How South Africa's superior bowling made the difference in the series against India

[rkt.india]

The Test-match leg of India's tour of South Africa consisted of three beguiling Test matches which were as challenging to read and they were enthralling to watch. None of the three pitches could be considered batting friendly. Though India lost 2-1, the series was probably as far away from a 3-0 wipeout as it was from a 2-1 Indian win.

 

A standard story is told about India's overseas tours in the public prints, involving some comment about the capacity (or lack thereof) of India's batsmen to face up to fearsome foreign fast bowling, and wonderment about how India's fast bowlers occasionally challenge the home batting. India's batsmen are expected to slay impossible demons regularly. India's bowlers are expected to impersonate demons only occasionally. Given that most of the writers who write about India's Test team are men, this storyline is a psychoanalyst's dream. Or perhaps, it is a psychoanalyst's cliche. The transcript of the Indian captain's press conference after the second Test match consisted entirely of questions about team selection and the performance of the batting. Much of the discourse was about how India's bowlers kept dragging the team back into Test matches, making up ground the batsmen were seemingly repeatedly losing.

 

The problem underlying all these storylines is an absence of information. Evaluating batsmen and bowlers on the basis of their careers averages is reasonable because over the course of a career, averages are a good proxy for quality of batting and bowling. Over a solitary Test match, though, this makes very little sense. But then, over the course of a single Test, no other systematic measurement has hitherto been available. In the past decade, ESPNcricinfo has maintained a record of all cricket matches it covers on a ball-by-ball basis. Apart from the commentary, they record the usual outcomes - how many runs, how many extras, whether or not a wicket fell, what was the line and length of the delivery. They also record a judgement: was the batsman in control of the delivery?

 

 

Control is an elegant binary measurement of batting and bowling, as opposed to runs and wickets, which represent the outcome of batting and bowling. It records whether or not the ball went where the batsman intended it to.

In the case of the South Africa-India series, the control measurement provides a less batting-centric picture. It shows that while India's batting coped admirably with the home bowling, it was the superior overall quality of the home bowling that proved to be the difference between the two sides.

 

The ball-by-ball record can be summarised in various ways, from the most specific individual bowler v batsman match-ups to innings summaries. Two measures are developed from the data. The first measure "In Control Per Not In Control" records the number of balls the batsman was in control for every ball that the batsman was not in control. This is designed to demonstrate the amount of control the batsman had over proceedings. Higher values show that the batsman was in control more, while lower ones show that the bowler created more uncertainty. The second measure "% Runs Scored Not In Control" gives the percentage of the total runs that came from deliveries where the batsman was not in control. This is designed to be a stand-in for "luck". Almost every single dismissal (run-outs excluded) occurs when the batsman in not in control. Finally, scoring rates (runs per six balls faced) for in-control and not-in-control delivery sets are presented.

 

Summarised by team innings, the control numbers reveal that the series consisted of two types of Tests. The first and third Tests were both unusually bowler-friendly. The second Test was far more conventional, with the bowlers gaining ascendancy as the match went on. It could be argued that the toss in the second Test was the most crucial one of the series, because judging by the control figures, the wicket in Centurion became progressively worse for batting as the match progressed.

 

The first Test was decided on the very first day. Despite three early wickets, India's bowling conceded runs at a rate neither side would achieve at any subsequent point in the series. Of the 440 balls bowled by India's bowlers, the South African batsmen were in control for 315. They scored at 4.6 runs per over from these 315 deliveries. For the rest of the series, they scored at 2.9 runs per over from deliveries where they were in control. Had India kept South Africa down to the in-control scoring rate which they managed for the rest of the series, the home side would have made 153 runs in those 315 balls instead of 240. The final margin of victory for the home team in the first Test was 72 runs. Later, Ravi Shastri observed that ten extra days of preparation in South Africa might have been useful. Perhaps he was right. That first day, when India's bowling looked underprepared, proved fatal. In light of what occured in the series, it could well be said that India lost the series on the first day.

 

A couple of claims made about India's batsmen are worth examining. First, it has been observed that Cheteshwar Pujara and M Vijay have a tendency to get stuck, even though they look secure at the crease. This is because they were extremely selective about the shots they were willing to play, especially as the series developed. But they were able to collect singles and get off strike from time to time. This has had very little effect on India's overall scoring rate. When in control, India's batting scored at about the same rate as South Africa's (excluding the first innings of the first Test).

