A good year to be an Australian debutant

When Ed Cowan makes his Test debut in the Boxing Day Test, he will nudge the number of Australians handed their baggy green cap up to ten in 2011- more than any year since 1977. Then the selectors could blame the chaos caused by World Series Cricket; now it is the fallout to Ashes defeat.

Of those that have already debuted in 2011, four can be sure of joining Cowan in the final eleven at the MCG. David Warner carried his bat for 123* in Australia’s recent defeat to New Zealand and, though he has only played two Tests, there are legitimate hopes he can transfer his stunning Twenty20 form into the Test game. To become anything close to an Australian Sehwag, Warner will need to cope with the swinging ball, but he managed rather well against the Kiwis. The well-directed short ball will also be a challenge: Phil Hughes, remember, scored two hundreds in his second Test until found out by this.

Shaun Marsh looked a Test match natural in compiling 141 on debut in Sri Lanka: so compelling was his knock that Ricky Ponting was promptly moved away from number three, and the spot given to Marsh. Injuries mean he has only received two more caps, but given the solidity and range of shots Marsh has displayed, as well as a phlegmatic temperament, expect him to finish his career, like his father Geoff, with over 50 appearances.

Two new bowlers will also appear on Boxing Day. James Pattinson younger brother of England’s Darren, picked up 14 wickets in two Tests against New Zealand, pitching the ball up and consistently swinging the ball late. The off-spinner Nathan Lyon has been quietly successful: with his cool temperament, control and subtle variations, he enjoys more job security than any Australian spinner since Warne. This might not be saying much, but 22 wickets at less than 25 is a hugely impressive return from his first seven Tests.

Yet the most memorable Australian debut of 2011 was from a man who won’t play at the MCG. Pat Cummins’ first Test was as remarkable as they come, combining a haul of 6/79 with a calm 13* to take Australia to a two-wicket win in South Africa. Only 18, Cummins is clearly a cricketer of rare promise, combining pace and swing with a dangerous bouncer that, unlike many young quick bowlers, he doesn’t overuse. Mickey Arthur has already compared Cummins to Dale Steyn, and the new Australian coach will be frustrated Cummins will miss the India Tests through injury. That a man with only one Test appearance is regarded as a substantial loss is an indication both of Cummins’ progress and the current state of the Australian side.

Rather inevitably, the positive impressions have not extended to all Australia’s Test debutants this year. With an excellent first-class record, Usman Khawaja was much-hyped before his Test debut and, somewhat bizarrely, earned a standing ovation for his assured 37 against England in January. He has a solid technique but, like a young Mark Ramprakash, his Test batting is characterised by passivity: when scoring 7 off 51 balls against New Zealand, Khawaja appeared strokeless. He also shares a propensity for middling scores with the young Ramprakash: seven of Khawaja’s nine Test dismissals have been between 12 and 38.

Whereas Khawaja’s problems seem about self-belief, Australia’s other three Test debutants of 2011 lack the requisite class. The left-arm spinner Michael Beer has slipped back into obscurity since taking 1-112 against England at Sydney: a first-class average of 45 suggests he should remain there. Trent Copeland, better described as a medium-pacer than a fast bowler, performed well enough when injuries earned him three caps in Sri Lanka. But for all his parsimony – his economy rate in those Tests was 2.1 – Copeland lacks penetration, as three wickets in his last four first-class matches reveals. Finally, the left-arm quick Mitchell Starc is not yet 22, but didn’t look Test ready in his two games against New Zealand.

Giving Test caps away is a precarious business. As such, the Australian selectors, so derided for their haphazard selections in the Ashes, deserve credit: realistically, five of this year’s debutants could be prominent members of their 2013 Ashes side. Australia should certainly be encouraged by the displays of their debutants; it is their senior players who should concern them.

How a six-team Test championship would work

Further to my previous post calling for two Test divisions of six nations each, here is how it would actually work:

1. Every side would have to play every other in their league home-and-away, in at least three match series, over a four-year cycle. This means every side would have to play a minimum of 30 Tests every four years for the purposes of the Test championship.
2. Sides would be free to play longer series (four or five Tests) should they please - so the Ashes could continue in exactly the same way.
3. Sides would also be free to play Tests against countries outside their division; New Zealand would therefore be able to play around 20 Tests against sides in the top division (when they were outside) every four years. This is only slightly less than they do at the moment. The Ashes, for example, would continue in an identical way even if Australia continued their slump and were relegated.
4. The points system would work as follows. For every series in the division, there would be a total of six points available. Five of these would be allocated according to the games (so there would be 1 point available per victory in a Test in a five-match series, but 1.67 per victory in a three-Test series, preventing teams getting an advantage for playing more). The points system would encourage attacking cricket - both sides would only get one-third of the points available for a game if they drew it - and also ensure 'dead rubbers' retained a real relevance. There would also be a one-point bonus for a side winning a series.
5. The culmination of the four years would be the play-off matches - providing Test cricket with a showpiece event it needs. Matches would be played at a country that won the hosting rights. The play-offs would consist of the top two sides in the top division playing three Tests to determine the Test champions of the tournament. During the breaks between their Tests, there would be the play-off series, also of three Tests, between the bottom (sixth-placed) side in the top division and the winners of the second division, with the winners earning the right to play in the top division for the next four-year cycle. Pitches would be prepared by an independent body, designed with results in mind. In the event of a drawn series, the winners of the second division would be promoted, thereby encouraging the higher-ranked side to play attacking cricket and prove they deserved to remain in the division.

To show how it would work in practice, here are two prospective schedules. The first is for England in division one; the second for them in division two (NB assuming New Zealand replaced them in division one)

Division One

Year 1

Home – New Zealand 2 Tests; India 4 Tests

Away – South Africa 5 Tests; West Indies 2 Tests

Year 2

Home – Ireland 1 Test; Australia 5 Tests

Away – Bangladesh 1 Test; India 4 Tests

Year 3

Home – Sri Lanka 3 Test; Pakistan 3 Tests

Away – New Zealand 2 Tests; Australia 5 Tests;

Year 4

Home – West Indies 2 Tests; South Africa 5 Tests

Away –Pakistan 3 Tests; Sri Lanka 3 Tests; then Test championship

Total number of Tests – 50

Division Two

Year 1

Home – Afghanistan 3 Tests; India 3 Tests

Away – South Africa 3 Tests; West Indies 3 Tests;

Year 2

Home – Ireland 3 Tests; Australia 5 Tests

Away – Bangladesh 3 Tests; India 3 Tests

Year 3

Home – Zimbabwe 3 Test; West Indies 3 Tests

Away – Australia 5 Tests;

Year 4

Home – Ireland 3 Tests (away, but played during English season); Bangladesh 3 Tests; South Africa 3 Tests

Away – Zimbabwe 3 Tests; Afghanistan 3 Tests; then Test championship

Total number of Tests – 52

Even in division two, England still have 22 Tests over three years against the biggest crowd-pullers – Australia, India and South Africa.

(Teams in italics are those outside England’s division)

Why six team Test divisions is the answer

Amidst all the rightful uproar over the exclusion of the associates from the 2015 World Cup, Test cricket has rather been ignored. Yet the perennial issue of how games can be more competitive, and be lent real context, is only going to become more pressing when Zimbabwe return to Test cricket in a few months.


Let’s be honest – it’s going to be pretty unpalatable. Against everyone except Bangladesh, Zimbabwe will get thrashed. A 38-year-old Murray Goodwin would be their best batsman if he revoked his international retirement. Heck, if Andy Flower fancied a new challenge I’m sure he could get back in the side tomorrow. Damning evidence of how uncompetitive Zimbabwe will be came during the World Cup, especially a ten-wicket loss to a New Zealand side that lost 4-0 in an ODI series in Bangladesh five months earlier. They certainly didn’t look much like a side who have earned their Test status back – rather, one who will simply massage the statistics of their opponents.

Whenever there are some ugly mismatches in Tests, discussion of a Test championship is never far away.  The usual call is for two divisions of eight, with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe joining the minnows in the second tier. Yet this really wouldn’t help the problem. In division one, thanks to the weakness of the West Indies and, to a lesser extent, New Zealand, one-sided games would remain. And they would be plenty in division too, too; Kenya, Canada and Scotland would be to that league what Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are to Tests now. These sides would have neither the levels of cricketing interest nor the quality of players to make the exercise anything other than futile.

Promotion and relegation between the leagues would provide the context for the games but imagine the repercussions if the Windies slipped into the second tier? It’s no exaggeration to say Test cricket could completely collapse. Sponsors would run; players would prioritise lucrative Twenty20 even more than they do today. Fans, used to seeing Australia, South Africa and India, wouldn’t touch games against Kenya and co. Remember, too, that England were ranked ninth as recently as 1999 – how would they have fancied five years, sans the Ashes, slugging it out with the Netherlands instead? The gap would make that notorious chasm between the football Premier League and Championship appear trivial.

