South Africa v England: ODIs
As You Were! England Back to Dominating Ways
February 7th
2016
Any way you look at it, England’s performance in the Test series was
irregular. A few devastating sessions of play that won two Tests but, when they
were ahead in the series, a tendency to relax and let South Africa take the
initiative. While there was never a danger of losing the 2
nd Test,
despite the last day collapse, the 4
th Test surrender was pusillanimous
in the extreme.
In Tests, despite the way that a team performance would suddenly come
together, few of the squad can look back at their personal performances with
much satisfaction. When four of the top five have just one, or at the most, two
decent scores in the series and poor starts are the rule, something is still
seriously wrong. That takes nothing away from a South African attack that,
while weakened by injuries (what side can consistently field its best attack
these days? England certainly would argue that they did not field their best
attack at any point) gave the searching examination of technique that everyone
expected. Not everyone was up to it, but one has to think that Hales and Compton
were facing constantly fresh bowlers with a new ball, in helpful conditions and
in a crisis. For the first four innings of the series Alex Hales saw his
captain fall early: not ideal for a player who had every right to feel nervous
who needed the help of a calm head at the other end. In the 1
st
Test, Nick Compton felt the opprobrium of press and fans for trying to give
some solidity to the batting and was, progressively, turned into a nervous
wreck who got out trying to force the scoring rather than do what he does best.
In Tests, England are very much a work in progress, not the completed article,
although there are signs that there is much more to come.
In ODIs, the transformation after the World Cup has been extraordinary:
eight times in sixteen innings England have passed 300. Six times their
run-rate for an innings has been over 7. Only twice have England failed to pass
a run-rate of 5 – both in matches lost. Of the seven times that England have
reached 350 in 661 ODIs, five have been since the start of June 2015. Although
the win-loss record is only 10-6 since the start of the 2015 summer, it is the
way that the runs have been scored that has caught the attention.
Beating Pakistan in the UAE, particularly after losing the first ODI badly,
was a real eye-opener, but playing South Africa at home was always going to be a
benchmark. Over the last three years the South African record at home has been
Won 12, lost 6. Just one of the last five home ODI series has been lost: a 2-1
loss to Pakistan in 2013.
And South
Africa have crossed 400 in an ODI no less than four times since the start of
2015: England are the only other side to have done it even once.
The first ODI ended in unsatisfactory manner with a massive storm ending the
game when still finely poised. England’s 399-9 should have been enough to win,
but it is also true that before Joe Root fell to the last ball of the 30
th
over, England were 227-2 and 450 looked perfectly possible. The innings lost a
little momentum and even 400 was denied by Reece Topley’s total inability to
put bat to ball after Chris Jordan was out in the final over. Just twice in the
history of ODIs has a side scored more than 380 and lost, so you would think
that England were in pole position.
South Africa though, set about the chase in a way that shows why their fans
genuinely believe that they can chase any target, however big.
At 20 overs South Africa were actually well ahead of England at the same
stage: 154-3 against 138-2 although, at 25 overs, England had sneaked back
ahead (191-2 against 188-3). With rain threatening, it was obvious that
Duckworth-Lewis could well decide the result. Such situations generally favour
the chasing side, which knows exactly what it has to do at any stage and can
produce a sprint for the line. The danger for South Africa was that they had
lost more wickets than England at the same stage and Duckworth-Lewis punishes
this severely.
After 30 overs of the chase the equation was:
England 227-3, South Africa 223-4. D-L target: 256-4. England ahead by 33,
down from the deficit of 42 after 20 overs, but not suggesting that the
momentum was really with South Africa.
Over 31 was a big over. Deficit cut to 24, but Quinton de Kock playing a
lone hand and cramping up badly. Four off the first ball of over 32, bowled by
Chris Jordan.
Then, the disaster. The next eleven balls produced just five singles and the
wicket of Roussow. Instead of decreasing, the deficit climbed back to 39. South
Africa depended totally on de Kock and the rain started to fall.
