The night the albatross was lifted Part one

I am not a particularly emotional fella. Maybe a little. Never cried watching Oprah, or Titanic. Okay, Mufasa dying in the Lion King got me a little. Every single time I watch the damn film. But there was something about the performance the South African cricket team put up against a very game Sri Lankan team which brought tears to my eyes. Too understand why, you need to understand South African cricket. It’s methodical, it’s structured. It’s about winning. That is all. It’s also had an albatross around its neck since before I was born. Nobody, but nobody could have imagined the night the weather wreaked havoc with our aspirations in Sydney ’92 that it would be nearly exactly twenty-three years before we would win a knock out match in the World Cup. My first experience with the World Cup failure was that night in Durban when rain and rather strange scientific calculators conspired to prevent us from succeeding against the Sri Lankans. We didn’t lose, but we didn’t win either. And more importantly, in a high pressure situation, we didn’t execute skills which any you could be reasonably expected to execute. In this case, the skill was typing numbers into a computer. We choked. That wasn’t our first brush with asphyxiation of course. The 1999 world cup was characterized not by the final, but by two incredibly bizarre mistakes to make by the South African team. No one will ever know why Herschelle Gibbs, as good a fielder as the world has ever seen, felt the need to celebrate before the ball was completely in his control. Steve Waugh didn’t really tell him, “you just dropped the world cup”, but he didn’t have to. Hindsight and history did a pretty good job of getting that point across all on their own. The Semifinal is often regarded as the essential gold standards in which all ODI games are judged. Rightfully so too, it was an outstanding match with fabulous performances from all-time greats, a fantastic knock from the player of the tournament, and an ending so dramatic, you wouldn’t believe it . We also choked away a win having done a remarkable job to even get ourselves to a place where victory was not an improbable theory. Come 2007, we didn’t choke, so much as have a brain fade the size of which can’t really be quantified. It beggars belief that in the middle of a collapse in Calypso, not one player thought it prudent to maybe try get themselves in first,. Assess conditions. Try not follow the guy who just got dismissed. The idea eventually came to mind, of course. At about 27/5. 2011 Was an ever bigger disaster. Kallie of all people tried taking on the biggest player in the team, on the longest boundary on the ground. It did not end well. Fantastic catch mind you. Faf got into a melee, and elimination swiftly followed. It has been a long journey to that world cup KO match win. One which includes failures in ICC Champions Trophy events, and other failures on smaller scales...

Sri Lanka vs South Africa

The first semi final of the 2015 cricket world cup promises to be an intriguing affair. South Africa vs. Sri Lanka has traditionally proven to be extremely close competitors at One day international level. How close you ask? Well, Sri Lanka has win twenty nine matches to South Africa’s 28. Razor-thin really, between the two of them. An interesting sub plot in this match is the fact that this might be the last time Kumar Sangakarra steps onto a cricket pitch in pajama gear. In my opinion, the greatest batsman since Don Bradman, it would be fitting if Kumar could lift the trophy, owning two runner-up medals already. Cricket however, doesn’t really do fitting. After all, Don Bradman himself needed only four runs in his final knock to retire averaging 100, and as we all know, he went for a duck. Probably wished he retired just before the match on his way out. No, this isn’t really a sport which deals in poetic justice. Warne had to retire from ODI having failed a drug test. Hansie was retired at the proverbial hangman’s noose in the King’s Commission. What chance then, does old Sangakarra have of attaining the fairy tale ending? There’s a view, which has merit, that he already has the fairy tale ending. After all, no other batsman has scored four hundreds in four consecutive cricket games. But Sangakarra is a great team man, and individual accolades, while great, are probably not the reasons for him giving this world cup thing one final go. It is therefore unfortunate that Sri Lanka has lost, rather convincingly, their only two matches against pre-tournament favourites. Both New Zealand and Australia went to town on Sri Lankan bowling, amassing over 700 runs in 100 overs against a rather limited attack. Even England, managed to knock three hundred past this attack. This does not bode well going into a match against the only team in history to score 400 in back to back matches. Yes, South Africa cannot chase, but they’d be licking their lips at a chance of batting first against this Lankan attack. It is my opinion that if South Africa bats first, they have a 60-40 chance of winning the match. If Lanka bat first, they have a 65-35 chance of winning. I’m not a fan of cricket matches being decided on the toss, but we may very well have Kumar Sangakarra’s future decided by a head or tail call.

