Relative merits, great South African Test bowlers

Dale Steyn's pretty damn good. And for a guy who I remember as really fast but didn't trouble Australia as much as his counterparts, Allan Donald fares especially well. As usual, qualifier is 200 Test wickets.

Darren Lehmann, and the decisions he faced

Australia’s cricketing revival has been both stunning and comprehensive. A 3-0 defeat in the Ashes during the Northern Summer was turned into a 5-0 retribution at home; this was quickly followed by a 2-1 win against the no. 1-ranked South Africans on their soil, the first Australian Test series win overseas since 2012 and a team featuring new-age linchpins Matthew Wade, Ed Cowan and Ben Hilfenhaus.

All three players have been cast to the winds in the past twelve months as Cricket Australia chose to replace incumbent visionary Micky Arthur seventeen days before the Ashes and replace him with throwback-in-residence, Darren Lehmann.

Even as far back as Lehmann’s first Test helmed in July, changes were evident. Ed Cowan was repositioned at first drop, David Warner was sent to mend his ways in South Africa – with mixed results – and Ashton Agar’s name appeared when the Australian hierarchy ran their random-spinner-generator. Since that rather eclectic group took the field at Trent Bridge, much has turned around at the top of Australian cricket as 

Lehmann has displayed an almost-prescient ability to make key decisions.

In his eight-month spell at the top, Lehmann has faced seven major decisions with regards the Australian Test cricket team. Which of those has he swatted to the boundary, and which has he edged to the keeper?

My Favourite Cricketer: Hansie Cronje by Purna Hassan

In our series "My Favourite Cricketer" we've invited the best cricket writers and bloggers to divulge why certain cricketers emerge as their favourites.  This week, Purna Hassan of Cricket Minded and @cricketminded takes the stand

I fell in love with cricket because of Hansie Cronje and the team he captained. My Dad introduced me to cricket and as he was an avid fan of India, I followed his passion. It was only at age eleven when began to grasp the concepts of the game and realized cricket's meaning differs between countries.

Courtesy: wikipedia.org

In India, it was religion bordering on fanatic levels. In West Indies, cricket was an aura that had stunned the world. In Australia, it evoked a chase between a wild animal and its prey. In South Africa, it was an avenue for a country to step up and etch their place on the map. In the 1997-1998 Test match between South Africa and India, Allan Donald and Shaun Pollock captured my attention, Jonty Rhodes made me clap rowdily and Hansie Cronje – he simply demanded my respect.

He wasn’t as flamboyant as a batsman could be. In fact, his batting numbers are far below what he should have achieved. But I have no complaints. Hansie was too busy being a leader, instilling faith in players that had been overlooked for years because of the unfortunate state of their country. Hansie was too busy being there.

I am trying here to express what he represented, for his team and his country. I'm not South African, but do come from a country that has always struggled to rectify the overblown, deeply concentrated negative images displayed for so long in the media. Hansie was put in charge of such a team at the tender age of 24; despite relative youth, he never showed any greenness. Hansie feared no one, or if he did, I never saw it. His confidence, ego and intensity were, in my opinion, exactly what the new era Proteas needed. After all, this team had defend every single outburst (racial or otherwise) which would have been termed ‘part of the game’ for others. The world was watching and Hansie and co. had to prove that South Africans were capable of much more than just apartheid.

His greatest power lay in the knowledge that he was there to play cricket. His love for the game resonated in his eyes and his smiles. He could have a good time on the pitch even when times were hard. He was a prankster and I fondly remember his banter with Jonty and the then young Jacques Kallis (ed: I could have sworn Jacques Kallis was born at age 32 with bat in hand).

Allan Donald was his go-to man, Pollock the newcomer of distinguished lineage. Herschelle Gibbs marked the role of restless youngster to perfection and Dave Richardson his reliable old sage. Even as a young man, Cronje instinctively knew how to handle, utilise and shuffle his pack. I can’t remember a single instance where his decisions on the field were questioned by his team-mates; when those choices were dubious or cost them the game, Hansie was the first to admit his mistakes and the quickest to learn from them (alas, apart from the choking). He was in every sense a leader.

It was little wonder that South Africa quickly rose to the top of the international game. Talents like Gibbs, Boucher and Ntini flourished from the nutrition provided by Hansie and coach Bob Woolmer. The results began to evolve as they won the Asia Cup – their only ICC trophy – in Dhaka. I remember as he held the trophy; I was watching with tears in my eyes. All he said was ‘It’s heavy, but I don’t want to put it down’.