A much more sensible solution, previously not suggested, is two division of six. This is how it would work.

Every four years, the Test league would take place. Each side in division one and two would be required to play every other side in their division in home-and-away series of at least three matches. Every game would count towards the league standings. The culmination of the four years would be a three-match series played between the sides ranked first and second in the top division. Simultaneously, there would be a three-match play-off series between the bottom-ranked side in the top division and the top side of division one. And there could be something similar, though not granted Test status, between the bottom-ranked side in the second division and the winner of the ICC Intercontinental Cup, which would continue. This would provide Test cricket with the showpiece it badly needs, giving players and sides a tangible aim every four years. Winning the championship would captivate in a way that reaching number one in the Test rankings simply does not; sides like New Zealand and West Indies, which currently bumble along thrashing those ranked below them but struggling against the rest, in the limited Tests they play against them, would have something realistic – promotion or avoiding relegation - to aspire to.

Division two would produce some competitive and intriguing cricket. I’d much rather watch Ireland tussle Bangladesh than Shane Watson pulverise the Tigers. It would also provide those outside the current Test-playing nations the matches they need both to improve as teams and further increase the popularity of the sport. Mercifully, the charade of the best minnow players qualifying for other countries to play Tests would end; George Dockrell wouldn’t need to worry about England.

So far, so good – but surely Australia, England and India would block such a championship, fearful of how much revenue they would lose if they suffered relegation? But the great strength of this format is its openness: teams would only have to play 30 Tests every four years against those in the same division. Given that England played a total of 50 Tests in the period between the last two World Cups, this leaves ample scope for other fixtures. So New Zealand and the West Indies would not suddenly be cut-off from the sides in division one. The Kiwis played only 25 Tests against sides ranked above them between the 2007 and 2011 World Cups, and could expect to play division one sides in 20 Tests over four years under this system.

India and friends wouldn’t have to worry about losing out on revenue if they were relegated. If England were, they could still play home-and-away Ashes series of five Tests apiece, as well as, say, three-match contests against India and South Africa home-and-away over four years in division two. Relegation, though a great embarrassment, wouldn’t be the sporting and financial catastrophe it would be under eight-nation divisions.

Undeniably, this change would make Test matches a much more appealing prospect: more games would be played between sides of the same standard; there would be more overall meaning; and there would be a thrilling climax every four years. To those crying ‘but what of the statistics?’, cricket needs to get over its numbers obsession. Iran’s Ali Daei has more international goals than anyone else, but no one thinks he’s better than Pele. Besides, it wouldn’t require a degree in mathematics to see the difference in Test stats between division one and division two.

Under this system, all sides would become aspirational. Far from destroying Test cricket in New Zealand and West Indies, the challenge of getting promoted would be reinvigorating, in a way their current schedules clearly are not. There would be a very welcome bonus, too: as all league series would have to be at least three Tests, that miserable specimen known as the two-match series would become virtually extinct. If cricket is to be expanded, as it should, this is how.


See my post on How it would actually work

Looking ahead to the end of the decade

A look at the players who have dominated the past decade of Test cricket and those who will feature in a similar retrospective 10 years from now.

The last year of the first decade of the 21st century has begun in much the same way as the first year of the millennium did.

Ricky Ponting and Muttiah Muralitharan are churning out runs and wickets like they were early in 2000 and West Indies had just skittled out an opponent in apparent terminal decline at Jamaica (although Zimbabwe managed exactly twice what England recently managed in their second innings collapse at Sabina Park in March 2000).

Much has also changed in the intervening years. There is a new distinct format of the game, umpiring decisions are being made using a TV monitor and Australia’s grip on the number one ranking is now as weak as it was strong at the beginning of the decade.

Which players have shaped this decade of cricket? Ponting and Muralitharan are guaranteed to be the most statistically successful players – respective Test batting and bowling averages of 60.97 and 19.82 since the beginning of 2000 should belong to another era. Only Jacques Kallis and Glenn McGrath have come close to matching those numbers.

Makhaya Ntini is the second highest Test wicket taker of the decade so far, thanks largely to his longevity. The South African paceman has played 92 Tests, more than anyone in the top 10 of the 2000s wicket taking charts – Muralitharan, Brett Lee, Harbhajan Singh and Chaminda Vaas’ careers have also spanned the decade.

