“Is that a good advertisement for our format?” – Dean Elgar on the Gabba pitch.
Telford Vice / Cape Town
DEAN Elgar has slammed the Gabba pitch on which Australia beat South Africa in less than two days, and said he was ignored when he asked the umpires about the dangers of batting on the surface. But he stopped short of branding the conditions unsafe.
Australia completed their victory an hour after tea on Sunday; just five-and-a-half sessions into a match that was scheduled to end around sunset on Wednesday. The game was decided in 866 deliveries — the second fewest in the 355 men’s Tests that have been won and lost in Australia. South Africa were put in to bat and bowled out for 152 and 99. Australia made 218 and 35/4.
By stumps on Saturday, the soft, green, seaming pitch was already studded with divots — which hardened on Sunday to add inconsistent and sometimes steepling bounce to the sideways movement batters had to contend with throughout. Consequently most of Elgar’s post-match press conference focused on his thoughts on the pitch, starting with the first question.
“Let’s not waste any time,” Elgar said with a hollow laugh. “You’ve got to ask yourself — is that a good advertisement for our format? Thirty-four wickets in two days; a pretty one-sided affair I would say. We want to see the game go to four or five days.
“The nature of how it started to play, with some seriously steep bounce with the old ball, you’re on a hiding to nothing as a batting unit. Only three batsmen applied themselves half decently and scored runs. I don’t think that was a very good Test wicket.”
Travis Head’s 92 in the first innings proved the matchwinning batting performance in a game in which Kyle Verreynne’s 64 was the only other score higher than Temba Bavuma’s 38. Fifteen of the 34 dismissed batters faced 10 or fewer deliveries.
Had Elgar raised his concerns with the umpires, Chris Gaffaney and Rod Tucker? “I did ask the umpires,” he said. “When ‘KG’ got Head out down leg [on Sunday], I said, ‘How long does it go on for before it potentially is unsafe?’ Then Nortjé was bowling those short ones that were flying over our heads. I know the game was dead and buried. It was never to change or put a halt to the game, but that was where the umpires’ discretion comes into play; not us as players.”
Kagiso Rabada had Head caught behind with what became the eighth-last ball of the match, which ended with Anrich Nortjé’s bouncer sailing well over batter Cameron Green and wicketkeeper Verreynne. The ball went all the way to the boundary for five wides, the winning runs.
Did Elgar get an answer from the umpires? “No. There were only a handful of runs left [to get] at that stage, so maybe they thought I was just trying to take the mickey. But it’s not a bad reference point going forward to get a reply. I don’t see it changing anything, but there wasn’t a reply.”
Did he think the pitch was unsafe? “I’m not going to say it was unsafe or it wasn’t safe,” Elgar said, doubtless to avoid the insult of a fine being added to the injury that potentially awaited those who dared bat on the surface.
But he was happy to explain the challenge: “The edges of the divots start to get harder and they become more abrasive because the wicket starts drying out. Back home the wickets are also prone to creating those divots, and it becomes a handful. But generally that only happens later in the game, when those divots start playing quite a big role. This one seemed to start yesterday already.
“I’m not a curator and I wouldn’t know how to prepare a cricket pitch, but it was interesting to see how quickly this one actually did start divotting and how quickly the ball sped up; especially the new ball. Also today the older ball was flying through, which shouldn’t be really happening. The divots had a big role to play, especially with the sideways movement and then up and down. And then the ball that’s got that steep bounce, which is quite something to face.”
Asked what his players would do with their three bonus days off, Elgar said: “The guys know their games well enough, and hitting another 100 or 200 balls a day is not going to make you a better cricketer. It’s just one of those games where you’ve failed. I’d rather see the guys not do anything until we get to Melbourne [where the second Test starts next Monday]. Other guys might feel they need to go and do stuff, and I’m sure the coaching staff will give them the best opportunity to be ready for the next Test.”
