SARrugby.com

I was so disgusted by what happened on Tuesday - it took me 24 hours before I stopped cursing - so now I can at least comment in decent lamguage.   Let me start off by mentioning the following:-

*    What the hell was Smith up to.   The run rate required was 5.9 runs per over and Smith was fiddling around scoring at the rate of 5 runs after the first 23 balls he received.   Disgustingly he did put extra pressure on De Kock who in his second ODI game was moved to open since he had to try and put sone respectability as to the run rate.   That really was not helping the youngster at all - instead of helping him along by scoring at sy 3 runs per over - he buggered up badly and De Kock had to try and hit at everything to off-set Smith's disastrous performance.   Smith did up his run rate later - but then got himself run out - when less than 6 runs per over was needed.   Really he had a major share in the disastrous performance.

*    Du Plessis was  taught a bitter lesson.   As a captain he should have been more careful and not get run out in the way he was.   There was at that stage no reason to panic and force the increase of the run rate - so he was irresponsible in the way he was run out.

*    Then Behardien came in and the rot started badly.   This guy is a good franchise player - but no international one.  He fiddled around and made no real effort to play attacking cricket - thus incresing the needed run rate.  Ingram panicked as a result and hit out to try and remdy a situation that should never have been bad in any case.  That led directly to his dismissal.

*     The above farce in any event lead to two further run-outs.

Be it as it may - I would have preferred not to be a fly on the wall in the cghangeroomm after the match,   Kirsten definitely wouldnot have been kind after that one.

I think that he real problem started early in the innings with Smith.    The latter was a disaster in the Paarl and scored his few runs from far too many balls.   Even though the top bowlers operate early in ODI's - the Smith rate of 1,6 runs per over in the first six overs is just not good enough.   3 to 4 runs per over is acceptable - a Smith rate is pathetic.   Maybe the reason is that the opposition knows he only has one real scoring area and bottled that up completely.   Does his later increase in scorring rate justify his retention in the team?   I am of the opinion that the damage was already done earlier in the game.   In summary I would rather have a batsman scoring at a reasonable rate throughout the innings than one who causes massive problems for his opening partner and want to raise the one question - namely should Smith play in ODI's any longer?

The problems were augmented by the inclusion in the team of two inexperienced batsman on international ODI level.   Of the two I think Miller could make it - but I would rather have included  Elgar in the first instance,

However, the horse has bolted and I hope they learnt something from the disaster.     

I've never seen a SA team self destruct like that after cruising at 160 odd runs for one to run out after run out and finally complete capitulation. A historic series win for the Kiwis on South African soil.  I'll drink to that..

Mike, I think you are a bit harsh on smith there.

He did throw away his wicket in the run out agreed.

But he was building an innings he started right. He was the senior guy, therefore needed to stay in and build for a big innings, It would have been irresponsible of him if he started just hitting from the start. He accelerated at the right time etc. Had he not had the run out. We would have been fine. But I don't find anything wrong with the pace that he constructed the innings on. it was responsible and planned. We were in a really good position when he left, and him and Ingram got us there. The run out and Ingrams give away shot. Put the middle order under pressure. They are inexperienced at this and couldn't stand up.

Ek

I am not saying that he must start and hit out indiscrimniately - but blocking bad balls and scoring just about one run per over is rubbish and is not helping a youngster like De Kock, who have to try and off-set a poor start by Smith - and it was a poor start on his part..   Making three or four runs an over by turning over the batting is good enough.  Just blocking out balls and giving away maiden overs in the shorten version of the game - normally leads to disaster.

If Smith finds it easier to score runs against the lower ranking bowlers put him in lower down the order. 

However, over the past two years Smith failed repeatedly in ODI's and rarely manage to survive the first ten overs - he made decent scores in about 10% of the games he played in.   He should either retire from ODI's or bat lower down the order.

Watching him playing in an ODI is normally like watching paint drying - not an appropriate runrate and not doing his job properly. 

Mike let's agree to disagree here.

Smith has done badly a few times, but I don't find anything wrong with the way he started this innings. It was responsible until the poitn where he threw his wicket away with the runout,  he knew he had to bat through and build an innings as he was by far the most senior guy there. And if he does it again on friday, this time without trowing his wicket away and goes on to get a hundred, you will have something else to say.

You are bieng overly harsh and critical.

Ek

OK lets disagree on that one.  I simply mean that it is often commented on that batsman should make sure that bowlers do not bowl at the same batsman and that there should be efforts made to hit the balls in such a way that there could be a run.   Smith did not do it on Tuesday - he was stuck getting ball after ball and doing nothing to try and makesingle runs - even 2 per over by him would have helped his partner - but 5 runs from 23 balls can never be regarded as proper efforts to make batting turnovers and by those means maintain a decent run rate.

I hve watched many ODI's and over the past two years Smith mananged to score more than 30 runs per innings only in one game every 7 games he played in.   This is a consistent tendency and I believe not really acceptable       

I do agree on the overall trend, As I said, I just think you are bieng a bit biased regarding the innings he played in the last match, he was the second best batsman and apart from the runout, I don't find much fault with the way he took on the responsibility of senor batsman.

Adding to that though i think Ingram played a very decent innings, he was starting to worry me ....

Let hope the middle order can up their game for the last one, also hope that de kock opens again and shows some more, as we only saw glimpses of what we believe he can do.

Ek

I was satisfied with the way De Kock played.  He virtually never blocked a ball - he hit at it.   The fact that a lot of hits was cut off was really immaterial.   It was completely different from what Smith was doing.   I think he made one mistake and that was to truy and hit the ball he was out on.   That one he should have played defensively - but he is young and will learn from the experience.

hehe Mike i think we have slightly diffenrent Ideas on how an opener should play in the 50 over format, that way you describe is the way an opener should play in the 20 over format. :)

50 overs you still need to build an innings boet, and you don't just hit from the start. If you do want to hit from the start you need at least one of your openers to ceate stability and bat through.

Yeah I was happy with de kock, i do think he was a bit wreckless, but that can be written off to youth and inexperience.

Ek Mike does no trate Smith at all and often finds fault with him

However I do think any batsmen scoring 5 runs in 23 balls when the oppostion has put up a big score is letting his side down.

I always like watching Jonty play - he could always find a run every ball.

That said Smith did come back after a slow start and it was some daft run outs (5 in all) that sunk us.

At least the loss stopped brycy from calling for the end to nz cricket!

That is my point with pacing an innings in the 50 over format. As an opener you can start slow, get used to the pitch, play himself in, and let Rip when he is comfortable.

In the end

Smith made 66 off 75 at a SR of 88,

de kock who was hitting big shots an one wreckless one that got him bowled.

made 25 off 28 at a SR of 89.

Ingram who played a really good ODI innings made

79 off 94 at a SR of 84.

Now tell me what was srong with the pace of SMith's innings..? apart from the obvious run out.

We have been watching too much t20 cricket.

The middle order folded when they should have contributed.

Ek

I agree about pacing an innings - but not killing it by scoring a run an over.  If you cut out 6 overs like that - you have an uphill battle later on and that is exactly what happened in this ODI.  The idea is that the players must try to find gaps in the defence so as to score single runs.  Four runs an over is fine early in games but 5 runs in the equivalent of four overs is unacceptable.

Problem with Smith is he always try the same way to score and the opposition just bottle up the areas where Smith would steer the ball to.   Later in the innings - like happened on Tuesday he upped his rate against the weaker bowlers - like Smith did on Tuesday - but that was when panic sets in also - because the team must all battle to catch  up/

:) there is just no way in hell that you will see anything realted to smith in any good light is there Mike?

you should read the post again.