SA MUST LEARN TO PLAY SMART CRICKET
PRIOR to the start of the T20 International series against England, Proteas coach Mark Boucher claimed his team would be adopting a new strategy and wanted his players to execute “smart” cricket.
The Oxford dictionary’s definition of “smart” means “having or showing a quick-witted intelligence”.
While there were indeed mitigating circumstances that forced the Proteas’ hand due to the unavailability of the two all-rounders Andile Phehlukwayo and Dwaine Pretorius, as well as southpaw slugger David Miller, it is indeed during these stressful times that genuine “intelligence” and sound leadership is required.
However, during the just completed series in which the Proteas suffered their first 3-0 T20I whitewash at home, the decisionmaking left a lot to be desired.
With the first T20I in the balance at Newlands, captain Quinton de Kock turned to part-time bowler and regular stand-in wicket-keeper Heinrich Klaasen to bowl an over. The decision to search for someone to get through an over is understandable, but surely the timing was off with arguably two of the biggest hitters in the world game, Ben Stokes and Jonny Bairstow, well set at the crease. The over cost 14 runs and the entire momentum of the game swung.
If South Africa were really concerned about the lack of a sixth bowler, surely bringing on Klaasen earlier in the game, essentially in the seventh over after the PowerPlay when England had been reduced to 34/3 and were only starting to rebuild would have been smarter?
Heading down the N1 to Boland Park for Sunday’s second T20I, the assessment of the conditions left a lot to be desired, as De Kock admitted “none of us knew the wicket was going to play like that”.
Considering the Proteas have three local players from the Mzansi T20 League championship-winning Paarl Rocks team within their ranks, who regularly field three spinners in their line-up at Boland Park, it was almost incomprehensible.
And that brings us to Newlands for the final T20I. SA had batted first in both prior matches and lost after being inserted by Eoin Morgan.
On Tuesday, the Proteas won the toss and again elected to bat. Admittedly it was on a used pitch, but once again the thought processes were baffling.
Throughout the series South Africa had opted for a 6-5 split in favour of the batsmen due to the lack of seam bowling all-rounders. The lack of a sixth bowling option had been exposed on both occasions in trying to restrict England during their run chase. Furthermore here at Newlands, their Proteas attack was even more fragile due to Kagiso Rabada having to withdraw with an abductor strain and his replacement being a 22-year-old rookie Lutho Sipamla that had not played any cricket since March.
Surely logic dictates that if South Africa were to give themselves the best chance of beating this powerpacked England team they needed to back their batsmen to chase down whatever England may have set?
Personally, I think England were never really pushed in the first two matches and only played to their true potential in the dead-rubber at Newlands.
Even Morgan admitted after his team chased down 180 in the first T20I that it was “Pleasing because we were average apart from two or three guys. To win when you don’t play your best is nice”.
Is it honest reflection like this that gets teams moving forward and ultimately to World Cup glory. That is what I call being smart.