 

Second, it has been observed that picking Rohit Sharma ahead of Ajinkya Rahane was an obvious mistake. This is not obvious, or possibly even a mistake. If one compares Rahane and Eohit over their careers, then their run returns suggest that Rahane is indeed the better overall Test batsman. But if one asks who is playing better currently, it is debatable. Rahane was not in control for 30 of the 96 balls he faced in Johannesburg. Rohit was not in control for 37 out of 190 balls he faced in the series. Rahane's cavalier approach brought India 57 runs at the Wanderers, but as with all other batsmen in that Test, the runs against his name were largely a measure of the amount of luck he enjoyed.

 

 

Second, it has been observed that picking Rohit Sharma ahead of Ajinkya Rahane was an obvious mistake. This is not obvious, or possibly even a mistake. If one compares Rahane and Eohit over their careers, then their run returns suggest that Rahane is indeed the better overall Test batsman. But if one asks who is playing better currently, it is debatable. Rahane was not in control for 30 of the 96 balls he faced in Johannesburg. Rohit was not in control for 37 out of 190 balls he faced in the series. Rahane's cavalier approach brought India 57 runs at the Wanderers, but as with all other batsmen in that Test, the runs against his name were largely a measure of the amount of luck he enjoyed.

Rohit had a different problem. He defended superbly in both Tests he played, but of the 86 balls he faced in the first innings in Centurion and Cape Town, he did not score one single. The break-down of the deliveries he faced is: three fours, one three, three twos and 79 dots. If we consider every ball that a batsman is not in control to be a potential source of dismissal, or a mistake, then Rohit was dismissed on his 13th (in 59 balls), fifth (in 30 balls), third (in 27 balls) and 16th (in 74 balls) mistakes. Rahane was dismissed on his tenth (in 27 balls) and 20th (in 69 balls) mistakes. While Rahane is the better overall batsman, there's no evidence to suggest that he played better in this series. Despite Rohit's stroke-making ability, it was his inability to get off strike, rather than any defensive technical problem that proved to be his undoing in South Africa.

 

Overall, South Africa's superior pace attack was the difference between the two sides. The home fast bowlers created about 10% more uncertainty than India's did, and conceded 0.4 runs per over fewer when the batsmen were in control. The composition of the two sides was symmetrical in each Test. In the first two Tests, each side played five batsmen, one wicketkeeper, four fast bowlers and one spinner. In the third Test, each side replaced the spinner with a fast bowler. In the tables below, the players are classified as follows:

South Africa bowlers: Kagiso Rabada, Dale Steyn, Morne Morkel, Vernon Philander, Keshav Maharaj, Lungi Ngidi and Andile Phehlukwayo.

 

India bowlers: Mohammed Shami, Bhuvneshwar Kumar, Ishant Sharma, Jasprit Bumrah, Hardik Pandya, R Ashwin (The fast-bowler classification excludes Ashwin and Maharaj.)

 

South Africa top order: Aiden Markram, Dean Elgar, Hashim Amla, AB de Villiers, Faf du Plessis

India top order: M Vijay, Shikhar Dhawan, KL Rahul, Cheteshwar Pujara, Virat Kohli, Rohit Sharma, Ajinkya Rahane

 

After the first two Tests, despite the fact that India lost both, there was a niggling feeling that they had not been outplayed. South Africa's superior control with the ball was decisive, but the Indian batting demonstrated that it could cope with the South African attack. Given that the pitches were prone to misbehaving, India kept collecting wickets regularly when they bowled. India required 11.4 not-in-control deliveries to get one wicket. South Africa required 11.2 not-in-control deliveries to get one wicket. Each side created three run-out dismissals. Given the nature of the pitches, it could be argued that South Africa's attack was better suited to the conditions. Neither side can claim to have been especially unlucky. But South Africa can claim to have bowled better.

