South Africa finished 8 runs short of the target India had set for them on the 5th day at Johannesburg. It was all down to one man. Faf du Plessis. Others batted well around him, but it was du Plessis who was the sole reason for South Africa's survival and near victory.
He ensured that India could only chase wickets at one end throughout the day. Had both ends become available early in the day, had India found a time before lunch when they could bowl at two new batsmen, they might well have won by Tea time. Jacques Kallis and Abraham Benjamin de Villiers - the two of the three best batsmen in the world today - made rapid runs at the other end - Kallis made 34 in 37, while de Villiers made 103 in 168. From the time Kallis came in to bat to the time de Villiers was out, du Plessis faced a clear majority of the deliveries - 238 out of 443. His judgment of his off stump was immaculate. He played close to his body, with loose hands and never played the ball firmly unless it was a rank half volley or a short ball.
India were effectively bowling with three bowlers. Ravichandran Ashwin had no impact, mainly because he could not build any pressure through a consistent length. If his approach was to bowl from round the wicket to the right hand with a two man leg trap (short leg, leg gully), then too many balls he bowled were rank half volleys. He never found a length which would drag du Plessis forward consistently and make him defend. Because Ashwin line was so tight on leg stump as a rule, the exception being the ball he bowled on off stump, du Plessis was able to play back every time it was not a half volley. This was because there was no threat of the LBW from that line. Whenever Ashwin pitch it on or just outside off stump, du Plessis and de Villiers invariably stretched forward. They wouldn't risk playing back from that line given the uneven bounce, because if they missed the ball the LBW would be in the picture. Towards the end, Ashwin was reduced to bowling to give the fast bowlers a break. A self defeating task given the speed at which Ashwin bowled his overs. For a bowler who is India's fastest to reach a 100 Test wickets, this must have been galling. But then again, perhaps not a surprise. Anand Vasu at Wisden India has a different view. But if the 4th specialist bowler is not in the side to take wickets, then is it the case that India played with 3 bowlers and 8 batsmen?
Zaheer Khan bowled around the wicket to the South African right handers all day. His approach was to try and beat the (either) edge of the bat from a line which allowed him to threaten the stumps. The ball was not swinging very much and Zaheer stuck to his task. He bowled 34 overs of varying quality. He went for 18 boundaries on the day - 6 through the covers, 5 through midwicket, 5 to fine leg, and 2 to third man. Other than a couple of rank half volleys and one short ball, all those boundaries, especially the ones to mid-wicket, could, on another day have brought him wickets for they were all played to balls which could have easily beaten either edge of the bat. The boundaries to fine leg will disappoint him, both because they mean he had drifted down the leg side - 5 times in 34 overs, but also because he never figured out where his fine leg fielder should be. This is a problem bowling round the wicket to the right handers. The ball is released from so wide of the crease, that the angle makes it possible for batsmen to play on both sides of the wicket, often from off stump. If it difficult to bowl that line with a 6-3 field, and this wicket did not permit Zaheer to bowl with a 5-4 field because he couldn't do without slips. There were two disappointing aspects of Zaheer's plan. The first was his desire to hedge his bets with his fine leg, and the other was his unwillingness to have a gully. I doubt that South Africa would have bowled a single over without a gully and a cover point had they been bowling. But Zaheer stuck to his plan. On another day it might have brought him wickets. On another day, he might also have bowled just a bit better than he did today.
Ishant Sharma didn't attack the stumps as much as he might have. He allowed the batsmen to play too many balls on the back foot. This may have had something to do with the fact that he was worried about where his front foot was landing. The umpires had warned him. Of his 91 runs, he conceded 3 boundaries in front of square on the off side, and less than 20 runs in total. When he did pitch the ball up, and draw the batsman forward, he forced leading edges and miscues. But Ishant ran in hard all day, and while his line and length might have flagged a little bit (a perennial problem for him), it is rare to find a fast bowler with his ability to bowl long spells.
Mohammad Shami was the best Indian fast bowler on display. On another day he might have run through South Africa taking six or seven wickets. His line and length to the right handers was immaculate and he seemed to provoke the worst in the pitch more regularly than the other two bowlers. Time and again he hit the bat high on the blade and even on the handle. He is the best Indian bowler to come on the scene since the classy Munaf Patel debuted in 2006. Munaf fell away because even though his control remains unrivalled among Indian bowlers (except perhaps Zaheer), his ability to bowl long spells and maintain pace came under adverse scrutiny. Shami will win India a lot of Test matches overseas.
Anybody who reads the scorecard, but didn't actually watch the game might be forgiven for thinking that South Africa's batsmen had it easy. I watched every ball, and I can assure you that they didn't. Nearly every over, a ball hit the bat high on the blade, or near the handle. So much so, that Faf du Plessis had to have his bottom hand tended to because of the jarring. This constant battering can wear a batsman down. Eventually, the discipline of playing close to the body and late breaks down just enough to induce the false shot. It was not easy to attack the bowling on this pitch, as both de Villiers and Duminy found. Playing away from the pad and forcing the pace was risky. So many balls hit the edge, that limp wristed play was essential nearly all the time.
It is said of advanced, high quality interrogation techniques and interrogators who are trained to question seasoned enemies (spies, military persons etc.) that they don't really break their prisoner's will to resist (as we read in novels and see in movies). They simply keep questioning prisoners until all the lies have been exhausted - until the prisoner basically runs out of lies to tell. Batting on the 5th day on this Wanderers wicket should have been something like that. As it turned out, the wicket had lost just enough pace, and India's bowlers just enough bite, to ensure that South Africa, and especially Faf du Plessis, didn't run out of things to say.
If that 5th day at Wanderers was played a 100 times, India would have won it an overwhelming majority of times. South Africa might have won it a few times too. December 22, 2013 was that rare day on which neither of those results happened. What we got instead was arguably the finest India v South Africa Test ever. Volumes could be written about it. And I hope they will be.
Well played to India and South Africa. And especially to Faf du Plessis, who will make 10,000 Test runs before he's finished with cricket.
View the Original article
No comments:
Post a Comment