South Africa v New Zealand, 1st Test, Cape Town, 3rd day

Innings win for South Africa in under three days

The Report by David Hopps

January 3, 2013

Comments: 91 | Text size: A | A

South Africa 347 for 8 dec (Petersen 106) beat New Zealand 45 (Philander 5-7) and 275 (Brownlie 109) by an innings and 27 runs
Scorecard and ball-by-ball details

Dean Brownlie plays the pull, South Africa v New Zealand, 1st Test, Cape Town, 3rd day, January 4, 2013
New Zealand have not only shown determination, in Dean Brownlie's case they have shown improvement © Getty Images

New Zealand have a maiden Test hundred from Dean Brownlie to provide some consolation at the end of a Test which they will want to forget, but although they could slow the South African juggernaut they were not about to escape its inevitable destination. Victory fell to South Africa by an innings and 27 runs with tea approaching on the third day at Newlands and, if New Zealand's humiliation was no longer quite as stark, they were comprehensively outplayed.

Brownlie's mix of ability and spirit was a suitable reminder that New Zealand need players possessing not just one of those qualities in abundance, but both as they seek to remedy one of the most challenging periods in their recent history. They are unlikely to compete in the second Test in Port Elizabeth - it is Nos. 1 v 8 in the Test rankings and a weakened squad is not about to disguise that - but they will be desperate to regroup in time for a home Test series against England in March.

Vernon Philander needed only 26 deliveries to take five New Zealand wickets first time around as South Africa inflicted the lowest score on a Test side for 39 years, an explosive start to the Test that deservedly won him the man-of-the-match award. In contrast, it took him 22 overs to take a wicket in the second innings, which said something about New Zealand's response to adversity, and his exertions were not without their concerns as he left the field near the end for treatment on the hamstring strain that almost ruled him out of the Test.

After pulverising their opponents on the opening day, the only question for South Africa was exactly when an overwhelming victory would be completed. In removing BJ Watling, the last recognised batsman, Philander immediately pronounced that the end was near. New Zealand's last six wickets brought another 106 on the third day, but the last five wickets fell in ten overs and it was all rounded off by a comical run out of Chris Martin, whose inability at No, 11 has been well chronicled, but who could bat blindfolded with a banana and it would not begin to justify such a farcical conclusion.

South Africa can take much pride in such a triumphant restatement of their power in their first home Test for a year. It was far better for New Zealand to reflect merely upon Brownlie. Here was a batsman trying to make a name for himself, reaching a maiden Test century in a manner that was the stuff of dreams. He skipped down the pitch without a care in the world to the left-arm spin of Robin Peterson and deposited him over long-on for six. The catch was held in the crowd by a small boy who watched himself on the big screen and will probably cherish the moment just as long.

Smart stats

  • Since losing their first Test against New Zealand after readmission, South Africa have won 13 and lost just one of the next 21 Tests. Their last loss came in Auckland in 2004.
  • Since the beginning of 1995, South Africa have a win-loss ratio of 12 against New Zealand. Excluding Tests featuring Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, only Australia's record against New Zealand (14-1) is more lopsided during this period.
  • South Africa continued their excellent record in Cape Town since their readmission. Since 1991, they have won 17 and lost just three of the 25 matches played at the venue. Their win-loss ratio of 5.66 is the second-best for a team at a particular venue in the same period (min 15 Tests).
  • DeanBrownlie became the eighth New Zealand batsman to score a century against South Africa in Tests since 1990. He is also the third to do so in Tests in Cape Town.
  • Since the beginning of 2012, New Zealand's No. 4 batsmen have averaged 61.70 in Tests, with five hundreds in 21 innings. Their No. 4 batsmen have scored 22% of all runs scored by the batsmen. Their other top-order batsmen (Nos. 1-7) have averaged 24.90.
  • Chris Martin scored his 36th duck in Tests. Only Courtney Walsh, with 43 ducks has more.

That was the dream sequence; with the second new ball came the wake-up call. Brownlie and Watling had whittled down South Africa's commanding first-innings lead of 302 on an obdurate morning and Graeme Smith summoned the new ball with an air of impatience with the lunch interval only minutes away. His decision came up trumps as Morne Morkel banged the fourth delivery in short of a length, Brownlie went for the cut as he had so often, but the extra bounce deceived him and he holed out to Peterson, stationed for that very eventuality at deep-backward point.

It felt like a naïve dismissal, brought about by good captaincy, but Brownlie deserved only good memories. The confident manner in which he achieved that maiden Test century brought a celebratory dash to a mettlesome innings which had sent New Zealand's mood soaring.

Brownlie preferred to combat Peterson's left-arm spin on the back foot and even on a pitch offering little turn it got him into a tangle on occasions, but Steyn and Morkel's natural length was too short to take advantage of the uneven bounce available on a fullish length and Philander was also seen off with relative comfort. The pitch had lost the zip that exposed New Zealand on the first morning and Brownlie, comfortable on the back foot, rarely erred.

His first Test hundred, in his eighth Test was a characterful one - a dashing start as he peppered the boundary square on the off side, dropped twice on 23, a more cautious outlook against the old ball as he resumed on 69, with lots of swaying and leaving on the back foot, and finally a leap through the 90s with two sixes in consecutive overs against Peterson - the first of them a long hop that he hauled over midwicket.

Philander's chance with the new ball came after lunch so he could have a session on the physio's bench before bowling. He had only two overs before he was switched to the Kelvin Grove End for the first time and in the match and his threat grew as a result. In successive overs, he had James Franklin dropped at gully, a low chance for Alviro Petersen, Watling's resistance for three-and-a-half hours in making 42 ended at first slip, and Doug Bracewell went for nought, squared up for another slip catch, this time at third.

