´óÏó´«Ã½

Clive Rice is overly dramatic. Sure he wants his old Mean Machine pal Ray Jennings back in charge; the rest is sour grapes.

After the 2008 success and the 2009 disappointment, SA will bounce back. There will be a three-way battle for the No 1 spot in test cricket over the next few years, and, who knows, maybe England can make it a four-way fight.

Roll on the bullring.

It's interesting to read that South Africa and inpairticular Graeme Smith is coming under incresing pressure. I for one would be very surprised if Smith did get the axe if they fail to win the final test of this series.

I do firmly believe though that South African cricketers are even worse than us English when it comes to folding under pressure, or ln other words lacking the killer instinct.

They have had 2 match winning positions in this series and failed to take them. They also had the opportunity to show thier metal and bat out a test match and get a draw and failed to do that as well.

England on the other hand are developing a real team spirit, allign that with genuine talent in Pietersen, Strauss, Swann and Anderson the future is bright for English cricket regardless of what happens at the wanderers this week.

Good Article!

Parnell sounds like a fine selection, he showed in the ICC Champions Trophy that he has a very happy knack for taking wickets although being a little expensive. It's always nice to be able to include a good left-arm quick in the team for the variation and although it may be his debut I would back him to do a good job.

As far as the South African batting is concerned, the biggest mistake that they've done was to try to make opening batsmen out of primarily middle-order players, since it seems perfectly clear that the players in question have not felt comfortable. Herschelle Gibbs' problems have certainly not helped and it's come to the point where he may never be called again. Neil McKenzie's second coming was as an opener, and after initial success against Bangladesh he had lean pickings for a while. England tried the same thing with Ian Bell in the ODIs in India and that went down the drain, so it's no wonder that Ash Prince is facing problems. Why can't South Africa pick a proper opening batsman to partner Graeme Smith? Maybe Andy Puttick, his provincial teammate?

Harris may have been hit out of the park at times but he has also taken wickets, so I don't think South Africa should be in a hurry to drop him. It would certainly not be wise to go in with only a part-time spinner or two with the pitch probably aiding spin as the match goes by.

Smith was never the purists' choice for captain, and although he has grown into a fine leader he is still tactically blunter than a ballpoint pen. His job should not really be under any threat but it's a pity that there has been no real preparation for 'life after Smithy'. The problem here is that a number of the possible candidates mentioned have decent cricketing brains but are not leaders of people, and certainly in Botha's case he can't even make the team on merit. I would possibly consider asking Kallis or Boucher to lead the team for a year or two and groom somebody for the job in the interim, like India did with Kumble and Dhoni. Maybe McKenzie should be given another chance!

This is polarising result fetishisation surely? 1 wicket either way and the Proteas lead 2-1. That is test cricket for you it's knife edge. England found last winter sometimes you cannot quite put away an opponent no matter how inferior.

Whereas this year England have beaten a marginally superior team in Australia and arguably lead a marginally superior team now. Yet this correspondent talks about 1 team facing Armageddon and the other honey and roses forever more. I am sure Strauss is no more carried away than Vaughan was about the, his words, lucky triumph in 2005.

This is the problem with sports and its coverage too many people want to fetishise random fluctuations of form and results even when performance says something vastly different.

Am I delighted and bereft of nails yes. Do I think England are a better team yet no. Just as 3 knocks after 50 tests will not change my view of a batter these things are decided over years.

Do I think England are improving substantially? Anderson just had his best overseas performance in years and Broad is growing and Swann is a vast upgrade over Panesar (bowling, fielding and batting). Not sure one can read too much into Bell after 50 tests save to say he is OK when there is nothing to lose and a threat at 300-4 batting 6 still. KP in form would transform us but he's not young any more. If KP, Collie or Cook lose form there is no one to come so I'd be cautiously optimistic on the bowling side and fingers crossed on the batting.

South Africa look a stronger side going forward especially now they have moved on from Ntini and Steyn is back to near his best. They need a spinner but have ample batting but maybe require an opener and a better tweaker.

It's interesting how small the margin between victory and defeat is.

England could have beaten the Windies 2-1, Australia could quite easily have retained the Ashes and the Saffers could quite easily have been 2-1 up going into this final test.

The point is that none of those scenarios happened and for a good reason.
The Windies showed great resolve at the death in the final 2 tests of the series and England were timid with their declarations.
Australia have lost 2 of the greatest bowlers of the modern era and were unable to make the most of it when they had England under the thumb.
Plenty of reverse parallels in the current series from an England perspective to the West Indies series. South Africa have had the best of the series so far, but find themselves one down going into the final game, due to conservative declarations and a bowling attack that lacks depth.

England can match any team home or away at the moment because they are once again playing as a unit. The supposed three weak links coming into this series were Bell, Cook and Collingwood and yet they have been our 3 best batsmen.
South Africa is supposed to be a graveyard for spinners, yet Swannie has thrived. Strauss, Trott and Pietersen haven't had the best of series, but it would take a brave man to bet against any of them contributing big time cometh the hour. The bowling attack are working as a pack for the first time in 4 years and Prior has come on in leaps and bounds as a keeper.

Don't be too hard on the Saffers, they could quite easily have been 2-1 up going into the final test against a very good England team, who may not be the finished article, but they are still young in cricketing terms and getting there.

