South Africa v Australia, 2nd Test, Port Elizabeth, 4th day February 23, 2014

Nine batsmen, 22 runs

Stats highlights from an outstanding day of Test cricket, when South Africa demolished Australia to level the series
35

  • South Africa's 231-run win is their second-largest victory margin (in terms of runs) against Australia since their readmission to international cricket. The only bigger win was in Perth in 2012, when they won by 309 runs. Overall, it's their fifth-largest victory against Australia.

  • Out of 19 Tests between South Africa and Australia in South Africa since 1992, only one has been drawn. The last 16 Tests here have all produced decisive results.

  • The passage of play that turned the game around was the outstanding spell of fast bowling immediately after tea when Australia slipped from 141 for 1 to 166 for 6. After a fantastic opening partnership, Australia's Nos. 3-7 scored a total of 7 runs: Alex Doolan made 5, Michael Clarke and Brad Haddin a run each, while Shaun Marsh and Steven Smith were dismissed for first-ball ducks. It's the second-lowest aggregate for the No. 3-7 batsmen from any team in a Test. The lowest was also by Australia against South Africa, in Cape Town in 2011, when they made 5; Clarke and Haddin were the two from the current line-up who were also in that middle order - Clarke made 2 and Haddin 0. (Mitchell Johnson batted at No. 7 in that game, but came in at No. 8 here.) The top three lowest ones are all by Australia - they had also made 7 against England in 1902.

  • The nine batsmen following the openers scored a total of 22, the second-lowest for Australia in a Test innings, following the 13 they scored against England at Edgbaston in 1902. On that occasion, the highest score by one of those nine batsmen was 5; here, it was 6, by Mitchell Johnson and Ryan Harris.

  • The difference in the South African attack was largely the amount of reverse-swing Dale Steyn obtained with the older ball, and it showed in the problems he caused Australia's batsmen. Till the 37th over of the Australia innings, the batsmen had a control factor of 84% against Steyn. After tea, the control factor dropped to 66%.

  • Doolan and Marsh, the heroes of Centurion, flopped in both innings at St George's Park, scoring a total of 13 runs in fours innings between them. In Australia's Test history, only four times has their Nos. 3 and 4 scored fewer runs over four innings in a Test - the last time they made fewer than 13 was more than 100 years ago, in 1902, when they managed 12. In 1899 at Headingley, Monty Noble and Syd Gregory, Australia's Nos. 3 and 4, both bagged pairs, the only such instance in Australia's Test history.

  • Australia's spectacular collapse after their superb opening stand was reminiscent of Chester-le-Street in 2013, in the fourth Test of the Ashes. Then, chasing a fourth-innings target of 299, Australia got off to a fine start too, with Chris Rogers and David Warner adding 109, before the middle order crumbled (though not as dramatically as they did here). No other batsman touched 25, and Australia were bowled out for 224. Overall, there have been only 11 instances of Australian openers putting together 100 or more in the fourth innings of a Test, and Warner-Rogers is the only pair to achieve this feat twice. The 126 they added is also the first instance of an opening-wicket century stand in the fourth innings of a Test in Port Elizabeth.

  • Amid all the wickets going down at the other end, Rogers held firm and scored a courageous and resilient 107. It was the 15th instance of an Australian opener scoring a fourth-innings century, and a second one for him: he'd made 116 against England in Melbourne last year, helping Australia chase down a target of 231 quite easily. Rogers is one of only three Australian opener to achieve this feat twice: Mark Taylor and Arthur Morris are the other two.

  • Warner had another good Test, scoring 66 in the second innings to follow on the 70 in the first, thus also continuing his superb run in the second innings of Tests. In his last ten Tests, Warner averages only 25.90 in the first innings, with two 50s, and a highest of 70; in the second innings, his average shoots up to 73.88, with three centuries and three fifties in ten innings.

  • If Warner had a good Test, Marsh certainly didn't. He followed up his first Test scores of 148 and 44 with a pair in the second, which means he has scored six ducks in 15 innings. He has also been out for 3 twice, while the remaining seven innings have fetched 487 runs.

  • Apart from Steyn, the one South African player whose return to form would have pleased them was Hashim Amla: after scoring 105 runs in seven innings since his previous hundred - including a duck in the first innings here - Amla scored an unbeaten 127. It's the 18th instance of a South African batsman scoring a duck and a century in the same Test; the last such instance was also in a Test against Australia, in Adelaide in 2012, when Graeme Smith scored 122 and 0 in the Test made famous by Faf du Plessis' stubborn fourth-innings 110 not out on debut.

