Cricket XIV

[Jeor]

Good job by the South Africans, and I think they rightfully retain their No. 1 ranking with it. It's a pity that we didn't get to see Steyn at his brilliant best, but we at least saw some great batting by Amla, du Plessis, and also Smith and de Villiers.

I think Peterson has earned himself a spot ahead of Tahir in the battle of the spinners. Peterson is a better batsman as well, and although expensive, his willingness to really give the ball some air and flight (as well as turning it) can make him pretty dangerous as well. With Peterson it's a more balanced attack, and a much stronger tail (Peterson at 8, Philander at 9, Steyn at 10 and Morkel at 11 is a pretty good lineup).

[williamjm]

You could be right on this. I don't think there's been an uptick in Indian test crowds since the launch of the excitment- and money-making machine that is the IPL. Shame really, as ideally T20 would've served as a gateway/stepping stone to the real stuff.

I think maybe they need to do more to try to convert new T20 fans into Test fans, at the moment the various cricket authorities seem largely to be hoping that it'll magically happen without them having to do anything about it and they're not trying to sell Test cricket as well as they could. An example would be the Australia/South Africa series which should be a perfect advert for Tests with two of the top teams in an evenly-matched contest with plenty of drama on the pitch in front of what seem to be healthy crowds, but just at the point interest in the series is at its peak the series is ending prematurely. Apparently only the Ashes gets 5 Tests nowadays, but I think a proper 5 Test series between Australia and South Africa is exactly the sort of thing that's needed to get people interested in Tests, but they're often not exploiting the big rivalries enough. Similarly, the last England tour of India was 2 Tests which was a bit pathetic (although possibly merciful considering England's performance then), even if the latest tour is a more reasonable effort. I don't think every Test series should be so long, I doubt anyone particularly wants 5 Tests between Pakistan and New Zealand played in the United Arab Emirates, but the big clashes like The Ashes, England-India, Australia-South Africa, India-Pakistan and so on should be 4 Tests long at least.

[Paxter]

I think maybe they need to do more to try to convert new T20 fans into Test fans, at the moment the various cricket authorities seem largely to be hoping that it'll magically happen without them having to do anything about it and they're not trying to sell Test cricket as well as they could. An example would be the Australia/South Africa series which should be a perfect advert for Tests with two of the top teams in an evenly-matched contest with plenty of drama on the pitch in front of what seem to be healthy crowds, but just at the point interest in the series is at its peak the series is ending prematurely. Apparently only the Ashes gets 5 Tests nowadays, but I think a proper 5 Test series between Australia and South Africa is exactly the sort of thing that's needed to get people interested in Tests, but they're often not exploiting the big rivalries enough. Similarly, the last England tour of India was 2 Tests which was a bit pathetic (although possibly merciful considering England's performance then), even if the latest tour is a more reasonable effort. I don't think every Test series should be so long, I doubt anyone particularly wants 5 Tests between Pakistan and New Zealand played in the United Arab Emirates, but the big clashes like The Ashes, England-India, Australia-South Africa, India-Pakistan and so on should be 4 Tests long at least.

Totally agree, but unfortunately the administrators haven't woken up to that fact yet. The recently concluded Australia-South Africa series is a great example: apparently the reason the series was limited to three matches is because both countries wanted a Boxing Day test :worried:.

@Jeor: Totally agree about Peterson. SA got their selection spot-on in that test match (bar poor old Elgar...but it's not as if Rudolph would've been any better), while Australia fluffed it with the Hastings selection. Another one-test wonder for Australia?

[DemonKing]

Because we have no one to replace Ponting with. At least with him you know he has a proven track record, and when he starts firing he can with matches. There is no one in the pipeline like that for Australia at the moment, so it makes even less sense to try a new guy for a deciding match like this.

Hughes is in form and has a good track record against the South Africans - I doubt he would have done worse than Punter.

Australia didn't have much luck in this series - Brisbane and Adelaide would both likely have been won if the weather and injury to a key bowler hadn't happened. Also I'm not a fan of "resting" key bowlers for the decider. I read that Lilee bowled over 500 balls in one test against Pakistan and then played the next test 2 days later and took 10 for the match. In comparison SIddle and Hilfenhaus each bowled less than 400 balls in the Adelaide test and had an extra day between matches!

In the end well done to SA and good riddance to Punter. Now we only have to see if the Indian selectors have the stones to tap Tendulkar on the shoulder as his current batting woes also look terminal.

[The Anti-Targ]

Phew! Was a great series, although if I'm honest a drawn series would've been a more just result (or better yet...play more tests!). South Africa deserve the #1 ranking though - they're the one team in world cricket who is able to find ways to win even when they're not performing well, and I've always considered that the hallmark of a great test team.

There are still a lot of positives for Australia and I'd be surprised if they didn't send Sri Lanka packing 2-0 (though admittedly the SCG should assist the 'Lankans).

Back when I was a lad this sort of result against Sri Lanka, even by NZ, could be left unsaid because it was basically a foregone conclusion. How things have changed.

[Paxter]

Hughes is in form and has a good track record against the South Africans - I doubt he would have done worse than Punter.

Perhaps. Hughes was a walking wicket against NZ last summer (he probably has nightmares about Chris Martin), though admittedly has scored some serious FC runs since then. And don't forget that Ponting was in sparkling FC form himself before the 'Gabba. And where would you have played Hughes? At first drop? He's never played there before in any form of cricket AFAIK.

Australia didn't have much luck in this series - Brisbane and Adelaide would both likely have been won if the weather and injury to a key bowler hadn't happened. Also I'm not a fan of "resting" key bowlers for the decider. I read that Lilee bowled over 500 balls in one test against Pakistan and then played the next test 2 days later and took 10 for the match. In comparison SIddle and Hilfenhaus each bowled less than 400 balls in the Adelaide test and had an extra day between matches!

