A Disastrous Outing to Australia

Did Australia just wreck South Africa’s World Cup campaign? Or did they unintentionally rescue it?

After South Africa’s 4-1 loss to Australia, the Protea World Cup campaign appears to have come crashing down to earth. “We are hurting, it’s not ideal, definitely not what we planned to do,” said captain AB de Villiers. More than anything the confidence of the team as a group, as well as that of certain individual players will have suffered. The case that Australia may have wrecked the South African World Cup campaign before it even officially started has its merits.

But it is worth recalling a recent World Cup campaign that got off to a very different lead-up, and ended in tears all the same: On 12 March 2006 Australia became the first team to score more than 400 runs in an ODI match. More to the point, the Australians didn’t just creep by the milestone, they went well beyond it, scoring 434/4 in their 50 overs. In what we South Africans certainly consider the greatest chase ever, South Africa not only became the second team to score 400, but passed the Australian total of the penultimate ball of the game, with all of one wicket in hand. Hershelle Gibbs’ recent comments during a test match at the same venue notwithstanding, it’s hard to imagine that a game of cricket can get more exciting than that.

The next time the two sides met was on 24 March 2007, at the World Cup. Basking in the confidence of the 438-game South Africa displayed some very ordinary fielding, allowing the Australians to score 377/6. They may not have been consciously thinking so, but it did seem as if the South African players were of the opinion that “no matter how many runs they score, we can score more.” But, unlike the result of the previous year, this time South Africa lost by a convincing 83 runs.

Worse was to follow. As is their wont, the Proteas qualified for the semi-final against Australia on April 25, winning their first must-win game at a World Cup against England. This time South Africa had a great plan: bat first, make 400+ runs and cruise to victory. Only it wasn’t a 400+ pitch, with the result that South Africa got 149 all out. 438 bought and paid for.

Clearly beating Australia isn’t necessarily ideal preparation for the World Cup. South Africans don’t do confidence in moderation. It does not follow, of course, that getting caned by the beloved gifappeltjies is the right way to prepare. But at least captain De Villiers and coach Russel Domingo had some of the leaks in the roof pointed out to them by Hurricane Australia. The questions for De Villiers and Domingo are: which are the priority leaks and how to repair those.

Much is made, for example, about the inability of the lower middle order to weigh in with a lot of runs. Ever since the days of Lance Klusener South African fans have come to expect rapid runs to flow from the last few overs. By and large the tradition has been upheld by a string of lower order big-hitters. But recently the pipeline appears to have run dry. To many observers this is a major problem.

It is worth pointing out that in the Protea team, lower order batting appears to have developed as a matter of necessity. During the 1992 World Cup, for example, Peter Kirsten was the only top order batsmen to contribute regular scores. During the 1999 campaign, Lance Klusener, batting at number nine, was man of the tournament, and not for his bowling. Klusener regularly hit his team of trouble with rapid-fire half centuries, often adding key runs for the last wicket. Apart from the fact that that couldn’t possibly last, one has to wonder about the inability of the top order to score the runs. As a comparison, Dale Steyn is currently the regular number nine. While Steyn is no slouch with the bat, it would be quite surprising if he is South Africa’s top run scorer in the 2015 World Cup. And if he was, who would expect it to be a successful campaign?

The difference between top and lower order runs is often a matter of perception. When the top order fails, but the lower order succeeds, there is primarily a sense of relief. On top of that, top order failures are often dismissed as the result of difficult batting conditions, excellent bowling, and the like. When the situation is reversed, and the top order succeeds, but the lower fails, there is a profound sense of disappointment, as if the lower order left a large number of runs on the table, and, really, the total should have been much larger. Blame the tendency of commentators to take up the convenient topic of projected scores during the latter part of the innings.

The reality is, of course, that runs are runs, whether they come at the start of the innings, the end of the innings, or at an indifferent pace throughout. On the two occasions that South Africa set scores they posted 267/8 and 280/6, both of which appeared to be defendable. Before this tour, Australia’s last successful chase of 250+ against South Africa was in 2002. This would suggest that defending totals is the issue, more than setting them. Likewise, the fact that the attack leaked at least 300 in two of the first three games suggest the concern is bowling (and fielding). Of even more concern: since readmission, this has traditionally been Protea strengths.

The current Protea test attack is rightly the envy of the world, and has proven itself able to adapt to various conditions as the fact that they haven’t lost a test series away from home since 2006 confirms, along with the top ranking for the team. It is not without reason that Dale Steyn is rated the world’s best bowler in the format, backed up by Vernon Philander at #6.

In the ODI format, things are rather less stellar: Steyn ranks #3, followed by Morné Morkel at #11 and Lonwabo Tsotsobe at #17. Of course, the rankings tend to be a bit of a lagging indicator, averaging a player’s form over the last couple of years, as evidenced by the fact that Philander ranks #51. Nonetheless, the evidence would suggest that the terrific Protea test attack is much less of a threat in ODIs.

The difference between test and ODI bowling is that in the former the aim is to take wickets, while in the latter it is to choke (that word again) the flow of runs. Unlike say Fanie de Villiers, Dale Steyn appears to struggle more with choking than with knocking over, his career average economy rate a rather pedestrian 4.8, compared to a downright insulting 5.4 on this tour. Philander’s slightly better career average (4.4) was at least maintained on this tour (4.5). Morkel’s tour figures were embarrassing (6.1) and will affect his career average (4.9) the wrong way. The case for Kyle Abbott stepping up (career : 4.4) was only enhanced on a difficult tour (5.1), while it will be interesting to see if the selectors have faith that Farhaan Behardien whose (brief) career average matches Steyn’s, while looking much better on this tour (4.7). Interestingly, Tsotsobe has the same career average, which hardly suggests that he is the answer to the questions so rudely asked by Australia.

Of course, wickets are not completely irrelevant in ODI cricket, and Steyn proved again that he has the ability to break partnerships, taking four of his seven wickets before the death. By comparison, seven of Morkel’s ten wickets fell at the death suggesting that it batsmen getting themselves out by getting too greedy.

It is also worth noting that while the Protea combined economy rate for the tour (5.46) matched that of Australia (5.44), the death bowling was a different matter all together (Proteas: 7.1; Australia: 6.1). Here Robbie Peterson (5.1) and Philander (5.3) were the standouts, although they only bowled 3.1 and 4 death overs, respectively. Abbott (6.0 in 5 overs) and Steyn (6.5 in 11.4) were middle of the road, while Morkel (7.2 in 11) and Wayne Parnell (8.0 in 4) were underwhelming. The less said about Ryan McLaren (11.0 in 4), the better. Bottom line: the Proteas have an issue with death bowling. The (very limited) data would suggest that Peterson and Philander should share the death bowling with Abbott and Steyn.

One sensed that when both Parnell and McLaren were selected for the fourth game, the selectors weren’t looking to win the series, but rather to test different combinations. In that case, it is mission accomplished, and McLaren should be watching the World Cup from the comfort of home, while Parnell and Morkel should only travel as backups. It is also high time for the selectors to overcome their Warne envy and admit South Africa simply doesn’t have a spin bowler that can dominate batsmen (and be a jack while doing it). Thanks Imran, but we’ve seen enough.

The Australians can be said to have rained on the Proteas’ parade. In doing so they revealed many leaks in the roof. Whether the Proteas repair those leaks is first of all up to the selectors. Assuming they are brave enough to pick the right personnel, it is over to De Villiers and Domingo. And that’s a whole discussion by itself…