In future decades, cricket historians may view December 21 2008 as the day when the era of Australian dominance, which had begun almost fourteen years previously, ended. Losing (and convincingly) in India was one thing - but Australia had suffered defeat there even during their 2001 peak. But failing to defend 414 in a home Test - at Perth at that - feels like a seminal, epoch-ending moment. And it was some failure - Australia were completely thrashed, three-quarters of their bowling attack utterly impotent. Sports pundits are more prone than most to hyperbole, but on this occasion it really does seem justified.
Many have recently rushed to claim India as the world's best side, following winning three and losing none of their last six Tests against Australia, and then exhibiting the confidence and skill to chase down 387 against England with consummate ease. Yet the argument does not stand up to close scrutiny. Sandwiched between their two series with Australia was a scrapped 1-1 draw at home to South Africa and then a 2-1 defeat in Sri Lanka. It seems a little premature to label them number one yet, though the startling recent progress of Gambhir, Sharma and Mishra suggests that they soon could be the world's best side.
Yet just now it is South Africa who have the most right to claim themselves as the new number ones, having so spectacularly defeated Australia on their home patch. It feels like the ultimate knockout blow. And it has been a long time coming - South Africa have won eight of their last nine Test series, including victories in England and Pakistan. Even in the exception, the draw in India, they did themselves great credit, especially in the light of Australia's woes there.
Two of South Africa's recent wins must rank amongst their ten finest of all time. In the remarkable run-chases at Edgbaston and Perth, Graeme Smith led from the front, compiling two masterful fourth-innings hundreds. After his two double centuries against England in 2003 he went five years without reaching 70 against either England or Australia. But with these two centuries in 2008 Smith has proved he is much more than a flat-track bully. Both innings were characterised by a controlled aggression. Smith has mellowed since the humiliating discrepency between his words and deeds during the 2005/06 clashes with Australia. He is a towering presence in world cricket, an innate leader of men.
While there are slight doubts over Jacques Kallis's long-term form (partially allayed by a vital pair of 50s at Perth), there have been vast improvements throughout the side of late. Neil McKenzie is seldom aesthetically pleasing but invariably solid. Hashim Amla, who looked out of his depth during his entry to Test cricket, is now a superb, counter-attacking number three - and one of the game's true stylists to boot. And AB de Villiers, the boy wonder who could have represented his country in any number of sports but wasted many a promising start through recklnessness, is gaining maturity fast. His unbeaten, match-winning century suggests that, after four years in which a lack of patience prevented fulfillment of his promise, consistency may have arrived.
As apparent yet again, there is something fashionable about deriding orthodox left-arm spinners. But Paul Harris made an invaluable contribution to the victory in Perth, claiming five wickets and displaying nous, control, calm - and even the ability to turn the ball a touch. An average of 32 from 19 Tests is certainly nothing to be sniffed at, given the main attacking threat is always expected to come from the quicks. The pace trio have claimed 131 wickets between them this year. Dale Steyn's brand of devishly late reverse swing accounts for his phenomenal career strike-rate of 38; Morne Morkel is sometimes too wayward but clearly has all the attributes to be a superb Test bowler. Makhaya Ntini may not be improving at his rate, but he is playing an admirable role as the senior pace bowler, and has much nous to pass on.
South Africa, then, are clearly a formidable side. And their recent record is surely sufficient to label them the best side in the world. Officially, they will be so if they are to win this series 3-0. That is probably asking a little too much. But with such problems in their bowling attack, Australia must be tempted to try drastic selectorial action to cling on at the top.
In short, we have a new Christmas number one.
Showing posts with label Makhaya Ntini. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Makhaya Ntini. Show all posts
Sunday, 21 December 2008
Monday, 14 July 2008
With Flintoff and Ambrose at six and seven, Bell can afford no let up
For all the frustration of the past two days, the first Test turned out better than many pundits had anticipated for England. South Africa began as the most hyped-up side to land on these shores since the 2005 Aussies, but patently failed to live up to their own billing.
Their bowling attack lacked any penetration, with the admirable Morne Morkel the sole exception. If the first Test was anything to go by, they have only half an attack: Paul Harris did not look Test class; and Makhaya Ntini could only muster a pitiful imitation of his brilliant showing at the same ground five years ago, one that was almost painful to watch. And with the bat, only Ashwell Prince displayed the required application and skill in the first innings, although England will be worried indeed that four of their top five have already made centuries in this series. And the exception? Jacques Kallis, Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World for 2007.
The resilience shown by South Africa's batting is compounded by England enduring three solid days in the field, especially given the modern norm of back-to-back Tests. Indeed, Graeme Smith may have had half a mind to bat on rather than accept the draw, extending England's misery further.
