On the South African limited overs team

For a while now I've been asking myself:  

What the hell's wrong with our limited overs side?

This question is usually muttered while turning away from another dismal TV broadcast, or glumly following another cricinfo commentary feed from my office desk. Once it felt like we were the team to beat in ODIs. Pundits marvelled at our home ODI series record. When T20 came around it felt like we were ahead of the curve, ready for this new format where other sides were still groping for answers.

How valid is this feeling? For a change I rolled up my sleeves and spent some time working up some numbers for you (and even this paltry exercise took too long - the child woke up, suddenly it was food, bath, etc and hours before any more cricket blogging took place).

ICC ODI ranking for South Africa in January of each year

The ICC rankings seem to back up that feeling. The Proteas ODI side seems to be in the worst mid-table slump since the years directly following readmission. I haven't done the same for the T20 rankings - you do it, gentle reader - but I bet you'd find the same.

So, why is this? I have some theories. Prop yourself up against the bar, get another beer, and I'll run them past you.

Focus on the Test side
This current golden age of South African Test cricket didn't come without a price. The performance of the Test side has been put at a premium over the limited overs teams. Players critical to Tests have been rested for ODIs and T20's; future generations will look at Steyn's record and wonder why he player so few of them. Limited overs games have been used to try out promising youngsters and likely "transformation players". The captaincy has changed hands more often and more experimentally. On the whole it's been taken a lot less seriously, and the results show it.

Other teams have gotten better
Especially at T20. These days the top sides seem to be playing a different game to the Proteas. Once upon a time the men in green and gold revolutionised ODIs with their fielding and running between wickets. T20 has come and the game has moved on. Teams around the world have identified new tactics and skill sets that are needed for winning, while we're still trying to play the same game. I have some theories about the team composition needed to win T20's (maybe worth a whole blog post), and it includes beefy baseball-style hitters, unconventional pacemen and mystery spinners. We have none of the above, instead we have...

An obsession with all rounders
All rounders have always a South African strong point. But you only need so many in a team, and we've had a lamentable tendency to pack our sides with three or four bits-n-pieces players (in addition to Kallis) instead of the best specialists available. Ever since Pollock and Klusener we've expected every provincial all rounder to deliver match-winning performances. Vernon Philander managed to escape that trap, although we're all slowly remembering that the guy can bat too. Others like Justin Kemp and Albie Morkel were victims of the expectations of the past. Cricket is a game where specialists shine - wicket takers and run makers need no extra skill (well, these days they do need to be decent fielders too). All rounders are a bonus, not a strategy.

Choking
The choking rep hasn't helped either. But the enough has already been said about that all over everywhere, which is probably part of the problem.

~

So as the Proteas proceed into the semis of the World T20, I'll be watching with low expectations. I think this team has done well to get as far as it has. Anything further will be gravy, especially against an unbeaten Indian side in their (almost) home conditions. I think there are some signs that our limited overs teams are coming out of this current funk, but there's a ways to go still until the glory days are back.
 

World Test XI, Q1 2014

Because there's no Test cricket for a while, and because the World T20 hasn't really fired my interest yet, and because we were AFK this weekend and this is a quick one to whip up... it's time for a snapshot of the World Test XI! This exercise amuses me, and it'll be a regular feature of this blog.

1. DA Warner
2. AN Cook
3. HM Amla
4. KC Sangakkara (cpt)
5. AB de Villiers (wk)
6. S Chanderpaul
7. VD Philander
8. MG Johnson
9. RJ Harris
10. DW Steyn
11. Saeed Ajmal

12th man: R Ashwin

Like some teams around the world, this XI finds itself in a state of some transition. It's hard times for specialist openers, with only Warner really putting his hand up. Cook sneaks in as the next best specialist. Smith is still listed but was not considered following his retirement.

No so with the middle order. Amla, Sanga, AB and Chanders would stand up to any in history. Taylor is unlucky to miss out. AB is still keeping for the Proteas so he gets the gloves here too. With no current captain selected I'm handing the arm band to the ever-classy Sangakkara.

Philander earns himself a promotion to 7 by topping out the all rounder ratings. Ashwin is hot on his heals but only makes the reserve slot.

Johnson, Harris and Steyn round out the fast bowling options. Along with big Vern that makes quite a pace battery; Sanga's only problem will be deciding who gets to open the bowling. Ajmal retains the spinners spot, just edging Herath out.

There we have it. We'll take a look at a World T20 XI as soon as the tournament wraps up, like next week or something.

