CRICKET
Peter Robinson
The point about arrogance is that it usually helps to have something to be arrogant about. Shaun Pollock’s South Africans were accused of arrogance on the grounds that they spurned the opportunity to warm up in Harare, arriving in Zimbabwe just two days before the first Test, but it took them less than five sessions to make the point that they had fair reason to be confident.
By any standards a total of 600/3, scored at more than four runs to the over, is a decent go of it. Thankfully the South Africans resisted any temptation to further humiliate their hosts by retiring any of their batsmen “out”.
This happened in Colombo last week when Sri Lanka’s Marvan Atapattu and Mahela Jayawardene gave up their innings after scoring 201 and 150 respectively against Bangladesh.
It may well be argued, indeed it has been argued, that the Sri Lankans were justified in getting a couple more batsmen to the crease as the slaughter of the hapless Bangladeshies continued. Pull the other one. There is no excuse for shoving two fingers up to the opposition and saying, in effect: “You’re just not good enough to get us out.” Retiring out is acceptable in pre-season friendlies, Sunday afternoon knockabouts when everyone wants to have a bat, and at junior levels where it is sometimes necessary to protect sensitive young souls.
It should not, however, be acceptable at Test level and it is difficult to know exactly what Bangladesh would have learned from this. In Harare the South African top order pasted an under-strength attack, but this is exactly what you would expect from one of the world’s best teams: no favours offered, none asked for.
This aside, the match was about as good a workout as South Africa could have asked for at this stage of the season. Herschelle Gibbs, Gary Kirsten and Jacques Kallis were all said to be a little soggy from weeks of rain in Cape Town, but you would never have guessed it.
The South Africans have been criticised for taking so long to bowl Zimbabwe out twice, and, yes, it was hard work. But the tourists were without two or three of their probable first-choice bowlers (depending on whether you regard Mfuneko Ngam as an automatic first-choice at this early stage of his career) and two members of the attack, Andre Nel and Claude Henderson, were on debut.
Nel found that bowling in a Test match on the flattest of pitches takes it out on the feet, but he struck occasionally and well and that’s what he was there for. Henderson looked better the longer he bowled and it is by no means certain now that Nicky Boje will reclaim his place in the Test side once he recovers from injury.
And there was, of course, Andy Flower who played as well against South Africa as any batsman since readmission. His pair of centuries were monuments to concentration and application and it is almost certain the first Test match will be remembered as “Andy’s match”.
But he is playing in a team that can barely afford a single injury or lapse in form, so thin are Zimbabwe’s resources, and the question that this game, and the Colombo match, raises is: how good are contests such as these for Test cricket overall?
I would venture not very. South Africa took as much from the game as they deserved, they should win the second Test in Bulawayo, starting on Friday, comfortably, but the one-size-fits-all Test championship currently in place needs to be questioned.
There has always been, as New Zealand have long complained, an informal division of Test-playing nations into upper and lower classes. With the best will in the world, neither Bangladesh nor Zimbabwe would qualify for the first division and they still have to beg for tours from the stronger countries. Perhaps two divisions are required, together with a system that permits non-championship series between, say, South Africa and Zimbabwe to be played on a regular basis. Certainly, a Test championship in which batsmen are regularly “retired out” is not going to convince anyone.
Peter Robinson is the editor of CricInfo South Africa