Rahul Dravid, fourth behind Ponting (95 matches), Matthew Hayden (96) and Kallis (96) in the run charts, has played every single one of India’s 97 Tests of the decade, a record that he looks like preserving until the end of the year thanks to his career-saving ton against England at Mohali in December.

Matthew Hoggard is the only Englishman to feature in either top 10, despite England so far playing 116 Tests this decade, 13 more than Australia (six players) or South Africa (four), 19 more than India (four) and 30 more than Sri Lanka (four). Brian Lara is the only West Indian to feature.

Of the batting and bowling top 10, only Graeme Smith and Harbhajan Singh started their careers after 2000, which suggests the most successful players of the next decade will already be in their national teams by the end of this year.

South Africa’s steady recent improvement is partly due to the performances of players who have plenty of service left in them such as Hashim Amla, AB de Villiers, JP Duminy, Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel. Ajantha Mendis might be safe bet to be the top wicket taker of the 2010s.

However, the most successful players of the decade 10 years from now might feature some Englishman - Ian Bell, Alastair Cook and Monty Panesar are apparently safe from the drop and are young enough to be going strong in 2019. The calls for their axing will be deafening by then…

Written by Philip Oliver, an online sports writer for Betfair – check them out for Grand National betting odds.

What Did We Learn From That Then?

I’ll leave others to do their marks out of ten, but there are other issues that the Test part of the tour have thrown up.

1. Two tests is too short for a tour. Both teams were settling into what could have been a highly competitive series. The first test had one of the finest run chases in history (although not the finest of the last month, bizarrely). The second had a tightly fought draw, which could have been much more interesting had India wanted to make it so.

2. England’s persistence with players is paying off. Strauss and Collingwood both paid back the faith that the selectors had in them during the first test. Both have been teetering on the edge of losing their places, but with three very gritty innings, they got England into a winning position in the First Test. Ian Bell should take comfort from this, although it is only 5 tests since his 199 against the team that is now widely believed to be the best in the world.

3. Alistair Cook needs a long chat with his mentor Graham Gooch. His fifty and out habit is becoming both embarrassing and a problem for the team. I suspect it may be linked to the want to turn him into a One-Day player, or that Andrew Strauss is not the quickest of scorers at the other end. He needs to learn to be patient and build the big innings that England need of him.

4. Kevin Pietersen needs to think more as the captain. His spat with Yuvraj, entertaining as it may have been, nearly cost him his wicket at the start of an excellent hundred. Targeting a player is a well worn tactic, but given Yuvraj’s performances, it is likely that it only spurred him on.

5. England’s bowlers need to learn from history. Or at least have talked to those who have done well on the sub-continent. All out pace isn’t the answer and Flintoff apart, they didn’t pose a threat in those conditions.

6. Matt Prior will be England’s wicket-keeper for the Ashes series. Tidy enough behind the stumps despite the testing conditions and a good 50 in the first test. He looked at least a match for Dhoni in the two matches if not better

7. Monty Panesar may not be England’s spinner for the Ashes series. He was comprehensively out-bowled by Graeme Swann, who must be considered the number one option when England revert to one spinner. The emergence as Swann as an attacking force should also dampen the cries for Adil Rashid to be rushed into the test team.

8 England need to remember how to win matches. In the last two series against SA and India, they have played the best two teams in the world at the moment and have not managed to capitalise on their periods of dominance. At Lords and Edgbaston, England were in winning positions but couldn’t see it through. Likewise in Chennai. They need to discover a ruthless streak and a Plan B.

Overall, and reverting to Vaughan-speak, England can take a lot of positives out of the test series, while being disappointed in the result. After the pounding in the One-Day series and the uncertainty about the security implications, they probably should have won the decisive first test. India are an excellent side, probably second in the world on current form. England have a lot to work on before the Ashes series, but the nucleus is in place.

Struggling New Zealand face up to life at the bottom

All eyes will soon be on the battle between Australia and South Africa, but a potentially more significant power shift might be occurring in a series contested between teams at the bottom of the Test rankings table.

Australia’s one-sided Test series with New Zealand represented something of a warm-up for both teams. The Aussies face a South Africa team that has designs on toppling the world number ones, whilst the Black Caps face West Indies in a more direct winner-takes-all meeting: the loser will be confirmed as the worst Test team after Bangladesh.

It is fair to say New Zealand are in a state of disarray (in Test terms at least – their prolonged malaise in the longer form of the game has had no impact on their ability to punch above their weight in limited overs cricket.)

