Paint it, Black

For those wondering I had a drink after the game with Kane, he even had me sign his broken box! Haha! See, us quicks ain't that bad...
- Dale Steyn on Twitter

Phew. Thank you Williamson and Bracewell for batting out the draw. We shouldn't really have allowed ourselves to be in the position, but it's a nice little end to a torrid summer.

Before I start gushing about Kane Williamson's innings I think a lot needs to be said for Morne Morkel. He had thus far bowled superbly in the series without many wickets to show for it, and today was payday. You could argue that he set it up yesterday by cracking Ross Taylor's hand and thus eliminating him from the match, but today he was simply fearsome. After taking it upon himself to snuff out the top three, those yorkers to get rid of Brownlie and Vettori - delivered from sky-high - must have reminded old timers of Joel Garner in his prime. And there was the brilliant return catch off Kruger van Wyk on a day when chances were being spilled routinely. From the point of view of someone who's been overshadowed by Steyn and Philander, it's a shame the spell wasn't a matchwinning one in the end.

As for Williamson's innings, the word epic comes to mind. It had a sort of unforgettable, heroic, feel to it because (by remaining not-out) he lived to tell the tale. Despite all the mistakes, he showed tremendous temperament to bat through. Remember that Ross Taylor was absent, McCullum and Vettori were both dismissed without scoring, and he was batting in the knowledge that only an injured Gillespie and Chris Martin remained at the end.

It was all extremely chancy at the start, given he should have been out five times on the way to 20. First he shrugged it off by eventually unleashing a few strokes, and taking a few blows along the way. Then came the final session, where in the company of van Wyk and later Bracewell he turned into the immovable object NZ had needed all along against the relentless SA pace attack. It was noticeable through the series that improvement in South Africa's bowlers (to unbelievable levels) slowly brought out the best in KW. May this be the prelude to many more.

(The incident which ensured the innings will be part of cricketing folklore was when Dale Steyn struck Williamson in the box, and said 'I know that hurt but I'm not going to apologise'. As someone on the forum commented: "he put his testicles on the line for his country - literally".)

The series wouldn't have been complete without Graeme Smith firing a parting shot at NZ. The heady feeling of achieving the draw was marred when Smith claimed he didn't declare earlier because "NZ didn't deserve anything more". Sure, South Africa were much the better side and NZ weren't in with a shot, they're respectively 2nd and 8th in the world after all. But you first make a declaration aimed at fully eliminating the risk of losing - to a weak batting side missing its best batsman? - and then you attribute it to your judgement of what you feel the opposition 'deserves'? Real classy, Graeme.

That aside, the South Africans were probably the best touring side in the country since the 2005 Aussies. The 1-0 scoreline may have flattered us, but still, both the draws were hard fought against a far superior opponent; it's a reasonable achievement in what was a very watchable series, though I felt NZ made things more difficult for themselves with some duff selections (Nicol, Arnel). My feeling is before it can think about winning consistently, the test side needs to learn how to stop losing. This series was a step in that direction.

Beh. Today we registered our highest total of the series, but it was also the most frustrating batting effort to watch. The 5-0 at Hamilton was a sudden shove into the deep end, this was more an unwitting lazy slide into dangerous waters.

Of course, the top three of Guptill-McCullum-Flynn should have gone on for more, but 219-3 was still a position of relative comfort. Then, with Ross taylor injured out, with one careless dismissal after another suddenly we had to depend on French cut specialist Mark Gillespie to take us past the follow on mark, just. How did we allow ourselves to be in this position?

Strangely, the most culpable shot of the day came from Dean Brownlie, who was the most selective of the batsmen in Australia. Three deliveries into the new ball pulling Philander down deep square leg's throat..sigh.

Even more crazily, the bowlers leaked runs aplenty in south Africa's innings, so they now have a lead of 274 going into the final day. I predicted South Africa would declare a lot earlier on the third day, but instead they took their conservatism to a new level and looked happy to be playing for the draw. We've let them back in dangerously.

Batting out a draw tomorrow will be a tough ask, it looks like South Africa have too many runs and potentially enough over to play with. There's no Taylor, and the lower-order have found Philander and co. too much to cope with. There's still hope considering the wicket is playing well and there's no spin to contend with, though their pacemen have been outstanding in this test.

