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.
No comments:
Post a Comment