New Zealand were still 50 runs away from making South Africa bat a second time and it became apparent that they were hopelessly equipped for the task. Jeetan Patel, at No. 9, lacked the technique or courage to deal with Steyn (neither attribute comes easily, as many can testify) and he had been struck on the body and backed away to square leg several times before he chopped Steyn onto his stumps as he retreated some more.

Steyn was not about to abandon a short-ball policy at this juncture. Franklin, like Watling, had become New Zealand's second batting verruca - painful, unsightly and taking some shifting - but he went across his stumps to try to turn him behind square and dragged the ball onto his stumps. Finally, farcically, came the run out of Martin, run out for nought without facing a ball, sent back after attempting an impossible second to Steyn at fine leg to stay off strike.

David Hopps is the UK editor of ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: David Hopps

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by bobbo2 on (January 6, 2013, 23:43 GMT)

To be fair to NZ, the team in SA is nowhere near its best side. Taylor and Ryder are hands down NZ's best batsman followed by Vettori. And the best bowler in Southee is also missing.

No doubt SA are a far better side, but if NZ had its best team over there I'm sure we'd be a little more competitive. NZ's team should be:

Guptill, McCullum, Williamson, Taylor, Ryder, Brownlie, Watling (until Ronchi qualifies), Vettori, Southee, Bracewell, Boult / Martin

Posted by SurlyCynic on (January 6, 2013, 12:50 GMT)

@Mankappan Hu: Si Baker is not 'dreaming' that NZ won in a test match in Aus, they did it last year in Hobart! Why not do some research before writing this stuff.

Posted by EnglishCricket on (January 6, 2013, 12:15 GMT)

@Dravid_Gravitas_Statchin_Selfishkar - Stop behaving selfishly, nobody wants to see a 'few' top teams playing eachother over and over again. Not many teams play test Cricket so get use to it if the other teams are not as strong.

Posted by   on (January 6, 2013, 11:12 GMT)

@SI Baker Thanks for your response.NZ have finally managed to draw a series in SL and so you think they belong to top tier .and when did NZ beat Aus in must have been dreaming..(since we are mainly talking about test matches here ref:8-0 mauling for india)India is fielding their worst side in 20 years and unless the reload finishes there will be defeats like this.But has NZ ever played well except when Sir Hadle/Crowe had their days..and you seem to ignore the present test match which NZ has managed to lose in 3 days.Ind drew their last series (it was in 2011 just 2 seasons back)in SA.How many test matches have NZ won in SA---ZERO.And i thought you were from 19th century school of thought since you seem to have misplaced loyalty towards foundation members and their loyal boards.And my suggestion to include counties as well for 'competitive' cricket was pun.hope you have 'deciphered' my message..

Posted by   on (January 6, 2013, 8:04 GMT)

@Mankappan Hu: I've now managed to decipher your last post, so, notwithstanding your bizarre reference to the 19th century as well as to the equally bizarre fact that you seem to believe that English county sides should be included in international cricket, I'll do my best to answer your question. NZ belong in my (purely notional, as Surly Cynic pointed out to you) First Division because they managed to beat Australia in Australia & SL in SL &, but for what I'd euphemistically describe as some decidedly eccentric umpiring in the Second Test against India, would've walked away from that series with a 1-1 draw as well. India, by contrast, suffered not just eight monumental hammerings on the trot against England & Australia, but were also conclusively beaten at home by England & would've drawn that series against NZ *and* been beaten 2-1 at home by WI had the umpiring in both those series been even remotely adequate. Does that answer your question?

Posted by SurlyCynic on (January 5, 2013, 18:51 GMT)

@aahahaa: Bowlers bounce Steyn when he bats #10, so why can't he bounce Patel who bats #9? The days of the 'bowlers club' are long gone. If Patel can't face bouncers he should stick to tennis ball cricket.

Posted by aahahaa on (January 5, 2013, 17:32 GMT)

SA beat them square except Steyn bouncing Jeetan, not gentlemanly at all.

Posted by Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on (January 5, 2013, 16:42 GMT)

New Zealand has been an awful team historically barring a couple of all time greats like Sir Hadlee, Martin Crowe etc. It's no different now. In fact, it's getting worse. I don't even know the names of more than half of their current players. I seriously think they shouldn't be allowed to play test cricket. It's sad but they need to go. I also think, India, NZ, SL, Bangladesh and may be West Indies have to be relegated to a lower grade test cricket and see how they perform there. This is getting silly to allow these teams to play test cricket with stronger teams.

Posted by SurlyCynic on (January 5, 2013, 16:01 GMT)

@Mankappan Hu: That's pretty funny. You post a comment asking who is worst out of Ind, SL, NZ - Si Baker gives his opinion that it is India, then you get really upset and tell him to stop living in the 19th century! If you don't like the answer don't ask the question, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Besides, there are plenty of articles on India and SL so let's keep this relevant to the SA vs NZ subject of the article.

Posted by Dasarathy on (January 5, 2013, 15:54 GMT)

Because of NZ mismanagement, now team is suffering without even putting a fight in SA. The absence of Ross Taylor costs too much. Very much surprised that Taylor has been taken away from captaincy. Now what is NZ cricket going to do. Will it also replace Mcculum for this loss, then who will be the replacement? What will be the end? Talented Cricketer like Taylor should be encouraged by the management and not to be treated like this. Now who will be the sufferer? Taylor will play in IPL and earn money and fame. Wat about NZ Cricket? Loser is the NZ cricket not Taylor.

Posted by The_Ashes on (January 5, 2013, 15:03 GMT)

New Zealand are new minnows so no surprises. Good practice for South Africa for the bigger games coming ahead.