South Africa seem to have done what England did after the 2005 ashes, and that is celebrate too much, and believe the press. They both thought they were better than they were after beating the Aus, and didn't push on, they thought that because they won nothing needed improving, but improvements can always be made. The Aus on the other hand knuckled down and worked hard and came back, and they are currently doing it again after loosing another ashes. And while England have been better this time, they could still draw the series and their record would then be the same as after the last home ashes (when we drew in India)

Both teams need a win, but for very different reasons, should be a fantasic game!

Personally I think the Saffers have slightly better batters and England have better bowlers. the Saffers inability to take 20 wickets in any game is telling, and is probably all they really need to work on, perhaps they should play 5 bowlers, as their batsmen could almost certainly still get the runs.

brandy6 writes that South Africa "have had 2 match winning positions in this series and failed to take them".

Wrong - They clawed themselves into that winning position in the last hour or so of each match, in itself a remarkable feat. England almost, but not quite, collapsed twice, they should have drawn comfortably.
Kudos to SA for getting closer than they should have.
Kudos to England for holding on.

South Africa's record in 2009 was:

P7 W1 D2 L4

The one win came in a dead rubber. That is an amazingly poor record for a side that looked set to dominate for several years. The nature of the wins in Australia was truely stunning, but South Africa seem to have had an astonishing attack of vertigo since.

The big question for South Africa is, should the series be lost in this sports mad country, would Graeme Smith have the will to continue? He's done the job for 7 long, nerve-grinding years and reached the summit with his team. If South Africa continue to slip, will he really want to hang around and be associated with failure rather than with the many previous successes?

If England do win this series - and it's a big if - people will talk about lucky England again. Remember all those analyses that showed that Australia were by far the better side in the Ashes? What they did not point out was that the batsmen piled up runs in dead matches but, when it counted, collapsed to defeat. Similarly, England finished off matches, but Australia could only do it when the England players were groggy from a 4am alarm call and a night on the pavement (and even then Australia struggled to get rid of the tail in the 2nd innings). The same thing has happened again. England finished-off their opponents, South Africa have been unable to. A side does not escape defeat time and again by pure luck; Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower have put some steel in spines.

Just one quibble. South Africa do not need to take 20 wickets to win a declaration game. If England declare at 450-8, it does not mean that, as it is no longer possible for South Africa to take 20 wickets, they cannot win the match!

Win, lose, or draw, it has been a wonderful series of constantly changing fortunes.

It`s ridiculous buying into this drama. SA has been, apart from one fatal collapse in Durban, the superior team throughout this series, only two wickets away from a 2-1 lead. They would have gotten these wickets if it hadn`t been for slow over rates and the loss of 10-11 overs in each match. Eng has been punch-drunk for a large amount of time, swaying on the ropes and just dodging the fatal uppercut. Now all this silly speculation and glorious "series win" euphoria?
Frankly it`s sad seeing cricket like this, defence and drawn matches. Is the best team really winning here? I don`t think so. This rubbish only supposed to happen in football.

Any journo worth his salt,would firstly do a bit of research on Clive Rice's distasteful history with the United Cricket Board of SA. He was the biggest detractor of any form of quota system,which means players like Prince,Duminy,Amla,Ntini and Parnell would never have got the exposure they so rightly deserved. He was a great allrounder,but that is all I remember him for.
The proteas have played the better cricket over the three tests,but haven't managed to get the required result. That's test cricket. I do believe that the Proteas 2009 season was very poorly planned,and hopefully lessons will be learned...Surely any national side playing at home are under pressure to deliver?

"Do I think England are a better team yet no. Just as 3 knocks after 50 tests will not change my view of a batter these things are decided over years.
Not sure one can read too much into Bell after 50 tests save to say he is OK when there is nothing to lose and a threat at 300-4 batting 6 still."

Here we go let's have a go at Ian Bell before the test has even started.
absolute balderdash, consider the following and the widely held conception that Bell can only bat when the pressure is off is rubbish.
He has scored at least 50 17 times when he has come in under pressure and the following were all outstanding innings under pressure, but because it was Bell and not Collingwood, no-one else seems to remember them.

It's interesting that Paul Collingwood is regarded as Mr Reliable, yet Bell is supposed to be a bottler, yet Bells innings last week was the 4th time that Bell has played a really heroic innings under great pressure.

Maybe it's because Collingwood's efforts tend to come when England manage to save the game, but when Bell has done it in the past, he has been badly let down by his team mates.


Lahore 1st test Nov 2005
England are skittled out for 288 and Pakistan rattle up 636 - could England save the match?
England went into lunch on day 4 at 5 for1 after losing Tres without a run on the board and need to survive 5 sessions.
Vaughan is out with the score on 30 and Collingwood joins Bell at the crease and England end day 4 on 121 for 2. At lunch on the final day, England are 201 for 2 and should save the match.
Bell scores a 5 hour 92 and shares in a 175 run stand with Collingwood. England collapse from 205 for 2 to 248 all out. The last 7 wickets would have had to survive around 20 overs to claim a draw, yet the last 7 wickets go down in 11 overs.