S Rajesh is stats editor of ESPNcricinfo. Follow him on Twitter

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Green_and_Gold on February 25, 2014, 11:54 GMT

    The Aussies will bounce back - there are century makes all the way though the top order - the talent is there. It was also a brilliant bowling effort by the Saffas esp Steyn - i dont want to take away from that. The Saffas also have the advantage of having 7 top order batman (thanks largely to AB taking the gloves and JP being able to spin). That is one of the strongest batting line ups ive seen in a long time. Not many teams are in a position to boast that. We will need Mitch to fire and be better supported by the other bowlers too. Clarke - get back to #4.

  • on February 25, 2014, 2:26 GMT

    13 is the worst combined effort for numbers 3-11 for Aust in tests. Is this the worst for all countries? Or does another team have an even more ignominious performance?

  • dabbadubba on February 24, 2014, 19:51 GMT

    Aussies should have invited Ind after ashes to enhance their rankings.. going to SA was a wrong choice..they have been brought crashing down

  • Vaughanographic on February 24, 2014, 15:14 GMT

    What is a control factor?

  • on February 24, 2014, 12:01 GMT

    Somehow it was for me too good to be true 9 wickets for 90!. Not saying it was staged,but everyone wants a decider and no one wants to bat hopelessly on the 5th day.

  • on February 24, 2014, 11:03 GMT

    Congrats to the Proteas, that bowling attack was fantastic and the batting showed resilience. I'm proud of them with Steyn was great and is the greatest. However Philander too important wickets which needs to acknowledged. He is Quality.. Great team effort.

  • on February 24, 2014, 9:48 GMT

    come on cricinfo, dont bring in embarrassing stats to make oz look more pathetic.losing a test match is ok but when 9 batsmen crashes within a span of just 22 runs then definitely having confidence would be tougher.

  • cricketsubh on February 24, 2014, 8:37 GMT

    i think aus need sme depending batsmen who the test can have the trust i do not think players like marsh,doolan,watson u can depend for consistency i think jo burns and madinson should pick aheaded of marsh and doolan

  • on February 24, 2014, 7:50 GMT

    Batsmen 3-11 scoring 22 is a decent headline, but batsmen 3-7 scoring 7 is more shocking. Also the second lowest in tests by any team, equalling the 1902 game. However, not as poor as Australia 3 years ago against (who else) Sth Africa again, when batsmen 3-7 scored a total of 5 runs.

    http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmax1=7;batting_positionmin1=3;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=innings;orderby=runs;orderbyad=reverse;outs=1;qualmin1=5;qualval1=outs;template=results;type=batting

  • marcs on February 24, 2014, 7:41 GMT

    Last time after the centurion defeat, I wrote that the world is still struggling to find a #1 team. But the proteas have proved me wrong, at least for now. However, I suspect that the fans are bit too harsh on the aussie team. They have just come together as unit and have been performing well this summer. This should be treated as a one off occurrence, that too owing to some high quality bowling by a world class team. Constant changes to the team in the face of failure would only demotivate players and put them under constant pressure. I hope that some prudent call will be made by the selectors and captain for the final test, which I hope would be a humdinger.

  • Green_and_Gold on February 25, 2014, 11:54 GMT

    The Aussies will bounce back - there are century makes all the way though the top order - the talent is there. It was also a brilliant bowling effort by the Saffas esp Steyn - i dont want to take away from that. The Saffas also have the advantage of having 7 top order batman (thanks largely to AB taking the gloves and JP being able to spin). That is one of the strongest batting line ups ive seen in a long time. Not many teams are in a position to boast that. We will need Mitch to fire and be better supported by the other bowlers too. Clarke - get back to #4.

  • on February 25, 2014, 2:26 GMT

    13 is the worst combined effort for numbers 3-11 for Aust in tests. Is this the worst for all countries? Or does another team have an even more ignominious performance?

  • dabbadubba on February 24, 2014, 19:51 GMT

    Aussies should have invited Ind after ashes to enhance their rankings.. going to SA was a wrong choice..they have been brought crashing down

  • Vaughanographic on February 24, 2014, 15:14 GMT

    What is a control factor?

  • on February 24, 2014, 12:01 GMT

    Somehow it was for me too good to be true 9 wickets for 90!. Not saying it was staged,but everyone wants a decider and no one wants to bat hopelessly on the 5th day.

  • on February 24, 2014, 11:03 GMT

    Congrats to the Proteas, that bowling attack was fantastic and the batting showed resilience. I'm proud of them with Steyn was great and is the greatest. However Philander too important wickets which needs to acknowledged. He is Quality.. Great team effort.

