South Africa’s victory over Bangladesh was — at a fleeting glance — all the hosts would have asked for: they bowled Bangladesh out cheaply in only 35 overs, then came out and got the 109 required to win in 12 overs flat, at a run-rate of nine to the over. Surely it would be a cruel man who still isn’t satisfied?
I’m a cruel man.
Or rather — an honest man. I want this side to be the best it can possibly be, and on Saturday it just wasn’t. It’s no surprise that Gibbs and Gazza got those runs so quickly — they were just doing what was required as they have been this whole World Cup. Nobody’s bitching about the batting — it’s been sublime, with Gibbs leading the most runs table by more than 100 runs, and Gazza slotting in at fourth (and Gazza would be higher on that table, and the game against New Zealand could well have been won — if he hadn’t inexplicably been shunted down the order in favour of Nicky Boje).
The fielding came back in a big way on Saturday, with not a catch dropped (Dippenaar took three excellent catches), and not a ball was misfielded or allowed to get any more runs than was absolutely necessary.
Which leaves just the bowling. South Africa bowled Bangladesh out for 108 in 35.1 overs, but the Bangladesh batsmen were just as pathetic as they have been all World Cup, meaning it was difficult to read too much into their wickets. But I have some observations.
Pollock and Ntini were once again excellent up front, with Ntini going on to Man of the Match for his figures of 4/24 off seven overs, and Pollock doing the usual by returning 2/8 off six overs. The Bloemfontein wicket was beautiful for batting, but they both still got movement off the pitch, and Pollock even swung the odd one. Ntini reached a pleasing fastest ball of 148.6, and created some difficult angles.
Andrew Hall was excellent — full of aggression (he hit Tushar Imran on the head in the fifteenth over, and followed it up with a string of invective instead of a helping hand), swung the ball and got good movement and bounce off the pitch. He got 2/15 off six overs, and always looked threatening. It’s a pity we didn’t get to see him bat, as it’s an important facet to whether he merits selection or not, but at least his bowling is looking hard and dangerous, and his attitude is brilliant.
But once again Kallis looked weak with the ball in hand — in one over he got the speed up to 140km/h, but mostly hung around in the 133km/h range. When he gets angry he bangs it in quicker, and looks a far better bowler, but he doesn’t get angry anywhere near enough. Which I can’t understand, considering how he’s been spanked so far in this tournament. He got no wickets for his five overs, and in the context of the game — and the talent of the Bangladeshi batsmen — he was figuratively pasted in going for 19 runs.
Kallis not firing as a bowler is not helping the selection panel, who unfortunately got it wrong again on Saturday. It means they have to include an extra bowler in case Kallis doesn’t fire, but inevitably he’s going to have to bowl — and against the bigger sides he’s going to get smacked.
The selection mistake was Zondeki and Peterson. Neither was impressive, and it’s pretty obvious they aren’t going to be included against the big sides, so why not give the bowling to the men who are? Smith should have been in the side as the spinner, and Langeveldt should have played instead of Zondeki, who despite all the hype is nowhere near as quick as everyone’s making out he is. He bowls a lot of wides, his line is erratic, and his pace will have batsmen like Hayden and Jayasuriya unable to hold their bats — they’ll be trembling too hard in excitement. It’s the perfect pace (low 140’s) to just thud into the bat nicely on its way to the fence, but not quick enough to fool or bamboozle or frighten anyone.
I’m sure Zondeki is going to be great and all that — but with only three ODI’s under his belt he just doesn’t have the experience or record to show that he is going to trouble the big batsmen. My point, therefore, is why was he included? Let him get experience somewhere else — there are bowlers who need to be bowling as many overs as possible before the Sri Lanka game, and time is running out.
I could understand the inclusion of Peterson if he ripped it through his fingers, sent it hissing through the air like an angry horsefly, gripped the pitch like an enraged Vulcan and spun and twisted and zipped it viciously in all directions. But he doesn’t — I’ve watched him in a number of games now and he looks as innocuous as an octagenerian pope on morphine. Very little turn, predictable flight, and no real danger in pitching, and precisely how he’s going to take Big Wickets with that still eludes me, after all this time.
If you want a specialist spin bowler you get Paul Adams — he can produce all of the above, and is not anywhere close to how expensive everyone believes he is. But he’s not in the side, despite being one of 2002’s South African Cricketers of the Year. Look, I didn’t select the final fifteen, did I?
Graeme Smith can’t do any worse than Peterson did, and I believe he actually bowls better — he grips it, turns it, and takes wickets, and the batting option he affords is vastly superior to the option brought by Peterson.
Langeveldt is a better bowler than his outing against Kenya would suggest, and he must bowl against Canada next week. He is the best replacement for Alan Donald, who I should bloody well hope will not play another part in this World Cup. Of course he will, and he will muck it up — if I’m wrong on that I’ll apologise in this column, but I won’t be — watch.
As for the batting, let me preface this by saying (as I am going to do from now on until he retires) that once again Gibbs got the plaudits and admiration for his superb effort in reaching the target, while Gary Kirsten was mentioned almost as an afterthought. What is wrong with people? Why are they so…well…..stupid? Gazza not only outscored Gibbs, he did so at a far better strike rate, something he does far more frequently than anyone gives him credit for. Commentators are always Pleasantly Surprised whenever Gazza does this, but he does it far more often than anyone realises.
Gibbs was supreme, as was Gazza, and that’s the end of that story. These two are clearly the matchwinners for South Africa, combined with Klusener down the order, and they’ve more than earned their salaries.
Now they need to bat first against Canada — it’s all very well getting the big run rate, but some key men need time in the middle, and against Canada everyone can go ballistic as it won’t matter if they get out. It will be a good test of where Kallis is at, what’s happening with Smith, and how aggressive Hall is looking with bat in hand, and a good 50 overs should sort that out right quick.
Overall it’s looking better, but the bowling is still giving me sleepless nights, and I’d like to see my suggestions in action against Canada.
Won’t happen, but I can always dream.
Cheers,
The Twelfth Man
Read more columns at www.tashitagg.co.za
More cricket in our Cricket World Cup special report