In the 1999 World Cup, South Africa were the hot favourites. It was there that I saw the first signs of my captain's weakness. Hansie took the field with an ear-piece to communicate with Woolmer, a move he later paid for. South Africa’s previously impressive top order began to rely more on Lance Klusener's WMD finishes. In the excitement and amid a remarkable run of “Zulu” form, the otherwise perceptive Hansie Cronje let his team play; he should have united the team and reminded them of their duties.

Personally, I loved it. Klusener is and will always be my 1999 World Cup hero, but in there is no way Allan Donald should have been the man at the other end with Zulu when the likes of Kirsten, Gibbs, Cullinan, Kallis, Cronje and even Pollock came before. I thought the 1999 World Cup semi-final was the first and last time the Proteas would break my heart.

And then came Cronje-gate.

Image courtesy: wn.com

I distinctly remember the day Hansie confessed his crimes. I was leaving for a vacation and woke up early to start my travels. I picked up the newspaper – it's first page featured a huge picture of Hansie crying and the headline “Match-fixing scandal rocks the Cricket world”. To say I was devastated is an understatement. Till then, I had vehemently defended Cronje, strongly believing the allegations to be a set-up. Anyone and everyone who loves cricket was shattered by the revelation but for me it was more personal: it was the ultimate and immutable demise of my hero.

I was disgusted that he had persuaded team-mates to join him and shocked by the tremendous flaw that the match-fixing scandals revealed in a man I respected. It pained me to see what he had reduced his cricket to, to what he had reduced himself. Those are the only emotions I recall from those days – betrayal and an overwhelming sadness. Even still I couldn’t bring myself to hate him, rather I was grateful when he stepped aside and accepted his bans with grace. I couldn't bear to see him stoop lower.

Cronje broke my heart a third time with his untimely death. It's indicative of the man that sometimes I feel he's still alive, on an island and living it up. In these times, he's grinning from ear to ear as only Hansie can.

It's probably pretty plain that I forgave him quickly. His incredible betrayal could not taint the memories he had given me over the years and neither could it stain his leadership and passion for the game. Hansie Cronje may have changed cricket forever with his misguided activities, but for me it doesn't detract at all from the confidence he provoked in the Proteas and, by extension, his gift to the cricket world.

Back to My Favourite Cricketer homepage.

The South African conspiracy

by Ben Roberts

I may have been reading too many Tom Clancy military/espionage thrillers but it struck me as I was walking Zoe the dog on an overcast yet humid Melbourne Sunday morning. I was grappling with an over active mind desperately trying to come to terms with the collapse of the Australian team in Cape Town. My focus has been limited in its direction of anger. Tired of simply shaking my head at the immature Phillip Hughes' selection, my anger more justifiably has been directed at the elder Brad Haddin, who is having more and more 'seniors moments', breaking only momentarily to lament the 'man crush' Australian cricket seems to have with the hopelessly inconsistent Mitchell Johnson.

But then as I waited patiently for Zoe to investigate for the 75^th time in five minutes that potentially another dog exists in this universe I realised how hopelessly misdirected the Australian cricket team has been in its focus for too long. Sun Tzu in 'The Art of War' teaches that as part of a successful campaign you must 'know your enemy', I submit that for at least 40 years (maybe more) Australian cricket has not, and thus stands little chance of ever winning its war with the cricketing world.

Two fallacies seem to intertwine here. Firstly we continue to focus our attention on the cyclical Ashes campaigns that pit our warriors against the 'Old Enemy' in England. Nothing is more important we tell ourselves than beating our old colonial masters at their own game. Secondly we live in the 'knowledge' that South Africans are 'chokers' and will never land the final punch. But in reality I believe England are not the enemy, and more often than not a nation labelled as 'chokers' has landed the punches that have weakened Australian cricket most, albeit surreptitiously.

Australia exited Sri Lanka in hope. A new captain, a new support regime coming, and a number of players with smiles on their faces just happy to be playing cricket. This continued at least for a day into the test at Cape Town, but as we know came crashing down in even more embarrassing fashion.

Of course the rubber finally hit the road for Australian cricket when they lost in such embarrassing circumstances to the English at home last summer. This was it, the lowest we could fall, but in reality was it the English or South Africans in disguise? It was no secret that Messrs Strauss, Trott, Prior, and Pieterson with a host of non-first team selections were born (and in some instances reach adulthood) in the nation of the rainbow flag. Australia's media tried in vain to create a flap about it, but in these days of the dollar being mightier than loyalty, and that it has been going on for years, there was little justification. But regardless of the legitimacy of playing rights, these men all emanated from South Africa, and drank the water over there.

