto the bowler? There is no better example in this series than Warner against Steyn.
Warner scored more runs (over 100) off Steyn at better than a run a ball for only one dismissal. That put pressure not only on Steyn, but Philander and Morkel, who both struggled for penetration on decent batting surfaces.
I did mention in a previous article that Philander needs conditions to suit to be a threat and that Morkel can either be very good or very average. This series has not changed my thinking on this.
This series also showed clearly that Philander and Morkel feed off Steyn’s good work and that Kallis is going to be very difficult to replace. The reality is that any team would take time to replace someone of Kallis’s ability and longevity.
That South Africa did not play a front line spinner for two tests simply means that they don’t believe they have anyone that can do the job.
Their selections are very much ‘safety first’ options, picking the extra batsmen who can bowl decent finger spin (Duminy/Elgar). This is an area South Africa can seriously look at moving forward for improvement.
Mitchell Johnson took 22 wickets at 17.36 with a strike rate of 34.4. He is simply bowling beautifully. Full stop.
Fast, aggressive, ruthless. Personally, the most pleasing thing is Mitch passing my Test match tally of wickets in the deciding Test of a winning series. I remember getting a nice message from fellow Roar columnist Geoff Lawson congratulating me on passing his tally of 180 wickets.
I have always remembered that small gesture – it meant a lot, so well done Mitch!
Where to for Australia? I believe it is very simple. When Mickey Arthur was coach of Australia, all the talk from the camp was ‘future’. If we put these things in place now, we will be competitive in two to three years time. Think rotation policy.
The whole plan seemed to me to be a bit of ‘crystal balling’.
When Darren Lehmann took over, he believed to build culture and confidence was best done by winning now – focussing on the present moment.
Australian selections have mirrored that mindset by picking a number of lads at an older age for performance now. In my view, for Australia to be number one again in Test cricket they simply need to strike the balance between the ‘now’ and the ‘future’ with the make-up of the side.
This simple means that the team can’t afford to lose the likes of Harris, Haddin and Rogers at the same time. This is the selectors’ challenge. If they get the balance right I can’t see what can stop Australia achieving that number one position.
Finally, congratulations to Graeme Smith on a wonderful career.
He is a fantastic player who played his way, not everyone else’s, and one of the best leaders of men the game has seen.
International cricket is poorer for his retirement. Well done Biff!
jack thomas
Guest
I never get into conversations with anybody, cos i know my opinions r facts. I don't care about others opinions.
Chris
Guest
Do you even believe any of the crap you speak? Also, it's spelt 'and'. Just three letters.
jack thomas
Guest
what nonsense title "Australia dismantled the world’s best". australia didnt do anything and is not capable of it. (Steyn = harris+johnson). In the 1st test, styen was just back from surgery n was not his best. In the 3rd test, he didnt bowl due to injury. Without steyn, it is half south africa, as it will be half australia without harris n johnson or either of them. Australia can do nothing without harris n johnson. n its not capable of beating south africa. n the series itself was so meaningless n of no value since it was played on dead pitches. remember 47 all out on a meaningful pitch. A test match is not a test match when played on dead pitches(all tests, especially 2nd n 3rd tests).
JGK
Roar Guru
Go Yorkshire!
Jason Gillespie
Guest
Some good comments and I thank you all for the time you took to think about and respond to my comments. Observing Australian cricket from afar, I am simply liking what I see. There are going to be some big decisions in the next 12 months which will certainly stir up debate. Being in a selection role myself in my current position I understand how challenging it can be and all the considerations that need to be taken into account. I look forward to seeing us play positive, aggressive cricket!
AlanKC
Guest
As much as I like Rogers and want him in the side I have to agree with you - but I'd give him the Pakistan series as a thank you and blood one of the young blokes at home next summer.
anfalicious
Guest
If you win the toss and it's a batting wicket, you bat. If you win the toss and it's a bowling wicket, you bat.
richard
Guest
I 'd start with Watson for Faulkner. Its a great swap. You get rid of an old dud for an up and coming star who is very young
Worlds Biggest
Guest
Jameswm all fair points, my concern is in 18 months the three aforementioned guys aren't performing and we carry them into the Ashes. I'd back Rhino if fit to still be doing a good job. Rogers and Hads will be 38 at next Ashes, will they still be sharp enough ? It's a fine line. Hads may well retire after the World Cup. As I mentioned in earlier comment, I'd be thanking Rogers for his terrific service and hand over the batten to one of the youngsters. It's harsh on a guy who has performed very well however this team needs some infusion of youth. Also Rogers doesn't play spin well and could struggle in UAE. If he fails in that series everyone will call for his head. Get a jump on it now and look to the future. If the three aforementioned guys keep playing through to the next Ashes series then the team faces the prospect of 6 players bowing ( Clarke, Watto and MJ also ) out after the series or within 6 months. This can't happen. I disagree and would stagger the retirements of Rogers ( now ), Hads ( after World Cup ) and Rhino if not after the next summer then Ashes series. Watto after the Ashes series if still going, Clarke 12 months later and MJ another 12 months after that.