Posted by   on (January 5, 2013, 14:48 GMT)

@Si Baker--SL,NewZealand,WI in tier1 and Ind and Associates in post has made my weak..BTW i am not an Indian fanatic,i have just posted a thread asking to pick the bottom ranked test playing nation from Ind,NZ and SL BUT posters like you are the real regressive,myopic ones still living in 19th Century.What makes you think NZ should be in tier1 when their test matches finish in 3 days.Ind was poor last year but all matches went till 4/5 days.(no success this just comparing the worst performers.)How about including a couple of counties also in tier1 SIR..please publish...after Eng's 3-0 mauling at the hands of Pakistan where were you hiding.You have beaten India in India when they have the worst side in 20 years.And did you watch the series in 2007 when the same Anders and Co were beaten by India..learn to appreciate and love cricket for heaven's sake!!!!!thankfully the likes of you are so few in number...pls publish

Posted by   on (January 5, 2013, 14:13 GMT)

@Muhammad Usman: "@THE_MIZ I think your research is too limited to say something" I actually find that your research is also too limited. Go check the score line of SA vs Pak at UAE. It took Pakistan the loss of nearly 20 wickets to score the same number of runs that SA scored for the loss of just 4 wickets. So the entire 5 days of a match were played with SA only losing 4 wickets.. That's how flat you made those pitches. This guaranteed a drawn result, no matter how much you were outplayed. I wouldn't be surprised if they produce the same record level flat wickets again out of fear of losing. Which is obviously what happened in the first tour to UAE

Posted by tigers_eye on (January 5, 2013, 14:07 GMT)

A friend in need is a friend indeed. These are the testing times for NZ. Bring back Taylor ASAP. Wishing NZ the best from Bangladeshi supporter.

Posted by   on (January 5, 2013, 14:01 GMT)

SA haven't lost a test series since 2006, and we still get people saying that SA still need to "win/draw in the subcontinent". It seems as if SA's series win in India was so traumatic for them that they wiped it from their collective memories.

Posted by Warm_Coffee on (January 5, 2013, 13:20 GMT)

So New Zealand lost well lost 'badly' all within 3 days declining team who also have a pathetic youth under-19 and 13 system.

Posted by   on (January 5, 2013, 13:12 GMT)

It always amuses me when subcontinental fans gleefully characterise non-subcontinental batsmen as 'dancing' to the tune they fondly imagine their spinners sing. Indian supporters dismissively predicted exactly the same thing before the India/England series. The only 'dancing' the England batsmen did, however, was when they danced down the track to deposit Ashwin & Ojha back over their heads & into a surly, muted crowd for a succession of spectacular Sixes.

Posted by   on (January 5, 2013, 12:23 GMT)

Given all the recent mismatches, a two-tier system might just be the way to go, not least because it'd allow the better Associate teams to acclimatise to subcontinental conditions by playing in those huge stadiums in India & Bangladesh. I'd say two divisions of seven teams each makes sense, with each season stretching over two calendar years & comprising 18 Tests each in the upper division & 12 in the lower, after which the bottom two teams in the First Division would be relegated & the top two in the Second Division promoted. Based on a performance index stretching from January 2011 up to now, Division One would include South Africa, England, Pakistan, Australia, West Indies, Sri Lanka & New Zealand, while Division Two would consist of India, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Afghanistan, Holland & Kenya. With DRS mandatory there'd be a hell of a promotion dogfight in Div Two between Bangladesh, Ireland & Afghanistan, with Zimbabwe & Holland hot on their heels.

Posted by gzaf187 on (January 5, 2013, 12:14 GMT)

@Muhammad Usman: We've already been in the UAE .. I distinctly remember AB "dancing" his way to a then SA record of 275*. Fact is, if the pitches are as flat as they were then, that series will be completely irrelevant as it will result in a boring draw. And SA have nothing to prove in the sub-continent - we haven't lost there since 2006 in SL, where our team was still in shambles (i think Andrew Hall was opening the batting, of all people!). On the other hand, Pak have a LOT to prove in SA conditions, having collected nothing but defeats over the last 20 odd years. You say your line-up is settled? Let's see how they do against the best bowling attack in the world, in conditions they are not accustomed to. We'll talk after the series ends. Good luck to Pak.

Posted by   on (January 5, 2013, 11:44 GMT)

@ thruthecovers: Also SA have to tour UAE this year. Would love to see SA batsmen dancing against AJMAL's DOOSRA, TEESRA...........

Posted by   on (January 5, 2013, 11:44 GMT)

Shouldn't we now talk about stripping off NZ's test status, as we often talk about stripping the same of Bangladesh? I bet, NZ will be whitewashed in any future by test series against Bangladesh, as they were in ODIs in Dhaka.

Posted by THE_MIZ on (January 5, 2013, 11:43 GMT)

@Muhammad Usman, and what exactly did I say that my too limited research suggests? My 'research' or rather common sense suggests that SA are good in Asia. There is no mention that pakistan is weak or SA will beat them? Also you forget that in October 2007 ,SA have BEATEN Pakistan IN Pakistan (1-0), not the other way around. Add that to the 3-1 win in SA, plus the Draw in UAE, shows that SA is unlikely to be as England was in UAE. It will be a tight contest with two excellent bowling line-ups!

Posted by   on (January 5, 2013, 11:41 GMT)

@ thruthecovers: Laughing at your comment. I think you are just following SA cricket, no idea about PAK. Guys like you had the same dreams before ENG toured UAE. Comparing NZ with PAK is a foolish thing. This is a new look PAK side with batsmen best suited for tests, excellent bowlers and good captain. Thats why we are performing over the past 2 years. Would love to hear from you when the series ends.

