Perth 2012: Day One

Given the fact that I was away from a TV screen for most of the first two sessions, you might think I've got a bit of a nerve commenting on what went down on Day One in Perth, but there are a couple of points that have arisen over the past forty-eight hours that need to be commented on before things proceed too much further.

For a start there's the Ponting retirement, and one could spend a couple of hours poring over and reflecting on the various mushroom-like analyses of the man and his career that have sprung up over the past forty-eight hours.

Most of them, probably, had already been composed over the preceding twelve months and placed on hold until the appropriate time following the long-anticipated press conference. In any case I didn't spend much time on them, largely since the reason I was going to miss most of the first two sessions' TV coverage was our end of the month retired teachers' lunch.

Fine, you might think. Lunch, no problem there.

Ordinarily, yes. But this one was the end of the year special excursion to Montes on the Gloucester Passage, which tacked an hour and a bit onto the time allocated for a lengthy lunch to allow you to get there and a further hour and a bit to make the return journey.

So a two hour lunch, two and a half hours transit time and whatever time gets tacked on if the driver decides to divert to Cannonvale for retail therapy and a few more things that needed to be attended to before we left didn't leave much time for an extended perusal of the tributes.

I have my own axes to grind about Punter, largely involving his role in losing the Ashes twice and his exaggerated view of his own tactical nous, but he's definitely one of the best bats I've seen in the space of the last forty years.

I'm not into who was the best arguments, but he was definitely one of the greats in the modern era.
And I'm not interested in whatever speculation might be going around as to whether he fell, jumped or was pushed.

In the long run that issue doesn't matter.

From here on, questions about the longevity of whoever's sitting in the #4 batting slot will concern the incumbent's ability and current form rather than the appropriate time for the bloke to retire and the associated question of whether he's still got it.

The timing means we can look at things against Sri Lanka and hopefully have things reasonably sorted before the Ashes, so from here we'll be asking whether Khawaja, Forrest, Hughes or whoever has the goods rather than whether Ponting can still cut it at the top level.

The other matter that needs comment concerns the bowling, and the ups and downs associated with Australia's pace bowling stocks.

It wasn't that long ago we were looking at the injured list, wondering what happened to all the reserves and muttering things like I thought we were supposed to have a bit of depth in that department.

Now, until Lyon came on to bowl, we had four blokes (Starc, Hastings, Watson, Johnston) all having their first trundle for the series and reducing the #1 Test ranked nation to 6/75. Amla's run out helped, but by all accounts the three specialist quicks and Watson all bowled very well. That was the impression I got from the radio commentary once we were in the car for the return journey, anyway…

On yesterday's evidence, assuming they're still fit, any of the current trio could well be pushing Siddle and Hilfenhaus for a slot in Melbourne and beyond, with the likes of Bird, Butterworth, Feldman and Cutting all breathing down their necks.

One thing that comes through strongly here is the importance of Watson's role as an all-rounder, which is arguably what got Lyon into the eleven. I thought his 3/41 off 12 was a good performance by an offie in Perth on Day One. He's still very much a work in progress, but the key word here is progress, which is being made and is travelling in the right direction.

That, by the way, is something that didn't seem to happen with Hauritz and Krejza under the previous captain.

The important point here is that with Watson bowling a couple of sharpish three over spells he'll relieve some of the workload on the other quicks, provide an avenue to play a spinner and, hopefully, mean we're not likely to have anyone out of the pace battery getting through the workload that did for Siddle and Hilfenhaus on the way to Perth.

Give 'em all a run, shuffle and sample, mix and match and see where we are when it's time to select the side for the Ashes.

And that, of course, is the long term priority once this current game is done and dusted.

Adelaide 2012: Day Five

You might think I'm veering towards coach speak when I say I've taken a few things out of the fifth day draw in Adelaide and the England-India result in Mumbai, but they're not necessarily positives although I'm sure they do matter.

First comes the observation that it isn't just the strength of your squad that matters, what counts is the quality of your backup resources.

Second, it doesn't matter how good your resources are if you don't employ them appropriately.

Third, getting to the #1 Test ranking is no mean feat in itself, and having reached that ranking you'll need to work like Billy-o to maintain your position.

Fourth, your strongest side on paper isn't necessarily the best side for the conditions you'll have to deal with.

When you look at it, and whichever way you look at it, there are three factors that had a big influence on South Africa's ability to survive the full six hours and ninety-eight overs.