India will be haunted by the fact that the series was decided on the first day, when their bowling was decisively under par. The current squad is such that in conditions where India don't play two spinners, they don't have clear idea what their best XI is. This is not their fault. It is not clear who India's three best fast bowlers are. Each has obvious limitations. It is easy to see why the selectors and the management find Jasprit Bumrah such a promising proposition, though he is far from the finished product. Bumrah has pace, seems to be tireless, and has an unusual run-up and action, which provide India with a little bit of novelty in their attack. He troubled the batsmen (only 2.6 in-control deliveries per not-in-control delivery) but also conceded a lot of runs when he didn't trouble them (3.5 runs per six in-control deliveries, unlike Ishant Sharma, who was very difficult to score off, conceding only 2.3 runs per in-control delivery). For a debut series, Bumrah's returns were spectacular. But India's team management will probably have noted his inability to draw edges for the slip cordon. The wickets in England will probably not be as quick as those in South Africa, and Bumrah is unlikely to get batsmen out fending in England as easily as he did in South Africa. Still, he has easily justified India's decision to give him a Test debut.

 

None of India's bowlers stands up in comparison to Kagiso Rabada, who, at 22, already has 120 Test wickets to his name. If there was one player who was the difference between the two sides, it was him. Steyn was lethal when he played, but Rabada was South Africa's mainstay, what with Vernon Philander having his problems with injury. As superb as Morne Morkel is (his Test record after 83 Tests is better than James Anderson's was at that stage), he has not succeeded Steyn as the spearhead of the South African attack. Rabada, with his pace, accuracy and ability to work a batsman over, is the undisputed South African all-wicket spearhead.

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22292464/how-south-africa-superior-bowling-made-difference-series-india

Philander and Bhuvneshwar Kumar had very good series in conditions that suit them. Philander controlled the scoring more effectively than Bhuvneshwar. Lungi Ngidi had a promising start to his career, bowling in a quartet with three experienced colleagues. It remains to be seen how he goes when the conditions are less helpful.

[maniac]

Bowling was par.,,it was batting and most importantly fielding that let us down. Even batting was kind of par..,it was fielding and fielding alone that screwed us...people say toss worked in their favor which is a fair point but the way we dropped catches in the first 2 tests,the results were fair.

 

People say AB made a difference,but not so much with the bat,lesser bats might have contributed similarly but where AB made a difference was he was gobbling up even half chances in the slips where as we were dropping straight forward dollies.

Edited February 2, 2018 by maniac

[express bowling]

There seems to be a basic fallacy in this analysis. Whether the batsmen are in control or not would also depend on their current day ability to play in the given conditions.

 

If our batters had arrived in S.A. 10 days earlier, played 2 practice games and had lots of practice sessions ... we would have seen improvement in their playing / shot making control against SA pacers. 

 

The above point was well demonstrated in the 3rd test, after our batters got acclimatized to conditions in S.A.. They looked more in control than their S.A. counterparts.

 

Comparing career stats of Rabada and co. with our pacers also do not make sense as there guys get to play around 50% of tests in the most seamer-friendly conditions in world cricket.

 

This acclimatization aspect applies to our bowlers too. Their worst innings was the first one. Once they got used to the conditions, they bowled much better for the next 5 innings.

 

Just 3 practice sessions and no practice matches is grossly inadequate preparation for playing in S.A. conditions which are completely different to Indian conditions. This is the main reason for our loss. 10 more days in S.A.  and one of the first 2 tests could have been won by us leading to a 2-1 result in our favour.

 

But some cricket writers want stereotypes to live on.

Edited February 2, 2018 by express bowling

[maniac]

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

There seems to be a basic fallacy in this analysis. Whether the batsmen are in control or not would also depend on their current day ability to play in the given conditions.

 

If our batters had arrived in S.A. 10 days earlier, played 2 practice games and had lots of practice sessions ... we would have seen improvement in their control against SA pacers. 

 

The above point was well demonstrated in the 3rd test, after our batters for acclimatized to conditions in S.A.. They looked more in control than their AS counterparts.

 

Comparing career stats of Rabada and co. with our pacers also do not make sense as there guys get to play around 50% of tests in the most seamer-friendly condition in world cricket.

 

This acclimatization aspect applies to our bowlers too. Their worst innings was the first one. Once they got used to the conditions, they bowled much better for the next 5 innings.