It is excellent news that Andrew Flintoff will be recalled for the Second Test: his return should reinvigorate the side, preventing South African momentum developing after their admirable efforts to salvage a draw. One would expect him to come in for the struggling Paul Collingwood at six, although the selectors originally planned to play him at seven, with Tim Ambrose at eight, before injury scuppered his hopes of a recall in the first Test of the summer. Flintoff has not played a Test match for 18 months, and, whatever his run and wicket tallies, he should serve to inspire England, while the South Africans, clearly would prefer not to see him in the side. It is telling that Lancashire have won three and drawn two of the five championship games he has played this season, whilst only managing two draws and a loss when he has been absent.
For all the positives of his Flintoff's return, however, there is no compelling evidence to suggest he merits batting at number six. He has struck some sort of form of late, although the cavalier nature of his recent knocks is not what is generally required from a top-order Test batsman. And it is three years since his last Test hundred.
With this in mind, have England erred on the side of selectorial caution - yet again - in refraining from recalling Matt Prior? Ambrose has an extremely limited batting technique; and against bowlers who do not feed his cut shot with regularity, it is hard to envisage him making important runs. Add his increasingly fallible glove-work and the selectors have had ample time to recognise he is not the man to end the keeping debate. Prior's keeping has many faults - just ask Ryan Sidebottom. But Ambrose's grim run of form - passing 11 just twice in 11 completed international innings - compounded by the uncertainty of Flintoff's batting, lends England's lower middle-order a real sense of vulnerability. All signs suggest Prior has a sufficiently developed game to average 10 more at number six than the 26 Collingwood has managed in his last eight Tests, while his keeping is also said to have improved markedly this season.
So England can be reasonably content with their endeavours in the opening Test, and should not be unduly disheartened by failing to force a victory, given that the previous five Tests at Lord's have also been draws. The Test will be remembered for Kevin Pietersen's superb 152 in a series that promises to be amongst the standouts of his career. Yet Ian Bell's 199 could be of more significance for the development of England as a side. He has always had a fine technique and a classy and extremely attractive game; here he showed he could play match-shaping innings against top-class opposition. With Flintoff and Ambrose directly below him, Bell will know England require more of the same.
Should England's selectors have made more than one change?
Their bowling attack lacked any penetration, with the admirable Morne Morkel the sole exception. If the first Test was anything to go by, they have only half an attack: Paul Harris did not look Test class; and Makhaya Ntini could only muster a pitiful imitation of his brilliant showing at the same ground five years ago, one that was almost painful to watch. And with the bat, only Ashwell Prince displayed the required application and skill in the first innings, although England will be worried indeed that four of their top five have already made centuries in this series. And the exception? Jacques Kallis, Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World for 2007.
The resilience shown by South Africa's batting is compounded by England enduring three solid days in the field, especially given the modern norm of back-to-back Tests. Indeed, Graeme Smith may have had half a mind to bat on rather than accept the draw, extending England's misery further.
It is excellent news that Andrew Flintoff will be recalled for the Second Test: his return should reinvigorate the side, preventing South African momentum developing after their admirable efforts to salvage a draw. One would expect him to come in for the struggling Paul Collingwood at six, although the selectors originally planned to play him at seven, with Tim Ambrose at eight, before injury scuppered his hopes of a recall in the first Test of the summer. Flintoff has not played a Test match for 18 months, and, whatever his run and wicket tallies, he should serve to inspire England, while the South Africans, clearly would prefer not to see him in the side. It is telling that Lancashire have won three and drawn two of the five championship games he has played this season, whilst only managing two draws and a loss when he has been absent.
For all the positives of his Flintoff's return, however, there is no compelling evidence to suggest he merits batting at number six. He has struck some sort of form of late, although the cavalier nature of his recent knocks is not what is generally required from a top-order Test batsman. And it is three years since his last Test hundred.
With this in mind, have England erred on the side of selectorial caution - yet again - in refraining from recalling Matt Prior? Ambrose has an extremely limited batting technique; and against bowlers who do not feed his cut shot with regularity, it is hard to envisage him making important runs. Add his increasingly fallible glove-work and the selectors have had ample time to recognise he is not the man to end the keeping debate. Prior's keeping has many faults - just ask Ryan Sidebottom. But Ambrose's grim run of form - passing 11 just twice in 11 completed international innings - compounded by the uncertainty of Flintoff's batting, lends England's lower middle-order a real sense of vulnerability. All signs suggest Prior has a sufficiently developed game to average 10 more at number six than the 26 Collingwood has managed in his last eight Tests, while his keeping is also said to have improved markedly this season.