Posted by   on (January 5, 2013, 11:32 GMT)

watching NZ i would like to start an opinion poll here.since the most avid cricket watchers are regulars here i expect the result to be conclusive.

Which is the bottom ranked test playing nation currently among countries playing full series (more than 2 matches at least)in the world Options.1.India 2.New Zealand 3.Srilanka My vote is for India followed by the other 2 should be a healthy debate..please publish

Posted by SurlyCynic on (January 5, 2013, 10:53 GMT)

@Muhammad Usman: I don't think any SA fan thinks it will be easy against Pakistan, and I haven't seen any comments saying that. Everyone knows how dangerous Pakistan can be - should be a good series.

But @darsh127's comment that SA have to 'win/draw' in the subcontinent to be a good side is clearly wrong. SA have won or drawn most series in India. According to your own comment the last Pak/SA result in SA was a 3-1 win to SA and the last result in the UAE was a draw so the home/away total favours SA. Looking forward to the series.

Posted by thruthecovers on (January 5, 2013, 10:51 GMT)

OMW, now it's the Pakistanis falling in line. SA went to ENG and silenced the bigmouth fans prim and proper. They did the same in AUS. Only Aussies fans refuse to accept that the 'moral victory' of dominating a couple of days in the the first 2 Tests means stuff all. The fact that SA were the only team to take 20 wickets to deservedly win the series, going right over their heads. And now we have the PAK would think SA is not deserving of their ranking the way everyone carries on. Total disrepect. Pak's batting line-up is as shaky as NZ's. Anywhere in the world including the sub-continent. The series is in SA where lesser line-ups get bowled out for 45. I can see them collapsing as well. Their bowling attack however can inflict similar pain. But will they? It would be Ajmal's biggest test for many a year. Mind you, Nasir Jamshed is a new-found favorite batsmen of mine. Still so young too. Lets all just wait and see how that series unfold...once the NZ series done and dusted

Posted by Sinhaya on (January 5, 2013, 8:55 GMT)

I really feel sorry for NZ. Hope they fight hard in the next test match. Brownlie played well but was dropped too. SA are no doubt a great test side.

Posted by   on (January 5, 2013, 8:41 GMT)

PAK vs SA will be an interesting series to watch. PAK test batting is settled, balanced and is performing for the last 2 years and bowling as usual stronger. I am waiting for SA fans comments after the series, I hope they will come.

Posted by   on (January 5, 2013, 8:36 GMT)

@THE_MIZ I think your research is too limited to say something. Last time SA toured PAK ( when inzi was captain ) they get beaten by 1:0 in test and PAK lost by 2:3 in ODI. In UAE 2010 test was drawn and SA win ODIs by 3:2. So SA have to beat PAK in subcontinent. Their only win was at SA in 2007 when they beat 3:1 in test and 4:1 in ODI. Lets see when they come UAE this year. Would love to see AJMAL walking over their heads.

Posted by THE_MIZ on (January 5, 2013, 7:49 GMT)

@darsh127,"Only when they tour the subcontinent and win/draw, that will be, in my opinion, the start of a long dominating era of test cricket" SA have beaten Pakistan in pakistan, Bangladesh in Bangladesh, the last time they toured. SA are also unbeaten (in series) in India for the last two tours. Last defeat was to Sri Lanka, way back in 2006 - which incidentally SA's last overseas defeat. Pretty good in Asia I'd say?

Posted by   on (January 5, 2013, 7:41 GMT)

Well, at least NZ tried to do better in 2nd innings, good job Brownlie. Let's hope Taylor and Jesse make a comeback soon, certainly could look for much better performances than.

To the Bangladeshis commenting about NZ test status, please look at our own team first, they managed to throw away 2 tests just recently in 2012 against least NZ tried to stage a comeback.

Hopeful that NZ will show a more competitive spirit next match.

Great victory for SA, they are clearly a deserving no.1 team.

Posted by Gupta.Ankur on (January 5, 2013, 6:40 GMT)

I think NZ must seriously re-consider playing test cricket....they are regularly embarrassing themselves and their nation.

Posted by darsh127 on (January 5, 2013, 2:59 GMT)

Great Win by the Saffers and they are looking dominant as ever. Beating New Zealand, England , Australia in their own backyard and plus all the home victories, seems legit. Only when they tour the subcontinent and win/draw, that will be, in my opinion, the start of a long dominating era of test cricket. Good luck to both teams for the rest of the series.

Posted by zenboomerang on (January 5, 2013, 1:28 GMT)

@gothetaniwha... Yes Ronchi is a good keeper - would have played for Oz in Tests if not for the more senior Haddin... Also a good one-day player... With Taylor & possibly Ryder coming back for your home Test summer the outlook is pretty good for the future... Just there aren't many good backup players... Always thought NZ should have 2 teams in the Shield comp as it would strengthen both nations while building up the competitive spirit of the sport & public appeal - i.e. like NRL, Basketball, Netball...

Posted by gzaf187 on (January 5, 2013, 0:36 GMT)

Mark2011 - you obviously didn't watch the match (there was nothing wrong with the pitch, exemplified by the 260/3 that SA were on at the end of day 1) and obviously haven't been watching SA for the past 6 years (SA have just come from 2 winning tours in both Aus and Eng) ... how ppl can make statements like yours and expect to be taken seriously, bewilders me.