Do it for Rosscoe, chaps.

Wellington's weather held up well for the whole day, and as a result we got a good, even competitive, day of test cricket in. Both sides should be pretty happy. South Africa continue to be in control, only lacking the extra push for the jugular, while New Zealand greatly improved on their lacklustre start to the test.

NZ basically managed the sort of day which ought to be their regular showing at the test level. And this despite some disappointing captaincy from Ross Taylor, who had the field well back and ordered Williamson and Vettori to bowl negative from one end. Credit, then, to the pacemen who dragged NZ and the game forward.

After a listless first session where Petersen and Duminy got their respective centuries, Chris Martin opened things up with a couple of wickets and Mark Gillespie continued to be a certified wicket-taker despite being in pain. Well done to him for a six-wicket haul.

Guptill and Flynn then got a thorough examination from the South African pace quartet. There was noticeably less movement for Philander so maybe this made things easier, but it was great to see both looking comfortable after a point. Though I still believe Flynn shouldn't be opening, after Rob Nicol's struggles it was good to see someone handling Steyn and co. with some assurance, and it also allowed Guptill to play more freely. Of course, if Flynn goes on to make 70 or more, he'll have probably locked down the opening spot for the next ten tests.

To put things in perspective, Flynn passed the aggregate of Nicol in one innings alone, and this opening stand of 65 is NZ's highest against SA since 1999, which is a cause for minor celebration. The return of Flynn and Gillespie after being discarded and putting in the hard work in domestic cricket has certainly brightened things up, although the test and the series is pretty much out of reach.

I came across an apt description of today's play on the CricketWeb Forum:

Everything was just utterly miserable about the day.

Wellington's miserable.

The bowling was miserable.

The batting was miserly.

Vettori and co. were battling the Wellington wind as much as the South Africans, and I couldn't help thinking back to how Iain O'Brien used to do the into-the-wind job so well. In other news, JP Duminy and Alviro Petersen are enjoying a new lease of life in tests, though I feel South Africa could do a lot better than Alviro (never mind that he'd walk into a NZ side).

If weather permits, I'm picking South Africa to give themselves one session to push the score to 350-plus before declaring, and having a go at NZ.

At the risk of completely redirecting the reader from my site, Sportfreak has published an excellent account of the first day's play from a spectator's point of view. Hope we get to see more.

It was a pretty ordinary effort from the bowlers, really. Not gobsmackingly awful, just meh. In the sort of conditions that Daryl Tuffey and Jacob Oram circa 2003 would've wreaked havoc, NZ ended up bowling either too short or too full, and were surprisingly listless. Bracewell was disciplined without being particularly threatening, Martin was so-so, and Gillespie was about as consistent as the weather's been through this series. Vettori continues to bowl flat and quickish, similar to how Harbhajan was bowling in England last year.

They just didn't come across as a side who are 1-0 down in the final test of the series.

And even the two wickets were fortuitous ones; Smith was was unlucky to be given caught behind when the evidence was inconclusive either way, and Amla top-edged a bad delivery which might have been a no-ball in any case.

And so it was a relief when bad light halted play. Essentially, a stay of execution which gives NZ a chance to regroup and have another crack at a batting lineup without Jacques Kallis. But with just four bowlers, and with Duminy and Petersen each having a point to prove, it'll need a massive lift in intensity.

Daniel Vettori feels the success of the entire summer hinges on this test. Hmm, I don't know if I'd go that far, but it can't be denied the rampaging South Africans have taken the gloss off (what was shaping up as) a good season for us.

In a belated effort to bolster the batting, Dean Brownlie and Daniel Flynn have returned to play as no.6 and opener respectively. I fear it's just asking too much of them; Flynn is not a regular opener and has been scoring his runs from no.5 for Northern Districts, while Brownlie is coming into the side on the back of an injury and all of one first class game to take on a fearsome bowling attack. Still, I'm glad to see Flynn back in the mix (especially since Jesse Ryder's future is uncertain) and I wouldn't judge him on this test alone if he were to fail.

