Over the week of lead-up to its third staging, the World Test Championship final has felt increasingly like something that counts. After two abandoned attempts to host it at Lord’s, having been diverted first to the Hampshire Bowl and then to The Oval, it is finally being held at cricket’s original headquarters. On the first day of the match, with a surge of people up St John’s Wood Road, whether for a sensible start time of 10.30am or spilling over into an occasionally sunny afternoon, forming an eventual crowd of more than 26,000, this at last felt like vindication of concept.
Of course, cricket being cricket, this also means that the game’s biggest interests are right now lining up to sabotage it. The Indian board plans to take the next final to their cavern in Ahmedabad, where about 13 people will show up to watch, especially if it’s a neutral fixture. Even India Tests when Virat Kohli was playing drew paltry crowds there. Partly their move will be motivated by a thirst for prestige, partly by India having already lost two finals in England. It is comically being framed as a “bid”, while everyone in cricket knows that that the BCCI does not do any bidding, but only has its bidding done.
England, meanwhile, the only team that could credibly provoke complaints about home ground advantage, have spent the last cycle disparaging the tournament. Home advantage is only a factor if you qualify for the final, which England have conspicuously failed to do at every opportunity, so their manner has more than a touch of fox and grapes about it. The attitude has filtered through to a decent portion of England’s cricket media, who criticise the format, but of course the structure is janky – international cricket’s unequal relations between participants make some level of jank inevitable. Disgruntled English voices may be cheerier if the ECB’s millions of pounds of annual expenditure could produce players able to count how many overs they had bowled in a session.
And yet, and yet, there would have been plenty of English cricketing hearts gladdened by the second hour of the match, as South Africa’s fast bowlers came to play. It had to be the premier quicks, Kagiso Rabada and Marco Jansen, if they were to really challenge Australia, and both did the job perfectly: keen to bowl after winning the toss, bringing aggression and accuracy, four down for 67 on the stroke of lunch.
For the biggest Test in the calendar, Australia’s batting configuration has a makeshift current composition, with Marnus Labuschagne opening and Cameron Green at three, and the collective failed to fire. Usman Khawaja spent the last Australian summer on the hop, repeatedly jumping and fending at pace to be caught behind the wicket. Swap Jasprit Bumrah for Rabada and the same mode occurred. Green pushed across the ball in being caught the same over. Labuschagne was kept dry before finally being drawn into a push and an edge, while Travis Head fell into an long-held habit of nicking down the leg-side.
And so the urge from an English view, or any neutral perspective really, to see Australia knocked over by a team with fewer resources, was well fed by lunch, only for that excitement to be gradually sapped as it has so many times before by Steven Smith. Three months without a bat in hand seems a good recipe for the former batting obsessive on this evidence, as he moved perfectly into line with the outswinging ball, waiting with patience to punch it through the off-side, before stepping to the slightly straighter line to turn it fine down the leg.
In a country where he has eight centuries, and on a ground where he has two, a bigger innings looked a lock for Smith once he had Beau Webster locked in for support. That didn’t happen in the end, Smith having what for him is a modest stay of just under two hours. But as the scoring patterns of this match emerged, his score of 66 is beginning to look as effective as a hundred elsewhere. Australia were all out 212 and still reach stumps as favourites, with South Africa 43 for 4.
This was always likely to be the biggest disparity: South Africa’s often fragile batting, featuring solid domestic types and white-ball bashers, against Australia’s quicks. Ryan Rickelton has a fine domestic record but won’t have faced an attack of this pedigree. Wiaan Mulder wants to believe, but is an all-rounder and a makeshift No 3. Tristan Stubbs is a white-ball smasher yet to credibly make the transition. Aiden Markram has high class but a record that doesn’t sufficiently reflect it. All were out cheaply, among sharp bounce and smashed stumps.
Overnight, then, the match awaits another test. Temba Bavuma and David Bedingham need to mimic the rescue job of Smith and Webster. If they don’t, and South Africa fall over, the scrutiny on their path to qualification will intensify. That shouldn’t be the case, because lopsided Tests occur between all strengths of nations all the time, but it will. If instead they can take it up to Australia again, as they did in the first session, they will solidify fondness in the hearts of neutrals, for the match as much as the team. Beyond parochial views, this is what a global final should be about. The concept is right, but there is more vindication to achieve.
