By Adrian Meredith
MELBOURNE, Australia
(TheSportsNEXT) December 5, 2012: The high-profile Test series between the
two best Test teams in the world, Australia and South Africa, has just
concluded with Proteas winning the three-match series 1-0 as they won the Perth
Test by 309 runs.
TheSportsNEXT.com’s cricket analyst Adrian Meredith has
given marks to all the players from both sides on the basis of their
performances.
9.5 - Michael Clarke
(576 runs at 144.00, 7 catches) - Double centuries in each of the first two
tests was the difference between Australia losing and drawing in the first and
an obvious draw and a probable Australian victory in the second. He finished
with some 200 runs more than anyone else in the series and his average was
higher than anyone else bar Faf du Plessis - who was out just twice with two not
outs. The only possible fault is that he was unable to get that win that was so
needed in the second test, failing to use the bowlers properly, and also in the
third test when a spectacular batting collapse - that he was a part of - put
South Africa into a winning position, when before that they were losing badly.
Deservedly the player of the series, he will be incredibly annoyed that South
Africa ended up winning the series 1-0 in a series that Australia were ahead in
for most of the series.
9.5 - Faf du Plessis
(293 runs at 146.50) - You could say that he benefited from two not outs,
and even had a failure in his fourth innings, but it isn't just the runs that
matter but the way that he scored them. In his first innings, he top scored,
then in the second he not only scored an unbeaten century to also top score but
batted for the best part of two days to make sure of an unlikely draw. He
didn't do quite as well in the second test but still did enough to help South
Africa along to a victory. It is very picky to fault him for failing in the 2nd
innings of the 2nd test, especially when South Africa already had the game won
by that stage. The only real fault was that he was expected to bowl a bit to
cover JP Duminy - but his batting more than made up for it.
8 - Michael Hussey
(295 runs at 59.00) - From the first innings, when he scored a run a ball
century to first bring Australia back to level pegging and then to get them
ahead until the very end, he fought hard for his runs. In the Australian team
it was him + Clarke doing most of the work and when both failed in the first
innings of the third test, Australia fell apart. He may be 37 years of age but
he is still Australia's best batsmen and the selectors won't let him retire.
8 - AB de Villiers
(276 runs at 55.20, 8 catches, 1 stumping) - It might not look like much
but A B de Villiers, when he scored that 33 in the second innings of the second
test, was one of the best 33s you are likely to see, as he batted for almost an
entire day, blocking everything and destroying the will of the Australian
bowlers - so much so that they were unable to bowl in the third test. He
capitalised with an easy century in the third test to set up the victory - his
first century as a wicket keeper in test cricket since taking over from Boucher
- and is showing that there is a chance that he will get to keep the gloves,
rather than giving them to the young Quinton de Kock. de Kock may have to come
in purely as a batsman and wait for de Villiers to retire now.
8 - Morne Morkel (14
wickets at 28.50) - The best bowler on display for either side, Morne was
supposed to be the worst of the 3 South African fast bowlers but instead was
the best. While Steyn was erratic and Philander hopeless - not to mention
Kleinveldt and especially not mentioning Tahir - Morne just kept taking
wickets. He had variety, he had depth, he had everything.
7.5 - Jacques Kallis
(339 runs at 56.50, 2 wickets at 24.50, 5 catches) - He was superb in the
second test, first taking two quick wickets to crush Australia, then injuring
himself, and coming out to bat twice to score valuable runs to help South
Africa to draw it, making sure that his injury didn't cost them much. He then
came back in the third and was mature and excellent. His seniority, level
headedness and determination was invaluable.
7.5 - Mitchell Starc
(68 runs without being dismissed, 8 wickets at 26.12) - The calls for him
to play in both the first two tests reached fever pitch when his absence almost
certainly cost Australia any chance of winning the second test, after Pattinson
was injured, and as a result he played in the third, was the highest wicket
taker, taking 2 quick wickets in the first innings and coming back for 6 in the
second to be clearly the best bowler on display. When all was lost, he then
showed his batting skill, smashing 68 runs in no time flat - at a T20 strike
rate of 143 - and wasn't dismissed in either innings. His performance in the
third test once again showed that the Australian selectors were, once again,
largely responsible for Australia's failures in this test series, as they left
out their best bowler, an unforgivable act. Hopefully now Starc will not be
left out again.
7 - Mitchell Johnson
(6 wickets at 27.33, 4 catches) - He came back brilliantly after such a
long time out of the side, and in South Africa's second innings was involved in
virtually every dismissal, taking 4 catches to go with his 4 wickets. He had
heart, he had intimidation, and he had accuracy. He wasn't quite as good as he
was last time he played at the WACA - but it is hard for him to get much better
either. A very good performance and he showed that he should have been
considered as the "experienced bowler" ahead of both Siddle and
Hilfenhaus for the first and second tests as well.