Bringing in the two extra batsmen considerably weakens the bowling though. The "four seamers plus Vettori" formula was identified as our best chance of winning tests, but the underperforming top order has made that plan redundant for now. It's tough on Trent Boult, who looks likely to drop out for the second game in a row. My feeling is NZ need Vettori to fire with both bat and ball if they're to win the test; even if the batting unit fires it'll be a task keeping up with the Saffers, and bowling-wise, the team seems to be a lot better when Dan is at his best - something we haven't seen in a long while.

The South Africans are playing the same lineup for the third test in a row, a sure sign that the team is in a good place. The batting has been patchy, but they've always found someone to haul them out of the woods when needed; AB De Villiers was under an injury cloud in the last test, and rescued them in the first innings with 83. As for the bowling, they have resisted the temptation to give Marchant de Lange a game, which tells you all you need to know. Graeme Smith, who rarely has much good to say about New Zealand cricket, looks determined to finish the tour with a crushing win, and if NZ are to win, I doubt it'll be with any help from the Saffers.

The Basin Reserve pitch is usually an excellent cricket wicket and always has something in it for the pacemen. But with persistent rain in Wellington, the groundsman hasn't had much time to work with, and not much can be predicted about the surface this time. A draw on account of the weather is very much a possibility.

One final thing: this could well be Chris Martin's last home test, if not his very last test. If that is the case, here's hoping he finishes things in grand style.

One of the giants of the domestic scene has called time on his career from the end of this season.

Sometime in the future, when New Zealand get a pair of consistent openers averaging in the 40s, a middle order with a spine, and a bowling attack to be feared, we fans will look back at the period 2005-? and wonder how we got by as a test nation.

After the retirement of Mark Richardson in 2004, the openers' slots have been filled by such names as Michael Papps, James Marshall, Jamie How, Matthew Bell, Aaron Redmond, Tim McIntosh, and (of late) Rob Nicol; names which now form part of the wastebin of test cricket history.

But every NZ fan has typically lent his support to one name in that list, the one opener he feels was discarded too soon, the one among that lot who could've forged a decent career. In my opinion Craig Cumming has probably been the unluckiest of the bunch.

Cumming's test stats, 441 runs at an average of 25.94 in 11 tests, with just one half-century (on debut against the Aussies) are expectedly way inferior to his first class record (an average of 39 over 146 games with 23 hundreds). Although he showed good temperament and ability against high quality fast bowling, technical deficiencies (as with most of his peers) limited his effectiveness in tests. His bat would often come down late making him a regular LBW candidate, and he had a weakness for the hook shot which was exploited by the Aussies - and then Dale Steyn. He will mainly be remembered for being flattened by that Steyn bouncer in Centurion - the blow which effectively finished his career - and for being the subject of many bad puns ("The New Zealand openers are Cumming and How").

My feeling is NZ could have got more out of him. He came up against some excellent bowling attacks in his time with the national side, and didn't embarrass himself. His run of scores reads 74, 7, 37, 10*, 5, 0, 12, 16, 47, 43, 43, 13, 26, 12, 7, 48*, 1, 4, 42: plenty of starts without pushing on, but enough grit shown as well. In the last three years, with an improved middle-order NZ could really have used someone capable of blunting the new ball regularly, and have instead ended up with openers who typically get 100 runs in one test followed by 6 single-figure scores in the next few; Jamie How averaged 22.70 over 19 tests, while McIntosh was offered 17 in which he averaged 27.54. Cumming has instead had to play out his days as a solid citizen and captain in the Otago lineup.

Cumming at least had the satisfaction of becoming Otago's all-time leading run scorer when he overtook Bert Sutcliffe, the former NZ great, at the beginning of the season. While he will never be spoken in the same breath as Bert, he can claim to be on the winning side four times is his 11-test career, unlike his predecessor who was winless in 40.

It must be tough being a selector in a test series against the current South Africans, especially a NZ one. We are so outgunned at the moment that whomever you choose to play will likely end up looking a duff selection.

The current two-man selection panel - John Wright + Kim Littlejohn (former Australian Lawn Bowls Director!) + presumably a few inputs from Ross Taylor - unveiled their selection policy at the start of the season, an ambitious-sounding "selection pie" method. Trouble is, I don't think it is that easily applicable in a nation like NZ where the standard of domestic cricket is pretty low to begin with. From what I gathered during his time as coach of the Indian team, it doesn't sound like John Wright's way of doing things either.