Kandy 1st test 2006
Bell comes in at 27 for 3 just after the start of the final day's play. England are chasing 340 odd, but when Bell came in to bat the only thing on everyone's mind was how quickly Murali would run through England and how heavy the defeat would be.
5 hours later Ian Bell is still at the crease, having received excellent support from Matt Prior, Mr reliable Collingwood, was out for 16, having faced only 27 balls.
Bell is finally out for 74, having faced 209 balls and England's last 3 men need to see out the last 8 overs and just fail to do it .
We just failed to hold on for what would have been a heroic draw, but because we lost no one remembers Bell's wonderful effort under immense pressure.

Australia 3rd test 2006
Honours even after the first innings and then Australia racked up 527 for 5 declared, leaving England just over 2 days to bat to save the series.
Strauss is out for a duck and Bell comes in and England are 19 for 1 at the end of the 3rd day.
Bell is out for 87 just before tea on day 4 and England are 170 for 2 and in a good position to save the test.
Mr Reliable Paul Collingwood goes 12 overs later and England lose their last 8 wickets for 180 runs.

Btw I'm not knocking Collie, it's just that by my count both players have played 4 vital innings under the utmost pressure, yet the public perception of the two players couldn't be more different.

Sandeno writes SA would have won:
"if it hadn`t been for slow over rates and the loss of 10-11 overs in each match. Eng has been punch-drunk for a large amount of time, swaying on the ropes and just dodging the fatal uppercut."

You're absolutely right, yet England lead 1:0.
And that's exactly why test cricket is such a great game.

Test cricket is gruelling and the mental side of cricket is vital.

South Africa have got themselves into a winning posotion twice and failed to bowl England out. When the boot was on the other foot England pressed home their advantage and South Africa completely fell apart. That says alot about the mentality of the 2 sides - Englands will not to lose has been excellent in the last 2 series and I for one think they thoroughly deserve their current position.

Top level sport isn't just about raw talent there are other things to consider such as team spirit, will to win and the will not to lose. Thats why so many top sides grind out results when they are not neccessarily on top of their game.

England have got a good run together where they are very difficult to beat and everyone is playing for each other.

Remeber England lead the series without their 2 best batsmen playing at the top of their game in Strauss and Pietersen which makes the current score in the series even mor impressive in my opinion.

Good Article. Smith has always seemed only to have a "Plan A", and test cricket is, lest we forget a game of subtlety. He lacks empathy with bowlers and doesn't have a great deal of flexibility with field placings - he has a tendency to play "stable-door" cricket.

Listening to Vaughan on TMS, he has been scarily accurate when calling the shots at times and it has shown up (Strauss too at times) how Smith is a good leader of men by example but not necessarily the greatest tactician.

I would love to see a stat on how many wickets Harris has taken that are not "batsman error". As a spinner myself I know that some of these errors are induced but nonetheless but Duminy showed what could be achieved and Botha would surely be a more attacking option. The continued selection of Harris is again an example of a rigid plan to rotate the quicks, which England have exploited - even Anderson and Cook have slogged him, so it must be on the whiteboard in the dressing room in capitals!

South Africa may, on paper, look the better side than England but it is this lack of creativity and flair which holds them back. Impressive though Kallis batting has been, it also typifies the South African's approach - single minded and determined, but possibly he and Smith missed an opportunity to score quickly and give themselves more time to bowlat England - although 140 overs should really be enough.

Finally, Nasser Hussain is oft quoted as saying if he couldn't win, then he wanted to make England hard to beat. Having grown up watching England cricket in the disastrous late 80's and 90's, full credit to England for holding on for a draw because I have no doubt that earlier England sides would have been on the golf course by close of play on day 5! Sport is all about narrow margins and England are deservedly 1-0 ahead in this series as they are the only side who have decisively beaten the other in the series.

Smith could quit Test cricket if he is removed from the captaincy. Can South Africa afford to lose one of their best batsmen - one of the world's best batsmen, in fact?

Graeme Smith won't be sacked unless the side falls apart and his form disappears, but after 7 years in the job he may decide to give up if he is not enjoying it so much any longer.

After reaching the summit, anything else is an anti-climax, as Rickie Ponting is finding.

Smith hasn't reached the top, he merely got a sniff.
This should motivate him to prove it wasn't a flash in the pan.

The SA team have a bright future in Morkel, Steyn, Amla & Parnell but they also have 5 players in their 30's Smith, Kallis, Boucher, Prince & Ntini. Apart from the latter they need to maintain their consistent to form support the new up and coming players.

IF this is managed well they appear to have a brighter future than the current England team.

greenmarkfo, i believe bell doesn't always get the plaudits he desrves because as well as being a class batsman on his day, of it he can be one of the most frustrating and annoying batsman ever to wear the 3 lions a bit like broad is with the ball, 1 day brilliant the next, well the words tempestuous, spoilt brat comes to mind. weather permitting i predict a victory at the wanderers with both bell and broad playing a blinder.

don't understand though why the s africans are talking about smith quitting if they lose, surely with his record (and still producing) he still warrants his place at the top table.

Like Michael Vaughan, Mr. Hag???

Smith may be under pressure, but one has to wonder who SA would go to if Smith lost the job; Boucher perhaps - but hasn't he been tried in the past?

I suspect that England will struggle in Jo'burg though, and then the debate will be over ...