Take yourself back then to early 1994 when the Australian team visited the post-apartheid nation for the first time in 35 years. We knew that our latest superstar was a bit of a lout and taken to streaks of arrogance, but we only for the first time realised that he was capable of such abuse towards a harmless opponent. Daryll Cullinan had (and still has) a mouth on him, but Andrew Hudson was as quiet as a church mouse as a player, yet somehow Warne decided that both players needed the rough side of his tongue. Our lionhearted gentle giant in Mervyn Hughes was taken to acts of abuse on the field toward opponents, yet at the Wanderers ground his anger spilled over into the player's race. A visit to South Africa brought out the worst of these two cricketers.

Only a few months previously at the Sydney Cricket Ground had South Africa so easily taken the career of Damien Martyn away. Despite the failings of the entire batting lineup it was he who took the blame and had his career stamped with being impetuous, almost leading to its death.

In 1992 Australia hosted the World Cup as incumbent champions. In 1987 they had been the upstarts who had toppled the best in the world and created momentum that saw them rise to competitiveness again in world cricket. This World Cup would be where Australia continued that progression, in front of its own adoring fans, but it was not to be. South Africa was one of the obstacles that Australia failed to clear in its demise, losing by nine wickets and having their own former import in Kepler Wessels take man of the match over the nation for which began his international career.

The last time Australian cricket was close to being as bad as it is now was of course the mid 1980s. Allan Border was grumpy, Dean Jones and Steve Waugh inconsistent, and Kim Hughes was bawling his eyes out. While not laden with anywhere near the talent to defeat the mighty West Indian teams they should not have been that bad. Why were they? Well Dr Ali Bachar and his open cheque book for rebellious play in the sporting pariah state probably has more than its fair share of blame. Heart and spine ripped out of the nations playing stocks the Australians lost in a test series to New Zealand; need description go further?

Prior to the period of outcasting from all international sport that South Africa went through they were able to take the bragging rights from Australia with one of the most dominant performances in test cricket history. Completely exhausted from proceedings in India the Australians flew into South Africa to receive one hell of a battering at the hands of Graeme Pollock, Peter Pollock, Barry Richards, and Michael Proctor, all cricketers whom, in one of the games greatest tragedies, had only limited international exposure. To lose all four tests comprehensively pushed Australia to the brink of sacking its captain Bill Lawry; the next series against Illingworth's England only needed to nudge for them to be over.

Sibling rivalry exists between Australia and South Africa. Both former colonial conquest trying to shake off the stamp of their former masters with one officially having shaken it with much bloodshed, the other remaining loyal and protected. Both nations with a history darker than one would desire but only one having felt the collective and polarised wrath of the wider world. South Africa as a proud nation has much to gain through success over Australia on the sporting field. While we fiddle with our clashes with England, the true 'Rome' will continue to burn.

Patrick Cummins is the future - Or not.

Patrick Cummins is the future.

No, hang on, maybe he's not. It's Josh Hazelwood. Tall, quick, can get it to wobble about a bit. Yes, definitely Josh Hazelwood.

Or perhaps it's James Pattinson. You know, English Darren's brother. Surely he's going to lead the Australian attack into the next decade, he's already played in the coloured clothing for us. I've changed my mind, we should embrace him as our spearhead.

But then where does that leave Peter George? And Mitch Starc? Or Nathan Coulter-Nile, Jayde Herrick, Trent Copeland and Burt Cockley?

Australia has a surfeit of youthful fast bowling talent at present. Not just young fast bowlers, but - on current evidence - good ones. This is a source of much-needed encouragement given recent events in the Baggy Green as defeats to pretty much everyone again conjure memories of all the West Indies lost in their regression from behemoth to basket-case.

Cricket in Australia is far from being completely turned around - in fact, it still may not even be going in the right direction. But CA's done everything it can - commissioning a report to put down in ink what any observer already knew. And the country has raw fast bowling talent to choose from - and it is that which is most crucial to a successful cricket side. The oldest of the fast bowlers named above are 25-year olds Copeland and Herrick.

Why so excited? Every successful postwar cricket team has had pace firepower in abundance. The Invincibles steamed through England behind Lindwall, Miller and Johnston; England of the fifties unleashed Statham, Trueman, Bedser and "Typhoon" Tyson; the West Indies speed vanguard often left their batsmen with little to do and Australia's dominant decades came as a result of the toil of Lillee, Thomson, McGrath and Gillespie.

Fast bowling talent wins games, not bowlers who send it down fast. And there's a difference between the two: Patrick Patterson was outrageously quick, had one of the great intimidatory attitudes, won a few of games for Jamaica and the West Indies, but never amounted to much. The same could be said for Brett Lee - you always felt he should have been better than he was.

There hasn't been this many exciting young Skippy flingers since the mid-eighties where from 1985-1988, Merv Hughes, Craig McDermott, Tony Dodemaide, Chris Matthews (!), Bruce Reid and Dave Gilbert were all young and clamoured for Test selection.