Posted by Bennibus on (January 4, 2013, 23:36 GMT)

@kiwicricketnut - Couldn't agree more! We have players that are mediocre at 1st class level that get selected for tests and underperform badly. I wouldn't know where to start in trying to fix it. It's a clearcut fact that we are out of depth against top class pace and top class spin, we just don't have the exposure to it. Blooding young players is a baptism of fire because their confidence would be dented from day 1 but it HAS to happen. There is no place for Flynn, Fulton, Franklin..... 1. Guptill 2. Watling 3. Williamson 4. Taylor 5. Ryder 6. Brownlie 7. McCullum 8. Vettori 9. Southee 10. Bracewell 11. Boult

Posted by   on (January 4, 2013, 23:34 GMT)

As the gulf between the top tier nations and the rest grows, it's surely time to create a two-tier system. A top six or seven nation 'test' competition to compete for a test championship. The lower nations then would be free from the embarrassment of these defeats. New Zealand, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, and some of the smaller minnows could then be free to complete in a lesser competition.

Posted by BobsSexyTime on (January 4, 2013, 23:20 GMT)

Some of you people saying NZ need to be kicked out are ridiculous. Prior to this game NZ just beat Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka for goodness sake.

NZ cricket is in bad shape and it is clearly the worst team since the mid 90s, but if they can get over their internal issues they can field a decent team. Their bowlers are decent and if they can get Taylor and Ryder back then they will be competitive against England. Not to mention Luke Ronchi should be available by then and he's a very competent looking player

NZ simply will never be world beaters because cricket isn't really a huge sport in NZ and the population is tiny. The best athletes all go to rugby so I think since the 70's NZ has competed quite well for their size. They just lack depth and that will never change.

Posted by OzWally on (January 4, 2013, 22:56 GMT)

@Trickykid - No, I agree with you, you read me wrong. I think NZ does extremely well for it's small population. It's countries like India that should be hanging there heads.

Posted by Talubar on (January 4, 2013, 22:49 GMT)

It's a shame to see NZ crumble so meekly almost like a Pakistani touring team. Even when drawing their players from the shallowest of talent pools the Black Caps used to always put up a hell of a fight. Let us hope they rediscover their steel and come back hard.

Posted by dalboy12 on (January 4, 2013, 21:15 GMT)

South Africa won by 309 runs against Australia India won by 9 wickets against England England won by 10 wickets against India Sri Lanka won by 10 wickets against NZ Australia won by an innings and 201 runs against Sri Lanka South Africa won by an innings and 12 runs against India Pakistan won by 10 wickets against England Australia won by an innings and 68 runs against India Australia won by an innings and 37 runs against India

The above are results from tests played over the last year. My point is that even some of the top teams have suffered some very heavy defeats. So all this talk of NZ being kicked out of test cricket is all a bit premature. This test was all about that saying --- that when batting you can't win a test before lunch but you sure can lose one, this and many of the heavy defeats above are simply due to one terrible session. If NZ get thrashed in the next test and at home against England then I might change my mind.

Posted by gothetaniwha on (January 4, 2013, 20:30 GMT)

Mccullum can't and won't keep in test crcket anymore ,Don't know why he continues to keep in 20/20 an ODI for . I personally would not have in the team at all , but as the stop gap captain ,looks like a place has to found for him . After reading in NZ paper that Ronchi has to prove himself from Hesson (after three 100 s this season- dopey sack this coach),got a feeling he's not going to play against ENG , would like to see Watling go back to his real job as an opening batsmen , and Ronchi given the gloves and Guptill going back to FC cricket to get his conifidence back , Fulton has been tried and is not up to it .If not try Fylnn or Cachopa 'as for the second test give Munro a go in place of Franklin ,he's not doing his job as an allrounnder and go with McClenegan and Wagner for Patel and Bracewell / or Martin nothing to lose

Posted by kiwicricketnut on (January 4, 2013, 19:40 GMT)

Well this just comfirmed what we all knew, our domestic game does not produce test match quality players. the only solution i can think of is that when nz tour in the winter the NZA team tour with them and play a series of first class matches as well, this would expose another squad of players to foriegn conditions and a higher level of cricket and have players ready for our high injury rate. Get rid of silly emerging player trips to aussie and invest in this instead. Nz cricket will say they can't afford it, my opinion they can't afford not too. Test squad for england series has to be 1.mccullum 2.brownlie 3.williamson 4.taylor 5.munro (ryder) 6.cachopa 7.watling 8.southee 9.sohdi 10.milne 11.boult.

Posted by TrickyKid on (January 4, 2013, 19:19 GMT)

@OzWally. So which is it for NZ? There is a cricketing structure so 'the whole country isn't athletically inclined'? Eh? NZ is one of the most athletic nations in the world. Rugby League, Union and 7's World Champions, for example. Plus World beaters in rowing, cycling, yachting, etc.

Posted by SurlyCynic on (January 4, 2013, 19:07 GMT)

mark2011: If this was such a terrible pitch, why did SA make 347 before declaring? If SA 'often fail' on pitches away from home, how come SA haven't lost an away series since 2006?

Posted by hhillbumper on (January 4, 2013, 19:06 GMT)

its a pretty poor show by the kiwis.Looking forward to playing them at home and seeing what happens.

Posted by Stark62 on (January 4, 2013, 18:58 GMT)

@ gerrardl Going by your logic of "2 and a half days to finish a test... crazy.", then Eng should also be demoted to tier 2 because they were finished off by Pak within 3 days and were also, rolled out for 72!!

Posted by ZiggyMarley on (January 4, 2013, 18:55 GMT)

New Zealand could field this side with everyone available. 1. Guptill 2. Fulton 3. Williamson 4. Taylor 5. Ryder. 6. Brownlie 7. McCullum (wk) (c) 8. Vettori 9. Bracewell 10. Southee 11. Boult. That's really a decent side. Potentially you could trade Fulton for Franklin for more bowling depth and promote McCullum or Ryder up the order. I doubt that side would beat SA but certainly has the potential to take SA to 5 days. I must be honest, I thought SA were playing in second gear from day 2 up till after lunch today, and still won by an innings with over 7 sessions left to play.