SA v Aus: Rounding Up The Calls

The world of cricket moves fast enough these days that keeping to a one-post-per-week schedule feels like a plodding pace as news races past. As I write this Nepal have just thrashed Hong Kong on the opening day of World T20. More about that next week. Maybe.

In this post I'm going to look way way back into ancient history at the Australian victory in the Test series against top ranked South Africa. This won't be a wordy series review or well thought out retrospective. No, this evening we're going to tally up the pre- and mid-series trash talk and see how it panned out.

~~~~o~~~~

Aussie Trash Talk Roundup

Nobody talks smack like the Aussies. Let's see how they did.

"This Australian attack is the best in the World." ~Michael Clarke
Fired off before the Ashes were even over, this one got the South Africans justifiably heated up. Now that the dust has settled it has to be said that Clarke's fast men out bowled their Saffa counterparts. However Australia ended the series with a different pace attack than they started with, and Lyon's spinners were no better than JP Duminy's.
The call: EVENS

"I think he [Johnson] probably is the best fast bowler in the world at the moment." ~Craig McDermott
I'm willing to let the stats speak for themselves here. Mitch sure is on fire. Hope the toe comes right soon.
The call: WIN

"Still 'bull....', Graeme?" ~Daniel Brettig after the first Test.
Port Elizabeth followed a few days a later.
The call: FAIL

"I would have liked to see him [Vernon Philander] bowl at Adelaide in that second Test when he apparently hurt his back." ~David Warner
Vern bowled his share of hard overs during the series, albeit without much success. Warner's series was dazzling, but he can't justifiably accuse his opponent of shirking any work.
The call: FAIL

"The boys have learned how to play him [Vernon Philander]." ~Peter Siddle
With seven wickets at 51, the Aus top order sure seemed to have worked out how to play Philander.
The call: WIN

"They did it better than what we did, or more obvious than what we did." ~David Warner, on ball tampering
Warner followed up by accusing AB's wicketkeeping gloves. I don't think much needs to be said about this one.
The call: FAIL

"Low and slow, it [PE] is the sort of wicket that threatens to kill cricket instead of the batsmen who play on it." ~Malcolm Conn, after Day 2 at PE
This pretty much summed up the Aussie whining during and after the PE Test. Conn was singing a different tune after day 4.
The call: FAIL

"David Warner’s lack of respect making Australia look like whingers." ~Malcolm Conn
When a low-brow critic like Conn - whose column is written at a 8th grade reading level using the maximum number of monosyllables and single-sentence paragraphs - disses you like this it's pretty embarrassing. Good on Mr Conn.
The call: WIN

~~~~o~~~~

Alan's Calls

Because we're all about objectivity over here. Let's take a look at my own pre-series predictions.

"My money is on Ryan Harris as the danger man"
Mitch sure did pitch, but I stand by this prediction. One has only to watch the highlights of the last Test and read the post match press coverage to see how important Harris is to the side. The Australians will be hoping that he makes a swift post-op recovery.
The call: WIN

"If Steyn, Philander and Morkel stay fit enough to play all the games the Proteas will probably win"
Steyn's fitness struggle was pretty clear, and Morkel wasn't without niggles. So I've got an out here. Still, they took the field in all the games, so...
The call: EVENS

"The senior [batsmen] in Smith, Amla and de Villiers are going to need to collectively make up the extra man"
I'll stand by this one too. Too bad Smith's head was in a different place.
The call: WIN

"Clarke is world class [...] Of the rest, I've always rated Warner and Spud Smith. The rest are a mix of overrated senior pros and unproven rookies."  
The first half was a bit of a no-brainer, but I'll take credit for it anyway. The second was born out by the performances of Marsh, Doolan and Rogers.
The call: WIN

"Tail end runs [will be] a vital difference."
Both tails scored runs, but neither was that vital to the results.
The call: FAIL