The first of them is Jacques Kallis. While he wasn't able to bowl, Kallis batting on one leg is a match for most people batting on two. Neil Manthorp was consistently reminding all and sundry on the ABC radio coverage that, statistically, he's the greatest all-rounder the world has known, and it's obvious that he's not just a bloke who can both bat and bowl a bit. He's a phenomenal competitor whose batting alone would be enough to get him into any Test side in most eras of the game.

58 in close to two hours in the first dig was a major factor in limiting the time Australia had to take ten wickets in the second, and 46 in two and a half in the second was a major factor in coming away with the actual draw.

It wasn't just Kallis. Having lost Duminy through injury in Brisbane and Philander breaking down or pulling up sore before Adelaide, the Proteas had the depth on hand to cover Duminy with du Plessis and Philander with Kleinveldt.

The latter mightn't have looked impressive in the first innings, and he's definitely got an issue with his front foot (he bowled 11 of the 29 no balls for the match with Imran Tahir accounting for another 7), but in picking up Warner, Quiney and Cowan at the start of Australia's second innings he did a bit to delay the declaration and limit the time available to take the ten wickets.

Kleinveldt mightn't be good enough to force Steyn, Philander or Morkel out of the eleven but he's a handy replacement if one of them is ruled out through injury.

Similarly, duPlessis' 110 in going on for eight hours mightn't be enough for him to hold his place when a fully fit Duminy returns but he'll have the South African selection panel looking to see if anyone else's place in the batting order is in jeopardy before dropping him.

My second point is that while it's nice to have resources they're not much good unless you use them appropriately, and I've got issues with the way in which both captains used their wrist spinning options.

Smith, I thought, went dangerously close to throwing things away with the way he handled Imran Tahir. Admittedly, he was down a bowler once Kallis broke down, and Tahir didn't bowl well. 0/260 off 37 overs isn't good bowling but I reckon his figures would have been better if he'd been given a more supportive, attacking field.

Now, it may be one of those situations where you have a captain who doesn't rate one of the players he's been given, and that assessment may well be accurate, but you can only work with what you've been given, so you ought to try to do it appropriately.

Similarly, I thought Warner should have bowled more than six overs in the second innings. Fifty from Lyon was a sterling effort, and I thought the offie bowled well without luck, but given the wrist spinner's ability to pick up extra bounce you'd have thought the variation would have been worth exploring. Clarke, I noted, gave himself eighteen overs, and I reckon he'd have been better off bowling Warner for some of them.

Hilfenhaus and Siddle bowled 34 and 33 respectively and had Warner bowled a few of those we might have managed to squeeze in another couple of overs into the day and Siddle might have been left with a bit more fuel in the tank when it came to the crunch at the end.

The result that came out of Mumbai contributed to my third and fourth observations, and you could use it as an argument for the appropriate use of resources.

Just in case you missed the gory details, coming off a nine wicket victory in the First Test, India won the toss and elected to bat, as you would, and managed a handy 327 in their first dig, with Panesar (5/129 and Swann (4/70) doing the damage. England countered with 413 (Cook 122, Pietersen 186 and no one else managing 30) and then, with Anderson and Panesar (6/81) taking the new ball, rolled India for 142 (Gambhir 65, Ashwin the only other bat to reach double figures and Swann taking over from Anderson after four overs to take 4/43).

That left England needing 57, a target they reached in a the tenth over, taking a tad over half an hour to do so.

India was sitting pretty in the #1 Test ranking not long ago, something they'd achieved largely through comfortable wins under their own conditions, and England, having also spent time in that top slot, lost it through an inability to perform at the optimum level in the subcontinent.

Which shows, I think, that while getting to the #1 Test ranking is no mean feat in itself, you're not going to do it unless you can perform at home and then win your share of games when you're playing away, and having reached that ranking you need to work like Billy-o to maintain your position.

The South African effort to produce the draw could accurately be described as a team working like Billy-o to achieve a result, and it underlines the fact that with or without Kallis, Duminy and Philander they'll be a tough nut to crack.

To me, the most significant thing to come out of Mumbai was the performance from Panesar and the fact that Cook, fairly early in his captaincy, chose to open with him in the second innings. You can't help but feel Monty owed his place on tour to a need to have someone cover for Cook, but when the penny dropped and the Poms decided they needed to play two spinners, in he went.

