Yup, memo to England: in a 5-day Test, it’s not enough to win the first day. Watching South Africa grind along at two an over for the first hundred runs can’t have been exactly edifying, but the ends more than justified the means. Fair play to Hashim Amla for posting South Africa’s first triple ton, it was an odd statistic that to date they had never had one and Amla was just the man for the job. Here’s hoping the Second Test finds England in a less helpful mood though.
By one measure (disparity in runs per wicket) this is one of the most comprehensive test wins ever. I think the truly frigtening things for England are they played well on the first day, and they never looked close to bowling the South Africans out.
All fairness SA weren’t in the game for, what, about 20 odd years, so they lost a load of opportunities to get one of those triple tons (plus triple tons aren’t that common - there’s only been 22 players in the entire history of the game get one and only 26 overall - in 2000 test matches, so only about a 1% chance of one actually happening: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=runs;runsmin1=300;runsval1=runs;template=results;type=batting).
I don’t know where it takes us, but roughly half the triple centuries scored have been in the last 20 years- when RSA has been participating. They have had a pretty powerful line up in that time so it is a bit odd. Maybe the inability against top spinners was a factor (well it would be).
Yeah, that too. They were still fairly uncommon when Gooch got his 333 back in, when, 1990?, and it was the 5th highest behind Sobers, Hutton, Hammond and Bradman. Now they’re all over the place. 
SA have played 195 matches since re-admission - so are slightly behind the overall curve on getting triple centuries (0.5 % ish as opposed to 1% ish of matches having one).
Since 15th Apr 1992, when SA came back, there have been 866 test matches - of which 14 involved a triple hundred - so still only 1.6% chance of triple in any given test. They have been worse than average but the numbers are so low, I don’t think we can say anything sensible about this - except that triples don’t happen often and maybe SA have been a little unlucky - combined with Cicero’s comment on potential weaknesses against certain types of bowling.
The slightly higher rate of getting triples since SA’s readmission overall probably tells us more about the game overall I’d say. It’s just further confirmation that scoring rates have gone up, probably for well established reasons - covered pitches, spring loaded bats, restrictions on what bowlers can do, etc. Also cricket boards preparing more road like pitches to get spectators in on Day 5 might have a strong effect.
The ultimate “road” pitch must have been Durban, March 1939 - on Day 10 it was still playing well enough for England to be odds-on to chase down 696, until it started to rain and a “timeless” Test had to be abandoned as a draw so the tourists could catch the boat home. 
(Bizarre, possibly unique, statistic from that match: in both innings the man batting at 1 for South Africa was out “hit wicket”, but it was a different man in each innings.)
They were only 41 runs short and had 5 wickets to play with. Throw the bat at it. Getting on the boat? All they needed to do was turn up for the morning session and get the boat in the afternoon!
I fucking love Statsguru.
That really underlines what a pasting we took. I’ve been saying for a while this is the year we’d find out how good this England team is, and now the provisional results are in. Our No 1 ranking was built on dominating two teams in transition (Australia and India), and a couple of lucky results. Our last wicket pair saved three tests in 2009, changing the results of the Ashes and the South Africa away series. Whereas South Africa have been a lot more consistent but have under-achieved, drawing a lot of series. Barring a big turn around in the remainder of this series and in India, it’s pretty clear who the best team really is. Their biggest deficiency is the lack of an established spinner, but their batting against spin is much stronger, which keeps them in contention on turning pitches.
I’m expecting far more of a contest on a more sporting pitch, but if we get one I’m expecting us to struggle more against their attack than they will against ours.
The boat was a long train ride away, there wasn’t another train that would make the connection, and they considered various options (such as sending on the rest of the squad except for the not-out batsmen, and chartering a plane for the rest) before deciding to call it a draw. Too bad, though - making 696 to win would have been epic. 
I think if RSA had not been banned after the 1968 series against Australia, they would have had one or two players who made triple centuries. Even given that Lawry had a team that was in disarray, the Springboks (as they were then) were a strong batting side. A pretty good bowling side too- apart from spin.
I can’t recall the triple century Simpson made in Manchester but I do recall the one that Cowper made a few years later. (I didn’t see it).
One thing will be interesting- to see how the triple centuries stack up in the next 20 years. That is, if the 20/20 impact does start making players into hit and giggle style who don’t have the concentration for such a long innings.
Re Triple centuries. No New Zealander has ever scored one. Martin Crowe got stupidly close against Sri Lanka back in 1991. After he reached 299 the commentator (Peter Williams) began to wind up for his encomium “And here it is, Crowe about to score the first triple century by a New Zealander,” only for Crowe to waft lazily outside off stump and be caught behind, “oh no, he’s out!”
Oops, forgot Hanif Mohammed - the only second-innings triple, a place ahead of Hammond.
And Bradman was once 299*, the nearest approach ever to three triples (only he, Lara, Sehwag and Gayle have two).
Another footnote: Hanif’s was the first for twenty years, but that interval includes World War 2. So Gooch could be viewed as bringing the triple back into fashion - it was 16 years since the previous one, and since then they’ve become semi-regular.
A bump as we sit 10 and a half hours out form the commencement of the second test. Will the addition of Onions be enough to make England competitive?
If the pitch is more bowler friendly, we can expect a very different game, although South Africa may still have too much for us. The Oval was almost like a sub-continental pitch, and we know we aren’t great in those conditions.
Finn in for Swann, for an all pace attack. We have won the toss and elected to bowl. Sadly, Bopara has dropped out for personal reasons, so James Taylor comes in at 6.
Without being too uncharitable, I wonder if Ravi’s personal reasons had anything to do with his brainless shots in the first test.
I have The Fear. I don’t see England doing what is required to win here - just a gut feel. If we can take 20 wickets with our all seam attack, you’d best believe SA will be well capable of doing it with theirs.
Alviro Petersen didn’t get much practice at The Oval, but he’s made a positive start here for SA.
I tend to agree Cumbrian, I feel SA have us covered in all departments. If the ball swings, Steyn, Philander and Kallis can exploit it every bit as well as our attack. Finn gives us pace and bounce, but they have Morkel. Both batting line-ups are strong on paper, but I think SA’s is less brittle. Swann was our one trump card, but he needs either a pitch that suits him, or to get a chance against their left-handers.
…and so far we’ve had a dropped catch off Anderson, and a Smith edge caught off a dead ball, as Finn brushed the stumps at the bowlers end. We so badly need an early wicket to get some confidence here.
With a four-man pace attack, things could get grim if SA get away here. No spinner to carry the workload.
We will never take another wicket again. Since Graeme Smith chopped on during Day 3 at The Oval, we must have conceded thousands of runs without a single break through. Or is that just my fevered imagination? I’m fairly certain we haven’t made a breakthrough at least.
Our last three test wickets have cost 820 runs as I type, or 276 runs each. As well as the mauling at The Oval, there was the Ramdin/Best last wicket partnership of 143 at Edgbaston, where the WI No 11 scored 95.
Thank god for the Olympics. Although I see SA have just beaten us in a rowing final there…