Peter
Roar Rookie
how many for how many hundred where we when he broke down?
jameswm
Guest
"This simply means that the team can’t afford to lose the likes of Harris, Haddin and Rogers at the same time". I'm not so convinced about this. You've got a keeper, a fast bowler and an opening bat. Harris is the most vital of the three. Haddin's batting was incredible against England, but poor against SA. His keeping was excellent against England but a little down in SA (though still good). Rogers had a couple of poor tests before coming good. Odds are any of Silk or Hughes could have managed 4 failures and a score. With Harris, you have Pattinson, Bird and Starc in the wings, all of whom are highly promising and have test experience. None of them is a Harris yet, but they could develop into one. It isn't like you're losing your main fast bowler and your spinner at the same time, or losing 2 of your top 3 in the batting order. What will be missed the most is their wise heads. All 3 come across as good to have on the field and around the change room. I don't think however you intentionally stagger their retirements. If Harris is still bowling brilliantly on bionic knees in 2 years, then he stays in. If Rogers is still holding the innings together in 2 years, he stays in. However as you said Dizzy, it's striking a balance between the now and the future. The selectors need to dentify the likely replacements (say Hughes or Silk for Rogers), and find a way to bring them along. For example, Hughes's biggest bogey is playing in the subcontinent, so send him to India to join a local side for a few games (if you can). The fast bowling they are getting on top of, and there will always be some injury management issues meaning others get a go (like Patto last test). With the keeping, you need to identify the next in line (has to be Whiteman or Carters, though is Carters even keeping for his state?), and put them into the ODI team. Wade is a goner until his keeping improves out of sight. Let Haddin play tests. Sure it might cost you a bit playing a rookie in the ODI team, but not for long. That rookie will be score runs and get used to the environment, plus hopefully get some extra keeping tuition (though I don't think Whiteman needs much).
John
Guest
Hi Jason, A good article with a number of fair points. Let me add the following; I wonder how much of a positive impact dropping Warner had on the subsequent results. Would he have scroed as well if he had not been dumped for hitting Root. What on earth happened to MJ? I have asked this before but no answers are forthcoming. Lehmann brough Steve Smith into the group in England and he has cemented his place in the squad. Over the 7 wins, and indeed over the 13 Tests, any one of these may have changed the team dynamic to the point where the results did not flow. Of course, there are other things that happened - Haddin's runs, Watson's fitness, Lyon coming good, etc. For me those three are equally significant.
kombiutedriver
Guest
Kali's was a huge loss for the Saffa's. How do you replace the runs ....... the wickets ....... the catches ........ as well as the tactical nous and calming influence he gave his captain. These were huge losses to the Saffa side. That they came from one man starts to put his value into perspective as just how great Kallis was as a player of all time.
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
All valid points, but the one thing that impressed me most about the Aussie series win was the resilience they showed. After being blasted, and badly exposed against reverse swing in the 2nd test, I thought they would have meekly surrendered in the third test But, they not only regrouped, but hit back hard underlining the basis of a good team. Away from Warner, and Jono's exploits that were decisive, I think Clarke's third test classic was the hammer blow for the team, for as a player watching that and how he endured a ruthless battering, overcame it, and then excelled- it would have inspired you to run thru walls for the victory
Zubes
Guest
In the preceeding series against India. It was Steyn and Kallis that gave South Africa victory in the 2nd Test and therfore the series. Without these two South Africa are a good but not great side. That Aus won is no great surprise as the conditions are familiar and suit their style of play. The Sub-Continent is Australia's greatest test.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
Harsh but true
ozinsa
Guest
It does help to have better players, get a few lucky decisions, get the best of the conditions re rain during the match etc.. The toss matters but I think you might be over-simplifying a match that goes for five days by suggesting something that takes a few seconds before it starts defines it.
ozinsa
Guest
I think we're assuming that Smith buggered the theory by being silly enough to bowl.
Vic
Guest
Classy comment re Graeme Smith, Jason. A great leader, great cricketer. Won't say SA was dismantled, it was always going to be difficult to find a replacement for Jacques Kallis - but I will begrudgingly admit that the Aussies deserved the win - this time.
handles
Guest
Well, remembering that Smith won the toss in the first test.... I think your theory needs work.