Sydney 1964:why didn't SA go for the win?

[Dissector]

I was browsing old scorecards recently and I came across this match I hadn't seen before. It was last test of the 63-64 series between Australia and South Africa with the series tied at 1-1. South Africa needed just 171 runs but they ended up only 76-0 after 24 8-ball overs (equal to 32 6-ball overs).

So what happened? Did they have 24 overs to get the runs and if so why didn't they go for the win at least until they were a few wickets down. Or were there plenty of overs and it started raining or something? From the scorecard I would guess the former was true in which I am amazed they didn't even bother to try for the win. I guess it's a good example of how slow scoring was back then.


Whatever it was, they lost a golden opportunity to win a series in Australia, something they are yet to do 44 years later.

 

[NUFAN]

Just doing some disecting the score at the close of play on Day 4 was Australia 2nd innings 141/3 (BC Booth 57*, R Benaud 0*).

Australia managed another 129 runs and the scoring rate was just 1.77. Assuming they maintained that run rate, it would mean the 129 runs came over 72 overs (6 ball overs).

South Africa batted 24 overs so 96 approx for the day, so I just think they didn't think they'd make the runs in time.

I know I've worked it out slightly wrong as it was 8 ball overs and I don't know how many overs per day were alloted with 8 ball overs..

 

[Tapioca]

Wisden says that SA had only 85 minutes to chase 171 in the second innings. So presumably Australia could have slowed down the over rate with faster bowlers if SA were scoring faster.

SA was held up by the Australian last wicket stand of Veivers and Hawke which consumed an hour and a half.

In a book on Test matches in Australia, Dick Whitington had blasted this South African side for using negative tactics throughout, despite having a talented batting line up that included Pollock and Barlow. The main culprits seemed to be the manager Ken Viljoen and the captain Trevor Goddard who did not have much of a say in the decisions. SA used Tony Pithey, an extremely slow batsmen at No.3, and he repeatedly sucked out the momentum of the innings.

 

[Dissector]

Yeah I did the same kind of calculation which is why I doubt rain was an issue. The question is why they didn't think they had enough time when they managed to play 24 8-ball overs. That is 192 balls which is surely enough to at least try to score 171 runs.

Anyway it must have been an excruciating day for South Africa when they had Australia on the ropes: the Aussie no.11 lasted for 87 balls!

 

[Dissector]

Wisden says that SA had only 85 minutes to chase 171 in the second innings. So presumably Australia could have slowed down the over rate with faster bowlers if SA were scoring faster.

That sounds plausible. How did it work in those days: was there a minimum number of overs that Australia had to bowl?

 

[Tapioca]

That sounds plausible. How did it work in those days: was there a minimum number of overs that Australia had to bowl?

AFAIK, none at the time. The mandatory 20 overs in the last hour was introduced, IIRC, some time in the late 70s and the 90 overs a day came even later.

 

[Pratters]

That sounds plausible. How did it work in those days: was there a minimum number of overs that Australia had to bowl?

Earlier, test matches always used to work on the concept of time. The concept of minimum number of overs only came up after the advent of one day cricket as far as I am aware.

 

[Michaelf7777777]

A similar thing happenned at the Adelaide Oval in the 1976-77 test series against Pakistan when Cosier and Marsh (Australia were 6 down at that stage) didn't try to score the 56 runs needed for victory in the last 15 overs.

 

[Richard]

Earlier, test matches always used to work on the concept of time. The concept of minimum number of overs only came up after the advent of one day cricket as far as I am aware.

The time that said rule was introduced was fairly shortly after ODIs were first played (about 10 years or something IIRR?) but I don't think the two were connected - it was more to do with the appallingly slow over-rates which had begun to creep in in Test-matches.

 

[Richard]

Anyway it must have been an excruciating day for South Africa when they had Australia on the ropes: the Aussie no.11 lasted for 87 balls!

