Australia all but sealed victory in the first Test in Durban yesterday, manhandling South Africa thanks to superb performances by Mitchell Starc, Mitch Marsh and Nathan Lyon.
Starc (5-34) and Lyon (3-50) gutted the Proteas, who could manage only a paltry 162 in reply to Australia’s 351. The visitors were able to build that good total thanks to an innings of great maturity and immense skill by Marsh (96).
After Marsh placed Australia in the ascendancy, the Australian bowlers built on his good work.
South Africa made a brisk start, skipping away to 0-27 after seven overs, before in-form spinner Nathan Lyon rocked the Proteas with two wickets in his first over.
First he beat Dean Elgar in the flight and got the ball to straighten on the left hander, who lobbed a return catch to the diving Lyon. Then the off spinner caught the inside edge of Hashim Amla’s bat, earning a sharp catch for Cameron Bancroft at short leg.
Lyon always looked likely to have a major influence on this Test from the moment Proteas spinner Keshav Maharaj earned sharp spin from the dry Durban surface in the first session of day one. The parched nature of the pitch also brought reverse swing into the equation.
(AAP Image/Richard Wainwright)
Australia’s finest exponent of this skill, Mitchell Starc, left the Proteas in a mess when he dismissed Faf du Plessis and Theunis de Bruyn in quick succession.
Those wickets were remarkably similar as Starc, operating from around the wicket, angled the ball in at the right handers before getting it to straighten through the air and kiss their outside edges.
In between these bursts by Starc and Lyon, pace dynamo Pat Cummins produced a cracking short ball which surprised opener Aidan Markram, who could only fend it to short leg. Lyon later returned to cut short an ominously-fluent innings from Quentin de Kock, who was threatening to bat himself back into form.
Having flighted the ball nicely to de Kock he then pushed through a much flatter, quicker delivery and castled the young gun. Starc wasn’t done either – he, too, returned to the attack with a vengeance, grabbing 3-2 in the space of eight balls to kill off the South African innings.
Spin and reverse swing had reduced South Africa to rubble. Just as influential as Starc’s destruction, however, was the composed knock compiled by Marsh.
Any lingering doubts I had about the rebirth of the 26-year-old all-rounder dissolved yesterday as he completed the finest innings of his career. It was a near-flawless knock against a sensational bowling attack on a pitch which did not make batting easy. In fact, the only glaring mistake Marsh made was the one which caused his dismissal four runs shy of what would have been a greatly-deserved ton.
Marsh’s decision to try to bludgeon a boundary to bring up his hundred, only to spoon a catch to mid-on, was especially jarring given the admirable manner in which he had protected his wicket to that point. Over the course of Marsh’s rampant return to Tests, which has seen him crack 416 runs at 104 in four matches, there’s been a lot of focus on the technical improvements made by the all-rounder.
I’ve written at length about how Marsh honed his technique during his last lengthy absence from Test cricket.
What’s been less celebrated has been the wonderful patience and match awareness Marsh has added to his lengthy list of cricketing attributes. At Perth he grafted hard early, weathered the second new ball and then began to unfurl his full array of strokes as the match opened up for him.
At Melbourne, Australia needed to bat for a draw so Marsh shelved his aggression and blocked his way to 29no from 166 balls. Then, at Sydney, with England on the ropes, he came out and delivered a thudding roundhouse, cruising to a swift 101.
That was all very impressive – both in statistical and technical terms. But there was a still a part of me, and I’d imagine a part of many Australian fans, that was unsure Marsh could replicate that in South Africa. It’s one thing to boss a very poor England attack on batting-friendly home pitches, another thing all together to command a dominant Proteas attack in conditions more amenable to bowing.
Yet Marsh was in utter control from the start of his innings to the moment he had that innings-ending brain fade. When he arrived at the crease Australia were vulnerable at 4-151 with their big guns all gone.
[latest_videos_strip category=”cricket” name=”Cricket”]
Then Marsh batted like a big gun. His balance was perfect, his footwork assured, his defence tight. Following a strategy which is as useful in Tests now as it was a century ago, Marsh paid due respect to good balls and waited patiently until the bowlers strayed into his hitting zones.
Those zones are now wide thanks to the great improvement Marsh has made in his back foot play. Earlier in his career Marsh liked to prop on the front foot, keen to unleash thunderous drives. With that over-commitment to the front foot consigned to history, Marsh is now as dangerous with a horizontal bat as with a vertical blade.
His cutting was a feature of this innings as he exploited the slightest width from both the quicks and spinner Keshav Maharaj. Combined with his powerful pulling and confident driving, this made Marsh a very difficult man to bowl to, with the margin of error small.
There is now strong reason to believe Marsh is not merely flattering to deceive, but that he now possesses a blend of talent, technique and temperament which can make him a force in Test cricket.
He, Starc and Lyon have all but ensured Australia will head into the second Test with a 1-0 series lead.
Don Freo
Guest
Certainly not just a batsman's last 3 innings. Renshaw has not done as well as Bancroft or Harris. When the team was selected, Bvancroft's test average against the Poms was higher than Renshaw's Shield performance until then. You have no case and are making a point with no pointy bit.
Rob
Guest
Exactly my point Don. What do you class as current form? It seems to vary depending on your preference.
Don Freo
Guest
Why only 2 months? Go this whole season. Let's do a complete cherry tree instead of your little punnet of cherries. Does that not suit your (unsustainable) argument?