What changes to their team might the South Africans envisage, what with Theunis de Bruyn and Heinrich Klaasen the spare batters in a squad that also includes uncapped pace threat Gerald Coetzee? “All options are on the table,” Elgar said. “But you still have to go away and give your batters the confidence and the positivity. The guys in the changeroom have played enough cricket to know that this was maybe one of those instances where … let’s be honest and let’s be real about what’s just happened. It’s not like our guys were throwing wickets away. We were getting absolutely jaffaed out really. And [Australia] bowled properly. You’ve got to take all of that into consideration.
“Coming into this game our batters were confident. We prepared bloody well and we played the warm-up game where most of the guys got good runs and time in the middle. So it’s not like the confidence is low. We just need to be realistic around what’s just happened, and try and rectify it. We do have extra days now where the guys need to tap into their mental spaces, which is your biggest enemy at the moment because you can really withdraw yourself from what’s happened instead of facing it and learning from it.”
Despite losing South Africa ended the match on a high — and with an eye on the last two Tests — by dismissing Usman Khawaja, David Warner, Steve Smith and Head inside seven overs as Australia homed in on their nominal target.
“It was to try and see if we could open some old scars; purely bringing our intensity and maybe get them three or four down and those batters going into Melbourne with maybe a little bit less confidence,” Elgar said. “I guess it was one of the gameplans that worked out for us over the last two days. Can’t say there were many, but at least that one did.”
He hoped the performance of Rabada, who took 4/13 in the second innings, could “inspire our batting unit to get their heads right and knuckle down”.
Cricbuzz
Bulletproof Truth 
Hi Telford,
Why bother sending such a poor batting side to Australia? If you had stayed at home that would have saved much embarrassment. Yes it was a bowlers pitch but Travis Head scored in the 90s and Australia won by six wickets. Out of pure frustration I googled greatest South African teams and found your 2009 selection which is still valid today. I broadly agree with your team and with your readers team but i would make two changes to both selections, especially wicket keeper, which has to be Denis Lindsay, who is simply the greatest ever wk and batsman wk in world history. Where were you in 1966/67? That series was won by Lindsay, who excited the whole country. It was the greatest performance of any cricketer in my lifetime. Lindsay’s batting average for that series was around 86 and he scored over 600 runs. Note also that his career batting average at number 7 is over 61and at 6 and 7 it is over 50. Earlier in his career he was required to open the batting and that was not successful. His catching behind the wicket was phenomenal and his career stats are unequalled. The line up has to be:
B Richards
G Smith
J Kallis
G Pollock
D Nourse
D Lindsay
M Proctor
S Pollock
D Steyn
H Tayfield
A Donald
(reserve Clive Rice)
Opening new ball bowlers: Proctor and Steyn. First change: Pollock and Donald
Donald as you will recall was way off target as a new ball bowler and the Proteas switched him to first change. He is the one doubtful in the team but i include him because of his speed and the white lightning legend. A better option might be to play Rice at 7 and leave out Donald. This would considerably strengthen the batting without losing much in bowling. We still have 6 outstanding bowlers. Donald was a hopeless number 11 batsman and his running between the wickets was woeful. A first change bowler needs to have some batting ability to justify his place in the side. Rather put Donald as the reserve in case one of the other fast bowlers is injured. There could be some debate about D Nourse versus AB de Villiers but I think Nourse is better. AB could be a second reserve utility batsman wk. Faulkner likewise could be in the touring team of 14. But no Boucher, good man that he is. And no Waite, unless as team manager.
That does it.
Regards,
Nigel
Hello Nigel. Thank you for your considered and valuable thoughts. Sadly, I’m not sure there is the kind of batting talent in South Africa currently to have made much of a difference at the Gabba. There’s poignance in the fact that Brisbane is also where Denis Lindsay made his Test debut. I was in my first few months of life in 1966/67, but I met Lindsay years later as a young cricket writer. Lovely man, and still had his poet’s face.
