22 January,2022 07:00 AM IST | Mumbai | Ian Chappell
South Africa’s Keegan Petersen celebrates his 50 on Day Two of the third Test against India at Cape Town last week. Pic/AFP
The Australia versus England series has often been frustratingly one-sided. It was apparent again when the ebullient Travis Head, aided by Marnus Labuschagne and Cameron Green, launched a defiant counter-attack in Hobart.
In the first three Tests it was mainly the home side displaying the grit and application that five-day cricket requires. That led to a frustrating 12 days where Australia steam rolled their way to a series victory while English cricket was exposed for all its ineptitude.
It was only when Joe Root's batting skill was duplicated and England finally applied some bowling nous that a Test was saved. Even then it was a close call. At the SCG, Australia were still by far the better side, expertly led and prepared to expend the desired energy, but at least England unearthed some much needed fight. Some nine hours away South Africa surprisingly defeated India in an old fashioned dog fight that included some enthralling cricket. It also involved ample emotion which was notably missing from a surprisingly uncontroversial Ashes contest.
The South African series involved bowling domination. This came on pitches which were probably too much in favour of the fielding side, but also included some exquisite batting. Because the defiant batting wasn't so prevalent, gutsy innings by Dean Elgar, Temba Bavuma, KL Rahul and Virat Kohli stood out. The exhilarating shot making extravaganzas played by Rishabh Pant and Keegan Petersen proved that aggressive batting with scoring in mind could be achieved even on testing surfaces.
In particular, Petersen's sudden rise to fame has been a revelation and begs the question; "Where has he been hiding all this time?"
This example exposes one of the mysteries of Test cricket; do some selectors know what they should be looking for?
Petersen is in his prime aged 28, but he's only played five Tests. Despite lacking experience he has all the requirements of a Test No.3, including a wide range of shots which he's prepared to play, plus a solid defence. So, why is he only playing now?
Sometimes players deserve an opportunity on potential and temperament alone and this is where good selection stands out.
The England side contains further selection mysteries. Zak Crawley and Ollie Pope are two talented young batsmen who have the credentials to be long-term successes at Test level. Sure, they've had their failures and like many before them they need a confidence boost, but technically they are far better equipped than the style-challenged Dom Sibley or Rory Burns.
There's always a temptation to choose gritty players and there are times when this can be a wise selection. On the other hand, fans expect to witness a few aggressive young selections and when these players come off they provide great entertainment.
Ever since the introduction of T20 cricket we've been told that Test batting is now more aggressive and fielding has improved. Well how come the public is often being told "that's a good leave" and "that ball was left on length"?
Commentary statements should be qualified so that out-fielding is described as more entertaining; slip catching has regressed.
Also, I wouldn't mind betting that of late more balls are being allowed to pass. When a classy stroke-maker like Kohli fails to score off nearly 40 balls it's time to sensibly apportion the aggression in the game.
There is a time for determination and discipline. However, Test cricket has for a long time been included in the entertainment bracket and this has to be part of the selection process.
A good Test selector is capable of including both considerations in his choices and that is why they are highly regarded. When it comes to financial rewards, cricket should start valuing selection more highly than coaching; it would make a pleasant and worthwhile change.