 

Just 3 practice sessions and no practice matches is grossly inadequate preparation for playing in S.A. conditions which are completely different to Indian conditions. This is the main reason for our loss. 10 more days in S.A.  and one of the first 2 tests could have been won by us leading to a 2-1 result in our favour.

 

But some cricket writers want stereotypes to live on.

In the end slip catching and keeping screwed us....period...,poor pitches or practice or whatever the reason was  batting and bowling were both on par but their fielding I. The first 2 tests was on another level.

[sandeep]

5 hours ago, express bowling said:

There seems to be a basic fallacy in this analysis. Whether the batsmen are in control or not would also depend on their current day ability to play in the given conditions.

 

If our batters had arrived in S.A. 10 days earlier, played 2 practice games and had lots of practice sessions ... we would have seen improvement in their playing / shot making control against SA pacers. 

 

The above point was well demonstrated in the 3rd test, after our batters got acclimatized to conditions in S.A.. They looked more in control than their S.A. counterparts.

 

Comparing career stats of Rabada and co. with our pacers also do not make sense as there guys get to play around 50% of tests in the most seamer-friendly conditions in world cricket.

 

This acclimatization aspect applies to our bowlers too. Their worst innings was the first one. Once they got used to the conditions, they bowled much better for the next 5 innings.

 

Just 3 practice sessions and no practice matches is grossly inadequate preparation for playing in S.A. conditions which are completely different to Indian conditions. This is the main reason for our loss. 10 more days in S.A.  and one of the first 2 tests could have been won by us leading to a 2-1 result in our favour.

 

But some cricket writers want stereotypes to live on.

And when you are over-reliant on stats off of a small sample to make a point, you invariably end up skewing things.  

 

Sure, the Indian bowlers made a mistake on T1.D1, of not realizing how important it was, not to provide boundary opportunities.  They were still operating under the plan of "we are playing away, there's help for pacers, let's bowl attacking lines and lengths".  And ended up bowling a bit fuller overall, which resulted in a few too many boundaries being hit.   

 

But take that one day of one innings out, and I'm pretty sure that the boundary ball percentage will be very close to the SA bowlers.  

 

 

And I'm not even going to dignify that claim of Rahane vs Rohit - If Rahane looked a bit below his best in the solitary test he played, in lottery conditions, that's no reason to conclude that he wouldn't have done significantly better in less challenging conditions in T1 and T2.   

 

Who wrote this hypothesis driven Kimber-wannabe BS?  

[rkt.india]

48 minutes ago, sandeep said:

And when you are over-reliant on stats off of a small sample to make a point, you invariably end up skewing things.  

 

Sure, the Indian bowlers made a mistake on T1.D1, of not realizing how important it was, not to provide boundary opportunities.  They were still operating under the plan of "we are playing away, there's help for pacers, let's bowl attacking lines and lengths".  And ended up bowling a bit fuller overall, which resulted in a few too many boundaries being hit.   

 

But take that one day of one innings out, and I'm pretty sure that the boundary ball percentage will be very close to the SA bowlers.  

 

 

And I'm not even going to dignify that claim of Rahane vs Rohit - If Rahane looked a bit below his best in the solitary test he played, in lottery conditions, that's no reason to conclude that he wouldn't have done significantly better in less challenging conditions in T1 and T2.   

 

Who wrote this hypothesis driven Kimber-wannabe BS?  

Author of the article is saying the same that we lost first test on day one due to the runs we conceded at such a high ER.  he said after that they were good but the impact those runs on day 1 had already affected the results in a low scoring series.

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

Author of the article is saying the same that we lost first test on day one due to the runs we conceded at such a high ER.  he said after that they were good but the impact those runs on day 1 had already affected the results in a low scoring series.

No, he's extrapolating over the entire series by conflating the runs conceded stats across all 3 tests.  As @express bowling rightly pointed out, he overlooks the acclimatization aspect of both batting and bowling, in an effort to substantiate a pre-determined conclusion. 

 

If anything, I feel that the Indian bowlers have outperformed their South African counterparts in this series.  If both set of bowlers were bowling to the same set of batsmen, it would be even more obvious. 

[nikred]

No, he's extrapolating over the entire series by conflating the runs conceded stats across all 3 tests.  As [mention=8417]express bowling[/mention] rightly pointed out, he overlooks the acclimatization aspect of both batting and bowling, in an effort to substantiate a pre-determined conclusion. 
 