Hi Telford, Thanks for your response. You are fortunate to have met the great Denis Lindsay. He together with Graeme Pollock, Barry Richards, and Mike Proctor are South Africa’s four greatest cricketers. I don’t include Kallis, who is over rated. He was not an attacking batsman and didn’t win matches like the other four did. If Kallis made a big score it was more likely the game would end in a draw. Statistics support this view. Kallis would not have fitted into the 1970 team. He would have slowed the scoring and been a block to a Richards Pollock batting partnership, which would be followed by a a Pollock Lindsay partnership. Kallis is included in a best ever South African side on his individual merits as a team of the greatest South African cricketers but not if you were trying to put together the best possible team. I would leave him out for the same reason that I would leave out Alan Donald. In choosing the best possible team Richards, Pollock, Lindsay and Proctor are the foundation. Graeme Smith as an opener does add strength. He replaces Barlow and Goddard who were very versatile all rounders. Barlow as a bowler often changed games by breaking batting partnerships. His bowling skills could be replaced by a Kallis at 3 but I have my reservations about including Kallis. It might be better to include Barlow at 3. He could score a 100 and would not be a block to the three main batsmen. Nourse at 5 adds value, the 1970 team lacked a strongly established number 5, then Lindsay at 6. The three best fast bowlers are Proctor, Steyn and Shaun Pollock. Again the 1970 teams weakness was in spin bowling and Hugh Tayfield is the solution. The best team needs one further bowler, probably an all rounder such as Clive Rice who could bat at 7. Kallis and Donald would be selected in a team of the greatest South African cricketers but perhaps not be included in choosing the best possible team.
The Gabba was a bowlers pitch where the outcome was largely determined by the bowlers. This actually reduced the gap between the two sides. On a good batting pitch it is likely that the Australians will defeat the Proteas by an innings or more. This must be South Africa’s worst batting side since 1888. Ricky Ponting was incredulous in asking Jonty Rhodes on TV whether there weren’t any other batsmen left behind in South Africa. The Aussies of course expect to win but would like a contest rather than a walkover. Surely someone like David Miller would have given the Proteas a better fighting chance. Are we about to watch the last rites of South African Test cricket? Cricket in South Africa reached a peak in 1970. I am sorry that you were too young to witness it. Thereafter it levelled off due to internal isolation but a vibrant Currie cup maintained the strength of South African cricket so that it was still competitive on readmission. The 1990 generation literally continued where there fathers had left off in 1970, and it was that new generation which distinguished South Africa from 1990 to 2010. The real steep decline has been visible since 2010 which relates to the school boys of post 1990. The dearth and decline of South African cricket in fact began in 1990 and ironically is linked to readmission and the circumstances thereof. Many of South Africa’s greatest cricketers such as Richards, Proctor, Lindsay, Shaun Pollock, and many others were produced by schools in Natal. It was the height of idiocy for Ali Bacher to tell Kevin Pietersen that he could not play for his province because he was white. That turned off the tap which produced South Africa’s greatest cricketers. No more Pollocks Richards, Proctors or Lindsays. Regards Nigel
Sent from my iPhone
>
It should be “international isolation” and “their fathers”. Auto correction on iPhone creates errors sometimes.
Sent from my iPhone
>
Hi Telford I think Kallis batting average of 55.37 is overstated. He was not out 40 times out of 280. As a result his average is based on 240. This method makes sense for batters who come in down the order and make a handful of runs not out. But Kallis bats at 3 and 4 and has the whole innings to make his runs. Therefore it would make better sense to count those 40 innings as completed innings. On that basis an average of 47.5 is a more accurate measure of Kallis actual average. Cautiously batting to maintain a batting average doesn’t win matches. Kallis was an accumulator of runs. A batting average of 47.5 is good but not outstanding. Kallis had a lot more not outs than other batsmen because of his lower strike rate. To be fair the same calculation should be done for comparable batsman. Regards Nigel Cunningham
Sent from my iPhone
>