Interviews InterviewsRSS FeedFeeds

Greg Chappell

'We can't afford to have the states focusing on silverware'

As a selector and national talent manager, Greg Chappell has his work cut out in steering Australia out of their current trough

Interview by Daniel Brettig

May 13, 2011

Comments: 25 | Text size: A | A

Doug Bollinger, Andrew Hilditch and Greg Chappell at Australia's net session, Brisbane, November 24, 2010
"The players are always saying they'd like open and honest appraisals of where they're at. Trying to achieve that is a constant exercise but receiving and delivering bad news is never easy" © Getty Images

At a time when Australian cricket asks itself all manner of difficult questions, Greg Chappell is in a curious position. As the most recent addition to the national selection panel, a post he last held in 1988, Chappell has brought experience and lateral thought to the choosing of Australian teams. But as Cricket Australia's national talent manager and former head of the Centre of Excellence, he has been responsible for the development pathways that are now facing the harshest light of independent interrogators.

How do you reflect on your first season in the role of national talent manager and national selector?
I certainly looked forward to the challenge, having been involved with the Centre of Excellence the previous two years. I had a pretty good idea of what our talent pool was like and what we had to look forward to, so from that point of view it was an exciting opportunity, I suppose. The unknown [factors] were around the new role as national talent manager, trying to establish the network below the national selection panel. I suppose the last 12 months have been about trying to put in place that talent management network, and I think by and large that's gone well. I believe we've got some really good people involved in those roles in the states, which probably made it more systematic.

How has the selection job evolved since you finished your first stint in 1988?
It's very different in that we have professional first-class cricket now as opposed to the 80s, when I was originally involved. Being a full-time selector obviously makes it different. There's a few more layers in the system these days, and my role on the national selection panel has a very large youth component to it. I am full-time and I am working with people in the states and the Centre of Excellence. There's a bit more depth to it and a bit more day-to-day responsibility than just turning up to selection meetings and picking teams. But the process hasn't changed that much.

How are the lines of communication between the selectors and the players?
I think it's in a good place. Can it be in a better place? Probably. You're always looking to improve those relations, and particularly the communications. Most players like to know where they stand. Some of the more established perhaps feel pretty confident and comfortable with where they're at, but there might be players on the fringe of the team or just new to the surroundings who probably need a bit more comfort and discussion about the position, the role and all the expectations.

The players are always saying they'd like open and honest appraisals of where they're at. Trying to achieve that is a constant exercise, but receiving bad news is never easy, delivering bad news is never easy. The chairman of selectors is the one who has to deliver that news and it isn't always well received, obviously.

At the moment hard decisions and tough conversations are not easy to avoid. Do you think that has been difficult for those experienced players who lived through the previous era of great success?
Yeah, maybe. I don't think it's ever easy to get to the stage of your career where the end is closer than it once was. So dealing with all of that is the challenge we as a selection panel have to deal with.

At selection time, Andrew [Hilditch] deals with the media and the players. I have more of a day-to-day role after those major events. I'm obviously more available than Andrew is, and I am constantly conscious of [having to be] not at cross-purposes with the selection process and what the chairman's talked about. Trying to make sure the messages are consistent, concise and up to date is the critical thing.

One of the early signs that you would bring something different to the panel was the pre-Ashes suggestion to Ricky Ponting that he should move down to No. 4 in the batting order. How do you view that dialogue now?
It was throwing around options and ideas really. We were just looking at the best way to use our resources. A lot of discussions go on about a whole range of things. Some come to fruition, some don't.

There's no doubt the Australian team is at a low point in the cycle, if you believe in cycles. How can the team break out of that?
I think if you get caught up in the moment and the emotion of the moment, if you get caught up in wins and losses, you can confuse yourself. The fact of the matter is, players take time to develop. The players coming out of our youth programme into first-class cricket - I think the talent levels are pretty solid and reasonably consistent with what's gone before. You do have periods of extended success like we've had in recent times, but nothing lasts forever and no one team stays up forever. The challenge is to try to ride out the troughs and the peaks.

