Batting blues: Selectors need to think again after dismal failure against Kiwis
CRICKET: Jon Swift
THERE are, in the light of South Africa’s 137-run loss to Ken Rutherford’s touring New Zealanders at the Wanderers this week, a number of matters to be pondered. The most pressing of these is the continuing failure of the South African top order.
This aspect needs more than just a passing discussion by the selectors. It is a matter of urgency. More especially so since the panel have opted to discard John Commins and stay with Andrew Hudson — admittedly bolstering this decision by the inclusion of Northern Transvaal left- hander, Mike Rindel — for the upcoming one-day series.
Hudson, it must be said, is a hugely talented batsman at best. The devoutly God-fearing Natalian’s strong belief that this talent comes from on high is not to be debated.
What is evident in his current form slump is that the natural gifts with which he has been so abundantly imbued are, as all things human, inherently flawed and imperfect.
It is time the selectors gave Hudson the opportunity to regain his form outside the Test arena. In short, he should be put in the position of playing his way back into the team rather than playing himself out of an international career.
One would also wonder about the international future of Commins. The Boland skipper had a run of 77, 93 and 86 in the four Castle Cup knocks he had running up to his being named as part of the 12-man squad for the Wanderers Test. With former national captain Kepler Wessels nursing his time-ravaged knees and not available for selection, Commins must have fancied his chances of making the final XI for the first Test. Instead, he carried the drinks.
It begs the question why Commins was selected in the first place. The failure to see Hudson’s batting problems as being something akin to terminal at present led to the ommission of Commins and the reshuffling of the order to bring Brian McMillan in at No 3.
Much has been asked of Big Mac since this country’s return to the international fold in India. He has seldom failed to live up to expectations. Peter Pollock, convenor of the selection panel, quite rightly says, “Brian is a very vital part of the side”. Indeed he is. But to bowl him as hard as any skipper would be forced to do in a five-day international and expect him to perform as the first man in behind a somewhat shaky opening pair is a tall order in anyone’s language. One suspects that even for the stout heart of McMillan this was simply a bridge too far.
Batting McMillan that high in the order was an interesting experiment and undoubtedly gave some substance to the brittle crust at the top of the batting.
And brittle it is. In the first innings, only Daryll Cullinan, who weighed in with 58, got past the half century mark among the top half dozen in the order. This was in sharp contrast to the mirror image in the Kiwi order, where five of the top six came good, best of all Martin Crowe.
That marvellous 93 from wicketkeeper Dave Richardson, the real heart of both the batting and the side, was both face- saving and typical of what has happened time and time again to our Test side.
Quite simply, this country’s cricket relies far too often on the heroics of one man — often down the order — to bring some semblance of sanity to the debris of the top end.
It is pointless in hindsight to calculate that 199 runs off the 90 overs bowled on the final day was arithmetically well within reach with eight second wickets still standing. History will irrevocably show otherwise.
Or that the rapidly deteriorating state of an otherwise faultlessly prepared track was solely to blame. There seemed to be a general feeling of bewilderment — and it must be added, lack of Test-class concentration — among the batsmen, bar Hansie Cronje, once McMillan had gone without adding to his overnight 42.
Cronje’s lone attempt to hold back the attacking hoards from the gate — and here Matthew Hart’s left-arm guile and man-of-the-match Simon Doull’s aggressive seam laid waste the South Africans — was a brave yet futile gesture.
There was little either in substance or score to commend the South Africans who followed Big Mac to the crease. One worries mightily about the coming one-dayers, the first of which
for the South Africans is against the same New Zealanders in Cape Town on Tuesday.
That said though, there is very little wrong with a big- hearted, ever-willing attack. What the South Africans lack in pure pace and real depth in numbers, is made up by an unshakeable belief that the breakthrough is coming.
Sadly, despite some really fine bowling on the opening morning of the first day from Fanie de Villiers and Richard Snell, the momentum they generated in the morning never really carried through to the afternoon.
Matthews, such a fine purveyor of line and length as a rule, battled to establish the rhythm so vital to his bowling and never quite came up to the standards he has set himself. The match-winning 411 Rutherford’s men racked up gave evidence of this.
But then it was the bowling which put the South Africans firmly back in the match with some inspired stuff from both De Villiers and Matthews — thankfully back in the groove which makes him so much better a bowler at international level than on the provincial plateau.
Again though, it is not being carping to say that the attack, having done their back-breaking duty, could not be expected to pull the batting out of the ruins it created for itself with that effort behind them.
As has been noted in the case of Hudson cricketers are only human, unfailingly fallible and subject to more intense presure than the average ambulatory civilian.
Whcih leads directly back to the round of one-day encunters — in the B & H series or the Mandela Cup, for clarity — in which we take on the Kiwis with the ade impetus of Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
With Wessels again unavailable for the first three games of the sedries, the inclusion of Rindel in the 14-man squad should ad some urgency tot he batting.
Loose Rindel may be at times but he is without question one of the better exponents of the art of getting the ball over the ring of fielders in this country. It is an attribute to savour and a selection to be applauded.
So are those of Dave Callaghan and Eric Simons. Callaghan has something to offer both with the bat and the ball and, while Simons is there to bolster the attack, he is no slouch at geting the scoreboard moving when the mood — or the moment — strikes him.
The one-dayers should be a proving ground. A launch pad for promotion to the more serious — and ultimately more memorable — stuff of contesting five-day Tests.
One wonders if this is indeed the thinking of the selectors. Arguably this is not the case. We await further developments — the nominated 14 are only there for the first three limited overs games — and meanwhile, debate possible changes and variations.