Both the West Indies and Australia have eloquently proved that when fast bowling talent makes way for people who bowl fast (*cough* Mitchell Johnson *cough*), teams quickly begin to lose matches. Most importantly, Pace talent means time not batting is spent attacking a position, rather than defending one. A quality pace platoon also excites onlookers and relieves pressure on their run-scorers. On a broader scale, it also infinitely strengthens batting on a national scale and means Moises Henriques will never play for Australia again.

England's transformation from also-ran to world champion came on the back of talented fast bowlers the ilk of Flintoff, Simon Jones, Bresnan, Finn, Tremlett and Anderson: each is/was able to combine discipline and an ability to make the ball "talk" with swing, seam or bounce. With a combination of some of the talent above, Aussie fans hope the same will happen in the Antipodes.

Australian punters (no, not that one) are excited about nascent fast bowling talent because since that fateful Sydney Test of 2007, the country's bowlers have lacked a leader. The plan was for Stuart Clark to hand over to "Notch" Johnson and Ben Hilfenhaus, which worked about as effectively as a a K-Tel nostril hair trimmer. The hierarchy hopes for a leader to whom they can turn when in trouble: a guy who gets the ball in the right spots to either restrict runs or take wickets.

Any of the current tyros may, in time, be that guy. But to expect Cummins - or anyone else, for that matter - to be a sort of proto-Mohammed Amir is unreasonable, unrealistic and more likely to produce a Lee than a McGrath.

The central board must keep two simple, everyday truths in mind: You almost never find what you're looking for until you stop searching and anointing young, unproven leaders rarely works. This is why Cummins, Copeland, Hazelwood or Pattinson shouldn't be anointed as the next leader of Australia's bowling attack until they have earned that position.

All of our past leaders have had to learn from experience: McDermott, while in his ostensible prime surrendered his Test berth to Dodemaide and Chris Matthews. McGrath emerged only after McDermott's injury - when absolutely noone saw it coming, least of all the West Indies lower order. The term "King-maker" is the epitome of a self-aggrandization, used only by the extraordinary vain and is based upon the flawed principal of anointing unproven "chosen ones" at an early age. Leaders emerge as circumstances allow.

More appropriately, leaders emerge when they conquer those circumstances. McDermott had to conquer immaturity and the stigma of being a ginger kid. Lillee overcame a crippling back injury - twice. Shane Warne fought an unlikely combination of playboy lifestyle and massive girth. McGrath had to rid himself of that horrible haircut.

It's possible, perhaps even likely, that Cummins, Hazelwood, Pattinson and Copeland will all be top-draw seamers. Especially, calling wunderkind Cummins a saviour and future leader is placing remarkable expectations on young, still-developing shoulders. Let him learn. Let him grow into his frame, his profession and international cricket.

This post was originally published on The Sight Screen.

Cricket: Jane Austen's World Cup

by Ben Roberts

For Anita, a Jane Austen lover and wife of a cricket tragic.

It is often said that sporting teams will take on individual characteristics that differentiate them from others. Describing these characteristics need not be limited merely to the mundanely clichéd terms of sport; they can come from the literary world.

Lying in bed thinking of how best to describe each of our World Cup challengers I realised how each of them fit seamlessly (in my own mind) into Jane Austen’s Victorian tale of Pride & Prejudice. See below, team’s are in alphabetical order.

Australia – Lydia Bennett: Gets what they desire in the end, however do not please others with the manner in which they do so, including their own ‘family’.

Bangladesh – Mr Bennett: Have some talent within them but are rarely taken seriously.

Canada & Kenya – The Bingley Sisters: Serve no purpose in the tournament except to ruin the future ambitions of Ireland.

England – Elizabeth Bennett: Like Lizzy, the English supporter lives a life of undue frustration and complication.

Ireland – Jane Bennett: With their coloured hair and pure joy in victory they are the simple souls of this competition.

India – Mr Wickham: Describe their motives as being pure however are believed by many to just be in it for the money.

Netherlands – Mr Collins: Existence is based purely on the patronage of one individual.

New Zealand – Mary Bennett: The poorer sibling of many, they have little talent but try hard.

Pakistan – Mrs Bennett: Can hold it together for short periods of time but likely to collapse into tantrum at any moment.

South Africa – Mr Darcy: The look and resource of a champion team however regularly cock it up at inappropriate moments.

Sri Lanka – Mr Bingley: Talent and riches and a zest for the game.

West Indies – Charlotte Lucas: Well past their glory years now, will settle for anything resembling success.

