South Africa v New Zealand second Test preview

On Friday England’s first ODI against India starts two hours before the second South Africa v New Zealand Test. Even from an English standpoint it’s a bit tricky to know which one is more important. England have already played ten ODIs against India in the past 18 months and have five Tests coming up against New Zealand, so how the Kiwis try to fight back may give a hint of what England can expect starting in March. Plus, England’s recent record in ODIs in India means that the Test might be a closer contest.

The pitch in Port Elizabeth looks like it will make any comparison difficult, however. It has tended to be rather slow in the past and by all accounts it still is. It may actually be closer to the pitch on which England will be playing in Rajkot than the pitch on which they will play in Dunedin. It’s slow enough, in fact, that New Zealand are considering a second spinner for the match after dropping Chris Martin and there is a decent argument for doing so. South Africa actually don’t have a good record at the ground, they’ve not won a Test there this century, and it may be that a bit of extra turn will be their undoing. New Zealand are playing three seamers either way (though I suspect Colin Munro has likely been picked to shore up the batting as much as anything else) so a second spinner is probably a reasonable decision. Bruce Martin does not have great first-class statistics, but they aren’t appalling and I expect they came almost entirely on pitches more conducive to seam bowling.

South Africa don’t appear to be considering a second spinner, though given that said spinner would likely be Imran Tahir it isn’t a surprise. Robin Peterson hardly inspires fear, but he is the best option. Their only change will be the return of Rory Kleinveldt in place of the injured Vernon Philander. Whilst it is a good chance for them to try to develop their bowling in depth, it looks like a fairly big blow as Kleinveldt did not impress in the two Tests he got in Australia. South Africa do need him to step up though. Not so much for this particular Test, they can afford a bit of a let-up, but for the upcoming series against Pakistan. They look to be much tougher opposition and South Africa need to make sure they have someone to back up the main three quicks.

South Africa are still strong favourites in this Test, of course, but New Zealand do have a chance to come back well. They have not changed their batting from the last Test and they will need to perform rather better, but they are boosted by the fact that the pitch will give the South Africans less assistance this time and by the absence of Philander who did most of the damage in the 45 all out. I don’t expect them to win, but I do expect them to compete this time and perhaps push for a draw. I expect that South Africa will put up a fairly large total in the first innings (regardless of who wins the toss), so a lot will depend on how New Zealand’s batsmen can build on their second innings performance from Cape Town. I hope that they do bat better; I want to see a contest. But I suppose if it gets too one-sided I can always turn back over to the ODI…

South Africa win by an innings and 27 runs

In a way it is a bit difficult to know what to make of New Zealand’s performance in the Cape Town Test. On the one hand, it was clearly poor; they were bowled out for 45 in the first innings. But after that they actually fought back well and although there was never a chance to win the match they actually came rather closer than they ought to have to avoiding an innings defeat. The fact that they were bowled out so cheaply cannot be glossed over, but at the same time there are teams who would not have bothered to show up on the second day after being bowled out for 45 and then conceding 252-3. It’s also worth remembering that the Kiwis were up against a very good South African side who bowled Australia out for 47 on the same ground 14 months ago.

The 45 all out cannot be ignored, but I do think New Zealand would be well advised to put it out of their heads for now. It was perhaps not a freak occurrence, good bowling and poor batting will generally produce low score, but the magnitude was such that at least for now they should treat it as a one-off. I suspect that dwelling on it ahead of the next Test would be counter-productive. The bigger problem is that I don’t think they would have won the Test even without being bowled out so cheaply. The 275 they put up in the second innings was a decent effort in the circumstance, but it was effectively a first innings pitch and would still have represented a sizeable deficit had they made it in the first innings.