They'd gone in to Ahmedabad with three quicks with Swann, Pietersen and left arm tweaker Samit Patel to handle the spin duties. Patel, who batted Six, held his place in Mumbai, but only contributed four overs in the first innings.

On paper, looking at that story, you'd have to say that the English pecking order had Panesar firmly slotted in as the fourth spinning option, but when something needed to be done they brought him in and Cook brought him on as first change. Monty then justified the move by taking out Sehwag and Tendulkar before the twentieth over.

So while you might have reached the #1 slot through a three man pace battery with a batting all-rounder who bowls medium pace and a spinner to round out the attack, there'll be times when one or more of those blokes will have to go if you're going to be competitive in the conditions.

You can't help thinking the English approach to the subcontinent has been to say well here's our best side, let's hope they can perform in the conditions rather than consciously weighing the options and going with horses for courses.

With three days until Perth, this point about your strongest side on paper not necessarily equating to the best side for the conditions you'll have to deal with may well come into play.

South Africa would be at their strongest with Kallis and Philander fit, but with Kallis unlikely they'll have to make do with a less than optimum combination, and with a three Test series against Sri Lanka starting on Boxing Day you won't necessarily be looking to give Siddle and Hilfenhaus a run at the WACA.

Australia's strongest side on paper might well include Lyon, but he seems unlikely to play in Perth, with Starc coming in for Pattinson, one of Hazlewood, Hastings and Johnston coming in for the spinner and the other two on hand to cover for Siddle and/or Hilfie.

There was an interesting comment in this morning's press that bowling more than fifty overs in a Test match dramatically increases the likelihood of breaking down in the next, and on that basis, Pattinson (53 at the Gabba) should have had alarm bells ringing. Hilfenhaus got through 47 up there and 53 in Adelaide, while Siddle contributed 53 and 63, so there's every chance Australia will go in on Friday with a side that reads Warner, Cowan, Watson, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Wade, Johnston, Hastings, Hazlewood, Starc.

But let's wait and see how things pan out.

Adelaide 2012: Day Four

While you'd have been pretty sure the horse had bolted when Australia went to lunch yesterday at 7/206 with Wade and Pattinson still there after Clarke and Hussey departed in the morning session by the tea break with Smith and Amla gone it was a definite case of no use shutting the gate.

Sure, they've got de Villiers and du Plessis at the crease with Kallis to come, but you'd reckon that unless rain intervenes you wouldn't need much more than two sessions to find the half dozen decent deliveries that would wrap up proceedings on a fifth day track in Adelaide. As for 353 runs to win, regardless of what was accomplished in Perth on an improving autobahn four years ago, you can rule a South African victory right out of contention.

More particularly, given the fact that the Proteas managed 37 off the same number of overs between tea and stumps and Lyon's rather remarkable figures of 15 overs, 7 maidens, 2 for 15 you'd figure the offie will be getting more than his share of action with men clustered around the bat.

If that doesn't work, and Siddle and Hilfenhaus can't deliver the goods at the other end there's always the prospect of Clarke and Warner rolling their arms over with slightly less aggressive fields.

Actually, given an early wicket or two, it could all be over by lunch.

The part time bowling side of things, with Clarke, Warner, Quiney and Ponting getting a trundle yesterday, and sending down just under a quarter of the fifty overs so far, would have you suggesting that up and coming batsmen with ambitions of playing at the international level might be advised to work on their bowling a bit.

After all, there has been a considerable amount of work put into getting the likes of Glenn McGrath to the point where they can stick around with the willow, you'd reckon there'd be a fair case for getting the batsmen to spend net practice doing a bit more than just rolling the arm over and trundling them down at medium pace or sending down a bit of half-hearted spin.

It's not as if you're talking rocket surgery in that department. You're not looking for someone who has mastered the factors that induce reverse swing, the dodgy biodynamics of the doosra or the intricacies of the flipper. All you need is someone who can land the ball fairly tidily for a couple of overs and has reasonable mastery of a variation (or, at the most, two).

That presents some intriguing possibilities. Quiney delivered some tidy medium pace, and it would be interesting to know whether he has anything else in his armoury. At that pace, something like the old knuckle ball would possibly be worth working on, and if that didn't work out it'd be worth investigating other variations that would deliver a slower ball.

Even if it didn't translate into a spell at the bowling crease you'd think that sort of work would definitely come in useful when it comes to the batsman's key role, which is, of course, to deliver large quantities of runs without getting out.