What we want to try to avoid is being in a long trough, so that exercises everybody's mind, not least the national selectors, as to what the tactics and the strategies are to come out of it. You constantly look to produce the best team you can. Put combinations together because teams are about combinations, whether it is opening batsmen or opening bowlers, spin bowlers…

You look at opening batsmen, there is often consideration to left-hand and right-hand combinations, but we had a great left-hand combination of Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer for some time. They played differently. One was a tall, strong front-foot player, the other one was shorter, more compact and a very good back-foot player. So that combination worked very well because bowlers had to constantly adjust their length.

You're looking to put out combinations that give you a chance, and if you can find some outstanding match-winning players, that's great, but if you haven't got them, you do the best you can with the combinations you can put together. That's the challenge for us over the next few years. We can see we have got some potential champions on the horizon, but it's going to take time for them to get to the point where they're going to be ready to play for Australia. In the meantime you're looking for the best combinations you can get.

"I think if you get caught up in the moment and the emotion of the moment, if you get caught up in wins and losses, you can confuse yourself"

The nature of Australia's domestic structure, and particularly the introduction of age restrictions in the second XI competition or Futures League, has faced heavy criticism. Do you think the system is working as it should be?
I think it is developing in the right direction. Not to say it can't be reviewed - it is being reviewed, and no doubt there'll be more discussion before decisions are made on the future of the Futures League. For what it was brought in to do, I think it's been quite successful. We had a situation where the average age of state-contracted players gradually crept up, and I think there was a feeling that that was not in the long-term interest of Australian cricket.

We have six state teams, we have 100-odd players on contract, but only 66 can play at any given time, and we need to have a reasonable number of those players as potential match-winning players for Australia. If we have only got one or two in each state who are in that bracket of being young, talented and potentially match-winning, we've only got about six to pick from. If we have got five per team we have got 30 to pick from.

I understand the argument that you need hard-headed players, and I agree, you do need players who make the competition as strong as possible, who can either directly or indirectly teach the future generation what the game's all about. But equally you've got to have available to you potential players for the future. So the restrictions on the age are about giving the next generation chances to bat in the top four, to be opening bowlers or spin bowlers, to learn what it's all about. The less spots you have available, the less opportunities there are to develop, and to face the challenges they need.

I think a lot of the criticism comes from particularly players who are in the over-23 bracket. While it's understandable that they are going to have that view, it's very important there are people in the organisations and in CA who look at the big picture. We can't afford to have states focused on silverware at the domestic level. It's not about silverware; it's about development and silverware. If the focus is on winning competitions at that level, it's going to impact what happens at the top level. So we're trying to get a process in place that seamlessly takes people from youth programmes into our adult programmes, giving them the challenges they need, recognising the players have attributes that will be useful to Australia down the track, and as quickly as possible getting them to play for Australia.

First-class pitches have also been a recurring theme, and the CA playing conditions committee that meets at the end of May is sure to discuss the prevalence of "result wickets".
I'm on the committee, so I'll get a say when the time comes. We want a variety of wickets in Australia. I think the great strength of Australian cricket through its history is that each centre has had slightly different conditions and therefore players are more likely to be able to adapt to the variety of conditions that are available or encountered internationally. There is some criticism that a few states have tried to produce result wickets to help them win silverware. Now I certainly don't agree with that. What we want is the best cricket wicket available in each centre - hopefully wickets that challenge batsmen and bowlers alike, and help us produce players who are going to have a better chance of being successful at international level. If we're making cheap runs or taking cheap wickets it's not going to help Australian cricket in the long term.

Can the rise of Twenty20 as another source of money divert Australian cricket's focus?
Yes, it can. I think Twenty20 is good; the changes to the Big Bash League have the potential to be very positive for Australian cricket. Dealing with the challenges that it presents will be important at many levels - at a state level and at the national level. Being an employee of CA, and a member of the NSP, I have a focus on Australian cricket. There's no doubt that the money available with Big Bash leading into the Champions League means that the franchises, the states as owners of the franchises, have some focus in that area, which just means that all our other competitions and how they are run… the focus on those competitions is going to be even more important than in the past.