AB de Villiers had more than one reason to be unhappy, but probably will
regret his post-match words, suggesting that South Africa were well-placed to
win because he sounded churlish: South Africa still had a mountain to climb and
do have a history of messing up D-L chases. This was combined by some fans with
the nature of his dismissal to suggest that South Africa had been cheated of a
victory that was justly theirs.
Third ball of the 20
th over. Match about to go live with 20 overs
completed. D-L par score 169-2. South Africa 18 behind, with four balls of the
over left. ABdV hammers a Moeen delivery down the ground for a certain six. With
Ben Stokes chasing at full pelt just inside the boundary line, the ball flew
over him. That much is not being argued.
Rather than watch the ball fall for six, Stokes, still sprinting and
watching the ball, reached out behind him and caught the it one-handed,
managing to avoid touching the boundary line. Not only was the catch itself
athletic, but staying in play was a remarkable effort.
So, apparently, an open and shut case. The batsman, like so many others,
failed to treat Moeen with sufficient respect and paid the price trying to get
South Africa ahead on D-L. Until fans started to point out that the boundary
line had moved
a couple of metres in the
strong wind and that Ben Stokes had been out of play when he took the catch. In
other words, it should have been a six and not a wicket. The obvious answer is
that a fielder can only play with the boundary as marked at the time and, if
the ground staff fail to keep it in position, it is hardly the fielder’s fault
if he is granted an advantage.
The sense of injustice that many South Africans feel that the better side
lost the Test series was compounded by the impression that, once again, justice
had not been done in the result of the match. England fans will say that the
target was a tough 155 from 102 balls, with only five wickets left and a lame
batsman at the crease on whom the chase depended. South African fans will say
that they had kept well in touch with the run rate and that with de Kock 138*
from 96 balls, anything was possible.
It is not beside the point though that England had made hay – 93 runs –
against the combined South African fifth bowler while, by playing six
specialist bowlers, England were not committed to ten overs from anyone and
still had nine overs in the bag from their opening bowlers: one wicket would
have left the tail chasing more than nine-an-over against the best opposition
bowlers.
The South African fifth bowler was the problem in the second ODI too. On a
pitch which was awkward and that made free-scoring almost impossible, South
Africa should have been able to defend 262 with something to spare. The fact
that they did not was down to the comparison between fourth and fifth bowlers:
Adil Rashid and Moeen Ali, both accustomed to rough treatment at the hands of
their own fans, combined for 20-1-84-1. Tahir, Duminy and Behardien combined for
20-0-128-0.
England stayed right up with the South African score at the same stage and,
from the end of the 43
rd over, just pulled away thanks to wickets
and hand and the forcing batting of the middle and lower-middle order. If 48
from 28 balls was the sort of performance that one has grown to expect from Jos
Buttler in this format, 21 from 15 balls from Moeen Ali was the
et tu Brute. For South Africa, only
Rabada could score at a rate of over 100.
Each side built their innings around one player: South Africa around AB de
Villiers’s 73; England around Alex Hales’s 99. While Hales could anchor the
chase until the finishing line was in sight thanks to Buttler, Moeen, Eoin
Morgan and, more briefly, Jason Roy all scoring at better than a run-a-ball,
South Africa lacked the forcing support that was needed. If South Africa can
consider themselves a little unfortunate to have lost the first match, in this
one they were comprehensively out-batted, out-bowled and out-fielded.
Both Hale and Jordan can think about how capricious fortune can be. Hales is
still opening against Abbott, Rabada and Morkel, but can point to a quick 57
and a match-winning 99 to his name. Against the same bowlers in the Tests he
managed twenty runs fewer in eight innings. Chris Jordan may also offer a wry
smile. 5.3 overs for 53 in the 1
st ODI having not bowled a ball in
anger in the entire tour, he was the target of severe criticism from the fans
and, had England lost, would probably not have played the second game. Although
he only sent down 5 overs again and, bowling much better, went for 0-33, he
produced two excellent catches, one of them arguably a match-winner that, of
all the other members of the team, maybe only Ben Stokes would have taken. Cue
the “playing as a specialist fielder” jibes, but Jordan continues to produce
these match-winning flashes of brilliance, such as his super-over in the T20 in
the UAE, that make one believe that he could break through at any time.