So England can be reasonably content with their endeavours in the opening Test, and should not be unduly disheartened by failing to force a victory, given that the previous five Tests at Lord's have also been draws. The Test will be remembered for Kevin Pietersen's superb 152 in a series that promises to be amongst the standouts of his career. Yet Ian Bell's 199 could be of more significance for the development of England as a side. He has always had a fine technique and a classy and extremely attractive game; here he showed he could play match-shaping innings against top-class opposition. With Flintoff and Ambrose directly below him, Bell will know England require more of the same.
Should England's selectors have made more than one change?
Thursday, 2 August 2007
The decline of pace
One of the main factors contributing to the run soaked 2000s has been the lack of top quality Test pace bowlers. The decline has been so marked that since the recent retirement of Glenn McGrath it is hard to name one great quick bowler currently plying his trade. Shaun Pollock comes the closest, but his form has not been brilliant of late and he has a poor record against the best team of his era, Australia.
There are plenty of good seam and swing bowlers and even a few genuine fast bowlers, but none of them can be considered great, let alone all-time greats. It is a serious dearth, which threatens to make life even easier for Test batsmen, who continue to plunder runs and bolster their averages on batsman friendly surfaces.
The fast men
Of the current crop of pace bowlers only a handful can be considered fast. The best of these at the moment is, without doubt, Makhaya Ntini. His determination and enthusiasm, allied to ferocious pace, make him a fearsome prospect for most Test batsmen. Coming in from wide of the crease his deliveries often seem to spear into the batsman, forcing evasive action or uprooting stumps. Unfortunately, Ntini has a great achilles heel - his home bias. On his familiar South African pitches he averages a majestic 22.53, putting him up there with the greats, but take him away from home and the average plummetts to 38.08. For this reason, very good bowler that he is, Ntini cannot be considered great.
If his body was able to bear the strain of Test matches, Shane Bond might have achieved greatness. He has all the attributes and has used them in the 16 Tests he has played to claim 74 wickets @ 22.10. But such a short career (in terms of matches) does not yield enough evidence to know how good he really is.
Another injury plagued bowler is Shoaib Akhtar, though he has managed to take the field for Pakistan in 43 Tests. In this time he has amassed 169 victims, but has rarely been consistent through a series, let alone a season. When he is on form he can be devastating, but against the two best batting line-ups of his era, Australia and India, he has rarely found his best.
Brett Lee, who came to Test cricket in a blaze of glory, fell away badly and was dropped for over a year and a half. Since his return he has shown some good form, though mainly against the West Indies, who must now be considered one of the weaker Test nations. Despite his improvement, Lee still averages 31.60 and has a poor economy rate. He has also struggled against the old enemy, England, as well as Pakistan.
With 83 wickets to his name @ 30.73 Lasith Malinga is emerging as a quick bowler with real talent. His unusual, slinging action was used to much effect in the recent ODI World Cup. Yet he has not shown this devastating form consistently in Tests. There is surely much more to come from the young Sri Lankan, but he is still very much a work in progress.
The England duo Steve Harmison and Andrew Flintoff often bowl in the early nineties, but usually average in the late eighties. They fall somewhere between the genuinely quick bowlers mentioned above and the numerous fast medium and medium fast bowlers that ply their trade in Test cricket. Both hit the pitch hard and can extract lethal bounce, yet neither can be considered more than very good, occasionally brilliant. Harmison is too inconsistent and his average is creeping up, whereas Flintoff is wonderfully consistent, but rarely rips through a side.
The rest
There are a number of good swing bowlers in Test cricket, though most rely on conditions to help them and some can be cannon fodder when the ball fails to swing. Amongst the best is the veteran Sri Lankan, Chaminda Vaas. So often underrated this hard working left armer is always ready to give his captain another over. Vaas usually bowls with miserly accuracy, achieving the astonishing economy rate of 2.66, despite playing so many of his matches in unhelpful conditions. The only things mitigating against him are his average, just 29.21 and his relatively poor record against India, Pakistan and South Africa.
England's Matthew Hoggard is the form swing bowler in Tests. He has consistently broken opening partnerships and is particularly unforgiving against left handers. His dogged attitude and ability to bowl well even when there is little swing around has made him England's best pace bowler in recent series. But for an injury this summer he would surely have added to his tally against the West Indies and India. Only his average of 30.03 and his poor form against Australia and Pakistan can be held against him.
A couple of high class newcomers, Mohammad Asif and Stuart Clark, have the potential to stake their claim to be regarded amongst the best. Both have excellent records in the short time they have been playing Test cricket, but will need to test themselves against all opponents in all conditions before a verdict can be reached.
