Sunday Times
TELFORD VICE, Johannesburg
Unlike SA’s other failures in tournaments, their inability to advance past the semi-finals at the World T20 in Bangladesh was a problem of tactics rather than temperament.
India were the better team in Dhaka on Friday and won by six wickets with five balls to spare. Damn straight - no implosions or explosions were involved, and there is no need for the tortured introspection that has accompanied SA’s previous stumbles. They tried, and tried hard. They lost. That’s how sport works.
Still, South Africans will not enjoy the truth that their team have won only four of the 15 knockout games they have played in global tournaments, and none since 2000.
But, in the past, South Africans would have been choking on another choke. This time, they will challenge the choices their side made.
Chief among them is why AB de Villiers, the most attacking player in cricket, came in as low as No. 5 in the 14th over of SA’s innings. India, by contrast, sent in Virat Kohli at the fall of their first wicket. He powered them to victory with an unbeaten 72 off 44 balls.
Faf du Plessis, who batted at No. 3 for SA, scored 58 off 41 balls and shared a stand of 71 in 8.4 overs with JP Duminy, had a ready explanation.
“Statistically, AB plays the best when he comes in with 10 overs to go,” Du Plessis said. “He’s batted at No. 3 a few times and his stats are not as good as when he comes in at 10 overs.
“Tonight, myself and JP batted unbelievably quickly. Would AB have batted any quicker than that? I don’t know.”
Another debate is why SA took the defensive bowling option by giving part-time off-spinner Duminy the new ball despite their XI bristling with some of the most attacking bowlers in cricket.
“We felt that maybe India missed a trick by not opening with a spinner,” Du plessis said. “We felt there was a bit of grip and we wanted to see if JP could use that. Unfortunately, the ball was skidding on wide of the stumps and that opened the off side.
“With (India) playing five left-handers, we thought it would be tough for someone spinning the ball into them. With someone turning the ball away, it’s a different thing.”
And why did Du Plessis ask Wayne Parnell and not Dale Steyn to bowl the 17th over of India’s chase, which leaked 17 runs?
“If Steyn bowled the 17th and Parnell bowled the 18th and went for the same number of runs you would have asked me that same question (about the 18th).”
So, what went wrong?
“When you want to win close games like this you’ve got to make sure you do the small things right and unfortunately we didn’t,” Du Plessis said. “That was one of the things that wasn’t a match changer but it definitely put us on the back foot.”
Small things that become big things, like the nine wides SA bowled.
“It’s not just the runs you give away. You have to consider the runs they score from the extra balls. You’re probably looking at a 15 to 20 run game swing.”
Other questions still need answers.
What, exactly, was Albie Morkel’s role in the tournament? He batted at No. 6 twice, but also at No. 5 and No. 7. And he went from the fifth bowler used to sharing the new ball.
Why did Aaron Phangiso did not get a single game in conditions that suited him?
What led to Morne Morkel’s form deserting him so emphatically?
These are all issues that can be fixed and fine-tuned around a braai. For once, no-one will want to jump into the fire.
Comments
No comments yet. Start the conversation.