Zimbabwe – Lady Catherine de Burgh: More a reflection on the administrative leader of Zimbabwean cricket, a dictatorial and manipulative individual only concerned about their own end.

Like Austen’s tale we already seen the Netherlands bother England with more attention than one would feel comfortable about, and seemingly Ireland have a greater ability to woo victory than the English.

Do these undoubted parallels mean that England and South Africa or Ireland and Sri Lanka will be tied together at the end of the story...I mean tournament? Or will Australia and India elope in the final act of debauchery? This story is still to be written.

World Cup Predictions: Winners

In the finale of our seven-part World Cup prediction series, Matt goes head-to-head with Subash Jayaraman and Dave Siddall in selecting their World Cup winners.

Part 1: Leading Wicket-taker
Part 2: Leading Runscorer
Part 3: Surprise Packet
Part 4: MVP
Part 5: Dream Team
Part 6: Ace in the hole

Matt Wood

As much as the West Indies have (hopefully) crawled out from a decade and a half of shame and the tournament has Bangladesh playing a lot at home, as much as I’d like to pick a smaller nation making the second round, I just don’t see it. The minnows will leave early, leaving us with the obvious choices again. India and Sri Lanka are justifiable favourites due to their home-ground advantages, while South Africa’s finishing school for cricket talent has no equal. The bet here is the Proteas don’t have the attack to really exploit the conditions – Steyn is quality but supporting cast Tsotsobe, Morkel and Parnell aren’t favoured by the slower decks. Australia can’t be discounted – they’ve been impressive in swatting away England’s One-Day side, a team who seem to lack something that they can’t identify. I’m going to bet on Sri Lanka - India is incredibly reliant on the bowling penetration of Zaheer Khan and Harbhajan Singh. Should one of those two break down or play like a honker, India could really struggle to restrict opposition scoring. Sri Lanka have the spin of Murali and Mendis, the pace of Malinga and the all-round talents of Angelo Mathews.

===============================================================

Subash Jayaraman

This is the third time the world cup is being held in the Indian subcontinent. The last two times it was held (1987 and 1996), two subcontinent teams made it to the semis (India and Pakistan in 1987) and (India and Sri Lanka in 1996) with Sri Lanka winning it all in 1996. I am inclined to continue with this theme and expect India and Sri Lanka to get to the semi-finals this time as well. The two other semi-finalists, in my opinion, are going to be Australia and South Africa. (But I am very tempted to include either Pakistan or Bangladesh). I do think however, India and Sri Lanka will get to the finals. Sri Lanka does seem to be the most balanced side in the entire tournament and they are playing in home conditions. However, India beat them fair and square in Sri Lanka the last time they played ODIs. But the finals are going to be played in front of Tendulkar’s home crowd in Mumbai. So, I am going to go with my gut, heart and all other internal organs, and hedge my bet on India.

===============================================================

David Siddall

In my honest opinion there are 5 countries that have both the ability and consistency (sorry Pakistan!) to win the 2011 Cricket World Cup. They are Australia, England, India, South Africa and Sri Lanka. Of the 5, it is the perennially underachievers chokers of South Africa and India that have the finest XIs on paper and also the form to be considered the main contenders. In Sehwag and Ghambir, and Smith and Amla, they have the finest opening batting partnerships in the game with one claiming the title for most explosive and the other for most solid. In Kallis and Tendulkar they have two of the greatest ODI batsmen of all time. A further glance down their respective orders and you have batsmen that combine capabilities to play long innings with intimidating levels and varieties of strokeplay.

So what is there to separate these two sides? The answer lies in the bowling department. Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel have formed a devastating partnership capable of tearing through a side. As much as Zaheer Khan stars for India, fans would have to concede that South Africa hold in the edge in terms of the quicks on show. India meanwhile will feel they have the edge in terms of spinners on show. Johan Botha is an accomplished spinner but cannot be considered an attacking option. Unlike Botha, Harbhajan Singh is just that. India are also blessed with numerous spinners in their squad with Ashwin, Pathan, Raina, Yuvraj and Sehwag all providing options in favourable conditions.

The case for both teams is remarkably strong but I favour the side with bigger wicket-taking threat to come out on top. With that in mind, it has to be the biggest chokers of all South Africa to turn the tables on history and win the 2011 Cricket World Cup.

===============================================================

World Cup Predictions: Leading Wicket Taker

In a seven-part series, our own Matthew Wood goes head to head with Subash Jayaraman of The Cricket Couch and Dave Siddall of World Cricket Watch to send down their predictions for this year's World Cup.

