An inept display in Adelaide has left South Africa with an enormous task Peter Robinson Well, if nothing else Shaun Pollock’s South Africans know exactly what they need to do in the next two Test matches bat better, bowl better and catch better. This accomplished, the series should be a doddle. It’s difficult to be upbeat about Adelaide, so crushingly superior were Australia, particularly over the last two days. It’s also not much use carping about the fact that again South Africa have been kept away from Perth and Brisbane. There are solid marketing, as well as strategic reasons for the choice of Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney as the venues for the Test matches. And the South Africans can hardly complain that they did not know what to expect in Adelaide. For all the concerns expressed about the pitch, it played pretty much as expected and it’s worth remembering that on the fourth day Australia scored 306 in 75 overs to rip the match away from South Africa. What was most disappointing, though, was the absence of the disciplines and spirit with which South Africa have traditionally approached contests with Australia. This, more than anything else, suggests that not everything is as it should be with the side in Australia. For all the talk of the psychological battle with the Australians, everything points to at least some of the wounds being self-inflicted. Why, for example, was there a late change of heart about the number three position into which Boeta Dippenaar was suddenly thrust? He sat out the unofficial Test against India at SuperSport Park and did not play in South Africa’s warm-up match against Western Australia with, to all intents and purposes, Jacques Rudolph earmarked for the number three spot. Then the South Africans seem to have changed their minds. It has emerged that one of the reasons for leaving Rudolph out was the belief that he suffers from the occasional”adrenaline rush”. This may or may not be the case, but there are many who would argue that one of Rudolph’s main attributes is a maturity as a batsman beyond his years, that he has the temperament to succeed at the highest level. More to the point, Dippenaar has been in and out of the side so often that he would not be human if he hadn’t seen Adelaide as one of his last chances, if not the last chance, to establish himself. Rudolph, on the other hand, would have suffered no such fears. In a nutshell, Dippenaar must have gone out to bat wondering whether his international career was on the line; Rudolph, on the other hand, would have batted believing that his future still lies ahead of him. It would seem likely that the South Africans will make the change for the Boxing Day Test in Melbourne, but they are now faced with another problem. Should Rudolph go in at three with the Australians convinced that they have discovered the weak link in the South African batting order or would it be more prudent to blood him at five with Jacques Kallis reverting to first drop?
Even more damaging than this example of uncertainty has been the fuss around Makhaya Ntini. In brutally frank terms, Ntini has not done enough this year to justify his selection. In his past nine Tests, spread over four series, his return has been 11 wickets at 67,64. If you include the SuperSport match, during which he showed some signs of recapturing form, it amounts to 14 wickets at 60,64. These statistics ought to speak for themselves, but there is a political dimension to his selection, a point happily seized upon by the Australian media. As much as the sports minister may storm into newspaper offices and bluster that he has not tried to influence selection, it is an open secret that when Ntini was left out of the side for the fifth Test in the West Indies, he picked up the phone and wanted to know why. The chief victim of this clumsiness has been Ntini himself. The Australians are perfectly capable of studying bowling figures and a whiff of political involvement is simply grist to the mill. Ntini has been targeted, just as Daryll Cullinan was on two tours and Muttiah Muralitharan was set up the last time the Sri Lankans were in Australia. There’s not a great deal the South Africans can do about this now, beyond leaving Ntini out of the Melbourne Test and thereby proving that he does not receive favourable treatment. It is not entirely clear what Allan Donald’s state of fitness is, but if South Africa are to have a sniff at levelling the series, he has to play in Melbourne. If not, Steve Elworthy must and there is a good argument for having them both in the team, as hard as Nantie Hayward tried in Adelaide. South Africa also need to reconsider Lance Klusener at six. While his bowling was one of the positive aspects of the first Test, Mark Boucher’s gutsiness might serve South Africa there, and Klusener would not suffer from going down a place or two in the order. Which, in a roundabout sort of way, brings us to Jonty Rhodes. It’s foolish to argue that if Rhodes had been available for Adelaide South Africa would not have lost, but it’s difficult to escape the feeling that much of what was missing in the first Test was precisely the sense of urgency that Rhodes gives to the side. If you listen to Graeme Pollock, a great deal of effort was put into persuading Rhodes to make himself available for the Australian Tests. Convenor of selectors Rushdi Magiet’s version is that Rhodes was asked if he was willing to play. The point is, though, that this should not have been a matter for the selection panel. The United Cricket Board has been less than firm or consistent in its dealings with Rhodes, Donald and Cullinan, all of whom have prevaricated about playing Test and one-day cricket. On the face of it a different interpretation of policy seems to have been applied in each instance. This, it hardly needs to be said, is nonsense. During the Adelaide Test you may have noticed veritable flocks of sea-gulls happily ensconced in the fine-leg and third-man areas. There will be more of them in Melbourne and Sydney, but it’s not the seagulls that South Africans have to worry about, it’s all the chickens that have chosen this tour to come home to roost. Peter Robinson is the editor of CricInfo South Africa