It is hard to say what New Zealand ought to do because they have the problem that South Africa are simply a better side and everyone knew that even coming into the series. The batting will be the obvious thing at which to look and it does need to be more disciplined (which has actually been true for some time), but it might be worth working on the bowling too. They were a bit slow to recognise the value of simply bowling line and length on that pitch (although some of that might be put down to shell-shock at what happened to the batting) and South Africa actually scored quite freely for much of the innings. The improvements on the second day meant that it wasn’t a bad bowling performance overall, but with the batting consistently suspect they can ill-afford to concede 250 runs in two sessions at any time. This is not to excuse the batting, but the problems with that are much deeper and probably cannot be fixed in between Tests. The bowling can improve though.

After being bowled out for 47 a year ago, Australia came back to win the next Test. Although New Zealand have tended to play rather better in the second Test of their recent series, Hobart and Colombo being the most notable examples, I doubt that they will manage to win in Port Elizabeth. They might, and hopefully will, make the Test interesting. But South Africa are rather better than Australia and Sri Lanka and I think they will simply be too good for the Kiwis. Even if Vernon Philander does not pull up fit for that Test I do not think that New Zealand have the batting to put up a competitive total and even if they bowl well I think South Africa will score too many for them. I had similar thoughts before Hobart and Colombo, however, and would love to be wrong again.

2012 XI

There are still three days to go in the year proper, but 2012 ended in a cricketing sense last night as Sri Lanka collapsed to a heavy innings defeat at the MCG. It’s an interesting year on which to look back; South Africa will certainly be the happiest as they returned to the number one spot in the Test rankings, but England finished on a high and Australia made the most of their very weak opposition for most of the year.

For my XI of the year I am assuming the Test is being played in South Africa as they are the number one ranked side. I have one spinner, therefore, and although all things being equal I prefer having five bowlers it is far more common to play four bowlers/six batsmen so I am using that balance.

Alastair Cook
Cook led all openers in 2012 with 1249 runs scored and was second in average at 48.03 runs per dismissal. He also hit four centuries, the most of any opener and the last one set a new English record for career centuries.

Graeme Smith*
Smith had the best average amongst openers in 2012 with 48.52 and passed fifty more often than any other opener, eight times. He gets the captaincy in this XI after leading his team to the number one Test ranking.

Hashim Amla
Amla bats at three after 1064 runs at an average over seventy this year. His high point was the unbeaten 311 he scored as South Africa piled on the runs at the Oval, but he was brilliant throughout.

Michael Clarke
Comfortably the lead run scorer in 2012, Clarke finished the year by setting an Australian record with 1595 runs scored in a calendar year. He hit five centuries, three of them doubles and one a triple. Two of those double tons were also against South Africa, so it was not a case of weak opposition either.

AB de Villiers
De Villiers is a bit of a surprise; he bookended the year with centuries in Cape Town and Perth but had none in between. But he did still contribute consistently and averaged almost 57 in the middle order with 815 runs, fourth highest amongst middle order batsmen.

Ross Taylor
Taylor might remember this year for the captaincy debacle, but before that he scored 819 runs at an average over 54 and three centuries for good measure. The last of those came in a memorable win at Colombo.

Matt Prior†
Prior was still the best overall wicket-keeper in 2012; he scored the most runs of any wicket-keeper and had the most dismissals, though in both cases he was helped by playing in rather more matches than all of his competitors. But he was the only one to excel with both bat and gloves.

Vernon Philander
It was another excellent year for Philander; he took 43 wickets in nine Tests at an average just over 21. He was at his best early in the year, but he still took an important five wickets in the last innings of the Lord’s Test to ensure a series win for South Africa.

Kemar Roach
Roach was far from the most heralded bowler this year, but he took 39 wickets in only seven Tests at an average of 22. His zenith was the five wickets he took in each innings against Australia at Port of Spain in April.

James Anderson
Statistically this will not go down as Anderson’s best year, but that hardly tells the full story. Nine of the 14 Tests in which he played this year were in subcontinent conditions and he still proved a threat, taking thirty wickets at under 27 apiece. His spells in Galle, Calcutta and Nagpur in particular were incredible.

