To succeed on world stage, Proteas must stop playing safe and dare to win
by Neil Manthorp,
2016-03-15 05:00:00.0
THERE is plenty of evidence to suggest that the theory of "diminished performance" being good enough to triumph at major sporting events is true.
Supporters and fans tend to remember the brilliant and spectacular finishes, but often it is the individual and team who keep their cool who prevail. Many golf tournaments have been won with a par round on Sunday, and many a final tennis set has been decided by the number of first serves hitting the target rather than the number of aces.
Cricket is no different. The elimination of errors can be just as important as sixes and wickets, especially in semifinals and finals when dropped catches and scrambled thinking are more likely.
Allow your opponent to make the mistake before you do. Avoid defeat. Or should that rather be, "seek victory"?
Proteas coach Russell Domingo is a big fan of "keeping things simple". He refers often to rocket science not being among the requirements for top cricketers. He is a meticulous, calculating coach who believes in playing the odds, and eliminating risk. Strategy and tactics are his forte. Or at least, they occupy much of his time.
The concern is the pace at which trends are changing and the ability and willingness not only to keep up, but even try to get ahead of the pack.
Australia and England have adopted an "attack at all costs" approach, a luxury afforded them by the remarkable number of all-rounders in both squads. Both teams have lost games by indiscriminately attacking with bat and ball, but they have also extended the limits of what they are capable of. They also know they can win from any situation.
SA have two all-rounders now, but still only bat to No8. It is a line-up that demands a certain amount of caution — which probably suits the style and approach of the team and the instincts of its captain, Faf du Plessis, who occasionally battles to shrug off his conservative streak.
Whereas most teams have developed a style of playing Twenty20 (T20) cricket that is constantly seeking to take the game forward and put the opposition under pressure, the Proteas’ instinct is still to have a period of consolidation in the middle of the innings following an aggressive power play and then leave things for the big overs at the end of the innings.
But if, for example, an over or two in the middle of the innings can be specifically and successfully "targeted" for 15 or 16 runs, it may force the fielding captain to use one of his death bowlers to stem the flow of runs — leaving his team more vulnerable at the end of the innings.
Why not designate a batsman to do exactly that? If a wicket falls in the ninth or tenth overs, why not push David Wiese — for example — up the order with specific instructions to attack a particular bowler. On a flat pitch, the likelihood is that Wiese may otherwise not even get to the wicket at all.
SA need to be flexible with the batting order to ensure they have the right people at the crease at the right time. In T20 cricket, there should be no such thing as a "batting order".
Some of the criteria that should be considered when deciding who bats next are: right hand-left hand combinations, how many overs have been bowled, and which bowlers are likely to bowl the remaining overs.
Although reading pitch, outfield and weather conditions is an important skill, the best teams are not bound by them. The Proteas hit their targets batting first against Australia at the Wanderers and Newlands, posting 204 and 178. But both innings were hindered by half-a-dozen quiet overs in the middle, during which the scoring rate dropped significantly. It meant there was never a chance to take the game away from Australia with an extra 20 or 30 runs, and the tourists won both.
Perhaps the World Twenty20 final on April 3 will be decided by the team making the fewest mistakes but, given the way the format has evolved in the past 12 months, the likelihood is that most games leading up to the final, and possibly the final itself, will be won by the teams playing with the smallest fear of failure. Those who dare, win.
Du Plessis and Domingo are aware of this, but such is the weight of expectation after two decades of failure at global events, the instinct to "play it safe" and perform respectably must be hard to fight.
Opening the batting with AB de Villiers is certainly a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it also leaves the team vulnerable to its biggest setback from the beginning of the innings. Ideally, he would walk to the wicket between the fifth and seventh overs, but Twenty20 cricket doesn’t exist in an ideal world.
Picture: THINKSTOCK
THERE is plenty of evidence to suggest that the theory of "diminished performance" being good enough to triumph at major sporting events is true.