Of the remaining Test bowlers currently playing there are plenty of other newcomers, as well as some more seasoned campaigners, but none with track records that suggest they will be great or are more than fleetingly brilliant. When you consider how many of the best pace bowlers of all-time were playing in the 70s, 80s, and 90s it is hard to see how we have reached such a famine in the 2000s. Pitches can be blamed for some of it, but I remember those greats often taking wickets on flat surfaces. Whatever the reasons for it the sad truth is that there are few quick bowlers currently playing Test cricket who can strike fear into opposing batsmen and the game is all the poorer for it.
There are plenty of good seam and swing bowlers and even a few genuine fast bowlers, but none of them can be considered great, let alone all-time greats. It is a serious dearth, which threatens to make life even easier for Test batsmen, who continue to plunder runs and bolster their averages on batsman friendly surfaces.
The fast men
Of the current crop of pace bowlers only a handful can be considered fast. The best of these at the moment is, without doubt, Makhaya Ntini. His determination and enthusiasm, allied to ferocious pace, make him a fearsome prospect for most Test batsmen. Coming in from wide of the crease his deliveries often seem to spear into the batsman, forcing evasive action or uprooting stumps. Unfortunately, Ntini has a great achilles heel - his home bias. On his familiar South African pitches he averages a majestic 22.53, putting him up there with the greats, but take him away from home and the average plummetts to 38.08. For this reason, very good bowler that he is, Ntini cannot be considered great.
If his body was able to bear the strain of Test matches, Shane Bond might have achieved greatness. He has all the attributes and has used them in the 16 Tests he has played to claim 74 wickets @ 22.10. But such a short career (in terms of matches) does not yield enough evidence to know how good he really is.
Another injury plagued bowler is Shoaib Akhtar, though he has managed to take the field for Pakistan in 43 Tests. In this time he has amassed 169 victims, but has rarely been consistent through a series, let alone a season. When he is on form he can be devastating, but against the two best batting line-ups of his era, Australia and India, he has rarely found his best.
Brett Lee, who came to Test cricket in a blaze of glory, fell away badly and was dropped for over a year and a half. Since his return he has shown some good form, though mainly against the West Indies, who must now be considered one of the weaker Test nations. Despite his improvement, Lee still averages 31.60 and has a poor economy rate. He has also struggled against the old enemy, England, as well as Pakistan.
With 83 wickets to his name @ 30.73 Lasith Malinga is emerging as a quick bowler with real talent. His unusual, slinging action was used to much effect in the recent ODI World Cup. Yet he has not shown this devastating form consistently in Tests. There is surely much more to come from the young Sri Lankan, but he is still very much a work in progress.
The England duo Steve Harmison and Andrew Flintoff often bowl in the early nineties, but usually average in the late eighties. They fall somewhere between the genuinely quick bowlers mentioned above and the numerous fast medium and medium fast bowlers that ply their trade in Test cricket. Both hit the pitch hard and can extract lethal bounce, yet neither can be considered more than very good, occasionally brilliant. Harmison is too inconsistent and his average is creeping up, whereas Flintoff is wonderfully consistent, but rarely rips through a side.
The rest
There are a number of good swing bowlers in Test cricket, though most rely on conditions to help them and some can be cannon fodder when the ball fails to swing. Amongst the best is the veteran Sri Lankan, Chaminda Vaas. So often underrated this hard working left armer is always ready to give his captain another over. Vaas usually bowls with miserly accuracy, achieving the astonishing economy rate of 2.66, despite playing so many of his matches in unhelpful conditions. The only things mitigating against him are his average, just 29.21 and his relatively poor record against India, Pakistan and South Africa.
England's Matthew Hoggard is the form swing bowler in Tests. He has consistently broken opening partnerships and is particularly unforgiving against left handers. His dogged attitude and ability to bowl well even when there is little swing around has made him England's best pace bowler in recent series. But for an injury this summer he would surely have added to his tally against the West Indies and India. Only his average of 30.03 and his poor form against Australia and Pakistan can be held against him.
A couple of high class newcomers, Mohammad Asif and Stuart Clark, have the potential to stake their claim to be regarded amongst the best. Both have excellent records in the short time they have been playing Test cricket, but will need to test themselves against all opponents in all conditions before a verdict can be reached.
Of the remaining Test bowlers currently playing there are plenty of other newcomers, as well as some more seasoned campaigners, but none with track records that suggest they will be great or are more than fleetingly brilliant. When you consider how many of the best pace bowlers of all-time were playing in the 70s, 80s, and 90s it is hard to see how we have reached such a famine in the 2000s. Pitches can be blamed for some of it, but I remember those greats often taking wickets on flat surfaces. Whatever the reasons for it the sad truth is that there are few quick bowlers currently playing Test cricket who can strike fear into opposing batsmen and the game is all the poorer for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)