Saeed Ajmal
It was a very tough call for the spinner’s place between Ajmal and Ragnara Herath. Herath was actually the lead wicket taker in 2012, but Ajmal took 39 wicket in only six Tests and of course baffled England at the start of the year. Herath going wicketless in the last Test of the year finally tipped the selection to Ajmal.

T20 World Cup Group 1 permutations

After the first two sets of matches in Group 1 of the Super Eights all four teams still have a chance to advance and all four teams still could fail to advance, though in Sri Lanka’s case that would be unlikely. The last round of matches sees the West Indies face New Zealand and England face hosts Sri Lanka. For Sri Lanka, almost any result is enough. A win will guarantee that they will top the group and even if they lose they can still advance if the West Indies fail to hammer New Zealand. If England win they will probably be in the semi-finals and might even top the group if they win by enough. A defeat will not necessarily eliminate England, however. It will depend on the result of the other match. The West Indies can can not ensure a place in the semi-finals even if they beat New Zealand, but they can put some pressure on the other teams to get a result. But they are out if they lose, as are New Zealand. The Kiwis are in the most dire position, needing both to win and get some help from elsewhere.

It gets interesting in the specifics though. Whilst a Sri Lanka victory and a West Indies victory is simple enough (they both advance), if England and the West Indies both win then they and Sri Lanka will all be on four points at the top of the table and the group winner and runner-up will be decided on Net Run Rate. Sri Lanka have a comfortable lead right now, but a loss to England will obviously eat into that. England can realistically top the group if they win by a decent amount and in theory the West Indies can as well, though it will take an incredible win.

For England to top the group they have to beat Sri Lanka and hope that the West Indies don’t win by enough to top their NRR (which would be unlikely). The first situation is the most straightforward, Sri Lanka’s NRR right now is: $\frac{304}{35.2} - \frac{303}{40} = 1.029$ and England’s is $\frac{313}{38.5} - \frac{327}{40} = -0.115$ . (NB: The decimal values for overs are not ‘true’ decimals, but the usual cricket notation for fragments of an over. That is: ‘38.5’ = ’38 + 5/6′.) Unfortunately, the way NRR is set up means that it can’t be said that England need to win by x runs or with y balls to spare; the required margin of victory will actually vary with the first innings score. If England bat first and score x and Sri Lanka then score y the equation (and I’ve set it up as an equation instead of an inequality because England technically only need to draw level; the next tiebreak is head-to-head result) for England to overtake Sri Lanka is $\frac{313+x}{58.5} - \frac{327+y}{60} = \frac{304+y}{55.2} - \frac{303+x}{60}$ (bearing in mind that the sides are considered to have used their full overs even when bowled out and that England are assumed to win since otherwise the analysis is irrelevant). This solves out to a linear equation that gives Sri Lanka’s maximum score, y, for a variety of English scores, x: $y=0.969x - 16.5$ . This works out to a 20-25 run margin for likely scores.

It gets a little bit more complicated if Sri Lanka bat first though. Then it becomes a question of England needing to knock the runs off in a certain number of overs. If Sri Lanka score x then the overs, y England have in which to get the total is given as: $\frac{313+x+1}{38.5+y} - \frac{327+x}{60} = \frac{304+x}{55.2} - \frac{303+x+1}{40+y}$ which works out to: $y=\frac{28.8(\sqrt{x^2+618x+95500}-0.369(x+331))}{x+315}$ . (As much as I’d like to say I worked that out by hand, it would not be true.) This is a more complicated graph, but it actually has a happier result. It is quite flat for reasonable run totals and the quantised nature of the run chase gives us a handy result: for any Sri Lankan score between 101 and 205 (inclusive), England will have 17.2 overs in which to chase it if they wish to better Sri Lanka’s NRR. There is the caveat though that if it is close then England could hit a boundary for the winning runs and possibly get over the line with an extra ball used. For totals of 100 or fewer England will have 17.1 overs and for totals of 206 or greater England will have 17.3 overs, but in the first instance it isn’t likely that Sri Lanka will score so few and in the second instance it isn’t likely that England will chase that many even in twenty overs.

