Well that was a bit more like it.
After the pitiful performance in Perth and the horrendous effort that supposedly constituted a performance in Hobart, Australia decided that their presence in the series might not be such a bad thing after all.
Admittedly, the horse had well and truly bolted but, well, you really can’t have everything.
But what all the Australian cricketing faithful do have is a team who finally got themselves back on the winning podium and can look forward to the tryst with Pakistan, especially given their forthcoming opponents’ defeat in New Zealand, with confidence levels on the rise.
The answer can’t be said to have been found by any means, and I fear for them in India in a few months’ time, but small steps nearly always precede a break into a jog and they have been taken.
Of the debutants, Matt Renshaw and Peter Handscomb certainly didn’t look out of place and perhaps judgement should be reserved on Nic Maddison given just the one outing (apologies Callum Ferguson if you’re reading).
And after all the brickbats being thrown his way, and his form was starting to be a cause for considerable concern, it was good to see Nathan Lyon having an impact as opposed to being treated with disdain.
So, in the heavily clichéd words of nearly every sportsman in every sport who has the job of conducting a post-match interview, there are positives that can be taken.
The biggest of these shouldn’t be the calm assurance of Renshaw or the shot-making talent of Hanscomb. Nor should it be the continued good form of Josh Hazlewood or Usman Khawaja’s sparkling century.
In very simple terms it is the outcome – a victory.
How it was achieved is by and large irrelevant and who did what is pretty much the same.
As far as Test match performances go it was efficient, it was clinical – everything that had been lacking previously – and was fitting for the situation.
That brings me to the whole point of this article and the conundrum that has enveloped cricket in recent times.
Do people want to be entertained or do they want to see their team win? Of course, the two can go hand in hand but not as regularly as most would like to hope.
A rhetorical question of sorts and if the sporting world was perfect every fan’s team of choice would rack up the wins while flaying boundaries left, right and centre and taking wickets for fun.
But it isn’t and what has just been described happens far less often than the opposite.
Hearing Renshaw’s batting in the second innings criticised provided a microcosm of the entertainment versus success argument.
What the Queenslander did was what he should have done – he got his head down and made sure his side came out on top. He didn’t score at a particularly quick rate, but who cares? I would bet my bottom dollar that neither he nor his colleagues did.
It is professional sport and how many times have you heard the phrase ‘it’s a results business’ uttered when a team or coach are under pressure?
Individuals’ livelihoods depend, in the vast majority of cases, on the result and not how it’s achieved. Play as many shots as you want but unless your superiors are very patient, your time is limited if the end results are consistently negative.
Win matches and series in ungainly or attritional style and the reward won’t be the opportunity to visit the job centre but an enhanced contract and the chance to keep doing it.
Even in the 20-over format, which was crafted for nothing more than entertainment, what number is put in the win column usurps any scoring rate or boundary ratio you can think of. When you add to the equation the sums of money that are flying about, it only becomes more so.
There is a balance out there somewhere to be found and occasionally it will materialise but seeking nirvana only leads to frustration and annoyance.
Do you want to watch a team that entertains or one that wins?
There’s no need to answer.
Trenno
Guest
You've hit the nail on the head. I really liked the tenacity of Renshaw to stick at it and get the job done. Although I wasn't a fan of Maddison before the test, I think he needs to be given another crack at it. If he fails, Kyle Patterson and Travis Head are waiting in the wings. I really don't think Shaun Marsh will get another crack however Mitchell Marsh in time will get back in; though he might be waiting a while. Wade brought a fair bit to the team although I did think Nevill was hard done by. If Wade gets injured he will be worried because if Nevill is given another chance I think k he will make the position his own.
Dave Baker
Guest
Despite being a SA supporter I watched Renshaw with some admiration Even in the 1st innings he was disciplined... until his mistake, Nothing wrong with a batsman that won't give his wicket away. He disrupts the bowlers by making them bowl at them. He tires them out. And he is young. He is going to get better You have found your opener. Case closed in my opinion. If you dont want him can we have him? We need another opener
Simoc
Guest
Rubbish. SOK gets mentioned to keep his boozy mates happy. O'Keefe is not a test class spinner and Lyon is Australias best ever off spinner. I don't see Handscombe as a long term prospect. No player has survived long with a technique like his and he is in peak form and made 50. We'll know in a couple of years but I reckon he'll have to change quickly to survive swing bowling and spin. Mind you he is not alone on that front. Renshaw is a crease occupier and at some stage he'll get to turn over the strike more regularly. But it was a promising start to what hopefully is a long career. I'de like to see Nevill back in the team. He looks to be a better bat and is a far superior keeper compared to Wade. But no doubt Wade has the gig for the present.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
Absolutely not. He was woeful in Sri Lanka for a spinner with perfect conditions for him then woeful in the first two tests. He took two top 7 wickets in Adelaide, when had injury not prevented it, Okeefe would have been bowling. Hardly locked his spot in.