  • on February 24, 2014, 9:48 GMT

    come on cricinfo, dont bring in embarrassing stats to make oz look more pathetic.losing a test match is ok but when 9 batsmen crashes within a span of just 22 runs then definitely having confidence would be tougher.

  • cricketsubh on February 24, 2014, 8:37 GMT

    i think aus need sme depending batsmen who the test can have the trust i do not think players like marsh,doolan,watson u can depend for consistency i think jo burns and madinson should pick aheaded of marsh and doolan

  • on February 24, 2014, 7:50 GMT

    Batsmen 3-11 scoring 22 is a decent headline, but batsmen 3-7 scoring 7 is more shocking. Also the second lowest in tests by any team, equalling the 1902 game. However, not as poor as Australia 3 years ago against (who else) Sth Africa again, when batsmen 3-7 scored a total of 5 runs.

    http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmax1=7;batting_positionmin1=3;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=innings;orderby=runs;orderbyad=reverse;outs=1;qualmin1=5;qualval1=outs;template=results;type=batting

  • marcs on February 24, 2014, 7:41 GMT

    Last time after the centurion defeat, I wrote that the world is still struggling to find a #1 team. But the proteas have proved me wrong, at least for now. However, I suspect that the fans are bit too harsh on the aussie team. They have just come together as unit and have been performing well this summer. This should be treated as a one off occurrence, that too owing to some high quality bowling by a world class team. Constant changes to the team in the face of failure would only demotivate players and put them under constant pressure. I hope that some prudent call will be made by the selectors and captain for the final test, which I hope would be a humdinger.

  • on February 24, 2014, 7:13 GMT

    @ Barnsey ..... that's a great option ..... because Hughes and Watson have never been a part of a batting collapse!!!

  • manisrinath on February 24, 2014, 6:59 GMT

    Is the reporter mssing the data that its only no. 3 for australia who has scored the 13 runs as marsh got a pair in both innings lasting just 3 balls.

  • Sir_Francis on February 24, 2014, 6:50 GMT

    Marsh's stats remind me of North. I'd rather they played North.

    I wish the selectors would identify the best batsman and stick with them for at least a year.

    I'm so tired of hearing how good the techniques are of Doolan and Marsh and how bad Hughes' technique is. Hughes is the only who scores runs consistently. So Doolan got a big ton for Australia A abgainst the touring poms. Hughes scored two tons in his 2nd test against Steyn, Morkel, Ntini & Kallis (and 75 in his first tests).

    Between them Marsh & Doolan have played 142 FC games with just 15 centuries.

    Hughes has played (already!) 106 FC games with 24 tons. And he's a fair bit younger than the other two.

    Stuff his technique. He can play. Pick him and stick with him.

  • on February 24, 2014, 6:34 GMT

    It was not all bad news for Australia. There was improvement on the 2011 test match for the number of runs for batsmen 3 to 7. The 13 runs for the match for batsmen 3 and 4 is again more than they have scored in previous three occasions. The total score of 22 for the 9 batsmen following the opening pair is an improvement on the 13 Australia scored against England in 1902.

    As one can see its not all gloom and doom for Australia. There are lot of positives to take from the game.

  • on February 24, 2014, 6:20 GMT

    @ gkautish, but Johnson got a mention here despite batting at 10 so marsh also deserves a mention at least since he is recognized batsman. Anyway a trivial issue. Aus batsmen must be watching proteas bowlers in their nightmares now

  • on February 24, 2014, 6:17 GMT

    "I cant see how South Africa can come back from this". What does the smug Mr Ian Chappell say now.

  • on February 24, 2014, 4:44 GMT

    These two teams should play 5 match series instead of 3. Really good cricket from both these teams. Waiting to see the 3rd match of this series.

  • on February 24, 2014, 4:19 GMT

    It was an astonishing comeback by the Africans. With the aggressive Morkel, eerily accurate Philander and all guns blazing Steyn, the Australian order collapsed even more dramatically than a pack of cards. Only Warner and Rogers added some life to the final total which looks like 216. Otherwise, it would have been another 47 all-out case! The wrecker-in-chief Mr. Steyn produced four magical balls to spark a tremendous collapse and eventually it was up to the part timer Dean Elgar to formally help the Aussies to get rid of their excruciating pain. With the series tied 1-1, the final Test would be an absolute thriller!