That’s for England and Sri Lanka and England are safe if they can get above Sri Lanka. But the the West Indies are still in the mix with a win. The easiest scenario for them is that they win and England lose. That will guarantee them the runners-up position. They can also finish second if England win narrowly, though and if England manage to drag Sri Lanka’s NRR down far enough the West Indies could even top the group. The problem for the West Indies is that right now their NRR is very low. It’s well behind Sri Lanka and pretty far even behind England. Even if England win by only a very small amount and only increase their NRR by a small amount, the West Indies will need to win pretty comfortably to catch them. The other possibility for them is that England hammer Sri Lanka and bring Sri Lanka’s NRR within range, but that will likely require another comfortable victory for the West Indies. They also have the slight problem of playing first, so they will not know what they need. Getting their NRR back to parity would be a good way to make England (and Sri Lanka to a lesser extent) sweat a bit though. To do that they would need to win by about twenty runs $\frac{308+x}{60} - \frac{294+y}{55.2}=0 \Rightarrow y=0.928x-8.24$ or with about two and a half overs to go $\frac{308+x+1}{40+y}-\frac{294+x}{55.2}=0 \Rightarrow y=\frac{15.7(x+347)}{x+294}$ . It certainly can be done, though it won’t guarantee anything. They’d need a much more convincing win to have a chance to top the group though. Either England or Sri Lanka will have a NRR well into the positive range and for the West Indies to get their NRR that high would be a massive effort.

What they will be hoping above all is that England lose. And If the West Indies win and England lose then the West Indies will finish as runners-up. If the West Indies lose, however, they are out even if England also lose. They would actually be level on points with England and New Zealand, but their NRR is already worse than New Zealand and would of course go down even farther. This is actually New Zealand’s only chance of going to the semi-finals. Right now their NRR is only a little bit worse than England’s and there is every chance that a win could send them above England or even close enough that a subsequent English loss would send their NRR under that of the Kiwis. Like with the case of the West Indies it is hard to calculate what they need as they don’t have a clear target, but the closest thing is probably England’s current NRR (although England can actually raise it with a loss if the loss is in a super over). Still, for New Zealand to go past England on NRR would put a lot of pressure on England and the equations to do that are (defending): $\frac{322+x}{60} - \frac{323+y}{58.5}=-0.114 \Rightarrow y=0.981x-6.59$ and chasing: $\frac{322+x+1}{40+y} - \frac{323+x}{58.5}=-0.114 \Rightarrow y=\frac{18.83(x+324.4)}{x+322.3}$ . They could do this relatively easily by winning by about ten or eleven runs or by chasing a target in 18.5 overs. Their chances should certainly not be written off.

Summary
Sri Lanka can get through and top the group with even a reasonably close loss. If they get within 20-25 runs of England in a chase or make England take more than 17.2 overs to chase down a target they will very likely win the group. They could theoretically be knocked out if England pass them and the West Indies beat New Zealand by enough to pass them both, but the odds are against it.

England can top the group by beating Sri Lanka by more than 25 runs or chasing down Sri Lanka’s target in 17.2 overs or quicker. A win of any type will probably be enough to advance though the Windies could knock them out with a comfortable win over New Zealand. They can advance with a loss if New Zealand win, but very narrowly.

The West Indies can advance if they win and England lose. They can also advance if they beat New Zealand by about 25 runs/three overs and England win fairly narrowly. If they thrash the Kiwis they will have a chance to even top the group, but it is very unlikely.

New Zealand can advance if they beat the West Indies comfortably and England then lose. But anything else will send the Kiwis out.

Twenty20 World Cup preview

Now that England have finished their rain affected series against South Africa there is no other men’s cricket until the start of the T20 World Cup. Of course there should be another two years, but because the ICC only sees various currency symbols in the fixture list they decided to go ahead and compromise some of the integrity of the tournament in exchange for the extra cash of having it once every two years instead of once every four. But it’s a reasonable enough decision as it’s only T20 and the whole point is just to make money anyway.