Posted by OzWally on (January 4, 2013, 18:54 GMT)

@BARFI - quit comparing NZ to BD. NZ has won more Tests in the past 18 months than BD in their entire test career. And 2 of the total 3 BD wins were against a strike ravaged WI team. Go look at those scorecards and see who they beat.

Posted by OzWally on (January 4, 2013, 18:45 GMT)

@Don Alu - I have to agree with Lillian on this one (population) - the reason why Countries with large populations don't dominate in a particular sport is for 2 reasons - either they don't participate in any organized capacity (China & cricket) or the country as a whole is not athletically inclined.

Posted by EnglishCricket on (January 4, 2013, 18:37 GMT)

@kc69 - Its funny that there are still people who use population as an example. New Zealand have the best rugby team in the world so population is irrelevant. India has more than a billion people but they are still not a world class side. You have to remember that 10,000 is such a huge number, why don't you try counting it without stopping it its plenty believe me. New Zealand has about 5 million people, Ireland has about 7 million people both countries that love all sorts of sports and I just don't understand why the Irish cannot get the same opportunity as New Zealand both similar in stature and geography.

Posted by creekeetman on (January 4, 2013, 18:27 GMT)

one of the most spineless test performances i've seen in over 35 years of watching cricket. had brownlie been caught early on in the second innings as he should've, the match proberly would've been completed on the second day. maybe he was dropped deliberately so the match could stretch out a bit

Posted by PACERONE on (January 4, 2013, 18:18 GMT)

Hawk89..any team can perform poorly when they are undermanned.Remember that SA bowled Australia out cheaply recently.England was beaten by Pakistan and they are an overrated team.Without your top players this does happen.W.I is getting back to winning and will improve rapidly when the selectors get the picking of the team right.

Posted by PACERONE on (January 4, 2013, 18:12 GMT)

NZ recently beat Australia,so they are not as bad as they are playing at the moment.The NZ cricket board has to learn that the best players have to be playing.This team with Taylor and Ryder is a much better team.They will give whoever they are playing next in NZ a good fight if the team is at full strength. Why is someone getting run out when runs do not really matter?

Posted by BARFI on (January 4, 2013, 17:42 GMT)

@ Farhadur Reza: I totally agree with you. NZ test status is nothing compare to the so called minnows like BD. How many TESTs BD played so far compared to them. NZ is losing like a school cricket players aged 11.

Posted by philvic on (January 4, 2013, 17:37 GMT)

SA should play all their home tests in CT and definitely none in Durban.

Posted by   on (January 4, 2013, 17:29 GMT)

@lilian thomson_Population size card is off point, someone from nz should know better. If we use the same analogy your rugby team wouldn't be dominating world rugby like they have been in the last 100 years in fact any sport will be boring as china will dominate everything but obviously this is not case!India......need I say more? Size doesn't matter after all

Posted by EnglishCricket on (January 4, 2013, 17:14 GMT)

Can't believe a team like Ireland who are doing so well for an associate are not getting a chance a 'deserving' one shall I say to be part of the 'elite' and compete with the full members on a regular bases like they do. They could probably give New Zealand a very good contest especially now most of their first squad already play in County Cricket. This should be looked at for the betterment of the great sport Cricket. More teams means more excitement for Cricket especially the deserving top associates. Will make world tournaments worthwhile and raise its profile dramatically.

Posted by Greatest_Game on (January 4, 2013, 17:07 GMT)


"The problem is that SA's successes have all come either against weak teams (SL, NZ), self-destructing teams (England) and an Australia with only two proper batsmen left." Really Lillian? Who else plays tests?

1. India - LOST to self-destructing England that SA further destroyed, then LOST again, at home! 2. The Windies - LOST to self-destructing England….just before SA enhanced the destruction 3. Zimbabwe - SA's perpetual bunny. Recently spanked by "45 all out" NZ 4. Bangladesh - they recently LOST to the Windies who lost to self-destructing England... 5. Pakistan - Lost Series in SL, but rain may have denied them victory. May give SA a run for their money! Everyone is looking forward to those matches. 2 good attacks on pitches with bounce, carry and swing, not on flat track featherbeds.

To sum up: your argument is that SA only look good because they are so unbelievably lucky that all the other test teams suck.

Kiwi logic - priceless.

Posted by OzWally on (January 4, 2013, 17:06 GMT)

Enough talk about Nation's test status. Do you want this sport to grow, or die? More Nations need to be given test status, not less. If that means a 2 tier system for awhile, so be it, but you don't make Nations better by never letting them play the best.

And if I hear one more sub-con fan say their country should quit playing tests for a while I'll explode. Is that your answer to everything? Run away and hide when you aren't good. Get tough, stop hiding behind your Mum's skirt and do something about it. I feel better now.

Posted by Htc-Android on (January 4, 2013, 17:02 GMT)

@ Farhadur Reza. Because NZ has won test matches here and there. although they are in a bad state they won test matches in AUS and SL. Whereas Bangladesh lose every single test match they play even after playing 76 test matches. Bangladesh still cant draw a test match at home. So i dont find any reason for people to question ur teams test match performance.

Posted by gsingh7 on (January 4, 2013, 16:36 GMT)

hawk-- u forgot whitewash of nz in india just in few months?? nz need more practice to keep up with india

Posted by Front-Foot-Lunge on (January 4, 2013, 16:32 GMT)

Good fightback from New Zealand second innings, and this match has shown if anything how close they are to Australia; and everyone remembers Australia getting skittled for 45 or so here recently. New Zealand need Ryder and Taylor back and some new blood to perform if they're to compete in this test series.