Matt Wood

A quick glance at the stats from the last couple of World Cups reveals that the leading wicket taker has taken on average about 2.5 wickets per innings. In 2007 it was the indomitable Glenn McGrath while in South Africa Chaminda Vaas managed the most scalps. With that in mind, only a few of the bowlers on display this tournament have any chance of approaching those numbers: Malinga, Steyn, Brett Lee (involuntary shudder), Zaheer Khan and Pakistani pair Wahab Riaz and Umar Gul. Others may have the talent, discipline or unpredictability but these are the bowlers who are both in-form and better suited for the conditions available. They’re all pacemen, yes, but I remain unconvinced that any of the spin bowlers on show will be more than defensive stoppers. Lee will almost assuredly break down, so we can eliminate him; Pakistan produce the expected as often as they do adult film stars; leaving Khan, Malinga and the best fast man in the world, Dale Steyn. Steyn’s consistency sees him more likely to take a “Michelle” against a minnow, but Malinga’s slingers can be too much for even the best batsman to face – let’s go with the Sri Lankan.

WC Leading Wicket Taker Prediction: Lasith Malinga

===============================================================

Subash Jayaraman

There are couple of requirements for players to be featured in the leading wicket taker column. 1) Their respective teams need to make a deep run in the tournament 2) Face as many weak opposition teams as possible in the early round. Chaminda Vaas was the top wicket taker of the world cup in 2003 based on the fact that he took 12 of his 23 wickets against Bangladesh, Kenya and Canada. Of the total 10 matches he played in that tournament, he took more than half his share in just 3 matches against what could be called as weak opposition.

Looking at the 2011 World Cup Schedule, Group A has more number of weaker teams (Kenya, Canada and Zimbabwe) than Group B (Netherlands and Ireland). Bangladesh cannot be called a weak ODI squad anymore. It is not 2003 anymore and they are playing at home, where they have beaten New Zealand 4-0 in a recent series.

Therefore, by my hypothesis, the top wicket taker will emerge from Group A from the teams of Sri Lanka, Australia or Pakistan. Since the team has to make a deep run in the tournament and potentially play in the finals, I am more leaning towards Sri Lanka (Lasith Malinga or Muralitharan) than Australia (Brett Lee or Shaun Tait) or India (Zaheer Khan) or Pakistan (Umar Gul) or South Africa (Dale Steyn). Since Matt and David are already going for the pacers to be highest wicket takers, let me pick Muralitharan. This can be his swan song from all forms of international cricket.

WC Leading Wicket Taker Prediction: Muttiah Muralitharan

===============================================================

David Siddall

The leading wicket taker in the tournament will come from a team that goes a long way in the competition. Currently if you were asked to name the best quicks in the world [excluding the likes of the Mohammads Amir and Asif] the same names would crop up time after time – Dale Steyn, Zaheer Khan, James Anderson, Morne Morkel, and Lasith Malinga. Of those names Dale Steyn is the best bowler in the world.

We mustn’t forget spin however, as it is likely to be a huge factor in the sub-continent and a determining factor in the outcome of the World Cup. I’m of the opinion that the leading wicket taker won’t be a spinner for two reasons: 1) attacking spinners are thin on the ground with Muttiah Muralitharan, Graeme Swann and Harbajhan Singh seemingly the only exceptions and 2) spinners tend to bowl in those languid middle overs where consolidation and keeping the scoreboard ticking over are the main concerns for the batsmen.

Thinking strategically about the aforementioned quicks and every angle explored leads to one figure being the leading wicket taker in the tournament. Lasith Malinga might not be the best bowler in the world, but unlike Dale Steyn he is head and shoulders above his fellow countrymen’s pacemen. When you also consider that he is the finest exponent of “death” bowling in one day cricket with a wicked yorker and a devilishly disguised slower ball, the justification for the slinger becomes even more apparent. A strike rate of 32.9 isn’t half bad either.

WC Leading Wicket Taker Prediction: Lasith Malinga

===============================================================

Remembering the "A-Team", part 3

The Conclusion of our Special Feature on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the "A-Team's" Rebel Tour to apartheid-strewn South Africa.

For the record, I had rather a little too much fun working all this out.

To start with it was necessary to select the seventeen Rebel Tourists. What we did was to try and select the current players most resembling the 1985-87 tourists, based on his statistics up to that point, relative ages, reputations and playing styles. The ages don't tally up well because during that era players retired much earlier and as such a player at age 30 was much nearer the end of his career than a thirty-year old is today. Also matched, if possible, is their state of origin. As you'd expect, some comparisons proved easy, such as captain Hughes himself and the fast men while others weren't quite that simple.

In broad strokes, the touring party had to include:

- 7 players who played in Australia's most recent Test series (Australia in India),

- Australia's first-choice wicketkeeper, opening batsman and the two most damaging fast bowlers in the country, one out-and-out pace merchant and one who relies on the ball swinging,

and

- A few players who have played Test cricket but aren't currently around the team.

