Two Tests into the engrossing South Africa versus England series, it’s all square and poised to be a classic.
Ben Stokes continued an outrageous period with the three lions on his chest, bagging the last three wickets on Day 5 (Wednesday morning Australian time) to propel England to victory at a rowdy Newlands.
It’s a contest between two incomplete and at times disjointed teams – neither on top of their game but both willing to scrap, plus a sprinkling of star power and exciting youngsters on both sides. And in essence, it’s Test cricket at its spellbinding best.
The key ingredient, and one we rarely if ever see in Australia, is that ball ruled bat. In the eight innings thus far, only once has the batting side surpassed 300. Five scores have been in the 200s, a number that invariably ensures tight, entertaining, every-session-matters Test cricket. And while an element of this could be down to the respective sides’ sometimes mediocre batting orders, the primary reason is that the wickets in both Tests offered something for the bowlers throughout.
Ben Stokes was the hero again at Newlands — this time with ball in hand. (Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images)
The linear progression of both the Centurion and Cape Town Tests is one all curators might strive for: a healthy coverage of grass that sees the seamers lick their lips early, then natural deterioration that aids the spinners, and later, variable bounce that brings the quicks back into the game. It’s quintessential cricket that lovers of the game’s oldest format love, yet rarely experience on these shores.
Consistently, South Africa and England host tight, entertaining Test cricket while Australia simply does not. I wrote in September that England have hosted at least six of the best seven Ashes Tests this century. It would be a similar number from Australia’s series against South Africa, although the Proteas have been far more competitive here in recent times than the English.
In 2019 we sat through a momentum-swinging Ashes series where every hour meant something, as we edged (often unconsciously) to the edge of our seats throughout. We scampered to the toilet during drinks breaks, returning in time for the next delivery. We even had tactical naps in the extended breaks. By contrast, this summer saw those naps turned into a deep slumber, all while the cricket went by without the slightest shift in momentum.
David Warner’s triple century typified the uncompetitive Australian summer. (AAP Image/David Mariuz)
Of course, the gulf in class between Australia and both New Zealand and Pakistan was a significant contributor to this. Results in the five Tests were often decided halfway through Day 2. But the point remains that in Australia, we so rarely see the fifth-day excitement that Newlands provided. Australian pitches often create conditions that allow scores in excess of 450, and often create a too-heavy burden on the captain who loses the toss.
Too often, complaints about flat Australian pitches and the ho-hum cricket it can produce is wrongly portrayed as a criticism of the Australian team itself. The straw man emerges, decrying those who complain when Australia lose, and complain when they win.
This, quite clearly, isn’t the debate. Australia, along with India, are comfortably the best two teams at exploiting home conditions and dominating home sides.
Justin Langer’s side did so yet again in the last two months, swatting aside the world’s number two ranked side in clinical fashion. Their tactical approach is unequivocal: posting 450-plus in the first innings (bat once, bat big) then wearing an opposition side down with penetrating, relenting line and length. That’s smart cricket that succeeds in these conditions.
But that’s not the debate.
Of course, it is incumbent on visiting teams to master Australian conditions in order to taste success. And the Australians don’t have to worry about entertaining cricket when their job is to win.
But is it also disappointing that the thrilling Tests so often seen in England and South Africa are rarely replicated in Australia? Yes.
When ball rules bat, Test cricket rules. If only we got to see it more.
Wishy Of Oz
Roar Rookie
But in the right conditions two average sides can make some very entertaining cricket.
Wishy Of Oz
Roar Rookie
Tougher batting conditions produce better batters, the flatter Aussie wickets do nothing to help our batsmen when they tour. Warner in the recent Ashes is a perfect example of a fish out of water.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
Excellent article
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
I thought the Saffers also use the kooka, or has that changed. We managed to take 99 wickets with it in 5 tests this summer so I can't see how there's too much wrong with the ball or the pitches. The fact that we barely lost half that number of wickets might have more to do with the quality of our batting and the opposition bowlers than anything else.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
Or is it that because it's not British its just no damn good. .. With those empty seats, give us a decent contest and we'll turn up to watch. Except in Brisbane where they don't turn up for anything that's not rugby league of course. Also, I wasn't aware that CA is supporting 4 day tests. The impression I'm getting is that they are pretty standoffish about the idea. Maybe I missed something in the media that said they were backing the idea.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
I’m guessing this is a joke, but as a farmer I’ve got to say that the day my cattle start photo-synthesising is the day I get very, very scared. Triffids anyone?
Warrick Todd
Guest
Nobody is talking about the root cause! The kookaburra ball leather is sourced from cattle that are saturated with CO2. This means they cannot photosynthesise efficiently and their hides become soft and bruise easily. In England the Duke ball is made from Hedgehog leather which actually toughens proportionally to increases in CO2.