If anything, I feel that the Indian bowlers have outperformed their South African counterparts in this series.  If both set of bowlers were bowling to the same set of batsmen, it would be even more obvious. 

Yes, also the Indian bowlers had to earn their wickets including the lower order. OTOH some of the Indian wickets were gifted by the batsman than the SA bowlers earning them.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

[putrevus]

Bowlers have to do better on helpful pitches..First test to let them off the hook after having them 13/3 amd second test again did the same they had them 2 down for nothing, if they could have wrapped them under 150 who knows what would have happened.Shami cannot avg 50 in first innings.

 

That said India does not deserve to win when there is just one fifty from other main batsmen  other than Kohli.All three openers were awful even though Vijay did survive for few overs in last innings.He along with Rahul were most disappointing  batsmen, Rahul was guilty of throwing his wicket almost in all his innings and Vijay chased lot of deliveries and got out .Pujara's mindless run outs did not help either , it was very a subcontinental wicket where he could have made the difference.

 

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, sandeep said:

No, he's extrapolating over the entire series by conflating the runs conceded stats across all 3 tests.  As @express bowling rightly pointed out, he overlooks the acclimatization aspect of both batting and bowling, in an effort to substantiate a pre-determined conclusion. 

 

If anything, I feel that the Indian bowlers have outperformed their South African counterparts in this series.  If both set of bowlers were bowling to the same set of batsmen, it would be even more obvious. 

He isn't overlooking anything. He is also undermining Indian bowlers. He is just saying that if were better on first day with ball, result of this series could have been different. Once you lose first test, its very rare to win test series overseas so that first day did decide the series outcome 

[rkt.india]

5 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Bowlers have to do better on helpful pitches..First test to let them off the hook after having them 13/3 amd second test again did the same they had them 2 down for nothing, if they could have wrapped them under 150 who knows what would have happened.Shami cannot avg 50 in first innings.

 

That said India does not deserve to win when there is just one fifty from other main batsmen  other than Kohli.All three openers were awful even though Vijay did survive for few overs in last innings.He along with Rahul were most disappointing  batsmen, Rahul was guilty of throwing his wicket almost in all his innings and Vijay chased lot of deliveries and got out .Pujara's mindless run outs did not help either , it was very a subcontinental wicket where he could have made the difference.

 

It was not a subcontinental pitch. Subcontinental pitch mostly will be turning square on day 4-5.

[mancalledsting]

9 hours ago, rkt.india said:

The Test-match leg of India's tour of South Africa consisted of three beguiling Test matches which were as challenging to read and they were enthralling to watch. None of the three pitches could be considered batting friendly. Though India lost 2-1, the series was probably as far away from a 3-0 wipeout as it was from a 2-1 Indian win.

 

A standard story is told about India's overseas tours in the public prints, involving some comment about the capacity (or lack thereof) of India's batsmen to face up to fearsome foreign fast bowling, and wonderment about how India's fast bowlers occasionally challenge the home batting. India's batsmen are expected to slay impossible demons regularly. India's bowlers are expected to impersonate demons only occasionally. Given that most of the writers who write about India's Test team are men, this storyline is a psychoanalyst's dream. Or perhaps, it is a psychoanalyst's cliche. The transcript of the Indian captain's press conference after the second Test match consisted entirely of questions about team selection and the performance of the batting. Much of the discourse was about how India's bowlers kept dragging the team back into Test matches, making up ground the batsmen were seemingly repeatedly losing.

 

The problem underlying all these storylines is an absence of information. Evaluating batsmen and bowlers on the basis of their careers averages is reasonable because over the course of a career, averages are a good proxy for quality of batting and bowling. Over a solitary Test match, though, this makes very little sense. But then, over the course of a single Test, no other systematic measurement has hitherto been available. In the past decade, ESPNcricinfo has maintained a record of all cricket matches it covers on a ball-by-ball basis. Apart from the commentary, they record the usual outcomes - how many runs, how many extras, whether or not a wicket fell, what was the line and length of the delivery. They also record a judgement: was the batsman in control of the delivery?