Posted by The_Ashes on (January 4, 2013, 16:17 GMT)

@Hoops - Maybe when you exclude teams, you can also include New Zealand as well at test level.

Posted by The_Ashes on (January 4, 2013, 16:15 GMT)

Apart from that well deserving 100, the rest of the New Zealand players played below average. Play teams like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Ireland in all forms etc instead for a while then start challenging top teams. Now New Zealand have England coming up can you imagine?......

Posted by   on (January 4, 2013, 16:05 GMT)

After playing some 82 years in test cricket NZ is yet to strong enough against top sides. They are not even to stand 20 overs in test cricket. How the critics of BD cricket expect bangladesh do much better in the space of 12 years??? If BD gets out b4 100 all the critics would come up to say enough is enough get them off frm Test cricke. Bring Ierland in test era!!! But now no one raising question against the performance of NZ. I would like to see Ierland instead of NZ in test era.

Posted by Cafulele on (January 4, 2013, 15:37 GMT)

I am a proud south african and I have so say this team needs to go to record for being the best test team over a decade..and as for new zealand..they should play alongside kenya, Afghanistan, ireland more to test their new players before being put to shame again by big teams

Posted by BravoBravo on (January 4, 2013, 15:32 GMT)

It was such a mismatch between NZ vs SA. Looking at the performance, test status of NZ and IND must be revoked. What they (IND/NZ) are clinging onto after massive defeats, whitewashes, and humiliation.?SA finishes NZ at a score of 45, SA sends IND team back to pavillion in less than 20 overs in a Test match. Most pathetic teams IND and NZ, and surprisingly they are playing the game for last 80 years. One more thing, to make cricket more interesting, cricket matches between IND vs SL must be banned for atleast 5 years. Top 4 teast teams (SA, ENG, AUS, and PAK) should be identified as First Tier teams. Rest of the teams needs to fight for spot 5 or 6. Once they achieve it, then they will be allowed to play with one of the FIRST Tier teams.

Posted by Neuen on (January 4, 2013, 15:16 GMT)

Australia 47 all out, NZ 45 all out and South Africa 96 all out. Whats up with the Newlands wicket?

Posted by SurlyCynic on (January 4, 2013, 15:13 GMT)

Good performance by SA, dropped catches were frustrating but to win by an innings after declaring the first innings is still a good performance. The pitch got flatter apart from a bit of variable bounce so 275 was not too shabby.

And I'm glad the test didn't end in two days, NZ showed much more fight in the second innings, apart from Patel who showed none whatsoever with all his running to leg.

@Farhadur Reza: Look at the loss% in tests for NZ and Bangladesh in the last 10 years and you'll see why people question Banagladesh's test status and not NZ's. NZ even won in Aus recently, so please stop bringing this up on an SA/NZ article.

Posted by letsgoproteas on (January 4, 2013, 14:59 GMT)

Hardly tested - but well done boys! I think it's going to be a good year back home for us.

Posted by mark2011 on (January 4, 2013, 14:58 GMT)

whats point of playing test inning for 45 runs and finished within 20 overs? so it seems NZ played for T20 match not test ? why SA makes this type of one sided extrem hard pitches for their fast bowlers. last year SL had the similar situation though they manage some 80+ score. this type of nasty pitches will not help to promote test criket. SA are only able to win this type of pitches.. in a good balance wicket which gives batsmen and bowlers equal chance SA often fails.... that's what happn when they come to other parts of the world to play. Take Eng, Aus, pitches.. they are good for both batsmen and bowlers.. test mean it shuld be a test.. if a one bowler gets extra ordinary support from picth to unsettle batsmen, then what use of that pitch.. it is not bowlers skills, that provide wicket, but simply the bad unplayable pitch... and that ruins the test criket.

Posted by EnglishCricket on (January 4, 2013, 14:27 GMT)

New Zealand are a pathetic team I wonder if people will get their money back from days 3,4 and 5? must be bad for the TV, Sponsorship guys etc :D

Posted by   on (January 4, 2013, 14:21 GMT)

well done Dean!! you are unlucky not to be man of the match!!!

Posted by Flash_hard27 on (January 4, 2013, 14:19 GMT)

Farhadur Reza - The answer to your question is simple, Bangladesh have won 2 test series of the 38 that they have played. NZ came close to winning in Australia just last year and in the series played since 2009 / 2010 they have drawn 3 and won 3. They may have been terrible in this game but are still well ahead of Bangladesh and Zim. Congrats to SA, quite clearly the best test nation in the world (from an England fan).

Posted by 2.14istherunrate on (January 4, 2013, 14:09 GMT)

So where is Ross Taylor??? I think I understand Vettori's absence though I would twist his arm a little, but Taylor not playing is completely off the wall. NZ will usually be behind SA but they can cause upsets, as in Hobart and Colombo.Nevertheless SA are the current best and their bowling is formidable.

Posted by gerrardl on (January 4, 2013, 14:07 GMT)

2 and a half days to finish a test... crazy. For all the positives in the second innings, NZ are not good enough to be playing at this level I'm afraid.

There should defo been a two tier test status. SA, ENG, AUS are miles ahead at this stage. PAK and maybe SL should be in there with them. Those 5 in the top tier and then the minnows of BANG, INDIA, NZ, WI, ZIM should be in the second tier. This is the only way we will see competitive series all the time instead of having to wait years for the ashes or SA tours to ENG/AUS to see good international cricket.