Paul sheehy
Guest
Couldn't be more true. Nobody wants to see boring one sided cricket on nothing more than roads. Test cricket is as much as dead in Australia. England & South Africa definitely has the best pitches for test cricket.
Joshua Kerr
Roar Guru
Pitch seemed quite flat at times. England's batsman frustrated SA's bowlers in the morning session on day 4 - it was a batter's paradise! Still did have some cracks in the pitch (and some plates) so still something in it for the bowlers.
Joshua Kerr
Roar Guru
To be fair, Australia probably have a stronger squad than South Africa. The second-wicket partnership between David Warner and Marnus Labuschagne keeps piling on the runs for Australia. South Africa have had flashes of brilliance in these first two tests but never looked like they could kick on and get 300+ (highest score in the 1st test was 282 all out). They haven't got a great batting lineup but neither have England!
greenleader
Roar Rookie
I can never see a Pakistan result and state hand on heart that I feel it is a 100% reflection of their ability on any given day.
greenleader
Roar Rookie
Broad years ago looked to be maturing into a fine allrounder. Anderson has been a permanent number 11 thoroughly deserving that spot. Archer can bat a bit, he has scored hundreds at the county 2nd X1 games yet I think his instructions from coaches is to concentrate on his bowling. At the international level, the standard of bowling the lower order face is far superior to county cricket. Many pom bowlers have been effective batsmen at county level.
greenleader
Roar Rookie
This is point two and regarding balls, no not gonads, not courage but shiny red cricket balls. Maybe it is time that the ICC started to phase out Kookaburra and Dukes balls? The pom press go gaga about Dukes favouring England and Kookaburra favouring Oz and NZ that the manufacture and seam give distinct advantages to the side which is used to using that brand at home. Either they find a new ball manufacturer and each test nation uses the same ball or, as an alternative, England arrive in OZ or NZ with boxes full of Dukes and when OZ and the Kiwis tour England they do likewise with ball bags full of featherless Kookaburra's. That scenario negates any advantage the home side allegedly receive because of the type of ball. If it ain't broken don't fix it but maybe a little tune-up may tweak the power.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Yep, the kiwis didn't like it when I told them their #2 ranking was bogus, since they don't play the big and small teams equally. They kept going on about their victory over Pakistan in the UAE & their draw in Sri Lanka, where as Australia lost. I told them you need to beat H&A teams like Australia, South Africa, India & England to get the credibility you think you deserve...and look what happened! :stoked:
greenleader
Roar Rookie
Two points. I have never (sadly) watched cricket in Oz, in fact, I have not seen a great deal on TV as I cannot afford Sky, however, what I have seen of cricket at the huge, ugly, concrete multi-sports stadiums (OK call me old school) are lots of empty seats. As I say I am an outsider looking in and can only comment from that perspective. The crowd factor can have a huge influence on performance as we know from soccer. Noisy, vociferous support can lift a player and a team to incredible feats. So has CA lost something? I can only think of Perth. Now the new stadium from the outside has the wow factor but inside? I know the wall of noise from a full WACA could intimidate visitors just as it lifted home teams. Is CA losing its soul to corporate greed? As CA has come out of the closet to support 4-day test matches I fear it may have.
greenleader
Roar Rookie
I am the first to admit that I am no expert on cricket matters. An enthusiastic amateur. I didn't start playing regularly until I was 30 which was the result of taking my sons aged 11 & 7 to junior coaching. Then I could not get enough, playing every Saturday & Sunday, swapping airport shifts from late to 05,00h start so I could make the match. I was a junior match umpire, under 11 coach, volunteer groundsman, committee member. So I know a little about a lot not a lot about little. I asked some Aussie mates about the drop-in pitches, something as a groundsman I would not like. All of them said that in the longer formats the team batting first is likely to win - true or false? If so that reminds me of my youth when I raced speedway (500cc bikes). The majority of folk said the first rider out of the gate wins. Your multi-sports stadiums may alleviate crickets financial burden but by removing the uncertainty of which team will win, given two even sides, that is not doing the sport any favours at all.
JGK
Roar Guru
Ah sorry. I thought Aust batted first in Brisbane. Aust of course did send England in at The Oval.
MaxP
Roar Rookie
Why do people keep on saying that Australian pitches offer nothing for bowlers? Our bowlers managed to get the job done with 100 wickets this summer. If the pitches offer so much for batsmen, why were Pakistan and NZ so poor (day one at the Gabba the exception). Could the real issue be that there is a gulf in world cricket between the top two or three nations (Australia, India then???) and a poor ranking system and tour schedule, where NZ were artificially over ranked?
Brian
Guest
No they have not. NZ won the toss in Melbourne and lost. They should have batted. Every other Test this summer the team that won the toss had a bat.
Megeng
Roar Rookie
You're right. Usually I wouldn't enjoy a one sided series like we've just had. But I took it on the basis that we've had to suck up ca. 20 years of Bledisloe bashings.