Supporters and fans tend to remember the brilliant and spectacular finishes, but often it is the individual and team who keep their cool who prevail. Many golf tournaments have been won with a par round on Sunday, and many a final tennis set has been decided by the number of first serves hitting the target rather than the number of aces.
Cricket is no different. The elimination of errors can be just as important as sixes and wickets, especially in semifinals and finals when dropped catches and scrambled thinking are more likely.
Allow your opponent to make the mistake before you do. Avoid defeat. Or should that rather be, "seek victory"?
Proteas coach Russell Domingo is a big fan of "keeping things simple". He refers often to rocket science not being among the requirements for top cricketers. He is a meticulous, calculating coach who believes in playing the odds, and eliminating risk. Strategy and tactics are his forte. Or at least, they occupy much of his time.
The concern is the pace at which trends are changing and the ability and willingness not only to keep up, but even try to get ahead of the pack.
Australia and England have adopted an "attack at all costs" approach, a luxury afforded them by the remarkable number of all-rounders in both squads. Both teams have lost games by indiscriminately attacking with bat and ball, but they have also extended the limits of what they are capable of. They also know they can win from any situation.
SA have two all-rounders now, but still only bat to No8. It is a line-up that demands a certain amount of caution — which probably suits the style and approach of the team and the instincts of its captain, Faf du Plessis, who occasionally battles to shrug off his conservative streak.
Whereas most teams have developed a style of playing Twenty20 (T20) cricket that is constantly seeking to take the game forward and put the opposition under pressure, the Proteas’ instinct is still to have a period of consolidation in the middle of the innings following an aggressive power play and then leave things for the big overs at the end of the innings.
But if, for example, an over or two in the middle of the innings can be specifically and successfully "targeted" for 15 or 16 runs, it may force the fielding captain to use one of his death bowlers to stem the flow of runs — leaving his team more vulnerable at the end of the innings.
Why not designate a batsman to do exactly that? If a wicket falls in the ninth or tenth overs, why not push David Wiese — for example — up the order with specific instructions to attack a particular bowler. On a flat pitch, the likelihood is that Wiese may otherwise not even get to the wicket at all.
SA need to be flexible with the batting order to ensure they have the right people at the crease at the right time. In T20 cricket, there should be no such thing as a "batting order".
Some of the criteria that should be considered when deciding who bats next are: right hand-left hand combinations, how many overs have been bowled, and which bowlers are likely to bowl the remaining overs.
Although reading pitch, outfield and weather conditions is an important skill, the best teams are not bound by them. The Proteas hit their targets batting first against Australia at the Wanderers and Newlands, posting 204 and 178. But both innings were hindered by half-a-dozen quiet overs in the middle, during which the scoring rate dropped significantly. It meant there was never a chance to take the game away from Australia with an extra 20 or 30 runs, and the tourists won both.
Perhaps the World Twenty20 final on April 3 will be decided by the team making the fewest mistakes but, given the way the format has evolved in the past 12 months, the likelihood is that most games leading up to the final, and possibly the final itself, will be won by the teams playing with the smallest fear of failure. Those who dare, win.
Du Plessis and Domingo are aware of this, but such is the weight of expectation after two decades of failure at global events, the instinct to "play it safe" and perform respectably must be hard to fight.
Opening the batting with AB de Villiers is certainly a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it also leaves the team vulnerable to its biggest setback from the beginning of the innings. Ideally, he would walk to the wicket between the fifth and seventh overs, but Twenty20 cricket doesn’t exist in an ideal world.
Change: 0.83%
Change: 0.93%
Change: 0.95%
Change: 0.73%
Change: 1.91%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: 0.58%
Change: 0.43%
Change: 0.83%
Change: 0.00%
Change: 0.56%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: -1.67%
Change: -0.90%
Change: -0.65%
Change: -1.21%
Change: -0.47%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: 2.49%
Change: 2.09%
Change: 2.30%
Change: 2.29%
Change: 3.39%
Data supplied by Profile Data