The protracted departure of coach John Bracewell has destabilised a team that tastes Test victory on the rarest of occasions – they have only won overseas Tests in Zimbabwe and Bangladesh during Bracewell’s five year tenure.

Outspoken Kiwi legend Martin Crowe described New Zealand’s meek surrender in the second Test at Adelaide as his country’s ‘worst moment in Test cricket’, which suggests the only way is up for incoming coach Andy Moles.

Unfortunately this is not true, despite his new charges’ slide to the base of the Test rankings table. They are going in a different direction to Windies, who have been more competitive than the Black Caps since the teams’ last meeting.

New Zealand won the three match series in early 2006 by a 2-0 scoreline but have since been heavily beaten by South Africa, England and Australia, whilst West Indies’ highlights included a Test win in South Africa, a drawn home series against Sri Lanka and a competitive battle with the Aussies.

This is therefore a realistic chance for West Indies to win their first away series against a major nation since 1994/95.

Such a result would be significant for both teams. West Indies would have a tangible reward to go with the feel good factor generated by the Stanford Super Series, whilst New Zealand would be forced to embark on a rebuilding process that has been needed for some time.

Bracewell’s departure follows a rash of senior player retirements, with Stephen Fleming, Chris Cairns, Nathan Astle, Scott Styris, Shane Bond and Craig McMillan all hanging up their black caps in recent years. Moles and skipper Daniel Vettori face a tough transition period and only need to ask their opponents next month about how it feels to be Test cricket’s whipping boys.


Written by Philip Oliver, a sports writer who blogs about cricket betting.

Home from home

A look at how Pakistan and India playing home Tests in England can help counter the prominence of Twenty20 cricket.

The battle for survival that Test cricket faces in the Twenty20 era has been well-documented. Players, administrators and supporters all hope and believe that the longest format of the game will continue to prosper, but there has so far been a lack of action in safeguarding Test cricket’s future.

Most new proposals and developments have been associated with Twenty20, although continued trialling of the third umpire referral system and tweaking of ODI power play regulations do reveal a desire by the ICC to improve the credibility of Twenty20’s rivals.

ICC World Twenty20, IPL, ICL, Stanford 20/20 for 20 (the billionaire’s marketing department had an off-day when devising that name!) and Champions League have all sprung up during the global growth of Twenty20, but steps have finally been taken to evolve the Test game.

ECB chairman Giles Clarke has suggested that England could host Pakistan Test matches in a move that would help solve Pakistan’s problem in hosting internationals. They have not played a home Test this year and have hosted just 11 Tests since January 2005.

Clarke’s proposal is not purely altruistic – any problems caused by the transformation of a Headingley green-top into a Multan featherbed to suit the ‘home’ side would be offset by the filling of ECB coffers – but it stands out as the prime example of how Test cricket can maintain its profile.

Clarke told the Wisden Cricketer that ‘Pakistan might get a better crowd in Leeds than in Karachi’ and those who have seen the team’s vocal support in this country would not argue.

Fanatical home support would encourage Pakistan to make the move and prospective opposition would have their security fears allayed; Pakistan will remain a no-go zone in players’ minds, even if security reports give tours a green light.

Pakistan have played home Tests away from home before, in Sharjah in 2002, beating West Indies twice before being hammered twice by Australia. The first defeat, inside two days after being bowled out for 59 and 53, might leave the PCB with unhappy memories of neutral Test venues.

It would not be inconceivable for India to follow suit; recent bomb blasts nearly curtailed Australia’s tour and they suffer from a similar Test apathy to their great rivals – there must be a problem when a ground is not full to watch Sachin Tendulkar attempt to beat Brian Lara’s Test runscoring record.

Dwindling Test crowds in India are partly put down to Twenty20’s popularity, which has encouraged IPL franchises to export their product in the form of overseas exhibition matches.

Such matches should not be compared to possible overseas home Tests, as the motives are very different – the IPL models itself on the English football Premier League and IPL matches at Lord’s and the Oval would be their version of the infamous money-spinning ‘39th step’ round of Premier League matches.

Cricket fans love the traditional values of Test cricket but we must not just live in hope that the most prized form of the game will survive; the authorities need to be proactive in protecting the future of the great game.


Written by Philip Oliver, a sports writer who blogs about cricket betting.

Test XI of 2007-2008

With the batting order already set out, the bowling line up for the statistical side of the year is revealed...