 

 

Control is an elegant binary measurement of batting and bowling, as opposed to runs and wickets, which represent the outcome of batting and bowling. It records whether or not the ball went where the batsman intended it to.

In the case of the South Africa-India series, the control measurement provides a less batting-centric picture. It shows that while India's batting coped admirably with the home bowling, it was the superior overall quality of the home bowling that proved to be the difference between the two sides.

 

The ball-by-ball record can be summarised in various ways, from the most specific individual bowler v batsman match-ups to innings summaries. Two measures are developed from the data. The first measure "In Control Per Not In Control" records the number of balls the batsman was in control for every ball that the batsman was not in control. This is designed to demonstrate the amount of control the batsman had over proceedings. Higher values show that the batsman was in control more, while lower ones show that the bowler created more uncertainty. The second measure "% Runs Scored Not In Control" gives the percentage of the total runs that came from deliveries where the batsman was not in control. This is designed to be a stand-in for "luck". Almost every single dismissal (run-outs excluded) occurs when the batsman in not in control. Finally, scoring rates (runs per six balls faced) for in-control and not-in-control delivery sets are presented.

 

Summarised by team innings, the control numbers reveal that the series consisted of two types of Tests. The first and third Tests were both unusually bowler-friendly. The second Test was far more conventional, with the bowlers gaining ascendancy as the match went on. It could be argued that the toss in the second Test was the most crucial one of the series, because judging by the control figures, the wicket in Centurion became progressively worse for batting as the match progressed.

 

The first Test was decided on the very first day. Despite three early wickets, India's bowling conceded runs at a rate neither side would achieve at any subsequent point in the series. Of the 440 balls bowled by India's bowlers, the South African batsmen were in control for 315. They scored at 4.6 runs per over from these 315 deliveries. For the rest of the series, they scored at 2.9 runs per over from deliveries where they were in control. Had India kept South Africa down to the in-control scoring rate which they managed for the rest of the series, the home side would have made 153 runs in those 315 balls instead of 240. The final margin of victory for the home team in the first Test was 72 runs. Later, Ravi Shastri observed that ten extra days of preparation in South Africa might have been useful. Perhaps he was right. That first day, when India's bowling looked underprepared, proved fatal. In light of what occured in the series, it could well be said that India lost the series on the first day.

 

A couple of claims made about India's batsmen are worth examining. First, it has been observed that Cheteshwar Pujara and M Vijay have a tendency to get stuck, even though they look secure at the crease. This is because they were extremely selective about the shots they were willing to play, especially as the series developed. But they were able to collect singles and get off strike from time to time. This has had very little effect on India's overall scoring rate. When in control, India's batting scored at about the same rate as South Africa's (excluding the first innings of the first Test).

 

Second, it has been observed that picking Rohit Sharma ahead of Ajinkya Rahane was an obvious mistake. This is not obvious, or possibly even a mistake. If one compares Rahane and Eohit over their careers, then their run returns suggest that Rahane is indeed the better overall Test batsman. But if one asks who is playing better currently, it is debatable. Rahane was not in control for 30 of the 96 balls he faced in Johannesburg. Rohit was not in control for 37 out of 190 balls he faced in the series. Rahane's cavalier approach brought India 57 runs at the Wanderers, but as with all other batsmen in that Test, the runs against his name were largely a measure of the amount of luck he enjoyed.

 

 

Second, it has been observed that picking Rohit Sharma ahead of Ajinkya Rahane was an obvious mistake. This is not obvious, or possibly even a mistake. If one compares Rahane and Eohit over their careers, then their run returns suggest that Rahane is indeed the better overall Test batsman. But if one asks who is playing better currently, it is debatable. Rahane was not in control for 30 of the 96 balls he faced in Johannesburg. Rohit was not in control for 37 out of 190 balls he faced in the series. Rahane's cavalier approach brought India 57 runs at the Wanderers, but as with all other batsmen in that Test, the runs against his name were largely a measure of the amount of luck he enjoyed.