Very interesting article, Oliver. Being currently resident in Australia, I watched the SA/Australia series here last year. From that, I can see Clive Rice's point. Smith's injury put in Johan Botha, not only as stand-in player, but also as stand-in captain - and against the best side in the world playing at home! I thought Botha was a brilliant captain. His batting is ordinary, his bowling and fielding are above average - with a knack of making a breakthrough at crucial moments. His great strengths, however, are his calm control of situations - he never panics, and his ability to consult and enthuse his team - getting the best out of them. He is a natural Test captain - and that must worry Smith! Apart from Botha winning the series, another example I can think of to prove my point is Duminy. He was a giant with bat and ball in Australia, the Aussies feared him. Since then, under Smith, he has been very ordinary and is clearly lacking confidence.

I personally can't see Smith getting the sack from the captaincy. But he does seem to be lacking tactically and relying heavily on Steyn to provide a lift to the team. Harris in my opinion is not at all good enough for test cricket, considering he offers little in the wickets as well as very little with the bat. However, I don't see Botha as an obvious replacement, he seems a good one day bowler, but with people mentioning him as a possible replacement for Smith as captain, that just wouldn't be right since he isn't in the team on merit. It would be a very risky option to play Duminy as the main spinner, he has seemed to produce the goods so far, and if it's true that Arthur has asked for a green top, it wouldn't be too bad of a move to play 5 seam bowlers.
As for England, they have shown tremendous fight to dig deep on occasions, but sure Strauss has to be worried that twice there has been an almost match-costing collapse? I believe Ian Bell has done fantastically well to score a 140 and the 78. I don't see why he hasn't been praised for his hundred as he still went out there and delivered for his team. I also enjoyed the comment previously, showing how Bell has saved England and been given no credit. I still think Cook has a long way to go, as he still can't seem to convert his hundreds when he gets there, as the best players do, and the form of Pietersen seems to be going unnoticed.
It all seems to be very nicely poised for an exciting final test though!

From a die-hard Saffer fan (with 2 Brit parents), its been a gripping series so far and you have to give credit to England for hanging on to the slender lead they have. To have 2 out of the 3 tests going down to the last ball is a great advert for the game, albeit a bit rough on us supporters.

We can all go on about if and butts... if Colly had edged just 1 of the 20 "played and missed" during that inspired Steyn spell. That's test cricket for you and why its so great.

The bottom line is that our SA team shouldn't really be having 8 month breaks between tests. You sort of lose the momentum you've gained. Smith is a fine leader and his record proves it. Drop the coach, not the captain! Get Gary Kirsten back home.

No-one should be surprised Clive Rice is pulling no punches. But one comment that stands out is his assertion that Graeme Smith was a "political appointment" who'd do CSA's bidding.

Utter tosh.

For those old enough to remember, Smith took over after Shaun Pollock resigned from the captaincy after the farcical 2003 World Cup exit. Pollock had stepped in after the Hansie Cronje scandal broke, but he was never truly considered "captaincy material", and it was around the time he was leading the side Smith emerged as the likely successor.

Had the 2003 WC gone differently, I fancy Pollock would have done another year or two, Smith would have garnered more international experience, and then they'd have handed over the reins to him. But we know now what happened, Smith was appointed because CSA recognised he was going to be ready pretty soon and there was no good reason for having another interim appointment.

As a kid, I used to cheer on Rice's mean machine from the Wanderers' snake-pit, and nowadays he's a heckuva coach. But he's wrong about Smith, if CSA had wanted a patsy captaining the national side they'd never have chosen such a strong personality, regardless of how old he was when he started.

TWSI, a lot of excuses but results speak for themselves when you try to discuss England. SA can say they outplayed England in Cape Town all they want, but couldn't bowl England out in 141 overs. That is a poor return for any bowling attack.

Fact is, England are much better than anyone gives them credit for. And that simply doesn't sit well with Saffers and Aussies, so to beat both these nations (who were expecting English massacres) in consecutive test series? That would be simply magnificent!

Also, England have a pretty young squad that is getting more and more experience, so hopefully if players avoid injury this team can only get better.

Oliver, 2010 is a Year of Love. Abuse is old hat: man on man cricketing respect is in. Why, even Graeme Smith might crack a warm joke.

I doubt he would at the minute though. I'm not a fan of Graeme Smith but the criticism of him is ridiculous. He isn't a captain of subtle tactical nous. He demonstrates the same sort of South African tough mentality that we're seeing at Saracens under Brendan Venter. Saracens play tough rugby, not the most aesthetically pleasing, but undoubtedly effective, and South Africa are the same when it comes to cricket. Clive Rice's words sound like the same negative outpourings Neil Harvey regularly drops out on Ricky Ponting. It's strange how nations who'd describe us as whingeing Poms have some of the finest former player whiners going (and let's add Sunil Gavaskar to that list as well). Smith has been a strong captain in an environment where internal politics has a huge influence. Someone like Michael Vaughan was a tactically better captain than Smith has been but I don't think Vaughan would have operated at the same level as he did with the extra demands being SA skipper brings.

The desire to bring in Botha as captain is hilarious. In one breath people want Harris out for not being penetrative enough and in the next they're wanting Botha, a man who averages nearly 40 in ODI games and who underwent yet more testing over the legality of his action three months ago. Perhaps you could make a case for Botha acting as ODI skipper but there's absolutely no way Botha would justify a Test place as a player alone, and no side now plays a man for his tactical ability alone.