  • Jagger on February 24, 2014, 3:02 GMT

    Why is a debutant debuting at first drop? It should never happen. All debutants should debut at 6, not 3.

    So who have they got to turn to? Watson. God help us.

  • on February 24, 2014, 1:21 GMT

    @AUS fans - Actually a lot of your AUS fans (and this neutral kiwi one.... look forward to giving it to you in the world cup fyi) were in here during the first innings of this test. You know, when the Aussies were commenting beneath the other articles? You know, saying, SA were going too slow and were about to be thrashed. You know? When literally HALF or more of the printed AUS fans' comments declared it a draw and belittled Smith's captaincy? Because it was the same day, as was the day after (when the Aussies repeated the same views), that I and other neutrals and SA fans TRIED to explain to you how TEST cricket works. How you bat once well, get a lead and declare and then bowl the other team out. Denial, more denial and delusions of grandeur riddled every comment EVEN when 448 was set you thought you would win!! I and others said all along the opposite. You were thrashed... and I mean THRASHED - by 200+ runs with over a full day and 90 overs to spare. Better luck next time.

  • on February 23, 2014, 23:26 GMT

    Yes indeed Beertje, what ABdV is to the Saffers Clarke is to Australia. I'm a Pom, I love Test cricket & I can't wait for the 3rd Test.

  • hmmmmm... on February 23, 2014, 23:14 GMT

    These collapses are huge issue for this team - if you look at the batting you really have to wonder how 'test level' batters can go from 141/1 to what happened next. you can't be saved everytime by the tail especially when someone bowls like steyn and morkel did here in each innings.

    Marsh is living up to his one knock wonder status, doolan might turn out ok but he is not ready to play at 3 and seems to struggle against spin (I hate to say it but having watson there, he may get out for a frustatring 30 but at least keeps the momentum going and he can murder tweakers like duminy and elgar). Clarke's form (or lack there of) is a worry. His dismissals show impatience and sum up the overall problem - it's all well and good to dominate but a 4+ run rate means nothing if you are losing wickets!

    Apart from that we looked a bowler short without a batting all-rounder. Next test : warner, rogers, watson, hughes/doolan, clarke, smith, haddin, johnson, siddle/bird, pattinson, lyon.

  • Barnesy4444 on February 23, 2014, 22:28 GMT

    Doolan and Marsh out. Hughes 3 and Watson 6 whether he can bowl or not. These batting collapses are getting a bit ridiculous, especially when there is a bloke averaging 60 the last 12 months who can't even get a game.

  • ShutTheGate on February 23, 2014, 22:21 GMT

    @ Rally_Windies - your team comment is ridiculously biased. The Aussie win @ centurion was as much a team effort (3 batsmen made centuries) as the SA win here.

    MJ was the difference in the ashes but not the sole reason why we won the ashes. Harris and Siddle took many of the important top order wickets last ashes and our batsmen out scored the English.

    The reason why we failed here is because we didn't perform as a team. Harris wasn't effective and Batsmen 3 - 7 didn't contribute. (with the exception of Smith's 49).

    This is what happens when we rely on one player, the last 6 wins were a team effort.

  • Beertjie on February 23, 2014, 20:29 GMT

    Disappointing performance by Oz, but they will rebound with a few tweaks. Harris must make way for Pattinson since he's struggling for rhythm. Watson will add his impressive swing bowling and control to the attack, so Mitch won't have to carry the attack. Lyon will enjoy the breeze from the Kelvin Grove end and his dip will be effective. All of this is fact not clutching at straws (lol). However, to win Clarke needs to make a big score. Keeping the SAF attack at bay will depend on him providing the backbone to the middle order. He's too good not to turn it around, just as Amla just did. Should be a cracking game, as everyone is predicting.

  • on February 23, 2014, 20:26 GMT

    It was interesting to see how little Clarke bowled Johnson in this match. I think they know how fragile his confidence is and if he was taken to the cleaners a couple of times he could go back to square one. They didn't pick him for India or the Ashes in England because of the chance that he performed badly, get barracked & called it a day. I wonder if they are only going to pick him for home series? The admirable Harris struggled as well, he has done superbly but needs a rest to prolong his Test career, although at 34 it will be limited. The indefatigable Siddle might find himself shouldering a heavy burden again sooner rather than later.