Rohit had a different problem. He defended superbly in both Tests he played, but of the 86 balls he faced in the first innings in Centurion and Cape Town, he did not score one single. The break-down of the deliveries he faced is: three fours, one three, three twos and 79 dots. If we consider every ball that a batsman is not in control to be a potential source of dismissal, or a mistake, then Rohit was dismissed on his 13th (in 59 balls), fifth (in 30 balls), third (in 27 balls) and 16th (in 74 balls) mistakes. Rahane was dismissed on his tenth (in 27 balls) and 20th (in 69 balls) mistakes. While Rahane is the better overall batsman, there's no evidence to suggest that he played better in this series. Despite Rohit's stroke-making ability, it was his inability to get off strike, rather than any defensive technical problem that proved to be his undoing in South Africa.

 

Overall, South Africa's superior pace attack was the difference between the two sides. The home fast bowlers created about 10% more uncertainty than India's did, and conceded 0.4 runs per over fewer when the batsmen were in control. The composition of the two sides was symmetrical in each Test. In the first two Tests, each side played five batsmen, one wicketkeeper, four fast bowlers and one spinner. In the third Test, each side replaced the spinner with a fast bowler. In the tables below, the players are classified as follows:

South Africa bowlers: Kagiso Rabada, Dale Steyn, Morne Morkel, Vernon Philander, Keshav Maharaj, Lungi Ngidi and Andile Phehlukwayo.

 

India bowlers: Mohammed Shami, Bhuvneshwar Kumar, Ishant Sharma, Jasprit Bumrah, Hardik Pandya, R Ashwin (The fast-bowler classification excludes Ashwin and Maharaj.)

 

South Africa top order: Aiden Markram, Dean Elgar, Hashim Amla, AB de Villiers, Faf du Plessis

India top order: M Vijay, Shikhar Dhawan, KL Rahul, Cheteshwar Pujara, Virat Kohli, Rohit Sharma, Ajinkya Rahane

 

After the first two Tests, despite the fact that India lost both, there was a niggling feeling that they had not been outplayed. South Africa's superior control with the ball was decisive, but the Indian batting demonstrated that it could cope with the South African attack. Given that the pitches were prone to misbehaving, India kept collecting wickets regularly when they bowled. India required 11.4 not-in-control deliveries to get one wicket. South Africa required 11.2 not-in-control deliveries to get one wicket. Each side created three run-out dismissals. Given the nature of the pitches, it could be argued that South Africa's attack was better suited to the conditions. Neither side can claim to have been especially unlucky. But South Africa can claim to have bowled better.

India will be haunted by the fact that the series was decided on the first day, when their bowling was decisively under par. The current squad is such that in conditions where India don't play two spinners, they don't have clear idea what their best XI is. This is not their fault. It is not clear who India's three best fast bowlers are. Each has obvious limitations. It is easy to see why the selectors and the management find Jasprit Bumrah such a promising proposition, though he is far from the finished product. Bumrah has pace, seems to be tireless, and has an unusual run-up and action, which provide India with a little bit of novelty in their attack. He troubled the batsmen (only 2.6 in-control deliveries per not-in-control delivery) but also conceded a lot of runs when he didn't trouble them (3.5 runs per six in-control deliveries, unlike Ishant Sharma, who was very difficult to score off, conceding only 2.3 runs per in-control delivery). For a debut series, Bumrah's returns were spectacular. But India's team management will probably have noted his inability to draw edges for the slip cordon. The wickets in England will probably not be as quick as those in South Africa, and Bumrah is unlikely to get batsmen out fending in England as easily as he did in South Africa. Still, he has easily justified India's decision to give him a Test debut.

 

None of India's bowlers stands up in comparison to Kagiso Rabada, who, at 22, already has 120 Test wickets to his name. If there was one player who was the difference between the two sides, it was him. Steyn was lethal when he played, but Rabada was South Africa's mainstay, what with Vernon Philander having his problems with injury. As superb as Morne Morkel is (his Test record after 83 Tests is better than James Anderson's was at that stage), he has not succeeded Steyn as the spearhead of the South African attack. Rabada, with his pace, accuracy and ability to work a batsman over, is the undisputed South African all-wicket spearhead.

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22292464/how-south-africa-superior-bowling-made-difference-series-india

Philander and Bhuvneshwar Kumar had very good series in conditions that suit them. Philander controlled the scoring more effectively than Bhuvneshwar. Lungi Ngidi had a promising start to his career, bowling in a quartet with three experienced colleagues. It remains to be seen how he goes when the conditions are less helpful.

so after this tour, your suggestion for improvement lies in modifying/criticising the best performing aspect of your team. No need for fancy analysis. batters/fielders/wk flopped. 