The format for the tournament is one of two group stages leading to the semi-finals. The first group stage is four groups of three with the top two from each advancing to two groups of four. It’s exciting in that any of the top teams can see their tournament end quite quickly if they slip up in the first two matches and rubbish in that this gives a huge role to chance. Still at least it’s a direct tournament and not the flawed rankings.

Group A contains England, India and Afghanistan. England are officially the best team in the world in the shortest format in the world and to be fair have won seven of their last ten (completed) matches. India are theoretically T20 powerhouses. They have probably the best disposed fan base toward T20 and this is manifest in the IPL. Despite (or very possibly in part because of) this India actually have a very poor record in T20 and have lost at home to both England and New Zealand in the past year. And then there is Afghanistan who I think I might be required by law to call ‘plucky’. Their story in getting to the tournament has been documented elsewhere in a much better fashion than I could, but what is most relevant is that they are not at all a bad side. They gave Australia a scare in a fifty-over match not long ago and they cannot be written off. One would probably not expect a major upset; England and India have to stay on their guard, but they will probably both advance.

Group B contains Australia, the West Indies and Ireland. A bit was made last week about Australia actually falling below Ireland in the rankings. (The Aussies have since moved back in front.) Although I pointed out why it was overblown, it is true that Australia have had a pretty dismal time in T20s recently. The West Indies have done a bit better though and split a two match series against Australia earlier this year. Ireland have played very little major opposition and were whitewashed in three matches at home by Bangladesh in the last series that they played. I think the West Indies will probably be the safest leaving Australia and Ireland. Ireland actually look like the better team on paper, but that is almost entirely against other Associate nations. They will be keen and if Australia have any sort of off day Ireland can definitely win. This might actually be a group where all three teams manage one win and run rate becomes the decider. I’m going to spring for the upset and have Ireland go through.

Group C comprises Sri Lanka, South Africa and Zimbabwe. South Africa have had a solid if unspectacular year. Zimbabwe have lost all six official T20s they played in the last twelve months and only two of them were even close. Sri Lanka have hardly played any matches so it’s quite hard to judge them. Presumably South Africa will top the group comfortably with Sri Lanka quite likely finishing runners-up. It might be interesting to see if Zimbabwe can pull off something remarkable against them though.

And in Group D there is Pakistan, New Zealand and Bangladesh. Pakistan have been a fairly strong T20 outfit recently and just technically beat Australia 2-1 in the UAE. (Though it should go down as 1-1 with one tie.) New Zealand did just manage to beat India, but had a poor time against the West Indies before that and are still far too mercurial. Bangladesh are Bangladesh. They may pull off a surprise against a better team on paper, but it would be a surprise. The Pakistan v New Zealand battle for the top of the group might be interesting, but unfortunately the tournament structure is such that the group winners are not rewarded over runners up. As with so many T20s, the result of that contest won’t matter.

So I suspect it will be England, the West Indies, Sri Lanka and New Zealand in Group 1 of the second round and India, Ireland, South Africa and Pakistan in Group 2. The top two teams of those two groups will meet in the semi-finals. Assuming the groups finish as I suggest (which isn’t going to happen, but never mind) then I would guess the semi-finals to be England v Pakistan and South Africa v West Indies and probably South Africa topping off a good year by beating Pakistan in the final. Maybe.

India win by an innings and 115 runs

India put their most recent losing run behind them in fairly emphatic style inside four days against the Kiwis. I didn’t get to see all of the Test due to the time zone, but there were a few aspects that stood out:

– New Zealand were shoddy. This is something I’ve seen from them quite a few times, of course, and I think it is probably the biggest thing keeping them from becoming an average side. They have very little application with the bat and although their bowling was good their fielding was not. They have the talent, I think, to get better results than they do. But they just don’t seem to put in the work to get there.

