August 29, 2012

South Africa's bookends rank them up with the best

They aren't just a decent side who managed to make it to No. 1

Suddenly Test cricket doesn't look so doomed. Anyone who was lucky enough to be at Lord's last week as it hosted one of the great Test matches of modern times will understand the simple formula for reviving five-day cricket.

First, play on a wicket that rewards both good bowling and good batting and takes some spin later in the game. Secondly, the match should have something tangible riding on the result - in this case, both the destiny of the series and bragging rights as the world's best team. Third, you need two very good sets of players.

Simple stuff, but it certainly works. The whole match was played at high-pitched intensity. Wickets and runs had to be earned: there were few easy four-balls, no freebie wickets, and no spells in which the match meandered aimlessly. Over the course of five days, the collective willpower of two teams vied for dominance. It's hard to think of a better definition of Test cricket at its best.

The glorious last day, on which England threw their last reserves of conviction and skill at a task always likely to prove just beyond them, was a fitting ending to an exemplary match and a pulsating series. It ended, of course, with the ICC mace passing from Andrew Strauss to Graeme Smith.

There can be no doubt that South Africa deserved to beat England. They held the edge in every department, particularly the most important one: the bowling.

And yet some critics have questioned whether any country deserves to be judged as truly the outstanding team in contemporary Test cricket. After all, the mantle "world's best team" has moved around freely, even promiscuously, in recent years. India's spell at the top was ended by England in 2011, as England's has been by South Africa now. How different from two great, static dynasties that once ruled cricket - the West Indians from 1976-1995, and the Australians from 1995-2009.

It is wrong, however, to leap to the conclusion that South Africa are merely a decent team that reached the summit by default. They deserve to be judged as a very, very good team that may yet go on to be even better than that. True, they lack an outstanding spinner. But very few teams are lucky enough to have 15 years of Shane Warne.

But leave to one side the absence of a match-winning legspinner or mystery offspinner. The rest of the South African line-up has very few weaknesses. England are a fine side, too. But if you write the two XIs next to each other on a piece of paper, how many England players would you certainly pick over their opposite number in the South African team?

Before the series started, you would have picked Alastair Cook over Alviro Petersen as one of the openers. Kevin Pietersen would definitely have dislodged Jacques Rudolph as a specialist middle-order batsman. Graeme Swann would certainly get the nod over Imran Tahir. A case could certainly be made for picking Matt Prior's all-round game as wicketkeeper-batsman - leaving out JP Duminy at No. 7, but leaving in AB de Villiers as a pure batsman (with an average of 48).

So what, ask the critics? How good are the England team of 2012? OK, let's line up this South African team against the England team of 2005 that beat the otherwise all-conquering Australians. Again, only a few England players would be automatic selections. Marcus Trescothick, Andrew Flintoff and Pietersen would play. Maybe Simon Jones for his reverse swing. Statistically, Ashley Giles had a better all-round record than Tahir. But the 2012 South Africans would probably still contribute the majority of the team, even when they compared to the winning team from arguably the best series of the modern era.

Having spent a good portion of my early career getting lbw to inswingers from left-arm seamers, I was able to imagine what a left-hand batsman fears when he faces up to a right-arm bowler: lots of balls swinging in from over the wicket, with the others just going straight on, perhaps simply by accident

So let's get the South African team in perspective and judge them fairly. Having a superlative allrounder (Jacques Kallis) provides them with the luxury of balancing the side. Possessing a second allrounder (de Villiers) allows them to bat exceptionally deep. Above all, they have the essential "bookends" that distinguish the best sides: a run-laden top order and a battery of strike bowlers. With the single exception of lacking a match-winning spinner, this South African side is up there with the best.


I cannot resist returning to a dressing-room debate, now eight years old, that I remember vividly from my playing days at Kent. It took place at Bristol, where we were playing Gloucestershire. The debate was about how to bowl at left-handers. One group of Kent senior players - the majority, in fact - suggested that our seamers "push it across them". The tactic was to angle the ball across left-handers in the hope of eliciting an edge to the slips. The other group of players - a minority that included me - argued that most left-handers found it much harder when the ball swung back in towards them - assuming, of course, that the bowlers were capable of doing it (which some of our bowlers definitely could). Eventually, I was argued down and "push it across lefties" hardened into received wisdom.

My logic was simple and I feel more confident than ever having just watched England v South Africa. Though I've never batted left-handed, I've certainly batted right-handed plenty of times against left-arm seamers. And I know what really worried me about left-armers: the ability to swing the ball back in. This is doubly dangerous. First, the ball that does swing in opens up the possibility of bowled and lbw. Second, the ball that doesn't swing in - just a plain, garden-variety, dead straight ball that doesn't swing an inch - is magically converted into something that could easily catch the outside edge.

Having spent a good portion of my early career getting lbw to inswingers from left-arm seamers, I was able to imagine all too easily what a left-hand batsman really fears when he faces up to a right-arm bowler. The exact mirror image of what I dreaded as a right-hander: lots of balls swinging in from over the wicket, with the others just going straight on, perhaps simply by accident.

Don't believe me? Just ask Cook or Vernon Philander. Cook's dismissal against Philander in the second innings at Lord's was the perfect ball to a left-hander. It set off wide of off stump, drawing Cook's front leg across, before swinging in sharply and thudding into his knee-roll. Philander bowled superbly to left-handers all series because he has the priceless ability to swing the ball in to them, just as he swings the ball away from right-handers. It is exactly the same ball, but simply marginally differently directed.