The Centre of Excellence in Brisbane is another target for critics for varying reasons. There appears to be quite a divergence of views as to what it is there for?
It's a constantly evolving thing and it's often difficult to satisfy every stakeholder. But I don't think there should be any argument on what our focus is. The strategic plan for CA is to be the No. 1 in all formats of the game. If that's our focus then doing what is best from the national point of view is important, and the Centre of Excellence is very much part of the pathway from youth cricket through domestic cricket to international cricket. The Centre of Excellence was moved from Adelaide to Brisbane because it is a winter project. It's an opportunity to have identified players from our youth programmes and our domestic first-class programmes get some further development in the off season.

I think half the time the sort of criticism I hear is that a lot of money goes into it and that money might be better spent in the states. If it was just about producing state players, maybe it would be, but you're looking to develop international players. From a CA point of view the Centre of Excellence is a very important part of that development process. I think there's a level of comfort around that that says it will continue. Can it get better? Can it do a better job? Probably. And we'll be aiming to do that.

Victorious Tasmania captain George Bailey and coach Tim Coyle hold the Sheffield Shield aloft, Tasmania v New South Wales, Sheffield Shield final, Hobart, March 21, 2011
"Hopefully [the state] wickets will produce the batsmen and the bowlers who have a better chance of being successful at international level. If we're making cheap runs or taking cheap wickets it's not going to help Australian cricket in the long term" © Getty Images

Australia's Under 19s recently played a series against West Indies in Dubai and lost. How do you view those talent stocks?
I think it's pretty healthy. Again there's a lot of discussion about what our youth programme should look like. I don't think we're far away from what we want. If you make youth cricket a destination, it's going to impact negatively on what you can produce at the international senior level. The U-19s programme isn't about winning games, it's about developing players. History tells us most of them won't become outstanding senior cricketers. That's just a fact. A lot of them will choose to do other things, but for the two or three or four or five, however many in each intake, who will choose cricket as a career and will be potential Australian cricketers, it is a fantastic opportunity.

Two or three of our best bowlers were unavailable for the series. The management of the tour made the decision to give everybody opportunities rather than to play the best team or try to win games, so the teams were changed around and opportunities were created. For instance, we won the toss, batted first and won the first one-day game. In the second one-day game, we probably had a better chance of winning the game batting first, but the management chose to bat second to experience the challenges of batting second under those conditions. It's always nice to win, but if you judge everything by wins and losses alone, you're likely to make a lot of mistakes.

Australia have tours of Sri Lanka and South Africa this year. The team haven't been subjected to back-to-back overseas Test tours since the fateful summer of 1969-70.
If you want to look at it in that light, it is, yes, but if you want to look at it as an opportunity for us to get better, I think it's a great opportunity. There will be different challenges on each tour; much like 1969-70, there will be very different conditions on the two parts of the tour, so it will be a challenge. The good news for this generation is they won't have to go back to back from one set of conditions to the other; the Champions League will intervene, so the opportunity will be there to pick specialist groups for the two tours.

In India Duncan Fletcher has been appointed national coach. Given your experiences over there how do you think he'll fare?
I think it's an interesting appointment. He's a very experienced coach. I think he'll bring a lot to the job. Coaching at that level is a challenge in any environment. We know how fanatical India is about the game of cricket, with the population and the media population, that brings with it different challenges. Duncan's been a proven coach and has experienced India from the other side, so he'll be as ready as anyone.

If he sees out his contract he'll likely have to manage some quite high-profile retirements, too.
Cricket teams are always in a state of flux. I don't think you've ever got a finished product - you're always dealing with the need to regenerate it at one level or another. Duncan's been through all that sort of stuff. He will be as experienced as anyone could be to handle that.