Dale Steyn - New ball or first change?

It's certainly a rather strange sight to see the premier fast bowler, in the world, and undoubtedly one of the greatest in the history of the game bowling first change. There is however method to this apparent madness. For whatever reason, South Africa is a rather abject country in the art of death bowling, and in Dale Steyn we have at the very least have one of the more capable practitioners of the art. By bowling him first change, we can have Dale bowling at the death, and in the middle, where in concert with Imran Tahir, we possibly have the most potent combination of bowlers bowling in the middle overs. Since the rule change which limited the amount of ring fielders to four, the middle overs have taken a rather pronounced sense of importance. It is indeed quite simple, if you don't take wickets in the middle overs, you're on a hiding to nothing at the death against teams with wickets in hand. In modern cricket, taking wickets at regular intervals is deathly (pun intended) important. The modern way of thinking has it that run total isn't necessarily as important going into the final ten or fifteen overs as wickets in hand. The reasoning for this is rather simple. If you have wickets in hand, Scoring 130-150 runs in the final fifteen is within the realm of possibilities. Massively so. It stands to reason then, that if batting teams now see wickets in hand as the primary objective - if you will, the first 35 overs are now the launchpad to an abbreviated T20 innings - then it stands to reason that bowling teams have to then be willing to take risks in the first two thirds of the match to take wickets. This is the logic which has seen Steyn moved down to first change. It's not a downgrade, but rather an acceptance of the change of circumstances. There's also the small matter of the fact that if you're going to play Vernon Philander... He absolutely needs to get as many overs out of the way as possible. The Professional, as he is known, bowls an immaculate line and length, and is certainly good enough to bowl in limited overs cricket. What he isn't however is a particularly good death bowler. In fact he isn't a particularly average one if we're honest, and as such needs to have bowled his quota of overs by the time teams have decided to give it a bash. By bowling Steyn first change and bowling Vernon with the new ball, we have a convenient marriage.

When Should it be #MillerTime?

One of the more interesting facets of the South African game during the West Indian series last month was the timing for the introduction of David Miller. Having started out a brutal smasher with a rather catchy philosophy ("If it's in the V it's in the trees, if it's in the arc, it's out the park"), he showed a greater understanding of the finer nuances of the game this summer. Admittedly, the Men from the Caribbean Islands didn't provide the greatest of opposition - to be kind - but Miller still showed high quality in his two knocks where he was given more time to build an innings. Indeed, Miller averages 45 batting at five, compared to 32 when he bats at six. That's a rather large variance in average, and for my money certainly displays a batsman capable of smashing it around, rather than a smasher with a vague idea of batting and all the complications it entails. The problem with Miller at five, of course, is that it's at odds with my previous article in which I proposed that AB De Villiers would make a very good #5. Averaging 45 in the position is indeed a solid effort, and might put you as one of the front line practitioners in the position, but it ignores the red herring that is caused by the fact his averages is significantly boosted by his last two knocks... And the minor matter if the fact that AB averages a phat 72 when he bats at five. This makes it rather complicated. Add in the fact that JP Duminy averages 55 when he bats at four, and you have a rather complicated jigsaw puzzle. It seems nearly impossible to create a batting line up which gets the best out of everyone as their best positions overlap. Personally, I'd put Miller in at six, AB at five, and Duminy at four. If JP plays, he gets wasted a bit lower down. He's a capable hitter, but hardly remarkable at it, and six isn't too far from Miller's best position. You lose a bit of de Villiers' dynamism when he comes in a little later, but he's a supremely gifted cricketer and as the hapless West Indians found, even ten overs of AB can turn a horrible day into the worst day of your professional career.

Should AB de Villiers bat at three for South Africa?