With these factors in minds, a direct comparison of the two teams could look a little like this:

"A-Team"	Current Equivalent	Reason for Selection / Comparison
Kim Hughes (c)	Mike Hussey (c) (WA)	Down-on-luck-and-form former best batsman in country, with spirit of the game first in thoughts
Terry Alderman	Ben Hilfenhaus (TAS)	Possibly Australia's premier fast-bowler, definitely the most rhythmic and best swing bowler
John Dyson	Phil Jacques (NSW)	NSW Opening batsman discarded by national selectors after being unable to convince despite opportunities
Peter Faulkner	John Hastings (VIC)	All-rounder capable with both bat and ball but without a dominant skill-set
Mike Haysman	Adam Voges (WA)	Exciting talent but largely ignored by national selectors. Also bowls useful off-spin.
Tom Hogan	Jason Krezja (TAS)	Tweaker examined and then ignored by national team leaders, perhaps unfairly. Also a reasonable bat and good team man.
Rodney Hogg	Mitchell Johnson (WA)	Inconsistent national teamer, match-winner on his day. Probably closer to the end of careers than care to admit
Trevor Hohns	Xavier Doherty (TAS)	Effective spinner with only middling first-class stats.
John Maguire	Nathan Bracken (NSW)	Fast-medium bowler with limited future Australian opportunities after being effecctively discarded
Rod McCurdy	Clint McKay (VIC)	Victorian fast-medium bowler with One-Day International experience but earmarked "Not of Test quality"
Carl Rackemann	Shaun Tait (SA)	Fastest bowler in Australia, more of a one-day specialist
Steve Rixon	Brad Haddin (NSW)	Incumbent wicketkeeper, perhaps reaching the end of his tether
Greg Shipperd	George Bailey (TAS)	Tasweigian top-ender never receiving adequate respect for abilities
Steve Smith	David Warner (NSW)	Swashbuckling opening bat, clearly labelled "Never again for Test matches"
Mick Taylor	Michael Klinger (SA)	Batsman toiling in obscurity yet with a fantastic average and many runs
Graham Yallop	Brad Hodge (VIC)	Experienced batsman inexplicably unselectable for Australia despite double-century within last five Test innings
Kepler Wessels	Shane Watson (NSW)	Best opener in country with most productive years ahead of him.

Now, if you were to put this squad down on paper against an Australian team suddenly deprived of their services the comparison becomes more interesting. The starting line-ups would probably look like:

Australia	Rebel Tourists
Simon Katich	Shane Watson
Phil Hughes	Phil Jacques
Ricky Ponting	Brad Hodge
Michael Clarke	Adam Voges
Usman Khawaja	Mike Hussey (c)
Marcus North	Michael Klinger
Tim Paine	Brad Haddin
Peter Siddle	Mitchell Johnson
Peter George	Clint McKay
Nathan Hauritz	Xavier Doherty
Doug Bollinger	Ben Hilfenhaus
12th Ryan Harris	12th George Bailey

Now if the challenge was to select one of these two squads to win a five match series, it isn't an easy choice. As the first Ashes Test so aptly reminded us, it's much easier to compensate for a lack of class in a team's batsmen than to replace premier strike bowlers. Because of this, any lack of batsmanship potentially suffered by the Rebels could be overcome by their stronger attack. True to form, the "A-Team" suffered more from batting inconsistencies than bowling impotency so comparison is encouraging at this stage.

Over the short term, a rebel tour today would gut Australian cricket stocks and first-choice depth would be reduced to such levels that the rebuilding would need to match that overseen by Simpson & Border. Like in 1985 with McDermott, Gilbert and Chris Matthews, the first choice bowlers would be inexperienced and as such returns would be unlikely until their successors had wrested control of the bowling positions. It wasn't Matthews and Gilbert who took Australia into their Golden Age but Merv Hughes, Bruce Reid and McDermott, who were around the national team within a year of the Rebel Tour but had yet to make their mark. This suggests that rather than the Peters George and Siddle, their eventual replacements - potentially Starc, McDermott Jr. and Pattinson - may prove the next strong Australian attack.

Again mirroring the situation in 1985, the batsmanship remains notably unaffected. Obviously without the services of Hussey and Haddin Australia would have lost the First Test with nary a whimper, but recently evidence indicates they're both on borrowed time at Test level. As with the bowlers, it wasn't the batsmen drafted in immediately to replace their A-Team counterparts who succeeded and subsequently helped form Australia into a world power. The team beaten for the Ashes in 1985 included three re-treads and one Tasmanian keg-on-legs newbie. Those retreads didn't survive for even a year as they were pushed aside by the exuberance of Jones, Marsh, Moody and Steve Waugh.