England had a game possibly even worse at The SCG in 1990\91 when the final 4 Australian batsmen - none of any remarkable repute - lasted 200 balls between them, adding a few runs, turning what would have been a fairly straightforward chase into an impossible one.

That game is one of the most annoying in recent years for England fans. Though at least there's the consolation that it's unlikely it affected the series.

 

[Pratters]

The time that said rule was introduced was fairly shortly after ODIs were first played (about 10 years or something IIRR?) but I don't think the two were connected - it was more to do with the appallingly slow over-rates which had begun to creep in in Test-matches.

The two weren't connected technically. However, people didn't used to think overs/balls wise that much before the advent of one day cricket. There were even periods earlier in test cricket where minutes were recorded, not the number of balls players faced. Time wasting tactics by both the batting and the bowling teams had always existed in the game, so much so that it was often considered a part of the game. However, not till after the advent of one day cricket did we think minimum overs per day. It is one of the many changes one day cricket brought into the game by showing new ways by which people could look at the game. Some of the changes like batsmen playing some innovative strokes have been more direct while there are others which have been indirect.

 

[Richard]

Suppose one-day cricket showed that there should be a minimum-overs-per-day ratio. No side should be allowed to control the game by slowing the over-rate. I have read about several occasions where it was expressed - possibly with some surprise, certainly with some adulation - that the team defending a total had sent down a good over-rate. These would have been in the 1960s.

 

[stumpski]

Didn't the 20 overs in the last hour come about as a result of the infamous Brian Close go-slow at Edgbaston in 1967, which also resulted in his losing the England captaincy?


Interestingly (I think ) I've just read a book which dealt with this very match - Wally Grout's autobiography My Country's Keeper. He says:

"The fact that at stumps on the last day the South Africans, with all their second innings wickets standing, were only 95 runs short of lifting our world cricket title [sic] indicates that time alone beat them.

Not at all. They beat themselves - when Trevor Goddard and Tony Pithey took 214 minutes to make 124; when the Springbok bowlers could deliver only 66 overs in a time Australia delivered 92 or maybe when they slipped into their creams, an act guaranteed by now to drain their confidence and turn a team of potential world beaters into willing victims."


That last bit was a bit harsh I though. He was saying that throughout the series they'd been out-thought by Benaud - he had plenty of praise for youngsters Pollock and Barlow though.

 

[Richard]

Didn't the 20 overs in the last hour come about as a result of the infamous Brian Close go-slow at Edgbaston in 1967, which also resulted in his losing the England captaincy?

Did Closey ever actually hold the captaincy on a regular basis?

The 20 (now 15 of course) over "last hour" remains to this day of course, but is now nearly irrelevant - it nonetheless long preceded the minumum-overs-in-a-day rule.

 

[stumpski]

He was appointed for the final Test of the 1966 home series v West Indies (a summer of three captains) and for the following summer's home Tests against India and Pakistan - England had no tour in the intervening winter. Not only did he lose the captaincy, he was even left out of the party to tour West Indies in 1967-68 which was surely a mistake. And he didn't get back in until 1976, to be used as a punchbag for Roberts, Holding and co. Got a surprise recall to captain in the 1972 ODIs though.

 

[kanga_kid]

simple.......no heart..... no ticker at all, your hard pressed to find any heart beat at all on those proteas.

 

[The Sean]

Kanga - I'm not sure if you're being deliberately insulting or if it's just your manner, but after your warning on the other thread for calling someone an idiot without real cause, I reckon you're treading a fine line here now as well.

You're a new poster and I hope you've got plenty to offer to these boards, but it won't happen if you're posts are heavier on insults than cricket. Just a thought mate, hope you take it on board.

 

[Richard]

simple.......no heart..... no ticker at all, your hard pressed to find any heart beat at all on those proteas.

 

[archie mac]

" .....set to get 171 in about 70 minutes, had less than a chance against Benaud nad Company. Noentheless they went for the runs with fluency, and had scored 44 and 32 respectively when stumps were drawn. The result was a draw, an honourable one".

From the bio of Trevor Goddard