  • Qdzy on February 23, 2014, 20:18 GMT

    @Rally_Windies : spot-on, it's plain to see, the reason for Australia's recent success over England is Mitch Johnson, and so if any team can negate him as the Proteas did in this Test, they can beat the Aussies quite comfortably

  • Biohazard7279 on February 23, 2014, 20:16 GMT

    @cannonballsimp, I'm not sure what it means either, but I think it is the percentage of successful shots, i.e. balls not edged or misshit. If my guess is correct, that means that after the 37th over they edged or missed (not left) the ball 1 out of 3 times

  • gkautish on February 23, 2014, 20:11 GMT

    @usman sharif .. marsh batted at no.10 in 2nd innings wen they got out for 47 , so he didnt bat in the middle order

  • Rally_Windies on February 23, 2014, 19:35 GMT

    To all OZ fans,

    One man does not make a team ,

    MJ cannot carry you to # 1, any quicker than Lara carried WI to # 1 ...

    Sure a once (or twice) in a lifetime performance will help you beat the world # 1 team...

    But lets look at the contributions from the SA team...

    yes the TEAM ...

    not one 5 wicket haul from any of their bowlers ..

    There is no over reliance on any one player ...

  • dillyk on February 23, 2014, 19:26 GMT

    But the oz fans & media kept telling us aus was on an unstoppable march towards no1.

  • on February 23, 2014, 19:24 GMT

    Correction... Marsh also played besides Clarke and haddin in both collapses that are mentioned here

  • on February 23, 2014, 19:16 GMT

    This is the stuff champion teams are made of, and here I am speaking of both Australia and South Africa...truly a contest of 2 very very capable team...would love to see a 7 match series out of which 2 each played in the respective countries and 3 at neutral venue..what a treat that would be....really good cricket over the last two tests

  • FighterKallis on February 23, 2014, 19:14 GMT

    Did Australia choke ? oh no

  • cannonballsimp on February 23, 2014, 19:12 GMT

    "Till the 37th over of the Australia innings, the batsmen had a control factor of 84% against Steyn. After tea, the control factor dropped to 66%." Can anyone explain how this percentage is calculated?

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • cannonballsimp on February 23, 2014, 19:12 GMT

    "Till the 37th over of the Australia innings, the batsmen had a control factor of 84% against Steyn. After tea, the control factor dropped to 66%." Can anyone explain how this percentage is calculated?

  • FighterKallis on February 23, 2014, 19:14 GMT

    Did Australia choke ? oh no

  • on February 23, 2014, 19:16 GMT

    This is the stuff champion teams are made of, and here I am speaking of both Australia and South Africa...truly a contest of 2 very very capable team...would love to see a 7 match series out of which 2 each played in the respective countries and 3 at neutral venue..what a treat that would be....really good cricket over the last two tests

  • on February 23, 2014, 19:24 GMT

    Correction... Marsh also played besides Clarke and haddin in both collapses that are mentioned here

  • dillyk on February 23, 2014, 19:26 GMT

    But the oz fans & media kept telling us aus was on an unstoppable march towards no1.

  • Rally_Windies on February 23, 2014, 19:35 GMT

    To all OZ fans,

    One man does not make a team ,

    MJ cannot carry you to # 1, any quicker than Lara carried WI to # 1 ...

    Sure a once (or twice) in a lifetime performance will help you beat the world # 1 team...

    But lets look at the contributions from the SA team...

    yes the TEAM ...

    not one 5 wicket haul from any of their bowlers ..

    There is no over reliance on any one player ...

  • gkautish on February 23, 2014, 20:11 GMT

    @usman sharif .. marsh batted at no.10 in 2nd innings wen they got out for 47 , so he didnt bat in the middle order

  • Biohazard7279 on February 23, 2014, 20:16 GMT

    @cannonballsimp, I'm not sure what it means either, but I think it is the percentage of successful shots, i.e. balls not edged or misshit. If my guess is correct, that means that after the 37th over they edged or missed (not left) the ball 1 out of 3 times

  • Qdzy on February 23, 2014, 20:18 GMT

    @Rally_Windies : spot-on, it's plain to see, the reason for Australia's recent success over England is Mitch Johnson, and so if any team can negate him as the Proteas did in this Test, they can beat the Aussies quite comfortably

  • on February 23, 2014, 20:26 GMT

    It was interesting to see how little Clarke bowled Johnson in this match. I think they know how fragile his confidence is and if he was taken to the cleaners a couple of times he could go back to square one. They didn't pick him for India or the Ashes in England because of the chance that he performed badly, get barracked & called it a day. I wonder if they are only going to pick him for home series? The admirable Harris struggled as well, he has done superbly but needs a rest to prolong his Test career, although at 34 it will be limited. The indefatigable Siddle might find himself shouldering a heavy burden again sooner rather than later.