Batting first, four of South Africa's top six made near or better run a ball half centuries (Smith, Kallis, Duminy and Miller) as the Australians struggled. Two big partnerships - 142 by Kallis and Smith and 107 by Duminy and Miller - were unworried by the Australian pace trio of Bollinger, Johnson and Cummins. The teenager, after impressing with 3-28 in the first game at Centurion came well and truly back to the field here and was handed a stern lesson by Graeme Smith in his early overs and particularly harsh critique by David Miller and JP Duminy as the innings raced to 300. Such learning will be the making of him if he is to be the world beater wise heads have suggested.
 |
| Bad back ... tell me about it! |
Further alarm bells rang for Australia when their most overworked cricketer, Shane Watson, suffered back spasms when bowling and had to leave the ground. He eventually batted at six but allied with his poor form in Sri Lanka, the matter of his workload must now move beyond media speculation. As strong as he has become, his mind and now his body are sending danger signs and the policy of destroying the second of our two best assets over the past few years (Katich was destroyed more directly) when team performances have been less than our best, must face severe examination. The sooner we have the new selection committee and coach, the better.
 |
| South Africa get Clarke for 1 |
Australia lost wickets at regular intervals after Ponting blazed but failed as substitute for Watson at the top of the order. Warner was again impressive but unfortunately top edged Morkel just when the side needed him to accelerate. Hussey was his tradesman-like self and Smith looked determined and solid during his hour at the crease but the rest fell away as the pressure of an increasing run rate weighed down on them. Tsotsobe (2-32) and Morkel (4-22) were far superior to their pace rivals and Botha wheeled down an economic ten over spell.
The reality of playing South Africa at home has started to kick in.
A question for the administrators though ... Australia will play only two Tests on this, the 13th tour to South Africa by an Australian team in the 108 year history on Tests between them and this is the least number of Tests ever played in a tour. Undoubtedly the public will be told that tightness in the playing schedule is the reason but if Test cricket really is the primary goal of Cricket Australia - as quoted in the Argus Report - then why are we wasting five days on ODI and Twenty20 matches instead of having a third Test and shortening the tour by a week? Money making isn't apparently completely off the agenda yet.
Let's just hope that the injury to Watson is only a reminder that he's not superman and we stop putting up with a make-shift opener who is equally needed as a wicket taker. The most ridiculous thing of all is that he still gets picked more often than not in all formats. If it takes someone to tell him 'mate, you're not playing 20/20 anymore' so be it.
ReplyDeleteThe two test series concept is offensive to test cricket lovers. The rivalry Aus and South Africa have developed is matched in intensity and quality only by the standard and entertaining cricket the meetings produce. This tour could have been re-jigged at any time (don't get me started on whoever drafted it in the first place) as has been done previously (eg India vs Aus last year).
It's flagrant money chasing like this that undermines reports like the Argus review. Why bother have something reviewed if you're only going to ignore the findings. Sounds like Govt action to me.
In fairness, the itinerary was determined before the AR was released. The time to judge is after the appointment of the coach as we now have the High Perf Man in place. Its Pat Howard who we need to look to for change.
ReplyDeleteThe schedule may have been prepared before Argus but CA and South Africa's board still could have extended the test series at any time. There's not another 50 over cup til 2015 so the only reason so much limited over rubbish is being played is money. It would have made more sense to extend the 20/20!
ReplyDeleteIndia changed the last series Aus visited to play as they were number 1 in tests and wanted more test matches in the tour. When South Africa are number 2 and there's a chance to rub Aus' nose in it what is the SA board doing?
At risk of being overly dramatic this typifies the problem with international cricket. Limited over slap happy rubbish is being positioned as the most important form; even though every year it gets modified and rewards inferior ability. Granted good players still excel but sub-standard players who can bowl a bit or bat a bit (or both) can make 'valuable' 30s at a run-a-ball or go for under 4 an over and these performances are seen as almost heroic. Watch Raina vs England and the guy looked like a junior against men. Yet put blue on him and then he makes 80 without a slip and 4 men sitting on the boundary not because of his influence but because of how many overs have been bowled.
If boards think that money is more important than presenting the toughest form of cricket then wait another 10 years when 20/20 has really kicked in at junior levels and hacks like Steve Smith are common place in test teams. The quality of ALL cricket will be affected and we'll all sit back bemoaning that 'they don't make them like Dravid anymore'.
Of course by then we'll probably be watching 4 day night tests with a blue ball and 13 a side.
The least boards, players and the ICC can do is stop treating us like idiots saying 'we maintain test cricket is the pinnacle' when all action indicates the opposite.