Let's pause a moment and consider these things a little further. Not that I'm suggesting Quiney isn't going to find himself back playing for the Bushrangers as soon as Watson's fit or Khawaja is deemed to have displayed a run of form that deserves a recall.

The point behind the pace bowler's slower ball (and I'm applying the same principle to anything from military medium upwards) is to induce the batsman into a false shot by getting them through the stroke early so the ball is hit in the air rather than along the deck. That means you bowl it with the same arm action you'd usually use but find a way of slowing the ball down as it leaves the hand.

Arm speed the same, but slower out of the hand, compris?

There are a couple of ways of doing that, and the topic gets fairly detailed coverage in Dennis Lillee's The Art of Fast Bowling, which is where I picked up on the knuckle ball.

The trick here involved folding the middle finger in behind the ball and flicking the knuckle upwards as the ball leaves the hand. What this should do is impart a bit of topspin as it slows the release speed so the ball will loop a bit, arrive slightly later and bounce slightly higher, hopefully inducing that elusive catch.

It should be almost impossible to read out of the hand, since there isn't much change in the wrist action and could, in the right hands, be a rather tricky little delivery to deal with.

In any case, if your military medium net bowler is consciously working on and exploring the various ways you can cut back the release speed the knowledge is quite likely to be helpful as far as your main job description is concerned.

The same principle would seem to apply to a batsman who explores the intricacies of wrist spin or sets about a part time career as a finger spinner. There's plenty to be learned there, even if it doesn't translate to a swag of wickets under match conditions.

And, if you've got that little variation in your bag of tricks Clarke looks like the sort of innovative captain who's likely to make use of it.

As far as Perth is concerned, of course, you'd have to reckon Quiney's days are numbered, and assuming Watson is fit he'd slot straight into Three, with Starc replacing Pattinson and possibly Bird from Tasmania or Queenslander Feldman getting some exposure to the Australian setup by being named in the twelve. Bird's got 25 wickets at a tad under 20 in the Shield this season after a 6/25 yesterday against the Warriors, and you'd reckon he's be free to fly across to Perth to join the squad by tomorrow afternoon, given the state of play at Bellerive (WA 67, Tasmania 2/201).

Lyon, of course, could well end up carrying the drinks, and the selection panel might go for a squad of thirteen by slotting Mitchell Johnson into the squad as well.

The other question, of course, concerns Ponting. Watch the press conference this afternoon for more in that department...

Adelaide 2012: Day Three

Going into Day Four it seems we're back to two possible results with the prospect of a genuine nail-biter lurking just on the other side of the horizon.

Of course, as is so often the way with these things, having said that we'll probably see things very close to wrapped up today with a comprehensive victory to one side or t'other early on Day Five, but that's the nature of the beast, isn't it?

A 273 run lead with five wickets in hand means an Australian victory is going to depend on how many runs Clarke, Hussey and Wade can chip in with, and how well Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Lyon can bowl. From the South African side of the fence it'll come down to the size of the run chase and how well their top order fares against a depleted bowling attack that's minus one of the key strike weapons.

Take that Protea formula and scrutinise it closely and it'll come down to how quickly they can get rid of those three bats and how well those three bowlers are allowed to bowl. Smith and Amla are class players, Petersen and Du Plessis look like they've got potential and Kallis and de Villiers might have question marks over the fitness level but they've got class on their side and plenty of time if the leg and the back can hold themselves together.

Oh, an Rudolph can bat a bit as well.

Looking back on Day Three, you can see the turning points pretty clearly. Rudolph and Smith went early, de Villiers, Steyn and Kleinveldt didn't stick around, Kallis and Du Plessis added the runs that took the Proteas out of follow on territory (not that it was ever going to be enforced) and then, once the initial breakthrough had been made Steyn, Morkel and Kleinveldt lived up to the pace attack pecking order and made the Australian supporter rather glad Philander and Kallis weren't part of the equation.

Looking forward, everything's going to come down to the amount of pressure that can be exerted in the first session. That, I think, will determine the result and dictate how long it's likely to take. If two out of those three bats are still there at lunch with the lead around 350 you can probably rule the South African victory out of calculations, though a quick run through the tail after the resumption would make things interesting.

Chasing around 400 in four and a bit sessions in circumstances where Clarke, Hussey, Warner and Quiney are going to be doing their share of the bowling would appear quite doable when you've got Smith, Amla and Kallis likely to spend a lengthy spell at the batting crease.