Wright and co. have made a few excellent calls this season. The elevation of Doug Bracewell and Dean Brownlie to the national side has worked a treat so far. But both these players made the side on the basis of their performances during the Emerging Players' overseas tour (equivalent to an 'A' side series). Where the selection pie method may have worked is in the recall of Mark Gillespie, who put in the hard yards and enjoyed a couple of productive first-class seasons after he was discarded three years ago.

But otherwise, we've seen a number of odd hunch-based selections, and this is where I call bullshit. During the ODI series, we seemed to show more faith in middle-of-the-road bits n' pieces cricketers than specialists, and this played right into South Africa's hands. I can't imagine how we were expecting to challenge them with the likes of Michael Bates, Andrew Ellis and Colin de Grandhomme in the side; while the one bowler who troubled the Saffers, legspinner Tarun Nethula got just one game. In addition, the timing of Ryder's recall was bad, and clearly affected the team.

To me it seems this confusion has spilled over into the test series. Trent Boult was inexplicably dropped for the trundler Brent Arnel, and it ended quite badly. Rob Nicol was brought in as opener to allow McCullum to stay at no.3, and failed miserably. And now it looks like Daniel Flynn (who's been batting at no.5 for Northern Districts) is to be rushed in as opener. Brownlie, who's barely recovered from injury, is supposed to help save the batting as well. This leaves us with a weakened bowling attack in a must-win final test.

It's entirely possible these selections might work, but I hope this is just a one-off. For now, the selectors could probably use that piece of advice Douglas Adams offered in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Don't Panic.

Ten days is a long time in world cricket. Work commitments meant I couldn't get down to blogging about the remained of the first test, and the second, and a lot has happened since then. Which is a bit like saying a lot had happened during Nelson Mandela's time in prison.

Dale Steyn has recovered his mojo, Graeme Smith has gotten just a little more cocky, Tim Southee has slipped down the bowling pecking order, Mark Gillespie and Daniel Flynn are suddenly valuable additions to the test side, and the New Zealand management is both helpless and confused.

But anyway, here's an effort to sum up the Hamilton test:

5 FOR NOTHING, AND THE STEYNLANDER SHOW: The first couple of sessions of the test mirrored NZ's batting effort in Dunedin; openers gone for not-much, McCullum and Taylor blunting the South African attack and then throwing it away against the run of play, and Philander looking unplayable throughout. But this time it opened the floodgates, and 133-2 became 133-7 as the kings of collapse outdid themselves. The Steyn-Philander duo had well and truly stormed the fort. It was Wasim-Waqar in the 1990s all over again.

Not since Glenn McGrath's final days in test cricket can I remember someone bowling at 130k feared as much as Philander. However, Dale Steyn had been ordinary upto then and, unfortunately, I fear this collapse was the moment NZ played him back into form. Our batsmen have no answers, but these two are bowling so well in tandem that the opposition seems irrelevant.

RETURN OF THE MARK: Gillespie's 5-for in the first innings was the one positive, and a crucial one considering how Tim Southee's contributions have been almost nonexistent all summer. While he will be expensive and routinely send down rubbish (some of it was on view at Hamilton), Gillespie offers the attack some penetration - his strike rate in his short test career is 39 balls, compared to Martin's 59. There could be an effective test bowler in him yet.

The bowlers have responded strongly in both tests, enough so that the series has been watchable. But we still lack the killer blow, and AB DeVilliers with the help of the tail cashed in, and once again a position of parity was squandered. Frustrating also to see that Ross Taylor thinks exactly like most modern captains when it comes to dealing with tailenders.

VETTORI IN FURTHER DECLINE?: Daniel Vettori V3 (tests-only non-captaining batting allrounder) has been underwhelming so far. Bowling wise, the fizz seems to have completely gone and the best he has managed against the Saffers is to tie up an end. Never mind that he's never been a factor anyway in the second innings. By playing four pacemen, NZ seem to have acknowledged this, and as a result it has really weakened the lower-order batting. It wouldn't matter as much if Vettori was scoring runs, but he's finding life at no.6 extremely difficult against this attack - consider how he was bounced out by Kallis. Is this simply a routine struggle against his least-favoured opponents, or are the signs pointing to a test career on its last legs?