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: Daniel Brettig

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Copernicus on (May 14, 2011, 19:41 GMT)

@Truemans_Ghost: I just snorted laughter (and snot) onto my computer screen - I have no idea who that guy is but he does look a hell of a lot like Robin Williams! As for the article, it seems to me that the biggest problem in australian cricket at the moment is not replacing the retired champions, but the off-field management. "It's not about silverware"? Really, Greg - so the Sheffield Shield is nothing more than an elaborate net session? The very strength of the competition is (or perhaps was) that it TEACHES TEAMS TO WIN. The aggressive and result-orientated 1st-class matchplay is one of the main factors in ensuring a winning culture at the top level. And to start fiddling around with age limits will only damage long-term development - just look at the West Indies and England's handling of new faces to see where that leads (talented youngsters wasted by tossing them into Tests too early and then panicked chopping and changing as they flounder with undercooked techniques).

Posted by Dashgar on (May 14, 2011, 11:04 GMT)

Australia is in a stage of rebuilding but there is light at the end of the tunnel. I think right now guys like Butterworth, Marsh, Bailey, White, Copeland and Khawaja need to be given a run. They're the most consistent state players, either in or entering the prime of their careers. We've been far too lopsided with players either 32+ or 21- and need some mid to late 20s players in the side. Time for Katich to step aside, Hussey and Ponting will be next, as well as Haddin. Their era is all but over.

Posted by Biggus on (May 14, 2011, 4:07 GMT)

@Emancipator007-Not a bad XI, though if we go for a second spinner I'd prefer to give O'Keefe a run. Doherty bowls a bit flat for my liking-you'd think he'd be able to adjust but so far hasn't been able to. Flight is so important down under, especially in Adelaide and Perth. If you can't beat the batsman in flight there you'll get murdered. Harbhajan also tends to do himself no favours when he comes here with his flattish trajectory. Ideally I'd like to see Watson drop down the order but we'd need a replacement opener for that. Some say Hughes and if he's going to succeed anywhere it will be at home but his technique gives me the shudders. India must feel they have a good chance to win the series and after the recent Ashes I don't blame them. Will their bowlers have the bite? Will our bowlers have the bite? My prediction of a close Ashes series last year has me feeling I should consult a personable octopus. India to win I fear.

Posted by Meety on (May 14, 2011, 3:36 GMT)

@ balajik1968 - I do believe that the Big Bash sort of stuffs up the season. I understand the marketing of it though as it coincides with school holidays in January. In some ways I wish it was played in March - the only problem is that ground availability & football drown it, (possibly not a bad idea then!).

I think the Shield is fine as is, I think it will be poorer next year if Stuey Clark retires. There DOES need to be some tweaking of the Futures League. I think it should be open aged across ALL states & territories (6 + 2). I think the Futures League needs to be beefed up, it hardly rates a mention on the Oz domestic scene. I really don't care if there is an emphasis on youth in the Futures League as long as it technically remains open aged, what I would like to see is an emphasis on spin bowling in the competition. If the comp is tough enough we MAY be able to draw talent direct into the test side.

Posted by   on (May 14, 2011, 1:55 GMT)

Here is a free tip. Drop Hilfenhaus and replace with either Copeland or Pattinson.

Posted by rafe01 on (May 13, 2011, 22:30 GMT)

A "competition" focussed on giving young guys a chance rather than winning is not going to provide a competitive environment that will allow our best players to rise to the top and prepare them for test cricket.

Posted by Stark62 on (May 13, 2011, 22:28 GMT)

Cricket Australia is going down hill and fast!

Posted by balajik1968 on (May 13, 2011, 17:29 GMT)

It is an interesting stage in Aussie cricket. In the next couple of years, we will know where the Aussies are going. One thing I frequently read about in Cricinfo is that a lot of senior cricketers and coaches feel that the younger Aussie players lack both technique and temperament for building an innings. There are also some views about the Big Bash being bang in the middle of the Aussie cricket season. Maybe this is also something Cricket Australia should address. I don't know. It is the sort of perception one picks up by reading. Those who watch Aussie cricket are better equipped to comment.