Accepting his Man-of-the-Match award, Philander was asked by Mike Atherton if he enjoyed bowling at left-handers. Philander thought for a moment before uttering his considered judgment. "Oh yeah!" he said, as though there was nothing more to add and a cold beer was beckoning him.

Spot on, Vern. And surely the definitive answer to that old dressing-room argument. Well bowled.

Former England, Kent and Middlesex batsman Ed Smith's new book, Luck - What It Means and Why It Matters, is out now. His Twitter feed is here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Dummy4 on August 31, 2012, 8:59 GMT

    @ BillyCC, The very reason that even by playing minnows a team can't sustain not loosing is itself a credit to the "DD" club. We can go on about beating minnows or loosing marginally or loosing because the players had injuries and so on, however the facts can't be changed. The only teams that are in the "DD" club are "THE INVINCIBLES" and "WI' of 80's". They are great teams and perhaps we can add the Aus of 50's and 60's that feature Bob Simpson, Richie Benaud and Bill O'Reilly as another great team. All other teams are in another league. They may last 3, 4, 5 or even 6 years, but not beyond that.

  • Billy on August 31, 2012, 7:35 GMT

    @Madura Perera, why does dominance have to mean "unbeatable"? A team could play a couple of Test matches every year for the next ten years against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, remain undefeated and under your definition, experience a decade of dominance. There are so many other factors involved. So much so, that at the end of it all, there are really only three sides in the history of cricket that are thrown into the debate of who was the most dominant team: the Windies, and Australia in the 90s and 00s and to a lesser extent the Invincibles.

  • Dummy4 on August 31, 2012, 5:32 GMT

    @ BillyCC. The Decade of Dominance (remain unbeatable) is a hard concept to comprehend. To claim a Decade of Dominance (DD) or joint the "DD" club a team must have 10 or more years between their win and the next consequence loss. "THE INVINCIBLES" and the "WI of 80's" have done this. Are you suggesting the Australian team of early 2000 are better than "THE INVINCIBLES". That is a preposterous claim. Without doubt "THE INVINCIBLES" are THE GREATEST EVER CRICKET TEAM. Even the Australian side that featured Bob Simpson between 1956 and 1966 are a far better side. They had a run of 9 years and unfortunately missed the entry to "DD" club by just one year. May be we need to watch old film clips to appreciate these historical teams.

  • michael on August 31, 2012, 1:59 GMT

    andrew-schulz. The same Australian side that thrashed WI in 75/76 was thumped 3-1 by a Botham/Boycott inspired England in 1977. The previous year Eng were hammered by WI so you can safely say that around 76-77 the West Indies were the pre-eminent side in world cricket up until Australia went to the caribbean in 95 and won.

  • michael on August 31, 2012, 1:50 GMT

    I think out of the 4 teams that will contest no.1 in the next few years, England have more strength in depth than those around them. While we don't have an embaressment of riches in the batting dept, we still have some good young players and two that were blooded this summer (Taylor & Bairstow) both aquitted themselves pretty well. India and Australia are both finding it hard to identify new talent in the batting dept, while SA are plugging away with the likes of Rudolph and Duminy who both seem average. Aus have some good young quicks in Patterson, Cummins and Starc but no spinners of any note. India have the perennial problem of finding fast bowling talent and now spin too. SA will lose Kallis soon and therefore their whole balance and haven't solved the problem of finding a frontline attacking spinner. Eng have pace bowlers in abundance and a couple of genuine all rounders on top of a clutch of talented young spinners. The next 2 years will be interesting.

  • amit on August 31, 2012, 1:10 GMT

    It should be fun- when India took the No.1 ranking , Aus supporters were on India's back.When England took over , Aus AND Ind supporters were on England's back. Now south africa has to deal with Aus,Ind , and Eng fans. IMO, they are just going to better their record at helm by a very short margin. I can relate with Ed Smith though, few months ago Eng was going to be the best team ever, now they had been beaten by SA, it should be SA. Thank god you don't work in share market.

  • Billy on August 31, 2012, 0:51 GMT

    @Madura Perera, you must be kidding trying to say that the key measure is not losing a test series. Drawing a series is also significant. The great sides dominate. The good sides win a few series and draw a few. South Africa are currently a good side and they've drawn too many series in the past three years. Otherwise, they would have reached number one a year ago. India were also in that same boat. Dhoni did not lose a series as captain until England thrashed them and that spanned more than 3 years.

  • Dummy4 on August 30, 2012, 22:05 GMT

    @ Meety

    South Africa has not lost a test series since Jan 2010 that gives them close to 3 years, hope they can continue this for at least another 7 years to reach that elusive 2 digit number of 10 or more.

  • Dummy4 on August 30, 2012, 20:12 GMT

    It's perhaps for the umpteenth time over the past few years that a cricket analyst/pundit/commentator has had this to say about the state of Test cricket: "Suddenly Test cricket doesn't look so doomed." Seriously, don't you guys grow tired of all this! And what's with this rush to proclaim newly number one-ranked sides as one of the best ever.

  • Simon on August 30, 2012, 11:50 GMT

    South Africa, on paper, are the best side in the world. They have one terrific opener, one who looks good, a splendid middle order and a terrifyingly quick bowling attack. Their only problem is a spinner, though I recall Harris fulfilled that job very well for a number of years and is certainly better than Tahir. However, they do have a problem with winning series. They nearly threw away the series against England in the final test, had England taken their catches it would have been a drawn series for sure. They were unable to beat Aus at home last year, and unable to beat an Indian team very similar to the one thrashed by both England and Australia on their home turf. This seems to be their problem. They need to win more series.

  • No featured comments at the moment.