– Ravichandran Ashwin is a decent bowler. It’s not wise to read too much into a result on an Indian wicket against a team seemingly determined to get a day off and his failures in Australia cannot be forgot. But one can only beat the opposition that is presented and Ashwin got very good turn and bounce. He still has a lot to prove, but it is a red flag for England in three months.

– Speaking of England, they may be slightly encouraged by the amount of swing and seam the New Zealand bowlers got. Boult and Bracewell in particular were getting a lot of movement in the air on the first morning and given the similarity of England’s attack it will be very interesting to see if the conditions in November are still conductive to swing.

– Virender Sehwag is an idiot. We knew that already, of course, but it goes to a new level when one does not even manage to bully on a flat track. He made a decent 47 and off of only 41 balls, but offered two clear chances and a few edges through the slips in that time. He didn’t take the hint though and got out trying to cut a ball that was too close to his body. He then went off rehearsing the shot, seemingly under the impression that it was the execution which had let him down as opposed to the shot selection. There is almost no other way to describe it apart from ‘stupid’.

– The DRS must be made universal. For all the arguments over the influence the DRS has had over umpires and whether it is correctly applied to close decisions, there is little doubt that it has achieved it’s stated goal of getting rid of the howler. At least when it is used. It was not used in this Test, of course, because the BCCI don’t like it. And so, after a year of discussing marginal cases and whether it was a good thing with front foot lbws we got to see the return of the howler. New Zealand were hit the worst by it, with two absolutely terrible decisions going against them. Guptill and McCullum both were given out lbw, the first to a ball that was comfortably spinning away and going over the stumps and the second to a massive inside edge. There is little chance that the result was affected, but it is still quite troubling and not the least because of what it says about the elite panel of Umpires. They do, of course, get more decisions right than they do wrong as well as getting more decisions right than most people would. But that is not really good enough at Test level and especially without some sort of backup in place. Right now, the only two really trustworthy umpires are Aleem Dar and Simon Taufel and unfortunately even they make errors and in any case they cannot be at every Test. Which means that some sort of review system is an absolute necessity.

The final Test is on Friday in Bangalore and it is hard to see any other result than another Indian victory. Even with quite a bit of rain, New Zealand did not come close to saving this Test and collapsed from 92-1 at lunch on day four to 164 all out before stumps. They have a huge amount of work to do and have the disadvantage of only playing a two Test series so they just don’t have the time. Though even if there were four Tests, I expect they would struggle.

WI v NZ preview

The first of two West Indies v New Zealand Tests starts tomorrow (I believe later today for those watching in New Zealand) and I have written a preview of it for World Cricket Bet. Do have a look.

Hamilton preview

The second New Zealand v South Africa Test starts in a few hours. I’ll actually miss the first part of it, I’m going out of town for a couple of days, but I’ll be sorry to do so. South Africa were frustrated by the rain at Dunedin, but they did themselves no favours and ought to be kicking themselves about that. Ideally for South Africa that would translate into coming out all guns blazing in the next Test, but I’m not sure it will. They looked very flat before the close on day four and with the added disappointment of the rain their heads may go down. This is, bear in mind, almost the exact same team who responded to a disappointing draw against England by losing by an innings, then responded to another one by winning by an innings. It’s pretty hard to say how they’ll respond here, but I’m leaning towards a positive reaction.

New Zealand should be positive too. Taylor and McCullum batted reasonably well in a high pressure situation on the fourth day, although very little of that pressure was being actively applied by the South African bowlers. Still, they got to stumps in a good enough position that some were suggesting that the rain may have robbed them of a chance of victory. I don’t think that’s true, Taylor and McCullum would have had to get at least another 100 or so of the remaining runs, but they did at least go out of the match on a positive note and can have cause for optimism. Tim Southee has also been dropped which looks like an excellent decision. He has not really performed since very early in his career and would be a fairly unremarkable county bowler in England. New Zealand had trouble turning pressure into wickets in the second innings of the first Test and a large partnership ensued. If they can avoid that in the second Test, they do look like they have the ability to bowl South Africa out cheaply.