[Rightarmfast]

Whoever thinks South African attack was superior to Indian bowling attack is either a hopeless romantic or doesnt have enough information of the game. 

 

Even by our own admission, the Indian batting line up and the team selection was wrong. The South African bowlers had to deal with 2nd choice batsmen and openers, in alien conditions and also got to bowl in the best period of play when the pitch was most helpful. Despite that, the Indian bowers almost always got the host batsmen out for almost the same score, the south african got the Indian team out for.

And the South Africans were playing their best batsmen in their home conditions. 

 

I declare that the South African bowlers disappointed big time. They choked when it mattered. They couldnt demolish the infamous Indian batting known for giving up in alien conditions! 

Full marks to the Indian bowlers!

[putrevus]

4 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

It was not a subcontinental pitch. Subcontinental pitch mostly will be turning square on day 4-5.

That is as subcontinental pitch as you can hope to get in SA. It was low in bounce and not much seam movement.I still don't understand how they collapsed for such a low score in second innings.

[mancalledsting]

4 minutes ago, putrevus said:

That is as subcontinental pitch as you can hope to get in SA. It was low in bounce and not much seam movement.I still don't understand how they collapsed for such a low score in second innings.

I can't figure out why but India seem to struggle on flatish wickets overseas (e.g. Southampton 2014) where attritional cricket is played, its like they don't have the stamina for it. Normally I feel the reason is lack of 5th bowling option but that clearly wasn't the case here as we had Pandya. Pappu's blunders are what cost us in this game. 

[putrevus]

Just now, mancalledsting said:

I can't figure out why but India seem to struggle on flatish wickets overseas (e.g. Southampton 2014) where attritional cricket is played, its like they don't have the stamina for it. Normally I feel the reason is lack of 5th bowling option but that clearly wasn't the case here as we had Pandya. Pappu's blunders are what cost us in this game. 

They simply don't have fire power to run thru batting line up on flat wickets they run out of gas after one innings, second thing they are simply incapable of sustaining pressure by bowling tight lines and waiting for batsmen to make mistakes, third and most important thing they don't get help from spinners either to take wickets or bowl majority of overs in day.

 

Shami and yadav looked menacing against England and Australia respectively but they were just support acts then.When it came to become main act Shami looked lack luster through out the series especially first innings.

 

That is why I don't put too much stock on this series yet.

[mancalledsting]

3 minutes ago, putrevus said:

They simply don't have fire power to run thru batting line up on flat wickets they run out of gas after one innings, second thing they are simply incapable of sustaining pressure by bowling tight lines and waiting for batsmen to make mistakes, third and most important thing they don't get help from spinners either to take wickets or bowl majority of overs in day.

 

Shami and yadav looked menacing against England and Australia respectively but they were just support acts then.When it came to become main act Shami looked lack luster through out the series especially first innings.

 

That is why I don't put too much stock on this series yet.

I think historically your analysis is spot on but this series may represent a turning point, Pandya coming into the team frees the quicks up a bit, allows them to be rested and rotated

[putrevus]

2 minutes ago, mancalledsting said:

I think historically your analysis is spot on but this series may represent a turning point, Pandya coming into the team frees the quicks up a bit, allows them to be rested and rotated

I sure hope it is but for that to work Pandya has to do more with both bat and ball.I still feel they need to play all four main bowlers to be effective.If they select spinner then Pandya needs to sit out. I have not seen any improvement at all in his bowling .

 

I hope England rolls out all green tracks so they can play all four plus Pandya .

[Straight Drive]

Ridiculous article. Bowling was good, it was the batsmen's incapability to bat in those conditions which cost us the series.

[Vilander]

10 hours ago, maniac said:

In the end slip catching and keeping screwed us....period...,poor pitches or practice or whatever the reason was  batting and bowling were both on par but their fielding I. The first 2 tests was on another level.

spot on. How many did pappu drop in second one 5-6 ? its a travesty. 

 

If india held on 50% of their drops they would have won atleast the first test and arguably the second one would have been closer.