To be fair, South Africa didn't have a great deal of luck either with their premier batsman from the last tour (Duminy) injured mid-test, their all-rounder unable to bowl for most of the series and their best fast bowler of the last 12 months out injured for the second test (and replaced by the bowler who now has the worst figures in test history...)

But totally agree about Siddle and Hilf - unless they were at a high risk of breaking down at the WACA, they should've played.

@TWS: The only reason I think it might be 1-0 is that SL are good enough to draw the SCG test if they bat well. I think they'll lose handily at the MCG though.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Apparently only the Ashes gets 5 Tests nowadays,

Which in itself is a bit disappointing. It wasn't that long ago the Ashes when played in England was a six test series.

I don't think every Test series should be so long, I doubt anyone particularly wants 5 Tests between Pakistan and New Zealand played in the United Arab Emirates,

Shouldn't that be NZ vs Bangladesh? Seriously though, I would love to see New Zealand play a five test series against anyone. Even during our glory days in the 1980s we only ever got three tests, and these days we generally only get two. IIRC we last had a five test series in the 1970s (our first ever test win came in a four test series we lost 3-1).

[The Winged Shadow]

Shouldn't that be NZ vs Bangladesh?

Be careful what you wish for :P

I think it'd be an awesome series!

[williamjm]

Shouldn't that be NZ vs Bangladesh?

Involving Pakistan adds the extra element of having to play in a neutral country, just to further reduce interest. Maybe Pakistan v Zimbabwe in the UAE could be the least interesting potential Test series.

Seriously though, I would love to see New Zealand play a five test series against anyone. Even during our glory days in the 1980s we only ever got three tests, and these days we generally only get two. IIRC we last had a five test series in the 1970s (our first ever test win came in a four test series we lost 3-1).

England and New Zealand are going to play five consecutive Tests against each other next year, so we can pretend it's a five match series even if it's technically two home and away series. It's followed by 10 consecutive Ashes tests home and away, just for a bit of variety.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 test series lack tension if there's a result in the first test. The best the losing side can hope for is a drawn series. At least with a 3 test series the losing side in the first test (assuming there's a result) is still in with a chance of winning the series.

In a 2 test series, in some respects, the best outcome for the first test is a draw because it carries interest for both sides through to the second game and a chance for either side to win the series. It's a strange thing that there's any kind of rationale by which you can argue a draw in the first game of a test series is a beneficial outcome before the first ball is bowled.

[Paxter]

Hmmm for some reason I thought that SL only had two tests on this tour - it's actually three which is much more respectable.

Big question marks surrounding the make-up of the Aussie team...who will come in for Ponting? Quiney (for some reason beyond my comprehension) appears to be the favourite at this stage. And what of the bowlers? Hazelwood and Hastings have picked-up injuries and won't play in Hobart. So it's looking like: Siddle, Hilf, Johnson/Starc, Watson and Lyon.

[Apathete]

Bring back Warne? http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/595088.html

[Paxter]

Woah, India in trouble again. Well done to England, they are starting to re-capture the form that saw them reach #1 under Strauss' captaincy.

[brAnthelAstgreenseer]

Sachin batted nicely today

England bowling excellent, they are disciplined and jimmy anderson got nice reverse swing

[ljkeane]

To be fair considering the groundsman came out and publicly said he was preparing the pitch the way he did under protest we might have to wait and see what a good score is going to be on this surface.

[Hereward]

I agree. If uneven bounce is already becoming a problem and India can put on 320, it might well be tricky for England.

[Jeor]

Bearing in mind that the Indian attack is clearly not comparable to England's, I don't think you have too much to worry about yet Hereward, at least in the first innings. The second innings might be a killer though.

Nice to see Sachin get at least a half-century. However I'd hate for that innings to be the one that convinces him to keep on going even longer.

[williamjm]

I agree. If uneven bounce is already becoming a problem and India can put on 320, it might well be tricky for England.

I think England will be satisfied with how things went because they dealt with losing the toss about as well as they could. However, even though India must be a bit disappointed they've still got enough runs to be in the game and it'll still need a good batting performance from England to leave them with a chance of chasing down a total in the fourth innings.

Nice to see Sachin get at least a half-century. However I'd hate for that innings to be the one that convinces him to keep on going even longer.

He does seem to be finally coming towards the end of his career, I hope he doesn't struggle on too long and manages to go out on some sort of high, I suspect Ponting might now regret not retiring before the South Africa test series.

It does seem to be almost an end of an era, with Ponting retired I think there's only a handful of players who played in Tests in the 90s still playing. As well as Tendulkar the indefatigable Shivnarine Chanderpaul shows no sign of age reducing his effectiveness and Jacques Kallis is still an important player for South Africa but I can't think of many more 1990s players still playing. I'm sure there are a few more here and there, but England and Australia definitely don't have any. Of course, Tendulkar made his Test debut in the 1980s.

[Apathete]

Harbhajan Singh, Vettori and Jayawardene are the three I can think of you have missed. I'm sure there are still a couple of others though.

I agree that this year feels like there has been a real passing of the guard.

[williamjm]

Harbhajan Singh, Vettori and Jayawardene are the three I can think of you have missed. I'm sure there are still a couple of others though.

Dilshan (it's a bit surprising he's been around so long) and Zimbabwe's Ray Price would be another couple of 90s survivors. If there were 3 more then we could have a 1990s XI, they might not be the most agile team in the field but it would be a very good team, although given the lack of veteran seam bowlers they'd want to play on a spinner's wicket.