Posted by azzaman333 on (May 13, 2011, 13:59 GMT)

Weakening our state teams in pursuit of youth is a flawed plan. All we need to change is the selection philosophy. The best 11 should be picked, taking into account form. Not giving Steve Smith opportunity after opportunity despite clearly not being up to standard. Not playing Marcus North when he can't make double figures. Not playing Michael Beer who wasnt even proven at state level.

And result pitches at state level are a good thing. There should be more result pitches in tests in this country. Batsmen have had it too good for too long.

Posted by unregisteredalien on (May 13, 2011, 13:47 GMT)

@arya, I know what you mean. I see a lot of slick answers bereft of much substance, and a lot of fence sitting but implicit defence of the status quo. The Aussie administration is sounding like a boys' club in denial, not unlike the cricket team up until Ponting stood down. I hope and pray that the wise heads undertaking the review will live up to their excellent reputations. [Postscript: I am really digging Daniel Brettig's feisty reporting, what a great addition to the cricinfo team.]

Posted by stormy16 on (May 13, 2011, 10:53 GMT)

Jumping at shadows here I am afraid. Aus traditionally didnt blood younger players, say 21 year olds, as their strategy was for the player to prove themselves in local cricket before being thrown in to tests. This is what cuased the test team to become 'older' in my opinion and of course they performed brilliantly. The blunt reality is Aus are in a dip as pointed out by Chappel and its going to be hard for guys of the calibure of Warne, Mcgrath and Gilly to be playing in the same era for the same team. No amount of planning and strategy will result in such a perfect storm.

Posted by Emancipator007 on (May 13, 2011, 10:43 GMT)

My Test XI against India the coming OZ summer: Katich, Watson, Khwaja, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Haddin, Johnson,Bollinger, Hauritz, Harris (still not convinced about his Test-class but has the pace to hustle strong Indian batting line-ups). Siddle, Doherty and left-field choices for the rest of the squad : Lee (seems reinvigorated and motivated enuf), Marsh. This squad should make for a riveting series with India . One last tip to Greg: Don't overcoach/advice Bollinger (like you did with Sehwag and I. Pathan). Bollinger is the next certifiable Test bowling giant for OZ, if he is given a long, run of 12-15 Tests (which undeserving Johnson at times got). Bollinger has cunning, craft, pace, bounce and lift and a bloody-minded desire to succeed (a la McGrath). Leave him alone.

Posted by Emancipator007 on (May 13, 2011, 10:41 GMT)

Test cricket again (such a tearaway raw, pace bowler is needed in Test cricket), I will consider him a GURU of a coach. This is a challenge I throw at him to prove his coaching/mentorship abilities. Otherwise, his reign will see OZ plumb to newer depths in Tests (ODI team is actually strong). Another problem is the Aussie "quick ouster" policy of very good players. Hogg was fit and skilled enuf to play 2 more seasons. Stuart Clark was better than Hilfenhaus but was ousted for no rhyme or reason. So was Gillespie who just needed a dose of confidence. Bloody-minded and desperate for a Test legacy Brad Hodge should have been drafted in for a long run the moment Martyn retired (so that obviously average North would never have got a shoo in). Also Hughes has been given enuf chances. Give Marsh that many and he will seal his place.

Posted by Emancipator007 on (May 13, 2011, 10:40 GMT)

Great Test batsman, let's get this out of the way. Yeah right! Typical mumbo-jumbo from one of the most eloquent speakers of the English language commenting on cricket. The problem is that being the thinker he is, he intellectualizes too much which was OK for his game. Only these things are never grasped by many of his wards across teams in any country he has coached in. Simply because he is a DISASTROUS man-manager who wants to IMPOSE himself at all times and never understood the fine-line between the all-powerful on-field captain and behind-the scenes operating coach (great egs. A. Flower and Kirsten though I daresay Flower is now imposing himself because of his powerful permanent position in English cricket). Sometimes, coaching is just about a few words, a mindset tweak, pointing out deficiencies occasionally. ONLY if Greg can get fragile-minded Shaun Tait (he does not really have any serious injury problems that caused Flintoff and Malinga to give up Test cricket) to play CONTD.