Top 6 Opening Bowlers (Last 12 Months – Minimum 5 Games)

Steyn (SAF) - ave 16.24 / s/r 28.90 / eco 3.36
Lee (AUS) - ave 20.57 / s/r 42.2 / eco 2.92
Sidebottom (ENG) - ave 25.39 / s/r 54.10 / eco 2.81
Vaas (SRL) - ave 25.50 / s/r 54.10 / eco 2.82
Zhan (IND) - ave 25.52 / s/r 48.50 / eco 3.15
Martin (NZL) - ave 26.90 / s/r 51.80 / eco 3.11


Top 3 First Change Bowlers (Last 12 Months – Minimum 5 Games)

Clark (AUS) - ave 31.00 / s/r 64.00 / eco 2.90
M. Morkel (SAF) - ave 31.35 / s/r 50.90 / eco 3.69
R.P. Singh (IND) - ave 39.32 / s/r 58.30 / eco 4.04

(Chris Tremlett (ENG) (ave 29.69 / s/r 66.00 / eco 2.69) was the best performing first change bowler of the year, but only played three matches versus India)


Top 3 Spinners (Last 12 Months – Minimum 5 Games)

Muralitharan (SRL) - ave 24.39 / s/r 54.50 / eco 2.68
Panesar (ENG) - ave 31.40 / s/r 63.80 / eco 2.95
Harris (SAF) - ave 31.66 / s/r 54.5 / eco 2.62


So the Test XI of 2007-2008, as indicated by the statistics, is as follows:

Virender Sehwag (IND)
Neil McKenzie (SAF)
Kumar Sangakkara (SRL)
Mahela Jayawardene (c) (SRL)
Shivnarine Chanderpaul (WIN)
Andrew Symonds (AUS)
Kamran Akmal (wk) (PAK)
Brett Lee (AUS)
Stuart Clark (AUS)
Dale Steyn (SAF)
Muttiah Muralitharan (SRL)


Some Thoughts...

The immediately striking feature of this list is that it contains not one single England player. Furthermore, only Alistair Cook made it into the top three for any one position in the batting line up. On the bowling front both Ryan Sidebottom (who but for many a dropped catch would have been in the XI) and Monty Panesar put in good showings. Furthermore, both Chris Tremlett and Stuart Broad would have figured were it not for their lack of games over the past twelve months. This indicates well where England's problems, the batting line up should be under careful scrutiny over the coming months.

The wicket keeping situation is of particular interest also. The three leading run scoring wicket keepers are not the three best wicket keepers in terms of dismissals. Whilst the number of chances created, types of chances created and type of bowler kept to obviously effect these statistics, it is still an interesting point. Most cricket fans would take Gilchrist or McCullum over Akmal, Prior or Dhoni.

Neil McKenzie and Virender Sehwag have obviously benefitted from flat tracks this past year, with a double hundred and triple hundred scored by each respecitively on the same placid wicket. However, this is a statistical XI and to have compiled such vast innings takes huge amounts of concentration, desire and skill. Matthew Hayden and Younus Khan meanwhile would have pipped McKenzie and Kumar Sangakkara, were it not for the latter two's cash-in games against Bangladesh.

Mahela Jayawardene (even discounting games against Bangladesh) and Shivnarine Chanderpaul were the stand out batsmen of the year. Both of them taumented England at different stages in the year and have shown an aptitude for not giving their wickets away. They are two batsmen deserving of the utmost respect and it would have beeen interesting to see how they would have performed in the Australian side over the past decade.

Andrew Symonds has emerged as an integral cog in the Australian middle order. For the purposes of this review only his batting was considered, but he did also boast an average of 25.27 and strike rate of 55.60 with the ball in the last twelve months. When put together with his superbly athletic fielding, he is a formidable package indeed, being able to bowl both accurate and swinging medium pace and off-spinners as well.

Dale Steyn's figures meanwhile deserve a remark. To take 78 wickets in 12 months is remarkable, even if 14 of those came in Bangladesh. He is a frightening prospect who appears to be realising his potential and the upcoming tours of England and Australia will show just how good he, and team mate Morne Morkel, are.

The final comment must be about the spin bowling department. There is no surprise about the leader here, but some concerning second and third. Both England and South Africa have notoriously been missing a quality spinner for well in excess of a decade. Monty Panesar and Paul Harris share much in common. They are out and out spin bowlers and do not pretend to be multi-faceted cricketers, although they do work hard. They have both done well to come in well ahead of Daniel Vettori, Harbajhan Singh and Danish Kaneria, although Anil Kumble was close (ave 32.68 / s/r 61.50/ eco 3.18). Meanwhile, the Australian spin bowling duo of Stuart MacGill and Brad Hogg, did not manage to average below 60 with the ball. The Australian seamers have so far been good enough to make up for this failing, but will that continue? We shall have to wait and see.