The key factor, from what I can see, is going to be the old DRS, which is going to figure increasingly in the calculations as things get tighter and tighter. That's an interesting one, because regardless of the intention when it was introduced it's now a significant factor in determining the outcome of a particular match. Sure, it might have been meant to eliminate the howlers, but nowadays it seems equally important as a second chance to knock over a batsman, or for a batsman to avoid being knocked over.

You used to rely on the umpire's competence, eyesight and judgement, working on the principle that mistakes will eventually even themselves out. Everyone on the field has hid own take on the merits or otherwise of a particular decision, and I'd like a dollar for every time I've seen an inconsistent response to what could be seen as an umpiring mistake.

There were a couple of times when I signalled Byes in a kids game, only to be informed that the batsman had hit the ball. Fine, was my standard reply, if the keeper had caught it I would've given it Not Out. That usually seemed to remove the grievance.

Equally interesting was the response from a notoriously temperamental senior cricketer in Bowen who had never, ever, been dismissed LBW. In a situation where the batting side provided the decision maker you couldn't help feeling there was a bit of bias entering into the equation and I always suspected that when this bloke got rapped on the pads the benefit of the doubt might have gone to the bowler, even though the decision usually came from one of his team mates.

If that seems strange, I was sitting beside the rest of his side when the finger went up on one occasion and noted the hilarity with which the decision was greeted, though I also noted the group scattered as he made his way back to the side line.

When he was bowling, of course, anything that went anywhere near the pads was Out by definition, and a decision to the contrary was usually followed by a remark about large amounts of money influencing the decision.

Things are likely to get rather tense in Adelaide over the next twenty-four hours, and it'll be interesting to see what happens when Smith, in particular, gets a verdict he doesn't agree with. He obviously wasn't happy with the referral that cost him his wicket being turned down, and in a situation where a clear head will help the decision making process it's easy to be distracted by issues that you can't, in the long run, do very much about.

The outcome of the next two days will have a lot to do with focus and careful management of resources, and no one will be wanting to get distracted.

Adelaide 2012: Day Two

Day Two in Adelaide provided, yet again, another opportunity to remark that there's no game that's quite like Test cricket.Watching Smith and Rudolph grinding out the runs late in the afternoon, of course, you might take that commentbin a negative sense, but consider the way things have turned around in the past twenty-four hours.

Yesterday morning, at 5/482 you'd have thought anything less than 600 would be unsatisfactory, and 700 quite achievable, but South Africa obviously sat down after stumps, took a good analytical look at the situation and decided to take it back to basics.

The formula, one imagines involved keeping it tight and building pressure, and didn't it work like a charm.The bowling looked like the paper rating was accurate, knocking Clarke over early took the 700 out of the equation, getting Wade not long after removed 600 from the calculations and at 9/504 you'd be reckoning on getting change out of 525.

Pattinson tonked and got us past that and his 42, the highest score for the innings that didn't stretch to three figures, got the total to 550 with a little four over cameo before lunch to keep things interesting.

That four over spell coincided with The Actor arriving to fit the aluminium gates into the fence, so I missed that cameo, and, indeed, much of the middle session, so I can't really comment on how we bowled.

I got back to the TV in time for the Petersen run out, which was one of those things that happen when you veer away from the basics and have two batsmen running on the same side of the pitch. That's not an issue when you've got a right arm bowler operating over the wicket, but Lyon, from what I recall, was going round the wicket, which put Smith on the right side to interfere with Petersen's running path.

It was rather sloppy work from Petersen as well, too casual, failed to stretch out and slide the bat after covering extra ground, more than likely expecting the throw to go to the other end. A timely reminder that you ignore basic principles at your own risk.

It was one of those little reminders that you don't always need ten good balls to wrap up an innings.

The stumping that took care of Amla wasn't the sharpest bit of keeping I've ever seen, but in the end Amla was far enough down the track to make the untidy glove work immaterial.

So, having missed a chunk of the day, where do we sit now?

Day One had two results possible, with a South African victory more or less ruled out. Australia bats long, gets a long bowl at a follow on target between 450 and 500, and the worst outcome is a draw.

Now, with the Proteas sitting semi-pretty on 2/217 and Smith on 111 there's the rather unnerving stat indicating they've never lost a Test where he's scored a ton, and the distinct possibility that if they can bat long and end up around par by stumps, with two days to play they could bat on further and set up a nasty little second innings scenario on a wearing pitch.