Posted by candyfloss on (May 13, 2011, 8:58 GMT)

@angry_nanny Very well said.Good players dont neccessarily mean good coaches or selectors.

Posted by Truemans_Ghost on (May 13, 2011, 8:58 GMT)

P.S, why is Robin Williams holding up the Sheffield Shield

Posted by Truemans_Ghost on (May 13, 2011, 8:56 GMT)

I think David_Boon makes an interesting point, slightly misunderstood by Charon. You will have a constant throughput of players with a "rolling" average age (I'd be intersted to see that graphed). Once it is settled, this average age doesn't actually depend on the turnover of players, so you are still getting young blood in, or even giving late bloomers a go. If you are maiontaining success over a long period of time with a certain average age, it is clealy working.

Posted by george204 on (May 13, 2011, 8:31 GMT)

Oh dear. Australia really are in a lot of trouble if they are relying on men who speak & think like this. Could he have crammed anymore management-trainee platitudes into this interview? "a lot of the criticism comes from particularly players who are in the over-23 bracket"? (so most of them - does he really see players over 23 as over the hill?), "It's not about silverware"? "The U-19s programme isn't about winning games"? So the aim of a game of cricket is not to pick the best available side & try to win? Now I see what all the Indian fans were unhappy about. Oh dear...

Posted by Winsome on (May 13, 2011, 8:26 GMT)

Sure you do need to develop youngsters, but I don't see how emasculating the Shield is going to help with that. The Futures has already tried to redress the balance so much so that it is basically an age comp.

Anyway, we'll wait and see what happens, but I'm dubious about too much concentration on youth considering the state of the techniques that were shown by the relative newcomers during the Ashes. Steve Smith's looks barely up to scratch at all.

Posted by angry_nanny on (May 13, 2011, 7:51 GMT)

How is weakening the domestic teams by playing a bunch of players who do not belong going to benefit Australian cricket? It will be a bunch of half strength teams playing eachother...basically a glorified U23 competition. How is a competition of crap v crap going to toughen anyone? Indians sledged us with "he ruined us, and now he is ruining you too" when Greg was our consultant during our worst result in India in over 25 years. Now it seems Greg is on a mission to ruin Australian cricket at all levels. Having a nice on-drive does not mean you know anything about cricket. Look at his resume as coach/selector/consultant...he has weakened every team he has ever been a part of as far as coaching/selection goes...and saying their success after he was booted is due to the structures he put in place is a load of crap...their success after he was booted is due to the fact he was no longer there ruining them with his incompetance.

Posted by CharonTFm on (May 13, 2011, 6:42 GMT)

David_Boon: one of the main issues with having a team of 31s is that when they retire you're left with an inexperienced lot. What they want is a mixture of talent in non key areas that help them develop, such as the No 5,6 batting postion, as well as a 3rd of 4th seamer/spinner. I think they should also use the England mentoring system where older players, take a few younger players under their arm and teach them.

Posted by David_Boon on (May 13, 2011, 5:11 GMT)

Why do 'match-winners' have to be young? This obsession with youth is the PROBLEM, not the solution. Just pick the best 11 players in the country, regardless of age - isn't that the idea of a national team? If the average age of the team is 31 forever, so what? Match performance is what matters, not how old someone is or how good they could potentially be in the future.

Posted by Biggus on (May 13, 2011, 4:05 GMT)

@arya_underfoot-Seems all quite sensible to me. I don't hear any alarm bells after reading this.

Posted by arya_underfoot on (May 13, 2011, 3:39 GMT)

is it just me or is there no substance at all to any of gc's responses? this is going to be a disaster for australia- gc, hilditch and nielsen in three of the most influential positions in australian cricket- the signs are not good i'm afraid...