Test XI of 2007-2008

With a new domestic season fast approaching here in England, we take a brief look back on the last 12 months and the top performers at Test level, using those wonderful statistics...


Top 6 Test Openers (Last 12 Months – Minimum 5 Games)

McKenzie (SAF) - ave 77.62
Sehwag (IND) - ave 73.11
Hayden (AUS) - ave 62.87
Jaques (AUS) - ave 56.10
Smith (SAF) - ave 55.35
Cook (ENG) - ave 43.72


Top 3 Number 3 Batsmen (Last 12 Months – Minimum 5 Games)

Sangakkara (SRL) - ave 96.63
Khan (PAK) - ave 58.33
Amla (SAF) - ave 51.57


Top 3 Number 4 Batsmen (Last 12 Months – Minimum 5 Games)

Jayawardene (SRL) - ave 84.92
Kallis (SAF) - ave 76.68
Hussey (AUS) - ave 73.87


Top 3 Number 5 Batsmen (Last 12 Months – Minimum 5 Games)

Chanderpaul (WIN) - ave 91.44
Misbah-ul-haq (PAK) - ave 78.71
Clarke (AUS) - ave 66.50


Top 3 Number 6 Batsmen (Last 12 Months – Minimum 5 Games)

Symonds (AUS) - ave 85.50
De Villiers (SAF) - ave 54.26
Laxman (IND) - ave 53.35


Top 3 Batting Wicketkeepers (Last 12 Months – Minimum 5 Games)

Akmal (PAK) - ave 42.30 (3 ct per match / 0.33 st)
Prior (ENG) - ave 40.14 (2.8 ct per match / 0 st)
Dhoni (IND) - ave 37.47 (1.93 ct per match / 0.36 st)


Top 3 Dismissal Wicketkeepers (Last 12 Months – Minimum 5 Games)

Gilchrist (AUS) - ave 31.00 - 5.83 dismissals per match (5.83 ct / 0 st)
McCullum (NZL) - ave 27.33 - 4.43 dismissals per match (4.43 ct / 0 st)
Ramdin (WIN) - ave 18.00 - 3.44 dismissals per match (3.33 ct / 0.11 st)


Come back for the bowling line up and comment...

Soaring Saffers

South Africa were this week confirmed as the number one ODI side in the world. This came during the same week in which they beat India away by an innings and ninety runs, in the process losing only seven wickets themselves. Whilst Australia and India have been drawing the media’s gaze over the past year or so, Graeme Smith’s side has been going quietly about winning series after series in all formats of the game.

Since 2006 they have beaten India (Home (and lead 3 match series 1-0 Away), Pakistan (Home and Away), New Zealand (Home), the West Indies (Home) and Bangladesh (Away) in Test Match series. Meanwhile they have triumphed over India (Home), Pakistan (Home and Away), New Zealand (Home), West Indies (Home), Bangladesh (Away), Zimbabwe (Home and Away) and Ireland (Away) in ODI series.

South African Results: 2006-2008

2006 Zimbabwe (Home) ODI: 3-0.
2006/2007 India (Home) Test: 2-1; ODI: 4-0; Twenty20: 0-1.
2007 Pakistan (Home) Test: 2-1; ODI 3-1; Twenty20 1-0.
2007 Ireland (Away) ODI: 1-0.
2007 Zimbabwe (Away) ODI: 3-0.
2007 Pakistan (Away) Test: 1-0; ODI: 3-2.
2007 New Zealand (Home) Test: 2-0; ODI 2-1; Twenty20: 1-0.
2007/2008 West Indies (Home) Test: 2-1; ODI: 5-0; Twenty20: 1-1.
2008 Bangladesh (Away) Test: 2-0; ODI: 3-0.
2008 India (Away) Test: Lead 3 match series 1-0.

The cumulative records are as follows:

Test Matches: 12-3.

ODI’s: 27-4.

Twenty20: 3-2.

That is a fairly convincing record, even when the lesser opposition is removed. The victories on the subcontinent, in both India and Pakistan, are particularly impressive and indicative of a side very much on the up. Indeed, being able to win in both India and Pakistan is one of the toughest tasks in international cricket and a necessary precursor to world dominance.