Adelaide 2012: Day One

It seems something strange happens when a cricket team hits the top of the ICC World Rankings. Maybe not quite a Well here we are, chaps, let's sit back and enjoy the view, but one has to suspect there's a bit of relaxation when it comes to the aspirational drive that landed you there.

In recent times we've had four sides hit that #1 Ranking in the Test table, and all of them are currently engaged in a series with one of their erstwhile rivals.,

Here are the rankings from 3 September this year (grabbed from here)

                        Matches     Points     Rating
South Africa 25 3002 120
England        36 4195 117
Australia        34 3952 116
Pakistan        29 3148 109
India        32 3394 106
Sri Lanka        29 2834 98

Astute readers will noteIndia, recently #1 has slipped to #5, though they've just finished a nine wicket demolition of England, ho appear to experience a double digit degree of difficulty (add a decimal place and it'd be three) in anything approaching subcontinental conditions.

Which brings us, of course, to the rather remarkable events at Adelaide Oval yesterday. I don't recall ever seeing a day's play in a Test match that was quite like that one.

I've been out checking the neighbourhood for a missing cat, and I've got an hour-long walk coming up, so I haven't had a look at the morning media, but I've got a fair idea what would be in there. I've also missed the entirety of the Gabba Test apart from the odd score update while I was in Japan, so when it comes to revealed form out of there it's a case of not seeing, cannot say apart from a remark that Australia seemed to have managed to dig ourselves out of a rather nasty hole, and we seem to have done it again this time.

So, the batting. Day One of a Test, and you're always likely to lose an opener in the first session, so Cowan's dismissal doesn't come as a great cause for concern. The delivery in question wasn't a jaffa, but they don't all need to be, and while the mode of dismissal was, um, different (what with the possibility of LBW thrown in with the caught and bowled) it can probably go down as one of those things that do happen.

In any case Cowan and Warner had negotiated the first ten overs. It's the sort of situation that calls for your best bat to come in at Three, hopefully to negotiate his way through to lunch. Somehow, I don't think Quiney is the right man for that slot just yet, but someone has to do it.

That someone probably isn't Ricky Ponting either. I don't think I've seen a top ranked bat done over as comprehensively as Punter was by the one that took out the stumps. The mode of dismissal suggests someone in the South African camp may have done their homework. It could have been a complete accident, of course, but when you're looking for a descriptor you'd have to go for comprehensive.

So there we were at lunch, 3/102 off 25 overs, Warner 67, Clarke 18, with a fair bit of rebuilding to be done. The fifty partnership came up shortly after the resumption, though you'd probably have missed that little milestone in the rush of runs. 76 balls for the fifty, by the way, which wasn't too shabby at all, but consider the stats torrent that followed (looking at the Day 1 Match Notes).

The Australian total flew past the 150 off the first ball of the thirty-first, Warner reached his ton off 93, 76 of them coming from balls that crossed the boundary, the century partnership arrived a mere thirty deliveries after the fifty, Clarke's half century came off 57 and the total passed 200 half way through the thirty-fifth.

Drinks came when Warner departed, 108 runs having come in 12.2 overs.

One could continue to reel off the stats, but I think that's enough for the moment because, regardless of how well Warner and Clarke batted, there was definitely something amiss in the South African attack, and it was something beyond the injury to Kallis.

On paper this South African attack has to be the best going around at the moment. The bowling rankings have Steyn at #1, Philander at 2 and Morkel at 9. By contrast we've got Hilfenhaus and Siddle at 6 and 8 respectively, with the other five spots in the top ten going to a Pakistani, a Sri Lankan, an Indian, an Englishman and a West Indian.

Add in Jacques Kallis as a fourth quick and you've got what should be a very handy outfit, even on a reasonably flat Adelaide track.

Then, of course, things start to go wrong. Take Philander out of the mix and you're drawing on your reserves. Based on yesterday's performance there's a significant gap between Kleinveldt and Morkel, who wasn't that impressive on the day anyway.

Have Kallis break down on you as well, and have Steyn getting twinges that may or may not merit cotton wool treatment and things start to go drastically wrong.

But that still doesn't explain a day when 380 runs were scored in four and a half hours after lunch for the loss of two wickets. Yes, the bowling attack was reduced. Kleinveldt doesn't look like muscling any of the other three aside on form, and Imran Tahir might be able to draw on considerable experience but doesn't look like a threat at the moment.