Posted by kc69 on (January 4, 2013, 14:03 GMT)

@Farhadur Reza my friend New Zealand's population is less than the population of Dhaka City and still they have cricketing legends such as Richard Hadlee,Chris Cairns,Stephen Fleming etc.Just going through a bad phase of transition.

Posted by TheRisingTeam on (January 4, 2013, 14:02 GMT)

Good practice for the South Africans.

Posted by   on (January 4, 2013, 13:58 GMT)

Hope, NZ team get back Tyler & Ryder soon. (Is the whimsical Australian Director of cricket still hovering around and over the NZ cricket? Then you are doomed. Are you guys packing him off to some exotic destination. If so, we, from India, can send Duncan there to give him company)

Posted by   on (January 4, 2013, 13:52 GMT)

63 in 30 overs is good according to the old world Test Standards. That is before the "short-format-era"!

Posted by   on (January 4, 2013, 13:35 GMT)

New Zealand should get relegated to play with Ireland. Might learn a lesson or two.

Posted by CricketingStargazer on (January 4, 2013, 13:34 GMT)

New Zealand lost their last 6 wickets for 46. From getting into a position where saving the follow-on should have been little more than a formality, they subsided almost as quickly as on the 1st morning. As one of the feedbackers said on comms, it was pretty patronising in those circumstances to talk about amazing resistence and I would guess that the team will be disappointed to have folded so quickly once Brownlie was out. The collapse suggests that, more than anything, the resistence was due to South Africa going off the boil thinking that the job was done.

Posted by camirapaul on (January 4, 2013, 13:34 GMT)

Okay we showed some fight in the end, but why did we not do that on day one??? Now for the second test and we must approach it to win, my changes. McClenaghan in for Patel, we lack a strike bowler and Patel is simply not doing enough. Munro in for Franklin with 4 seamers why not play a specialist batsmen, Munro is young but why not give him a go he is selected as a batsmen and Franklin after 10 years just does not perform enough his time is up. Guptill gets another go as with Fulton injured we simply do not have another opener, but if he does not score then try someone else next time. I'm a great fan of Martin but at 38 his time is up and his lack of batting at 11 causes problems we literally go in with 10 batters. make this his last test go out and bag a bag of wickets. Guptill, McCullum, Williamson, Flynn, Brownlie, Munro, Watling, Bracewell, Boult, McClenaghan, Martin,

Posted by   on (January 4, 2013, 13:28 GMT)

Congrats to Dean Brownlie, a Kiwi born but WA raised boy.Showed the fighting spirit of an Australian, cricketer unlike his team mates. McCallums decision to bat first was idiocy, he doesnt deserve to be captain of the Test side with his lack of nous.NZ cricket needs a complete overhaul from the top down.If Buchanan is still involved he should be the first casualty along with his famous laptop.

Posted by   on (January 4, 2013, 13:07 GMT)

Well done to Brownlie - a little fortuitous but fantastic to see him ride that good fortune and get to three figures. Good battling innings from Watling but he never looked secure at the crease. Can NZ please stop perservering with Patel. He is never going to run through a batting line up even on a spinner's paradise as he lacks variation and a doosra and he offers nothing with the bat. Franklin also can't justify his place. He looks out of his depth at this level.

Posted by LillianThomson on (January 4, 2013, 12:57 GMT)

My congratulations to New Zealand Cricket.

Our country has little enough depth already. But it was more important to teach those ingrates Ross Taylor and Jesse Ryder a lesson, so that the nation could be represented by inferior but less challenging batsmen and so that Taylor and Ryder could stay at home to wash their hair or pick their noses and prepare for bigger challenges like a tour to Outer Mongolia or a home series against Burkina Faso.

Well done New Zealand Cricket. You're responsible for 45 all out. That is the ultimate measure of your performance

Posted by   on (January 4, 2013, 12:35 GMT)

Why in the world people don't talk about NZ test status after such a performance? Is it only the pitches that play a huge role when bigger teams slips? Instead of talking about teams like BD, Zim or Scotland people must evaluate every single test playing teams performance over the year.

Posted by kc69 on (January 4, 2013, 12:28 GMT)

@HawK89 i think you forgot Pakistan.All subcontinental teams need to learn from Kiwi's.

Posted by HawK89 on (January 4, 2013, 12:01 GMT)

Some batsmen showed some real discipline. Get the rest to follow and NZ can be a competitive test side against the likes of West Indies, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. With McCullum as captain, NZ has field placements to bowl a side out.

Posted by   on (January 4, 2013, 11:24 GMT)

Brownlie's all like 'sorry bout' it'

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
David HoppsClose
David Hopps David Hopps joined ESPNcricinfo as UK editor early in 2012. For the previous 20 years he was a senior cricket writer for the Guardian and covered England extensively during that time in all Test-playing nations. He also covered four Olympic Games and has written several cricket books, including collections of cricket quotations. He has been an avid amateur cricketer since he was 12, and so knows the pain of repeated failure only too well. The pile of untouched novels he plans to read, but rarely gets around to, is now almost touching the ceiling. He divides his time between the ESPNcricinfo office in Hammersmith and his beloved Yorkshire.
Tour Results
South Africa v New Zealand at Potchefstroom - Jan 25, 2013
South Africa won by 1 wicket (with 0 balls remaining)
South Africa v New Zealand at Kimberley - Jan 22, 2013
New Zealand won by 27 runs
South Africa v New Zealand at Paarl - Jan 19, 2013
New Zealand won by 1 wicket (with 26 balls remaining)
South Africa v New Zealand at Port Elizabeth - Jan 11-14, 2013
South Africa won by an innings and 193 runs
South Africa v New Zealand at Cape Town - Jan 2-4, 2013
South Africa won by an innings and 27 runs
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days