Batting Prowess

The South African batting line-up finally seems to be coming together as a strong unit. Graeme Smith and the recently recalled Neil McKenzie form an excellent opening partnership, whilst the solidity provided by Hashim Amla and Jaques Kallis provides a fantastic balance to the side. Amla has really developed over the last year, translating his awesome domestic form into the international arena. Ashwell Prince (41.00) faces increasing pressure from the impressive Jean-Paul Duminy for his place in the side and Duminy could well prove to be the final piece of the jigsaw in the batting line-up, with AB de Villiers and Mark Boucher secure in their respective positions. Both are of course fantastic wicket keepers, so South Africa are well covered in that department, with Boucher holding the world record for most dismissals.

Penetrative Bowling

The bowling line-up has experienced much change over the last year, with Shaun Pollock’s recent retirement and the emergence of Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel as top quality bowlers. Both bowl at in excess of 90 m.p.h. and Steyn is currently the joint top Test Match bowler in the ICC rankings, along with Muttiah Muralitheran. Makaya Ntini has long been recognised as a leading bowler in world cricket and he also bowls upwards of 90 m.p.h. Backed up by Jaques Kallis and looked on at by Andre Nel, the pace bowling department is top notch and possibly the best world cricket has to offer. The enduring weakness of South African cricket over the past decade has though been the absence of a spinner of real quality. Claude Henderson has possibly been the most talented South African spinner of recent times, but he of course plays as a kolpak for Leicestershire. Paul Harris and Johan Botha seem to be the two spinners of choice at the moment in Test Match cricket and ODI’s respectively. They are hardly world class performers, but Harris especially has shown an ability to take top opposition wickets at a low cost and economy. Harris is an exception to the South African rule of playing a spinner who can bat and appears to be growing into his role within the Test side. His inclusion is a signal of aggressive intent from the South Africans and if fortune favours the bold, he may prove to be the missing link whom the Springboks have long been searching for. Botha is more in the Nicky Boje vein of being able to bat, bowl and field well, hence him being preferred for limited overs matches.

A Test Match side of;

Smith (c) (48.51 / HS 277)
McKenzie (Since Jan 2008: 95.17 / HS 226)
Amla (Since April 2006: 42.37 / HS 176*)
Kallis (57.73 / HS 189* - 31.20 / 66.70)
Duminy (First Class: 52.25 / HS 169)
De Villiers (40.30 / HS 217*)
Boucher (wk) (30.21 / HS 125 - 411 ct / 19 st)
M. Morkel (23.75 - 36.84 / 56.60)
Harris (30.35 / 71.40)
Steyn (21.41 / 35.60)
Ntini (27.78 / 51.60);

will worry the fiercest of opposition and could yet challenge the possibly weakening Australian stranglehold over Test Match cricket.

Meanwhile, an ODI line-up of;

Smith (c) (41.11)
Gibbs (36.53)
Kallis (45.21 - 31.53 / 39.20)
De Villiers (37.66)
Duminy (36.35)
Boucher (wk) (28.98 - 368 ct / 18 st)
A. Morkel (18.15 - 29.03 / 33.90)
Botha (18.00 - 52.84 / 67.20)
M. Morkel (26.00 - 22.95 / 28.60)
Steyn (35.33 / 38.40)
Ntini (24.12 / 32.30);

is already officially the best on offer.

The Coach

Coach Mickey Arthur has recovered from a tough start (three series defeats out of four to Australia) to transform South Africa into a side which is once again feared, not just at home, but also away. There have been blips along the way (most notably away to Sri Lanka), but there can be no denying that Arthur has impressed with his recent record, especially on the subcontinent. Differences with the board over South African selection policy lurk in the background though, but as long as Arthur continues the impressive resurgence of South African fortunes on the international stage, he will hold a certain degree of power in any future disputes. For the good of South African cricket, Arthur needs to be left to run the team in the way which he sees fit, because, although young (39), he has the potential to lift South Africa to a new level and place this South African side atop the world tree.

The Best is Yet to Come?

South Africa have had plenty of false dawns recently and have found it hard to shake the tag of being chokers on the big occasions. The results of both the final match in India and the upcoming tour of England will show just how far they have come in the last two years and more importantly, how much further they can go yet, with a visit to Australia at the year's end. Cricketing neutrals will hope that this enigmatic beast can emerge as a serious threat to Australia in Test matches as well as ODI’s. That task is not an easy one, but for the moment South Africa rightly hold the position of second in the ICC Test Match rankings and number one in the ODI rankings. A fantastic summer lies ahead, but not necessarily for England.