For South Africa 2010 is the year for recognition. S Africa might level the series but England's will to survive the second innings would again be good.

South Africa are overrated.

I don't see much wrong with South Africa at all really.

OK they're 1-0 down and haven't taken 20 wickets yet but they've taken 19 wickets twice, and have come within one ball each time. This series could easily be 2-1 in their favour and we'd be talking about how England have dipped after The Ashes.

There is nothing wrong with Graeme Smith. He's a fine player and a good captain. He leads by example and has a very good record. South Africa's fast bowling attack is very good also. Steyn and Morkel have been very good, and normally they'd expect more from the recovering Kallis. Ntini and de Wet will be replaced by Parnell who looks a great prospect. Their batting is fine also, with runs all down the top 6. The only problem I can see is Paul Harris. He's been poor the last two tests. But thats their only real problem, and it has been for their entire existence: the ability to produce a top class spinner.

This series has shown two good teams I feel. England's players have all delivered at least in one innings this series, most in every innings they've batted or bowled. South Africa can feel unlucky to be behind as well. But after 3 tests I don't see the need for a post-mortem.

#9 - Sorry, but that is a ridiculous comment on two counts. Firstly, this has been an enthralling test series. Not just to English or Saffer fans but to fans of cricket around the world.

Secondly, it always makes me laugh when people persistently ignore the actual score in the series to make an argument that the losing team are the better side. There is a bottom line here: To win a test a side has to take 20 wickets (barring the declaration scenario mentioned above). If a side doesn't take those wickets, they don't deserve to win a test. It happened in the Ashes and its happening here: people will always use games like the last test to suggest that the team batting out for the draw is lucky - why? Cricket is a series of mini-contests and in tests 1&3 of this series and also in Cardiff in Summer our batsment won the contest against the bowlers on the fifth day. The bowlers (and arguably the captaincy) weren't good enough to take the wickets so they didn't deserve the win.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that England are a great side. Not even suggesting that they have more potential than their current opponents (bowling and batting resources at County level look frighteningly thin). I'm simply stating that it doesn't matter how you dress up the stats, the only one that matters in the end is the result. In a sport where matches are played over five days, with 3-5 matches in a series the best team will come out on top.

And for once, no-one can even use 'bad' decisions to back up their arguments. I was not a fan of the referral system before the series started but I am definately a convert now. Congrats to the ICC for its implementation (said through very gritted teeth). Obviously, there is a simpler and cheaper way to ensure that umpire's decisions are as reliable as possible: Get rid of Harper ;-).

Personally i don't think Smith is going anywhere, and nor should he. Yes he's made a few conservative declarations, something i think common among Captains who open the batting (Strauss in WI, Atherton all the time), but there is more than one type of leader. When SA were last in England & he was sending the ball to all parts at will, we all spoke of him leading by example, which i believe he's still doing.

Tactically i believe Boucher is more of a captain, as he's the one moving the fielders and talking to bowlers mid-over. While it's working it's a great system, as every skipper needs to rely on his senior players, but if it goes wrong Smith's head on the block, so maybe he should start taking closer order.

I agree that scheduling has made a big difference to SA's performances. They simply aren't battle hardened anymore, an example which could also be used to explain Pakistan's inexplicable defeat in the New year's test VS. Australia. For their sake i hope lessons are learned.

As for our boys, If you'd have told me we could go 3 tests unbeaten without a significant contribution from Strauss or Pietersen a year ago i'd have said you were barmy. We have a real team spirit like i've never seen. Sure, we could still be a bit more positive and really put our foot on their necks when we're on top, but we've shown Aussie-like steel to avoid defeat.

That said, we shouldn't forget that there have been 2 collapses, and in both of those tests we should've been comfortably out of sight. I think Strauss & Flower will be stressing that point more than any other, and i expect to see a big 1st innings total from one or both of our main go-to guys.

I think one of the main reasons Parnell hasn't had a look in this series is that the Saffers are worried he'll inadvertently help Swann by creating footmarks for him to bowl into from the other end (Parnell being a left armer of course)

I think this is ´óÏó´«Ã½'s best blog ever about SA cricket from
a SA point of view! My view is that Smith engineered Jennings
departure from the team & now you are reaping the crop of that decision. Smith wanted Mickey Arthur as coach because he wouldn't rock the boat & push the team to greater hights. Jennings was an obsessive perfectionist who would have challenged Smith every step of the way.

You must remember that the only time SA turned the corner as a cricketing nation was when Bunter Barlow said SA were going to compete
agressively but fairly on the field.

SA have only won tests over the last 4 years when they win wars of attrition through very defensive & conservative cricket. This leads to a negative mindset which explains the collapse under tricky light conditions at Kingsmead against England.

Until a change to the coaching regime in SA is made nervy conservative cricket will dominate when SA play!

I'm glad my old mate Andy Plowright has shared my notion that Botha should not be offered the captaincy while he does not have a guaranteed place in the team on merit. Interestingly though, Smith was originally dropped for the 2003 World Cup before replacing Jonathan Rhodes!