Rob
Guest
It's a little confusing to dismiss a 33 over all FC average then only look at this season but then not look at say his last 12 scores over the last 2 month( current form) averaging 36 since Christmas. Renshaw has averaged 56 with the bat over the last 2 months since Christmas. That would suggest he's currently 20 runs better on form? You're cherry picking stats and sounding silly.
Fergus
Roar Rookie
No, WA cricket had nothing to do with his improved batting, despite what some would tell you. He had to go back to a childhood coach in order to fix his technique, makes you wonder what all the coaches are paid to do.
Fergus
Roar Rookie
Saying the worst no.6 (at that point in time) in Australian history shouldn't be picked again seems pretty reasonable to me. For most people that also comes with the caveat that if the player improves significantly they'll reconsider (i.e. avg 100). If another player had been selected there's every chance that they too could have performed as well with the bat. Given Marshes performances, if left in the shield he likely would have earned selection anyway but when he was selected it was a gift, simple as that. " We also know that players such as himself (and Shaun as well) will be given “preferential” treatment because, at their best, they’re much better than most other guys going around full stop. " Some players are better then others it is true but how exactly do you determine a players best? do you compare high scores? career best seasons? Also what happens if they never reach their best? Or their best is only better then someone else's best because that other person hasn't yet reached their best? how does form fit into that, do you pick a player i.e. Renshaw when he's out of form because of the potential if a big hundred? If a player truly is much better at their best then they should have a better record as when there below there best they would still be as good as other players best. Potential is not a meaningful word, it's a conglomeration of observable information pointing towards a possible outcome. Or to put it another way its the y in an xyz scenario "if player x can do y it will lead to z ). Or it's extrapolating from whats known to what can be. That is what the concept is but it is not at all useful or meaningful. Exhibit A: Mitch Marsh has the potential to be a very good allrounder if he fixes his defence. Compared too Mitch marsh will improve his game if he fixes his defence. compared too mitch marsh is scoring hundreds and averaging over 100 in test cricket. the first 2 sentences can be written for basically any player ever and potential can be left out of the equation for the same end result. the end result however doesn't happen for every player ever. to further highlight how useless it is as a term i'd like to point out how your wrong about Renshaw, Cummins and Paines selection being on potential. Renshaw was selected mainly on merit, a first class average of 40 but you could argue some of it was due to potential (but it's basically a fact that most/all young players improve as they get older so being 20 and averaging 40 it's almost guaranteed that will increase) . Pat cummins and paine where selected on previous history not potential, they had already demonstrated that they could play at that level and to that ability. Paine's form gave the selectors reason to believe he was back to his best and pat cummins you could say was merely returning after a long injury lay off (don't believe he was ever dropped). Basically history or performances that point to potential are useful but potential in and of itself isn't. Or to put it another way perceived potential is a poor cousin of achieved potential and most perceived potential is a result of achieved potential (match performances) I'm sorry this awfully convoluted. The selectors and coaches would know a lot more about some aspects of cricket but not necessarily all.
frisky
Guest
Where can I find a scoreboard on this site???
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
It's so nice not to feel nervous about the keeper now that Paine is in the role.
Bakkies
Guest
Paine and Bancroft were identified sometime ago. Paine was lined up to replace Gilchrist and/or Hadden however he got injuries. Bancroft was selected for a Bangladesh tour that was cancelled, lost form and scored some big numbers in the recent while in Australian first class Cricket. His County returns will be of interest when he heads over to Somerset. He will be playing for a stronger team so less excuses.
Bakkies
Guest
He did beat the bat several times where Mitch looked clueless. Concerns me when Mitch faces a spinner that has made the grade. Crane is still developing.
Bakkies
Guest
He did beat the bat several times where Mitch looked clueless. Concerns me when Mitch faces a spinner that has made the grade. Crane is still developing.
DavSA
Guest
South Africa's favorite position , ( pun intended ) is backs against the wall. AUS have murdered us so far ...but...game not over until it is over.
Doctor Rotcod
Guest
Mitch Marsh hits the ball very hard.Now he hits it along the ground as well. I've been cautiously optimistic about his return and an average of 101 since is a great start And,in Red Kev's defence a cynic is just an optimist with a very high standard
Jameswm
Guest
Ha, yeah true. He needs to sort that out.
Jameswm
Guest
8 surely? Nevill at 7? Copeland 9 makes a decent batting line up. Maybe Nevill 6 Abbott 7.
DaveJ
Guest
Great, but it was a bit odd. Apart from Starc, the Australian bowlers looked a lot less threatening than the Saffers against our bats. Cummins and Hazlewood seem pretty clueless with the new ball. Watching Lyon against de Villiers and du Plessis reminded me of Adelaide in 2012 when he couldn’t bowl them out on the 5th day. De Villiers was playing our guys off his proverbial. Let’s not get too carried away yet. If we collapse in 2nd innings, i wouldn’t bet against the Saffers doing a rearguard against us as they have in the past, particularly if Starc can’t make it reverse so much next time.
DaveJ
Guest
True but JLT form is hardly relevant to picking Test team. Actually, I would argue that they picked him for the wrong reason - his bowling, afraid that our boys would have to work hard in Perth. Luckily he has proved he is good enough to be a real no.6 who justifies selection on his batting alone.
Don Freo
Guest
I wonder what you think a career average has to do with current form.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
We're talking about this season, not his career. Nice try.
BurgyGreen
Guest
Uppal's a strong performer for the U19 side I believe. Batting allrounder. Looks like he'll bat 7 in this side.