DRS GETS SHOWN UP: Was I the only one who felt that LBW against Ross Taylor looked atrocious? Taylor and Kane Williamson were ressurecting NZ carefully after a terrible start in the second innings, Steyn got one to reverse viciously and strike Taylor on the boot in what appeared to be the front of leg-stump, and NZ's last bid for a recovery was snuffed out. It's been revealed that the ball would've shaved the leg stump anyway (which is a bit hard to believe), but coming to the larger point, the DRS malfunctioned and got things completely wrong. It's always surprised me how quick players and observers have been to come out in defence of the DRS, aand I can only conclude the idea of machines making the weighty decisions is a source of comfort for a great many.

Bowled out South Africa for less than 250? Check. Top-order capitulation against Steyn and co averted? Check. Gained lead? Erm, check. A good day in the office? Yes and no.

The lead is 5, and given that the last-wicket-pair of Martin or Boult are at the crease we can safely assume it's won't go beyond 20. This is a pretty disappointing position to be in after the South Africans were rolled over for a below-par score on a good deck. And Dale Steyn had a rare off-day against his favourite opponents. Since the Saffers aren't likely to fall cheaply two times in a row, and we have to bat fourth, it's looking a bit ominous really. I thought a lead of at least 70 was needed.

On the other hand, it's been a good effort to stay on par with the Saffers for the first two days, when you consider what went on before the test. Also, most times we would've failed to restrict their lower order like we did today, so can't really complain. The test is still wide open.

It could have been a lot better though. The three pacemen (Steyn/Morkel/Philander) bowled extremely well and gave the batsmen a torrid time, but this was no less than expected. McCullum and Taylor played extremely well to weather the storm - possibly the best 'test style' batting I've seen from them - and then both got out to atrocious shots with the job half-done. There's the reason they average closer to the 40 mark than 50, I suppose.

The other positive of the day was seeing the lower-middle order sticking it out so we got the lead at least. Vettori made his usual contribution, Kruger van Wyk looks to be exactly the sort of scrapper we need at the test level, and Doug Bracewell finally played a decent innings. Unfortunately Tim Southee continues to be woeful with the bat, to go with his currently unthreatening bowling.

We've competed well so far, but I fear this is where South Africa decide to stop messing around and finally put the placid wicket in perspective, unless one of the pace quartet produces a great spell like Martin's yesterday.

The Phantom seems to be ageing like a good wine. Two years ago, a poor series against the Aussies had a lot of people (including this blogger) wondering if he was finished. That spell against India in Ahmedabad kickstarted something of a renaissance, and today he was once again responsible for a familiar NZ position - "we've done our bit, over to you batters now". though we know how that usually turns out.

By the way, does Chris Martin the savage-faced remind anyone else of Jack Nicholson's character in The Shining?



By the looks of the first session, South Africa were poised for early domination of the test. Despite the cloud cover the ball didn't swing, and the NZ bowlers were anodyne. Six went in the second session however. Thanks to the Phantom, 86-1 became 90-4 as his bunny Smith, a surprisingly out-of-form Kallis and a very-much-in-form AB DeVilliers were sent packing. Despite another effortless Amla fifty South Africa were kept in check with three more wickets.

One thing's for sure, the NZ side looked much the better for having the senior players back. Apart from Martin, Vettori came out on top in a nice little battle with Amla, and Ross Taylor raised the overall catching standards big rime. Bracewell bowled well, and not for the first time, will be kicking himself for allowing a no-ball to get in the way of a scalp. The beneficiary, ex-Yorkshireman Rudolph, might well make us pay tomorrow. Trent Boult struggled and Tim Southee was again innocuous.

The pitch is actually playing pretty well, and South Africa would fancy adding another 80 or so, given that Philander is a handy bat. It would still be great effort from the NZ bowlers on this pitch, so tomorrow will mostly be about whether NZ's batting can stand up for a change.

On paper this looks a complete mismatch, and the recent one-day series further suggests it will be. New Zealand are in a mess and have become all muddle-headed at the moment, making and talking about all sorts of changes so the combination of the side is still up in the air. South Africa by contrast are looking ferociously good and their lineup boasts a plethora of modern greats.

