It has been a golden few months for Test cricket with extraordinary individual performances, unlikely results and upsets and a willingness by most teams to regard, and play, the game in a genuinely different way to that which they and previous generations had been accustomed.
India beating Bangladesh inside two days with a two-innings run rate in excess of seven was one of many memorable results, but nothing compared to their 3-0 series loss to New Zealand ending an unbeaten 18-series streak at home spanning 12 years.
Bangladesh beat Pakistan who, in turn, beat England. Sri Lanka beat New Zealand 2-0 shortly before the Black Caps stunned India. The gap between the top seven or eight nations, it seems, has never been smaller and much of it has to do with a completely fresh approach to the five-day game.
There is so much rethinking to do. Just as warm-up matches were believed to be an intrinsic element of a successful Test tour, years of first-class cricket are no longer a prerequisite for selection to a Test team.
SA have just proved the first part of those dated preconceptions by preparing for two Test matches in Bangladesh with a training camp at home in vastly different conditions to those in Dhaka and Chattogram, despite efforts to create subcontinental type pitches.
The squad only arrived in the country five days before the first Test and won it comfortably by seven-wickets. Such an itinerary might have been described as irresponsible and arrogant just three or four years ago but, so quickly times have changed, there was barely a raised eyebrow.
For almost two decades of T20 cricket batters who were dismissed playing attacking shots in Test cricket, especially early in their innings, were almost “excused” because they had not been given sufficient time to adjust between formats. I made such comments. What hilarious nonsense we spoke just a few years ago.
It has been said for centuries that successful cricket (more specifically than other sports) is dependent more on the mind than the body. So why were we defending batters flaying a wide half volley to third slip in a Test match? Because it takes time for everyone to change their habits.
It is only recently that the adaptability of professional cricketers has been regarded as mandatory — change your style, immediately and as required — or your job is on the line. There is no shortage of applicants should you be unable to adapt.
Tristan Stubbs may not be the best example because he does, at least, have three years of first-class experience, but with Test matches being played “out of season” and multi-format cricketers like Stubbs being in demand for T20 leagues, the likelihood of him playing much more first-class cricket outside of Tests is increasingly remote.
The same applies to many other countries which means the selectorial role is shaping as more important than ever. In every other Test playing nation there is a panel, but in SA it is the coach alone. The reasons for the change were understandable at the time — it was (yet another) period of flux and confusion — but history tells us that a single selector, especially when it is the coach, does not work long term.
Yet Shukri Conrad’s first year in the dual role has been an outstanding success judged, as it can only be, on results. A coach’s unconditional love and support for professional athletes doesn’t work in quite the same way as a parent’s does for their children, but it’s not far off.
Tony de Zorzi, Wiaan Mulder and Kyle Verreynne have benefited most from Conrad’s backing, but so too have Dane Piedt and Dane Paterson, both recalled from the international wilderness when Conrad was required to assemble a squad of “misfits and forgottens” for the tour of New Zealand in February once the SA20 had swallowed the country’s best 50 cricketers.
But it hasn’t all been hugs, backslaps and puffing up confidence. There have been some tough calls, forgotten in the afterglow of success. Dean Elgar delivered an acidic verdict on his axing as captain and Conrad’s preference for Verreynne over Heinrich Klaasen as keeper was heavily questioned.
Klaasen’s subsequent, emotional retirement from the format will result in an unfulfilled playing career, by his own admission, but a very fulfilled bank account. Most of us would accept far more mundane employment than playing unmemorable cricket in exchange for financial security!
But however difficult those decisions were for Conrad, they pale to complete insignificance when viewed through the lens of the Indian selectors when they come to decide on the futures of 37-year-old captain Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli, who turned 36 today.
Both national icons are well past their best but, as with Sachin Tendulkar, the retirement decision will be left to them, possibly to the detriment of the team.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.