One of the greater talking points heading into the Cricket World Cup has been the display of pyrotechnics which AB de Villiers blessed us with against the West Indies in Johannesburg.In case you've missed it, Abbas smashed a 31-ball hundred against a completely helpless West Indian pace attack. Of interest is the fact that AB achieved this feat batting at first drop. For those not familiar with South African cricket, de Villiers has generally batted at four and five for South Africa, but there is a school of thought which reckons he should bat at three. It's certainly a matter worth considering as he is our best batsman, and the traditional thinking does have your best batsman batting at three. The elephant in the room though, is the fact that till now, Ab has shown at best hesitation and at worst flat out refusal to bat higher up the order. He won't even do it in the shortest format of the game. AB believes that he bats better coming in later, and the stats do bear it out. He averages a not insignificant 72 batting at five, vs 62 batting at three. Both are enormous averages, but a ten run swing does tend to give flesh to the idea that AB shouldn't really be moved. There's also the fact that Faf Du Plessis is probably a more natural #3 in any case. More adept at handling the pressure exerted on a batter batting at three if an early wicket falls. He is also quite a destructive hitter, as evidenced by his 46-ball hundred against the equally hapless West Indian T20 outfit. As a player he ticks all the required boxes for a sturdy #3. I'd venture so far as to say he's the sturdiest #3 in the game at the moment, and his record against Australia is exactly what's needed in a major tournament where Australia are the hosts. Whether you're talking of his heroics in Adelaide in Test cricket, where he obdurately clocked a match saving draw, or his rich vein of form in Zimbabwe a five or six months ago, where he showed great proficiency against a reasonably full-strength Aussie line up, there is no doubt that Faf rises to the occasion against the Australians better than any South African cricketer, maybe ever. The only drawback in continuing with Faf is that he isn't capable of the pyrotechnics at the end of an innings which AB is. There's no shame in that, no one is capable of the pyrotechnics AB has seen fit to bestow on international cricket. That doesn't and shouldn't change the fact that he is a very good cricketer more than capable of changing through the gears, and accelerating to the level which is expected of him. AB is just capable of accelerating to levels no one has ever seen before.

Should Farhaan Behardien be in the World Cup Squad

One of the more contentious selections in the South African World Cup squad has been Farhaan Behardien. It is safe to say that the Titan has not had the greatest of international careers, averaging 21 in as many matches. This, however, ignores the reality, which is that at domestic level, there has been no better batsman at #6-7. In fact, Behardien averages a rather significant 229 in five games, at a scarcely believable strike rate of 121.80. He is also a handy bowler capable of bowling five or six overs a game. This is a rather handy skill to have as captains love the idea of their front line bowlers not having to absolutely bowl ten overs. The presence of a viable contingency plan is possibly the greatest insurance a captain can have in the modern game. Eoin Morgan found this out to his detriment this past Sunday as Australia made a mess of Chris Woakes' figures to the tune of ten overs, zero wickets for eighty-eight runs. Because South Africa has JP Duminy and Behardien to bowl the fifth bowler role, I can guarantee that Woakes would not have bowled his allotted ten overs had he played for South Africa, or even Australia who have Glenn Maxwell and James Faulkner to share about 15-18 overs worth of work. Why Morgan decided against giving Bopara an over or two while the siege was taking place is beyond me, but that's a matter for another day (or article). As a result of this need for insurance, players like Behardien, who can bowl a few overs to relieve the mental arithmetic which captains find themselves partaking in when one of the front liners have come under fire. Behardien isn't great, and in my opinion can count himself a little lucky to have made the plane to Australia, but he's got something of a proven track record in the domestic set-up, and there is definitely a vacancy for a guy like him, especially on the slower New Zealand decks, and the late Summer, early Autumn Ausralian pitches. I would also hasten to add that since Behardien is likely going to bat at seven, his role in the team is hardly going to be the deal breaker in a World Cup. If your number seven has to save a situation, then by all accounts, he's been handed a lost cause. South Africa are heading into this world Cup with quite possibly the greatest top six in their history, and almost certainly the two greatest One day International batsmen they have ever produced. Any World Cup triumph relies on the firing of that top six, not the finishing abilities of the lower order. We've tried that way. It does not work.