6 - Robin Peterson (6
wickets at 28.50) - He was considered to be the second best spinner on the
tour, behind Imran Tahir, but after Tahir bombed out in the second test in
helpful conditions, South Africa surprised a little by picking him - perhaps
because their only other alternative was the misfiring Kleinveldt. While the
conditions weren't helpful, and he wasn't the most damaging of the bowlers, he
nonetheless took a lot more wickets than he was expected to. Perhaps he
benefited from the work done by other bowlers but nonetheless he had good
figures, even if they are perhaps a bit flattering.
6 - Matthew Wade (121
runs at 30.25, 8 catches, 1 stumping) - Wade lost the wicket keeping battle
in terms of runs but still managed to stay on par with de Villiers in terms of
dismissals - both finishing with 9 - and had a tidy display behind the stumps.
While some of his batting was pretty poor, in the first innings of the third
test, he was the only batsman that played the conditions properly, and gave
some hope for Australia to still win it. He is still a bit inconsistent with
the bat but he is showing that potential that he could be something very
special, and in tough conditions he did very well here.
6 - James Pattinson
(5 wickets at 38.40) - The figures don't look that great but he was
comfortably Australia's best bowler in the first test before breaking down in
the second. While Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Lyon were all hopeless, Pattinson was
actually taking wickets. Ultimately, it was all too much for one young bowler,
and I have to wonder if Starc had been in the side - let alone Johnson - he
wouldn't have got his injury. Just the same, by becoming injured so early in
the 2nd test, he cost the side any chance of victory. They still should have
won, but had he stayed fit, it would have made certain of it. Sadly, he is out
for the summer now, and, along with Pat Cummins, there will be real question
marks over his ability to stay fit.
5 - Graeme Smith (255
runs at 42.50, 10 catches) - He defied the critics with a century in the
first test, but then failed in every other innings for a somewhat disappointing
series. His captaincy was good and helped to keep South Africa in the series
but he will want to improve on his batting, as he led South Africa into a path
of destruction far too often. Still not the worst series though.
5 - Hashim Amla (377
runs at 62.83) - Take out his final innings of 196 and he scored just 181
runs at 36.2, somewhat highlighting why he is being given such a poor rating.
He failed in the first test, was ordinary in the second, and continued to be
ordinary in the first innings of the 3rd test. Then, somehow, South Africa
learned how to play at the WACA, seemingly overnight, as he realised that the
only way to play on that ground is to attack - which is what he did with great
success. If it weren't for that innings, he would have scored a 2 or 3, but he
gets lifted up to a 5 for the series, and ends up with a nice little average
for what was overall a pretty disappointing series for him.
4 - David Warner (206
runs at 41.20) - The figures look nice, but, other than a run a ball
century in the second test, he didn't do an awful lot. He looked dangerous
every time he was out there, a bit like Sehwag or Gayle, but he was too easy to
out think and fell cheaply far too often.
4 - Dale Steyn (12
wickets at 30.83) - For a bowler ranked as the best bowler in the world,
this was a horrible series for Steyn, as he was wayward, easily dealt with, and
far below Morne Morkel. He did well while Australia were in panic mode in the first
innings of the third test, which boosted his average for the series, but
otherwise this was pretty disappointing for him. He lost that fear factor about
him and the Australian batsmen were more worried about Morkel than Steyn.
4 - Ed Cowan (228
runs at 45.60) - Like Warner, Cowan scored a century and not much else.
Unlike Warner, Cowan was scoring at closer to a run every two balls. Other than
for his surprising century, Cowan looked out of his depth and he surely doesn't
belong at test level. Sadly for Australian cricket fans, that century means
that he won't be dumped in a hurry, and will probably play for the entire next
test series, giving cheap wickets to opposition bowlers.
4 - Nathan Lyon (12
wickets at 40.50) - He actually finished as the leading wicket taker for
Australia, in spite of twice bowling on pace friendly conditions, at Brisbane
and Perth, when most people would have thought that Australia should have gone
in with 4 fast bowlers - especially considering how talented the fast bowlers are
in Australia. He did better than his overall FC record this season, which is a
plus, and on occasion actually bowled well; but for the most part he was carted
all around and was no threat. Sadly, with the selectors insisting on playing 2
experienced bowlers in Siddle and Hilfenhaus, he didn't have a lot of
competition.
3 - Shane Watson (35
runs at 17.50, 1 wicket at 46.00) - Not the best return, but one hell of a
lot better than Rob Quiney, and he added that extra genuine bowling option, as
well as just adding that genuine all rounder. He didn't deliver this time
around but he looked very dangerous and South Africa were clearly wary of him,
both with batting and bowling.
3 - Alviro Petersen
(200 runs at 33.33, 1 catch) - He ranged from bad to awful, and was very
lucky that he wasn't facing Australia's best bowlers - instead only up against
Hilfenhaus and Siddle. Why he is in the South African set up is anybody's guess
as the guy is clearly a long way below test level. South Africa have so many
much better options than him.