But one issue that people have not really discussed here is the issue of 'life after Smithy'. There have been some signs in fact coming from the captain himself that he might want to relieve himself of the draining pressures of captaincy and become a player again and yet no thought seems to have been put into a possible replacement. Like I've said some of the candidates mentioned may or may not have good cricketing brains but I don't see them as having any real leadership qualities, so your idea of Prince as captain doesn't sit well with me Oliver. Abraham De Villiers seems to have a lot of experience having played under Smith all of his career so could also be considered and yet not much is known about his credentials. For me, why I would have recommended Neil McKenzie is because he did seem to have a good head for the game and was certainly a source of help for Smith during the period when they won all before them. After his departure things seem to have gone pear-shaped. The biggest problem now is that who amongst the available players would be suitable, and I only see Kallis and perhaps Boucher as being able to step into the breach. Like I suggested, maybe either of these two legends (preferably Kallis, who is irreplaceable and has long since been sure about his own game) would take up the job on a short0term basis the way Anil Kumble did for India. Or maybe it wouldn't be a good idea entrusting the job to a Cronje-era player?

A good article. The tests have been close to call and SA have struggled to dismiss Eng, and as other posters have said, only England collapses in the last hour made the draws so close.
SA do have roblems in the batting department. Without Kallis in the last test, it could have been Eng with a strong first innings lead and a 2-0 lead going into the last test, as Smith would have been batting under pressure as in the 2nd test.
Without Kallis, SA understandably are a much weaker side and are too reliant on him.

#36. Sennockianrebel

"SA have only won tests over the last 4 years when they win wars of attrition through very defensive & conservative cricket."

...which pretty much goes along with what I said about Saracens under Brendan Venter and SA cricket as a whole. It's a way of playing that has brought South Africa success, and it's also a way of playing that covers for a lack of players who have that X factor ability to do something totally out of the blue. There is no Pietersen with the bat (De Villiers is good but doesn't have the ability to command an attack from the crease), Steyn is very good and consistent with little back up, and you could argue that England are far more likely to do something unpredictable to win a game (witness the Second Test).

One of the features of international cricket right now is a major lack of these 'X Factor players', either because many like Warne have retired or because those who can do it like Pietersen are bang out of form. As a consequence, you're seeing Test series being played where the once mighty Australia can be run close by the West Indies or Pakistan, not exactly high rollers in the form stakes, where England might win an entire series through one inspired session with the ball (which immediately is reminiscent of England losing to the West Indies last winter through Jerome Taylor having an inspired session), and where England can win against Australia despite being second best a lot of the time. That means we are getting more attritional cricket but equally I'd say we've had some fantastic Tests in the last two years which have gone a long way to shutting the mouths of those who say 20 over cricket will rule. Now if only India would get some decent wickets laid out...

The current South African side doesn't have people who can take part attacks and, Steyn excluded, destroy batting teams. Ntini is finished. Morkel is still learning. Harris may find his time in the sun ends when Tahir is ready to play. De Wet looks useful but not outstanding. The batting is very workmanlike. There's absolutely no way that side could be an attacking side a la the West Indies of the 1980s or the Aussie bowling line up of McGrath, Warne and Lee. Instead, they have played to their strengths and have been decidedly unlucky to not win two Tests this series. They aren't a poor side and Smith is not a poor captain. They're probably two or three players away from being the side they should be. Of those three players, the obvious choices are:

Tahir in as the attacking spinner.

Parnell as the left arm seamer (seeing Aamer play for Pakistan, the SA selectors would be insane not to at least try Parnell out).

Sort out the opening slot. Bring in an alternative opener. If Duminy needs time to go and work on the technique, then it makes no sense to have an out of form Duminy in the side and play Prince out of position, as essentially you're wasting two slots. Bring in a new opener, have Prince anchoring the side at 5 or 6, and you're stronger already.

exciting result match in store...

i was surprised that there wasn't a two-day match match this week to give the the english fringe players a run-out and time in the middle for kp. odd.

I cant speak, for the Australia home series as i didn't see it but, imo, this series is being played by 2 well matched teams, and i have enjoyed it all . There have been some truly great days of test cricket for many different reasons...Smith will not be dropped, hes a class act as opener, and with a teeny bit of luck he would be 2 up in this series...sometimes you do make your own luck, and at the moment,he isn't.

As for England , without Flintoff they look a far better team, the balance of the side is better,with Swann going through a great patch all that is required is for Pietersen to hit his straps and suddenly its a formidable team.......

I am really looking forward to the next test because i have no idea pre match who is going to win, this is how it should be,and long may it last...

I love test cricket, it should be a test of peoples character and ability, and there have been highs and lows on both sides, but overall it has been a terrific series, and a far better sporting spectacle than the 20 over slogfests we are being driven too.

#37 Mani:

Best of the New Year to you!

Getting rid of Smith would be crazy. There is no logical successor. AB De Villiers is a player who looks very good but I'm not convinced that taking on the captaincy would help his batting. He's still young and, if you look on the stats alone, his Test record isn't that much better than the much maligned Ian Bell. If you're looking for fresh impetus to lead a side, that rules out Kallis and Boucher.

The person I'd be hoping might come through is Duminy. Now Ntini seems to be on the back burner, there would be some desire from the cricketing hierarchy to have a new coloured role model. He has a calmness about his batting and general demeanour that I like. De Villiers doesn't have that, he's a bit more livewire as some rash dismissals in the past have shown as well as his pointed and ultimately rather daft ball tampering comments last Test. Duminy would be a very different captain to Smith but I suspect he'd do very well providing he were allowed to captain the team in his manner and to not have to imitate captains from the past.