I’ve also seen a lot of rubbish about who has the ‘momentum’. It doesn’t matter. Look at the last two Ashes series: in 2009 Australia had the momentum after Headingley and proceeded to lose badly at the Oval. In 2010/11 it was even worse, England had the momentum after Adelaide, but then lost at Perth giving Australia the momentum. Australia were then promptly bowled out for 98 at the MCG and went on to lose by an innings. Sometimes teams will string wins together (usually when they are simply better than the opposition) and sometimes series will go back and forth. Forget ‘momentum’.

Ultimately, I think Steyn, Philander and Morkel will be keen to atone for their performance in the final session at Dunedin and will go after the batsmen much like they did in their first spell of that innings. New Zealand batted reasonably well in Dunedin, but I expect South Africa to step up a bit more and make life very difficult for them. The Kiwis are an improving side and should do enough to keep the match interesting, but I think South Africa will take a 1-0 lead.

Still number one!

There was no play possible due to rain on the fifth day at Dunedin, meaning that regardless of what happens in the last two Tests of the series England will still be number one in the world. A pretty strong argument could be made that we don’t deserve to be, but then a pretty strong argument could be made that South Africa don’t deserve to be either, so it’s probably fair to have it decided by a head to head series this summer. Or maybe I’m just biased (actually I definitely am that, but it doesn’t necessarily make me wrong) and looking for a justification for our clinging on to the top ranking. Either way England can still slip off the top spot before the upcoming series by failing to beat Sri Lanka in the upcoming series there, but that series won’t end until after the official 1 April cutoff date for the ICC prize money. The big series will still be the criminally short three Test affair this summer. I think few would argue with the winner of that being top of the table.

Dunedin, day four

South Africa went into the day in complete control, but will come out of it worried about the weather. Their problems are mostly their own making, though New Zealand have batted decently. They started the day over 200 runs in front and with an extended session the goal ought to have been to increase the run rate with a view to a declaration around lunch. They certainly should have had time to get the lead over 350, which would be very difficult for New Zealand to chase. Instead they batted slowly. Ninety-one runs in two and a half hours would be slow on the first day of a Test, as declaration batting it was maddening. They looked briefly like picking up the pace after lunch, but that didn’t last and soon it was a matter of waiting for Rudolph to finish his century. He did not appear to be in any hurry. When he did bring up three figures before drinks it was still not enough for Smith. When the lead became 399, ie New Zealand would need 400 to win, it was not enough. Instead they batted another six deliveries until a leg bye made the lead 401. I have no idea why Smith would consider one run more important than another over, but more generally I have no idea why South Africa would have batted so slowly before lunch either.

It was poor cricket and poor captaincy, but four and a half session ought to still be enough to bowl out New Zealand, especially the way their quicks started with the new ball. They were on fire before tea and when Philander got the relatively in-form Guptil to edge to slip it looked like just rewards. They eased off after tea though. Tahir came on and looked innocuous. He still got a wicket, but off a knee high full toss that Nicol somehow managed to hit only to mid-on. Another batsman would have hit it into the next county (or the New Zealand equivalent). Instead New Zealand were 55-2 and South Africa had a chance to effectively end the match. They didn’t look really keen though. Tahir stayed on and Steyn was not as incisive as he had been. The bowling was very wide, though that might have been a tactic as McCullum especially had been chasing those. As the innings went on though he settled down and the wide of off stump line became very negative. With rain forecast for tomorrow, one would think that South Africa would be keen on going after the batsmen, but instead they relied on mistakes after tea and have let a large partnership develop.

South Africa will have to bowl much better tomorrow and hope the rain does not play a large part. The way they have gone about trying to force a victory, however, goes a long way to explaining why they are perennially ranked second best.