Subtracting seventeen high-quality players from any country's First-Class competition sets almost an entire generation to one side and brings through their successors irregardless of readiness. In 1985 that meant farewell to almost everyone born between 1955 to 1962 and a welcome to those born after that date. For Australia today, we could kiss good-bye to almost all our cricketers born from 1985 to 1990; meaning three to four years of pain before those born after 1990 mature to the point of being able to represent their country adequately. The younger generation then learns "the hard way" creating further teething problems followed by the results of that hard maturation process. It isn't just Australia who followed this process: the England teams that toured South Africa also went through growing pains before their eventual maturation. The West Indies had enough talent in the early 1980s to compensate for the Rebel teams that visited the Cape, testament to the ultimate strength and depth of West Indian cricket during that era. Those teams also included several older players rather than ones mid-career.

Though it's extremely unlikely that we will see another Rebel Tour, it's not too far-fetched an idea that a rebel cricket league such as World Series Cricket, the ICL or the Stanford Series could rob a country of many of it's top guns creating a similar talent-drain. Should the IPL become a larger concept then it could also conceivably do so. New Zealand has suffered since several national players signed ICL contracts including their premier bowler Shane Bond. Those once invincible West Indies now effectively suffers from Free Agency as players choose dollars over country. Should Australia - or indeed any country - lose seventeen of their top-level players then suddenly a team is thrust from gradual replenishment into full-throttle rebuilding.

Remembering the "A-Team", part 1

A three-part special feature on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Australian Rebel cricket tours to South Africa.

This month marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of an Australian squad's Rebel Tour of South Africa, an event which fostered a re-growth in Australian cricket and was also one of the last Rebel Tours to the apartheid-strewn land.

As a result of their racist apartheid policies, South Africa was essentially cut off from sporting ties with the rest of the globe. Each cricketing nation retracted any outstandig invitations for state-sanctioned teams to tour, while leaving any mail marked "South African Cricket Board" unopened and forgotten. The same applied for rugby, hockey and football: anyone who followed sport in South Africa was forced to rely on the domestic competitions for entertainment.

Although apartheid had been a featured South African government policy since 1948 and teams had visited the Cape Country, the major turning point proved to be the Basil D'Oliveira affair in 1968. A Cape-Coloured cricketer born in 1931, D'Oliveira emigrated to England as a twenty-nine year old due to the South African mandate of whites only representing their country in sport. By the age of 34 he had made his Test debut for England and was one of Wisden's Five cricketers of the year in 1967. As an MCC tour of South Africa loomed, sporting and political tensions rose between D'Olly's home and his adopted country and it became a common assumption that he would not be selected for the series after the South African Prime Minister made it known that he, and by extension any touring party containing him, would not be welcome.

D'Oliveira was not selected, but when paceman Tom Cartwright pulled up lame, he was selected as the injury-replacement for the hamstrung fast man. As with any bully, the South African government saw this decision as slight rather than a cricketing decision and Prime Minister Vorster retracted the tour invitation to tour and officially made sport "fair game" in the politics of apartheid. It was a decision which would haunt them as fortunately, the rest of the world played this "fair game" better than South Africa did.

When the Springboks toured England in 1970-71, a campaign of passive resistance led by Peter Hain proved such a hindrance to both the authorities and the South Africans and such a tour de force for raising awareness of those victimised by apartheid that further sporting tours were thought extremely insensitive, thoughtless and political suicide.

In 1981, the former South Africa cricket captain Dr. Ali Bacher became the head of the South African Cricket Union. Given there was no chance of the proto-Proteas participating in international matches until the demise of apartheid, the Union decided that cricket could only survive if a South African national side were to compete in unsanctioned internationals against international teams playing against the wishes of the United Nations, the International Cricket Council and their respective control boards. In order to induce players to tour, the individuals would have to be paid handsomely: reportedly the amount paid to each would would have fed 50,000 black South Africans for a year. The figures had to be that high as there were invariably recriminations against returning players. Bacher has since admitted that these were callous and insensitive steps.

The first Rebel Tour in 1982 was an English team led by Graham Gooch who faced several familiar, if ageing, South African cricket greats. Graeme Pollock, Mike Proctor, Clive Rice, Garth Le Roux, Peter Kirsten, Daryll Cullinan, Kepler Wessels, Hansie Cronje and Allan Donald all played for the South Africans against Rebel teams. The English tour was followed by tours from Sri Lanka and two West Indian sides led by Lawrence Rowe.

It was inevitable that an Australian XI would be approached.