Smith is a leader of men, he is not a tactician. There is some idiotic idea that a cricket captain has to be both. No he does not.

To be a good manager (captain) you do not need to know everything and come up with every idea, you just need to know which ones to go with and then to convince your team that it is the right one.

Give him a proper vice captain who's job is to work purely on the field, who can study the batsmen, talk top bowler before sessions, work out plans of attack and bring them to him.

Andy P,

As much as i see Duminy being a fixture in the side for a while, i think the captaincy needs to wait. The extra pressure he'd be under from a political viewpoint as a Black captain would be a lot to put on a man still finding his feet at test level.

I do like the idea of an old head shephearding in a new man, as India did very sucessfully, as it helps to ease the pressure on the new man, as well as producing continuity. I'm still suprised Smith is under that much pressure though.

I'm enjoying the blinkered South Africans defending their team and claiming that they should be 2-1 up in the series.
It is difficult to blame the captain when he gives his bowlers nearly 5 sessions to take 10 wickets, especially as they have the supposed Number One ranked bowler in the world in their attack. However, it is a results business and he must take the majority of the blame. South Africa lost their momentum and advantage early on day 4 when Kallis (46 from 96 balls) used the first session as a gentle net and only about 80 runs were scored. This sent a message out that they are not confident enough in their bowling attack to set a side less than 400 to win in more than 5 sessions, a habit which England have regularly been guilty of in the past.
Players like Boucher must have been tearing their hair out watching that phase of play, knowing that they needed a victory to stay in the series. In fact, it was Boucher who carried himself most like a captain during England's second innings. It was he who made the fielding change which resulted in Anderson's dismissal on the final day and he was also the only one who gave any advice to the relatively young bowling attack.
Boucher would be my obvious choice to take over if Smith goes. I feel he needs a break from the game to rediscover his hunger to win. He has always been an arrogant character in the past, but some of that even seems to have been drained from him.
I also fully agree with a point made earlier. The South Africans did what England did in 2005 (short of awarding MBE's like they were going out of fashion) and took their eye off the ball, believing they had achieved everything they could and that no other team could challenge them. I personally have enjoyed their fall from grace just as much as the sneering South Africans enjoyed England's after 2005.
Here's to 2-0 and giving Smith the send-off he deserves: Pietersen and Trott to be at the crease as we seal our victory.... (Cue lots of South Africans getting over excited about the nationalities of a few players.)

Hackerjack - to be a very good captain you need both leadership skills and tactics. Vaughan was a very fine leader and he also outsmarted Ponting in 2005 - you certainly couldn't say that his team were better players than the Aussies at that stage. Ponting showed in 2009 that with a less good team, he's not such a great tactician - like Smith, not capable of closing off matches which went to the wire. Being a good tactician definitely does not mean that you know everything, but it does mean that you know how to use the forces at your disposal to the best possible advantage - that to me is a combination of leadership and tactics. Read about the Battle of Waterloo if you want to see how a statistically inferior force was able to vanquish Napoleon.

Plus as Vaughan has often said - you need a good dose of luck. Wellington also had luck at Waterloo and took advantage of it.

It's possible that Smith has been in the job too long, regardless of his age.

Andy, all the very best to you and Laura for 2010 as well!

Not for one minute am I suggesting that SA should get rid of Smith, just that he might eventually find the captaincy to be too draining as will all leaders eventually.

Can't see Tahir even making the squad until his passport problems get sorted out, and I don't see that happening in time. Although he would have been a good option. In this case you cannot drop Harris as the specialist spinner. I still think he'll take wickets, we'll see after the series is over!

An excellent pre-Thursday blog. Frankly, I'm none too bothered by South Africa's selection problems. I'm much more for getting their chosen XI onto the park and then taking them apart. Of course it won't be easy. Who wants it to be easy? Walkovers are a bore. But it would be high compensation for all this dreadful weather we're having in Europe if England returned home as 2-0 winners.

Mani:

I wasn't advocating bringing Tahir in for this Test, more stipulating the three positions that I think need to be sorted. Providing legal issues are met, Tahir will be there for India. Parnell and Steyn could be a potential rival to Asif and Aamer as best opening pair in world cricket, and Prince needs to return to the slot where he was successful.

Sadly old chap, I'm no longer married. Not my decision but never mind. We play the ball as it lies, as the great Bobby Jones once said.

Themightymojo:

I wouldn't give Duminy the captaincy yet. I'm not someone who feels Smith should stand down. Duminy is the man I'd want to groom as future captain and I'd have De Villiers as his vice captain. I like the combination of someone quieter as captain who has a more vocal vice captain to do a lot of the rabble rousing in the field.

girlondonblogger:

A good point with Ponting versus Vaughan. With Smith, he has had some great players at his disposal. On paper, that batting line up should be second only to India. On the bowling front, you could argue that Steyn's electric form papered over some cracks that have been exacerbated by Ntini's loss of form and the injury to Kallis. It was a big risk bringing back Morne Morkel and he's actually been their biggest bowling positive during the series.