Nine of the side which played in the drawn series in Australia are in the lineup for NZ, but that would be papering over the cracks; as far as the batting goes, Ross Taylor is returning from injury and zero game-time, Vettori's form for Northern Districts has been average, and McCullum and Guptill will have to bat out of their skins to continue their one-day form in this arena. But it's the absentees which are the problem for NZ. Jesse Ryder has probably played his last game of the summer, while BJ Watling (who scored a century from no.7 against the ZImbabweans) is out too. The biggest loss is Dean Brownlie, who was the best of the lot in Australia and whose back-foot game would've been invaluable against Steyn, Morkel and co.

So instead we have Rob Nicol, who didn't look all that comfortable in the ODIs opening the batting as McCullum surprisingly pushes down to no.3. Andrew Ellis is in the squad too, and I'm not too hopeful of his bits-and-pieces game making it in test cricket. Kruger van Wyk makes his debut in the wicketkeeper's slot, and while this is one guy I really want to succeed, it means the lower order is inexperienced and unreliable (seeing how Southee and Bracewell seem to leave their brains in the shed each time they come out to bat). Not a lineup that's likely to salvage a 70/5 situation, which will definitely happen sometime in the series.

The bowling's the stronger suit though. Martin is in the form of his life, while Southee, Bracewell and Boult should prove a handful though still dwarfed by South Africa's attack.

Not much to say on South Africa. This is probably the best side to tour NZ since the Aussies in 2005, and they haven't lost a series away from home in 2006. A lot of people have suggested they'd be very disappointed if they didn't end up with a 3-0 scoreline, and the fact that they've kept the talk and cockiness to a minimum so far on tour suggests they mean business. The on;y thing that could work against them is that they weren't really tested by NZ or the conditions in the ODIs, and that could change now.

The pitch is supposedly a throwback to the sort of slow, seaming track which was the scourge of touring teams back in the day. No doubt this could make for some very unattractive cricket, but it presents NZ with probably their only chance of keeping up with the Saffers. You sense that no track would be too flat for Steyn & co to make an impact.

- It's come at a bad time. New Zealand's home season is gradually going downhill as South Africa continue to assert their superiority over the Black Caps, and this incident involving Ryder and Bracewell is the last thing a struggling team needs.

- In isolation, the incident is not really headline-grabbing material. But it is just another symptom of how all is not well in Jesse's world, and it is becoming all too evident on the field. Earlier, Ryder had stats and runs to defend himself with, which is not the case now. The manner of his dismissal in the 1st ODI (slogging Kallis to the fielder on the square leg boundary, one over before the powerplay), and the sitter he shelled on Wednesday's game are signs that things are spilling onto the field.

- I think NZC have handled the matter rather well - dropping him from the 3rd ODI and the first test, but not tearing up his contract or giving up on him. Ryder is being idiotic at the moment in his decision-making (or simply being himself, depending on your view). But he is also going through a tough time - his form is poor, he has actually put in an effort to lose weight, and the media have been over-the-top in their scrutiny (especially this atrocious piece of criticism from Craig McMillan).

- Stuff have published the statements of the bar patron who got into the verbal altercation with Ryder and Bracewell, and this is where I feel for Jesse. The self-righteousness of it all is nauseating. Samples: "In my view they were not respecting the Silver Fern", "think he (Ryder) probably needs to pick his friends a little better" and "the one match ban handed down to Ryder and Bracewell for the incident was sufficient punishment".

- Dumping Ryder completely is a luxury NZ can scarcely afford, so for those of us who would still like to see him as part of NZ's plans it's a relief to read that he has apparently been dropped on form, not on behavourial grounds, though no doubt the incident just made it easier for the selectors. They are, however, having to manage a very fine balancing act in their treatment of Ryder, and it's time the player himself repaid the faith.

- The other offender Doug Bracewell shouldn't be forgotten in the midst of all this. After his initial success the one-day returns have been meagre, and hopefully this incident keeps him honest. Seeing how arrogance and stupidity continues to get in the way of Tim Southee's progress, Bracewell would do well not to end up in the same boat.