"And finally... Sledging"
Again, a no brainer in any Aus/SA context. If anything the Aussies have gotten worse over the years. Maybe the stump mikes are just better. 
The call: WIN

~~~~o~~~~

Memories of Captain Smith

On the 30th of December 2002 I packed my worldly posessions into my newly purchased '98 Citi Golf and drove the Garden Route to Cape Town, leaving my parent's house behind me to start my first job in an unfamiliar city. The car wasn't very full. January 2003 was spent sleeping on the floor of a rented bachelor flat. My first paycheck arrived on the 25th and because the World Cup was around the corner I bought a television and stood it against the wall on top of the box it came in. In February I watched the Proteas knocked out of the tournament, and slept on the floor for another month.

Graeme Smith and I are just about the same age. I remember being struck by this when he was first drafted into the side in 2002. The other cricketers in the national side at the time were clearly older guys than myself. But Smith wasn't. Suddenly growing up didn't seem that far away. Except for my lack of any actual skill at playing the game - a pesky detail that many sports fans must face - I was able to look at him and said to myself "that could be me".

Later in 2003 I remember evenings spent at my flat window, beer can in my hand, looking out over the shadows lengthening over Rondebosch and listening on the radio (or following on cricinfo, I forget) as Smith, now captain, piled up the runs against Nasser "what's-his-name" Hussain's England. The poms burgled a drawn series there, but Smith claimed the first of his three English captain scalps as Hussain resigned.

South African cricketers will always be divided into two groups for me: pre-Smith and post-Smith. Those before him belong to my father's sporting generation. I remember seeing them on TV from the vantage point of his couch or with him in the stands at St Georges Park, watching the isolation era Currie Cup and then later as Kepler and Hansie led the return to international cricket; the memories of scholar and a student. My memories of Proteas cricketers from Smith onwards are from a different city, with different company and part of a different life.

My second last year renting that bachelor flat in Rondebosch was 2006. On the same television, still sitting on it's box, I remember watching the 438 game. Most of the Australian innings was spent not watching the set, but the same can't be said for the three hours after that. Gibbs rightly gets remembered for his batting that day, but Smith's rapid-fire batting first up is what set the pace and made us all believe it was possible. It seldom gets the credit it deserves (and neither does van der Wath's manic 30 in the dying overs of the chase).

I suspect that history will largely remember Graeme Smith for the last five years of his captaincy. The Proteas team that he led from 2008 to 2013 dominated home and away, failing only to bring home any ICC silverware. His record as a batsman will always fall just slightly short of the greats, especially after a year of poor form at the tail end. Despite that he still rates as the greatest opening batsman South Africa has produced. If his feats as a captain outshine those as a batsman it is only because the former are so memorable.

I will remember Smith as the sportsman who divided my childhood from my adulthood. Eleven years after I watched him take Jonty's place in the 2003 World Cup squad, we both have young families and different priorities. The world has moved on from the days of our youth. Good luck and godspeed where ever life takes you from here Graeme. Thanks for all the memories.

On Statistics And This Blog

As I type the rain is falling in Cape Town and there's only one team that can win the deciding Test from here. Clarke and his top order have picked the right game to get their act together. I don't expect many more interruptions of play, so a result is entirely possible. We'll need to see what the next nine sessions bring, but a post on whatever those events are will have to wait a little longer.

While we all wait for the start of play at Newlands (10am tomorrow folks), it's time to deploy one of my designated backup pieces: the place of statistics in this project of mine.

Along with a love of cricket I'm equally unashamed to admit a love for statistics. It was my second major at university. While that isn't much of a claim to fame, it is enough to know my correlation from my causation.

Statistics and cricket are usually thick as thieves. The nature of the game leaves much (but not enough) that can be quantified and lots of time (in hindsight) to analyse the data. It's almost an unwritten convention that no cricketing opinion should offered but that it is backed up by some or other statistical snippet.

Despite all this, you will not find many numbers quoted or stats expounded here. This might seem a strange choice and so here, for the record, are my reasons:

Time. Did I mention that I don't have much free time? Compiling accurate and enlightening stats to back up my points takes time - time that I don't have. Where I feel it matters I will usually fact check my statements. Please to go over to Statsguru and check up on me.

Redundancy. The truth is that there's nothing much that I can add to the field. Well, there may be - I have some interesting ideas for cricket stats that I'd like to see - but not without a significant investment of my time. The pages of cricket writing both online and offline already include greater volumes of commentary on and creation of cricket statistics than, frankly, is sensible or decent. I especially direct those looking for a fix of cricket statistics to the excellent writings of Kartikeya Date and Anantha Narayanan.

Lies. And damn lies, and statistics. I may not be the sharpest tool in the statistical shed, but I know enough to understand how the numbers can be shaped to support the most subjective arguments. I would rather not be part of that.

Subjectivity. Because at the end of the day these are opinion pieces. I don't want it to feel like this is a lecture hall where assertions are carefully laid out on a chalk board, explained and proven. No sir, coming here should feel like getting trapped with me against the bar of a busy pub and having to listen while I bend your ear over a couple of pints about the game that we both love.