2.5 - Peter Siddle (9
wickets at 38.00) - He has heart. He can bowl forever. All great if trying
was an important factor in test cricket. The problem is that it is all about
skill and the ability to turn that skill into results. Peter Siddle doesn't
have either of these. He might be okay bowling for a weaker side but right now
he is outside of the top 10 best fast bowlers in Australia and should not have
been considered. He bowled terribly all series long, shocking batsmen with that
odd decent ball, that a couple of times took wickets, simply because the South
African batsmen didn't take him seriously. He was included because the
selectors were afraid to have too many inexperienced youngsters. But his
inclusion was a large part of what cost Australia the series. The difference in
quality between the attack in Perth and that shown in the first two tests was
huge.
2 - Ben Hilfenhaus (6
wickets at 35.50) - He was economical and helped other bowlers to take
wickets. That is always a good thing. The problem is that the only bowler good
enough to take wickets was James Pattinson, who was doing it all alone.
Hilfenhaus might be useful if the other 3 were all quality bowlers, but when
you have Siddle and Lyon as 2 of the 3, simply being economical isn't good
enough. The guy should not have been in the mix for this series, and it is
shameful that he was given two tests.
1 - John Hastings (1
wicket at 153.00, 52 runs at 26.00) - He looked to be bowling quite well
but after an early breakthrough he didn't manage another as other bowlers took
wickets and when South Africa were going berserk, he, like everyone else,
couldn't get a breakthrough. He batted quite well, it must be said, but
unfortunately he was mainly there as a bowler. Like Clint McKay, he may now be
considered to be a limited overs specialist. Given his poor ODI and T20 record,
though, he may not be playing much more internationally in any format though.
1 - Vernon Philander
(4 wickets at 49.75) - At least he took a couple of wickets in the third
test, after being hopeless in the first test and then having a rest for the
second (sorry, injured!) The guy looked a shadow of his former self and perhaps
he will never return to that level. He was supposed to be one third of the best
fast bowling trio in world cricket, but instead it became pretty much a one man
band.
1 - Jacques Rudolph
(74 runs at 18.50) - He was very lucky to last two tests, or indeed to be
given the first test, and really seemed to be superfluous to requirements, as
the frontline bowlers were batting better than he was. Luckily for Rudolph, his
replacement, Dean Elgar, did worse; but unfortunately for him, when JP Duminy
comes back, Rudolph will go, as, unlike Rudolph, Faf du Plessis is going to
keep his place in the side.
0.5 - Rory Kleinveldt
(4 wickets at 60.75, 1 catch) - He had one of the worst bowling debuts ever
seen and then, after Philander pulled out on the morning of the second test,
earned a surprise second test! He did slightly better but was still hopeless and
surely will never play for South Africa again. He really looked out of his
depth.
0.5 - Ricky Ponting
(32 runs at 6.40) - He had his worst ever series at home, in spite of being
in the form of his life domestically, and, along with Quiney's hopeless form
and the inconsistency of the openers, left far too much to do for Clarke and
Hussey and the tail. He retired at the right time, but perhaps should have
retired after Matthew Hayden retired some 4 years earlier, as since then
Ponting's heart hasn't been in the game.
0 - Rob Quiney (9
runs at 3.00) - Apparently his 9 off 10 balls in the first test was a
"good 9". Nonsense. He was out trying to hit a 6 when the team was
already in trouble after an early wicket. He did take a couple of good catches,
but followed up his poor judgement in the first test with some outright
terrible batting and, fingers crossed, will never play international cricket
for Australia again. A poor choice to start with, there was no justification to
keep him for the second test, and now, hopefully, that will be it.
0 - Imran Tahir (0
wickets, 260 runs) - It is rare that 2 players get a score of 0, but such
was the difference between good and bad players in this series that we had
this. Imran Tahir scored more runs than Quiney but nonetheless he was there as
a bowler and he now owns the record for most runs conceded in a test without
taking a wicket. Oh dear.
0 - Dean Elgar (0
runs at 0.00) - He had the perfect debut - in reverse - getting out for 0
in both innings - as did Rob Quiney - though at least Quiney had managed 9 runs
in the previous match. You don't get much worse than this. Elgar was also
supposed to be an all-rounder but didn't manage a wicket, and he capped off a
trio of hopelessness, along with Quiney and Tahir, to highlight that this was
the test series that selectors got wrong.
N/A - J P Duminy (did
not bat, did not bowl, did not field) - He actually played in the first
test, which, despite his returns, did not wash out and was not abandoned. JP
Duminy was fit and healthy heading into the second day, after South Africa were
still batting at the end of the day, but then injured himself during post-game
practice! Oh dear! He couldn't bat, or bowl, and turned South Africa from a
winning position to one where they were lucky to escape with a draw. Unlucky
perhaps, but perhaps they should be more careful about how they are practising!
No comments:
Post a Comment