Joel
Roar Rookie
The argument about Renshaw's strike rate is only being had by those that have never seen the way he plays and how quickly he can score when he feels like being aggressive. In the lead up shield match before the adelaide test he made a century for queensland striking in the mid fifties after having been 12 from 77 balls and in the second innings made a run a ball 50. I'm also a bit bemused that the people complaining believe that it was his own decision to bat the way he did. Who honestly believes a 20 year old debutant has any say in the way he's playing, especially when the captain and vice captain are batting at the other end.
E-Meter
Guest
Chappell was measured in his criticism. He just said Renshaw needs to rotate the strike a bit more. He made no mention of smacking boundaries every over. I thought his comments were reasonable. I really hope that Renshaw remains in the test team. The experience he gained against South Africa was valuable.
Baz
Guest
Actually what he was critised for was not putting away full tosses balls he should score off. Which is something he needs to work on.
madmonk
Guest
I'm guessing Renshaw is light years away from the ODI squad.
josh
Roar Rookie
i finally saw the Renshaw highlights, anyone who thought he playing and missing needs to watch again, they are deliberate non-shots. You can tell when he is genuinely attempting to play a shot and when he's not.
josh
Roar Rookie
If you are taking advice from the Ch9 commentary while they are on Ch9 you need your head read. They are talking heads; without any interesting to say when the Ch9 blazer gets slung around their shoulders.
josh
Roar Rookie
Lyons hasn't grabbed the spot? You can't be serious?
Rob
Guest
It wasn't pretty! I watched the dominant and well disciplined SA. bowlers stick to the game plan that had won the series. Consistantly hitting the 4th stump line, waiting for the Australian batsmen to make an error in judgement and edge the ball or get frustrated and try pinching a single to the outstanding Bavuma and co Renshaw slowly crawled along letting it go. Teasing the slips and bowler time and again into thinking they were on top. Probably believing it was only a matter of time before the collapse would come and the bunnies would crumble when they came out to face the music. Renshaw just kept letting it go, padding the ball back or tickling it down leg, eating away the score. In the end they had run out of ideas. The slow hand clap came and the South African's just wanted the game over, resigned to the fact they would lose. Belting the runs and being 6 down would have made South Africa feel a little unlucky. It was beautiful.
jameswm
Roar Guru
It's not confected tosh in ODIs. But it is for tests.
Dreadly
Guest
Tires the bowlers out too.
Dreadly
Guest
Ian Chappell was bemoaning his low strike rate
JohnB
Guest
I think a lot of it is "people" or "they" who have criticised rather than any actual identifiable individuals - the 9 commentators were mixed in what they were saying. I think they got a bit critical during his scoreless spell while batting with Smith. Slater has come out and said he thinks Shaun Marsh should come back for Renshaw, but in saying that he said some positive things about Renshaw, and there are reasonable arguments for his point of view on Marsh. The one thing I'd query about it is whether it necessarily has to be Renshaw to go if Marsh does return. David Lord on here has been as critical of Renshaw as anyone, but much of that is probably clickbait (and the rest pretty flimsy).
madmonk
Guest
I've heard this argument (that slow batting affects the partner) and it is confected tosh. In Perth, Warner was first out for 97 of 100 balls in the 35th over. So batting with Shaun Marsh who was 50no at the time Warner faced 100 of 212 balls. In Adelaide second innings Warner was first out for 47 of 51 balls in the 18th over. So batting with the allegedly stodgy Matt Renshaw who was 14no at the time Warner faced 51 of 111 balls. Different partners with different scoring rates and Warner faces 46% of the balls bowled. I think Renshaw is the perfect foil for Warner, Renshaw by being a good leaver will force you to bowl straighter where with Warner you have to give him width and hope his chases junk.
Rellum
Roar Guru
The real issue with all this strike rate talk is if Warner gets himself out and "people" blame Renshaw because he was making Davey wait down the other end to long. If Warner gets himself out, then that is Warner's fault. I hope people remember that going forward.
madmonk
Guest
Genuine question, who did criticise Renshaw? I didn't watch the last 2 session as I was travelling and listening to the radio. So I am guessing it was someone in the nine box. Any help appreciated.
Jeffrey Dun
Roar Rookie
"Do you want to watch a team that entertains or one that wins?" That's an interesting question Alec. Towards the end of that era of Australian dominance I started to lose a little interest in test cricket. Sure we were winning, but it was the lack of competitiveness of the tests and Australia's dominance that concerned me. It's ironic, but the Ashes series of 2005 are a highlight for me - and we lost. But it was a tight competitive series between two very good sides. I guess my conclusion is that I prefer competitive test cricket, and out of that competitiveness comes the entertainment. The bottom line for me is that I would like to see Australia competitive in all conditions - seaming pitches in England or on dusty turners in India. If we can compete then we will win our share of tests and that will keep me interested.