Safs’ Aussie approach going down under

Whatever gameplan South Africa seriously had in mind on a shortened third day at Green Park was decapitated with clinical efficiency and the...

Whatever gameplan South Africa seriously had in mind on a shortened third day at Green Park was decapitated with clinical efficiency and the remains fed into the Indian batting shredder in one of more humiliating displays the tourists have experienced on the subcontinent.

The question remains, though, why South Africa allowed their innings to drift. One answer is the theory that anything past 500 was a psychological barrier, the thought that chasing down 510 might place Sourav Ganguly’s side under pressure.

Think again, guys. South Africa have not learnt from their last Test, against Sri Lanka at the Sinhalese Sports Club nine weeks ago when they were thrashed by 313 runs after the attack lost their radar findings. That led to Eric Sinmons stepping down as coach and, before this series, his successor Ray Jennings and captain Graeme Smith said the plan was to come hard at India and play aggressively Australian style. They would strangle the Indian run-rate and put them under pressure, through tight bowling and run-saving fields. Under such conditions, the Indian batsmen would panic as the crowds became impatient at their inability to put runs on the board.

Story continues below this ad

Green Park was the first genuine trial of his ideas and it failed.

The ‘‘Australian methods’’ saw the Safs’ innings dragged on for 190.4 overs at a sedate 2.67 runs an over as they wanted to ‘‘gain experience in the middle and the pitch did not allow for fast scoring opportunities’’. India’s 185 off 44 overs was at 4.20 an over.

At the time this strategy was voiced, it was seriously questioned as only Shaun Pollock and Jacques Kallis among the bowlers had experience of India. It seemed to be a negative tactic and it also showed just how weak has become one of the great attacks of the 1990s.

In those days there was Allan Donald, who could swing the ball both ways at pace and knew the right line and length. Fanie de Villiers was another, although not at pace. They had a plan and an astute captain and coaching system in Hansie Cronje and Bob Woolmer. Makhaya Ntini may be willing but, if you can barely get the odd ball to swing and show almost no variation, it’s hard work staying on in the attack when being hit for four an over. Andrew Hall also learnt the hard way.

Story continues below this ad

And what about two crucial fumbles from debutant wicketkeeper Thami Tsolekile? India could have lost both openers but Tsolekile, controversially selected ahead of Mark Boucher, didn’t help his team’s cause: a sloppy missed stumping chance off Robin Peterson’s left-arm spin allowed Sehwag to escape when on 29, while Gambhir had reason to smile at being dropped catch off Hall’s bowling when 28.

Jennings admitted South Africa needed a serious rethink of their gameplan by saying the Indian batsmen had shown up the visitors’ bowling deployment. It may have been exciting to watch as they mauled the bowling but it left a gaping hole in their pre-match strategy.

Jennings is an unconventional coach, passionate to a fault and perhaps too forthright at times; a coach who will test the players mentally, asking them constantly if they have been honest with themselves in every situation both on and off the field. There will be no place to hide under Jennings.

Yet by the close of day three, the so-called aggressive approach and lack of fast-scoring theories had been consigned to the rubbish bin. So, where to now guys? The Australian plan failed; if they fail to come up with some counter plan they could find themselves struggling to avoid defeat on the last afternoon.