But batsmen and bowlers perform, by and large, as well as they're allowed to and the South African performance suggests a side that came into the game significantly underdone, which  brings me back to where I started.

With eight days between Brisbane and Adelaide why would you break up the side for a couple of days and then expect things to fall back neatly together when you reassemble at the next venue? And why, once the team has reassembled, do you have two full practice sessions that coach Gary Kirsten did not attend because he was flying back to Australia?

The presence of the coach would, one suspects, be a key element in getting things to fit neatly back together.

The days of the traditional tour, where the visitors played a couple of state games before the first Test, and then took a fortnight between successive Test matches, usually with a state game on the intervening weekend and a midweek country game or two as well kept a sixteen or seventeen man touring party together in an environment where cricket wasn't always the direct focus, but was definitely on the horizon somewhere.

Those days are long gone, but you'd have thought it'd be possible to fit in a game somewhere. Possibly, given a crowded Australian summer, not against a state side, but maybe the ACT?

I'd point out, at this stage, that the longest running #1 side, that great West Indian outfit that ran through the late seventies, the whole of the eighties and well into the nineties dominating almost every side they ran up against, had a couple of strange little habits.

One of them was that when they travelled, they travelled as a team, right down to the maroon blazer. I sighted them in a Brisbane departure lounge the morning after a day-nighter. Seventeen of 'em, no one out of uniform, travelling as a group.

By contrast, the Australian side were scattered across the horizon, some of them hiding behind newspapers in an attempt to maintain anonymity. A bunch of highly excited Aitkenvale Swimming Club kids on their way back from the State Championships put paid to that, to the point where Greg Chappell, standing in the middle of the concourse, asked some underling whether there was a private lounge available because this (i.e. kids with improvised autograph books) is giving me the shits.

By contrast, the Windies were over there, closed ranks, not exactly hostile, but not encouraging autograph hunters to queue up either.

Those days, of course, are long gone, and one shudders to think what the response would be if you started to insist on group travel in uniform.

One also shudders to think of the likely response if the coach announced that, while there might be a fairly comfortable window of time before the next game there were a few issues with the fielding (or whatever) that needed attention, so that's the agenda for the next couple of days rather than giving the boys a break to take in the sights.

Bob Simpson did something like that in the '87 World Cup when a couple of Australian players suggested a side trip to have a squiz at the Taj Mahal.

No, team unity is a very fragile thing. When you break it up it's not always easy to put the pieces back together, and that's BEFORE you start looking at injuries and other issues. It's one of the reasons most of the successful school-kids' Rep coaches I ran across insisted the team sit together as a group while batting, rather than dispersing across the countryside to spend quality time with parents, rellies or billets.

But more than anything else, I suspect that once you hit the top you tend to become complacent and relax. Listening to (I think) Neil Manthorp on the ABC Radio commentary talking about Kallis, it seems to be a case of Jacques doing as much (or as little) work as he feels like. Well, after all he is thirty-seven and you can't expect him to go on forever. Point taken.

But there is, I think, a tendency to ease back when you've reached the summit. A degree of we know what we're doing so we can take it easy because we'll be all right on the day. We know how to prepare. Trust us.

That was, at least from where I was sitting, a significant element in losing the Ashes in 2005, and looking at the Cricinfo window behind the one where I'm typing this there are three video headlines:

Clarke: Counter-attacking has always been my .. (that's what it reads, the Astute Reader can probably fill in the rest);

Warner: Facing lots of balls in the nets helped, and

Kirsten: Bowlers didn't apply pressure consistently.

How little training is too little for South Africa? is the headline here in a story that says it better than I can.

After all, when you think about it in the to and fro of international competition you know there's going to be attack and counter-attack, and you need to have contingency plans in place to allow for the ebb and flow of advantage. From where I'm sitting, it definitely looks like South Africa have come up short in the planning department, though you probably wouldn't be anticipating injury taking out half of your preferred four prong pace battery.

At 5/482 with Clarke to resume on 224, Wade to come and a tail that has been known to chip in with handy runs you'd figure on somewhere around 600 by lunch, with 700 within the bounds of possibility by tea. A session to bowl at the end of Day Two with the follow on margin set at 500 would suggest two possible results, neither of which would be a South African victory.

Of course, there's many a slip between the cup and the lip...