Ponting didn't have to captain the like of McGrath, Warne, Hussey, Gilchrist, Hayden etc. All had experience. Those are the type of players who know the team plan and then get on with it. Punter didn't have to set fields for Warne. What Vaughan had to do was far more difficult. He took a whole series of different personalities, many of whom were inexperienced, and brought them together. I've said many times that Vaughan's greatest ability was getting his bowlers to perform. Most England captains simply haven't understood bowlers, Gooch and Atherton being prime examples. Vaughan did understand them and got great performances out of them. Ponting didn't have to rouse his bowlers: they just did it. With Smith, he's been able to call upon the raw firepower of Steyn and the consistency of Ntini for a good long time. With Steyn out in the first Test, Ntini being dropped, Kallis injured, and Harris taking some tap, he's been exposed. It's the sort of thing a good captain will learn from.

Smith will lead in India. Watching him against Dhoni tactically will make for excellent viewing.

and where England can win against Australia despite being second best a lot of the time

===

How has this myth been allowed to develop?
1st test, granted. But england have a terrible recent history of starting every test series slowly. Battled to a draw though...

2nd test - England were on the front foot from day 1, and constructed a dominating 2nd innings where it was only ever a question of how much England would set Australia. Australia, in reply, only had 1 partnership of any significance in the 2nd innings, after they were reduced to 127-5.

3rd test - skittled Australia out for a meagre total, had them on the ropes in the 2nd innings at 57-2 with England comfortably ahead with runs. A partnership between Clarke and North saves australia from defeat in a heavily weather affected match

4th test - England's nerves got the best of them. A test match to forget for the English. Although such was Clark's performance, how could Aus drop him again for Hauritz?

5th - All England. Aided by the curious decision to not play a spinner, but the match was over by the 2nd day. Inspired spell from Broad, rammed home by Trott (on his debut).

I saw the last day of the Sydney test match, I'm pretty sure if England or South Africa had Australia in that position they would not have needed 150+ runs to win.

The real test of both these sides is how they will bowl teams out on flat Indian/Pakistan/Sri Lanka pitches ( I doubt England will be touring Pakistan for a very long time, could be interesting to see where that series could be played...UAE maybe? ). That will be the true test of both South Africa and England.

Kapnag:

The 'myth' comes about through seeing each session of the series. Quite simply we were second best a lot of the time. At no point were we ahead of the game in the 1st Test as we gave away wickets and only racked up 400 plus. The 2nd Test we won the majority of sessions. The 3rd Test was fairly equal. The 4th Test we were utterly annihilated and the only session we can claim to have won was during the Broad-Swann slogathon. The final test we did win.

So stating that we were second best a lot of the time is hardly inaccurate. By all means pull me up if I say the Australians was majoritorially dominant but we did play very poorly a lot of the time.

I'd also suggest you think back to the last time we toured the West Indies. We had the Windies backs against the wall and undoubtedly won more sessions than they did yet still lost the series courtesy of an innings of madness.

Andy, at what point were Australia on top at Lords? As I said, only a solitary partnership between Clarke and Haddin saved Australia from annihilation at Lords. As it was, it was still quite a drubbing.

At what point were Australia ahead of the game at edgbaston? They had a good "morning" session on the first day, were only ever trying to save it after lunch on the 2nd day.

Your comparison with the windies series is laughable. 1st test capitulation, followed by 3 roads for pitches where the windies were never interested in winning.

All the talk about preparing a 'green top' wicket is very interesting, together with "losing 2-0 is no worse than 1-0". Losing 2-0 is considerably worse than losing 1-0 and Mickey Arthur knows it.
As for the preparation of the wicket, are SA really prepared to risk all on the toss of a coin, by being put into bat on such a wicket.
This could simply an attempt to play mind games with England.
Clearly the pitch will be more of a seamers wicket than hitherto in the series, but the wanderers is traditionally so.
All in all there is little to choose between the teams and the game might well be settled by a single spell of inspired bowling.

Kapnag, read what I wrote about the Second Test. I said that we won the majority of sessions. If the Aussies can only claim one session as a victory with the Clarke-Haddin partnership, then it's still one session and England win the majority.

I wasn't comparing the Ashes to the England-West Indies series. It's quite simple what I wrote. England won the overwhelming majority of the sessions yet still lost the series. Why should the West Indies go out to win? They had the all-important win in the bag, played out the time (just) on the pitches available, and took the series victory. They won ugly but a win is a win. The whole point was to illustrate that a team can lose the majority of sessions during a series and still win.

By the time that partnership had come along, Australia were in deep trouble in that 2nd innings. That partnership was merely delaying the inevitable, by then, the aussies had been thoroughly outplayed.

And what about Edgbaston? When were the aussies on top in that one?

Can you see the point I have made? That your statement that England were mostly second best can't be backed up. It's an argument I've seen quite a lot since the ashes, but it's never really backed up with facts.

Seems to this pair of independent eyes that South Africa need to have a specialist opening batsman along Smith. The fact that they don't is weakening their side. I's be surprised if Prince made many runs at the Wanderers. As some previous posters have mentioned the leading candidate at provincial level is Andy Puttick. Time to give him a run in the side I feel. Puttick's statistics this season in the first class game continue to be impressive.

Retain Prince in the squad, for tour parties etc as he is obviously a first class replacement should any middle order vacancies unexpectedly occur.