Posted by katandthat3 on (May 13, 2011, 3:31 GMT)

Pretty good insight, just a little concerned that while we will be looking to replace our older players like Katich, Hussey, Haddin and Ponting over the next few years, don't necessarily think it has to come from a predominate youth outlook. While we have some outstanding young talent in Cummins, Maddinson, Hazelwood, Hughes, Smith, Harris (WA), Beaton, Burns, Maxwell etc there is still a heap of talent that has had a number of years in the first class system and had differing levels of exposure to international cricket that need to be ushered into the Aussie side in all formats. Voges, Bailey, Birt, Shaun Marsh, Klinger, Butterworth, MacDonald, Finch just to name a few would still have at least 6 years+ in them for international cricket. There will be outstanding youngsters that jump the que but we shouldn't be going silly just because they're young. Hence they should have a proper 2nd eleven comp, play more Australia A and make sure as Chappel suggested that the wickets hold unique.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Daniel BrettigClose
Daniel Brettig Assistant editor Daniel Brettig had been a journalist for eight years when he joined ESPNcricinfo, but his fascination with cricket dates back to the early 1990s, when his dad helped him sneak into the family lounge room to watch the end of day-night World Series matches well past bedtime. Unapologetically passionate about indie music and the South Australian Redbacks, Daniel's chief cricketing achievement was to dismiss Wisden Almanack editor Lawrence Booth in the 2010 Ashes press match in Perth - a rare Australian victory that summer.

    A year of triumph and disaster

Martin Crowe: Misbah, McCullum, and the ICC's efforts against chucking were the positive highlights in a year that ended with the tragedy of Phillip Hughes' death

    Two fortresses called Brisbane and Centurion

Numbers Game: Australia haven't lost at the Gabba since 1988, while South Africa have a 14-2 record in Centurion

Zimbabwe's decade of hurt

The Cricket Monthly: Ten years ago 15 white Zimbabwean cricketers went on strike. The game has not been the same since
Download the app: for iPads | for Android tablets

    'Lara v McGrath was a great battle of our generation'

Dravid and Manjrekar discuss Brian Lara's adaptability

Would Brearley have picked Cook as captain?

Nicholas Hogg: Cook lacks certain qualities the ex-England captain listed as those fitting of an ideal leader, in particular, charisma

News | Features Last 7 days

The perfect Test

After the tragedy of Phillip Hughes' death, this match showed that cricket and life will continue to go on. This time Test cricket dug in and got through to tea.

Kohli attains batting nirvana

Virat Kohli's innings on the final day transcended the conditions, the bowlers and his batting partners, and when it was all in vain, he displayed remarkable grace in defeat

Australia in good hands under proactive Smith

The new stand-in captain has the makings of a long-term leader, given his ability to stay ahead of the game

What ails Rohit and Watson?

Both batsmen seemingly have buckets of talent at their disposal and the backing of their captains, but soft dismissals relentlessly follow both around the Test arena

Karn struggles to stay afloat

The failed gamble of handing Karn Sharma a Test debut despite him having a moderate first-class record means India have to rethink who their spinner will be

News | Features Last 7 days

    BCCI's argument against DRS not 100% (164)

    Turning your back on a system that the whole cricketing world wants a discussion on, refusing to discuss it because it is not 100%, is not good enough

    Karn struggles to stay afloat (114)

    The failed gamble of handing Karn Sharma a Test debut despite him having a moderate first-class record means India have to rethink who their spinner will be

    Kohli attains batting nirvana (110)

    Virat Kohli's innings on the final day transcended the conditions, the bowlers and his batting partners, and when it was all in vain, he displayed remarkable grace in defeat

    When defeat isn't depressing (57)

    After a long time we have seen an Indian team and captain enjoy the challenge of trying to overcome stronger opposition in an overseas Test

    What ails Rohit and Watson? (50)

    Both batsmen seemingly have buckets of talent at their disposal and the backing of their captains, but soft dismissals relentlessly follow both around the Test arena