Mitchell Johnson: Faf du Plessis is the last person Australia need to listen to about ball tampering
South Africa was the best team to play against for much of my career as they had so many outstanding players. The cricket was skilful, physical and unpredictable. There was always a feeling it could boil over.
I have no interest in dragging the sandpaper scandal back into the spotlight.
The incident happened more than eight years ago. The punishments were served, careers were altered and Australian cricket has lived with the consequences.
However, when former South Africa captain Faf du Plessis claims every team has tampered with the ball, it deserves a response.
Sign up to The Nightly's newsletters.
Get the first look at the digital newspaper, curated daily stories and breaking headlines delivered to your inbox.
By continuing you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy.Du Plessis was sanctioned twice. In 2013, he was fined after rubbing the ball near the zipper of his trousers to alter its condition. In 2016, he was found guilty after applying saliva to the ball while sucking on a mint.
Both involved intent. Neither proves every player or country did the same thing.
That is where my interest in the old scandal ends.
The greater relevance of du Plessis’s comments is the fuel they provide South African crowds before Australia’s first Test tour there since 2018.
Australia and South Africa have always shared a fierce rivalry.
During the 2014 series, du Plessis described the Australians as being like a “pack of dogs” after we surrounded him when he picked up the ball while batting.
My memory is that the Proteas did not particularly enjoy the verbal side of the contest. Calling us a pack of dogs was only likely to produce more of it.
We were happy to compete through skill, but we also played the mental game. That is part of professional sport.
Before people on the outside, or former players, claim that they never played that way or that it is not a good look, we should be honest. Many who have played international sport have experienced moments when tension developed between individuals or teams.
Elite competition can be combative. Adrenaline is high, testosterone and egos are involved, and neither side wants to take a backward step. There still has to be a boundary.
Players could choose how they wanted to compete within the laws. The umpires were there to manage the match, and if somebody went too far, they could be told to pull back or face punishment.
There have been plenty of entertaining on-field battles throughout cricket’s history. They do not all need to be sanitised.
What mattered to me was what happened when the contest finished. I hoped you could shake hands, look an opponent in the eye and acknowledge the battle you had shared, regardless of the result.
If a problem remained, it could be sorted out away from the field or just be left as is.
I always respected the players I competed against, including some I did not particularly like. Whether I liked someone was irrelevant once we crossed the boundary. My job was to bring out my best and attempt to expose theirs.
South Africa was the best team to play against during that period because it had so many outstanding players. The cricket was skilful, physical and unpredictable, and there was always a feeling it could boil over.
That made beating them especially satisfying.
The conditions added another dimension. South African pitches can offer swing, seam movement, air speed, bounce and spin. In many ways, they resemble what Australian pitches provided throughout the 1990s and into the early and mid-2000s.
This Test series will not visit Johannesburg, but Durban, Gqeberha and Cape Town each provide their own challenge.
Durban is the most fascinating. There has long been a belief that the tide influences the Kingsmead pitch. Whether the tide itself is responsible is debatable, but I experienced how quickly that surface could change during our victory there in 2009.
It played well early. Phil Hughes and Simon Katich shared a 184-run opening partnership and both made centuries. We reached 4-329 and appeared comfortable. Then we lost five wickets for four runs in 18 deliveries and were bowled out for 352.
When South Africa batted, the pitch continued to play havoc. Deliveries were suddenly climbing at the gloves, chest and head from a length.
Batters had to accept the body blows, stand their ground and survive the difficult spells. Our players faced Dale Steyn, Makhaya Ntini, Morné Morkel and Jacques Kallis before we had the chance to return fire.
That was Test cricket at its most demanding.
Australia enters this series with an experienced but ageing core and uncertainty surrounding parts of its batting order.
Nic Maddinson’s late inclusion reflects that uncertainty. His return after overcoming testicular cancer is an outstanding personal achievement, and he recently scored 126 in a one-day match for New South Wales.
But Maddinson has not played first-class cricket for about 18 months. His last Test was in 2016, when he played three matches and averaged 6.75.
Selecting a 34-year-old for a Test tour without recent red-ball cricket is difficult to justify.
If Cam Green is unavailable, Matthew Renshaw or Cooper Connolly should remain ahead of Maddinson. They were included in the original squad and should have a clearer position in the selection order.
South Africa is not a place to arrive without clarity. The pitches can change, the crowds will become involved - especially in Cape Town - and the opposition will force Australia into uncomfortable periods.
That is where the players who have toured before become important. They must help the newer players understand that hostility and verbal pressure are part of the challenge, but neither should distract them from performing.
Australia does not need to answer du Plessis or the crowd with more discussion about 2018.
It needs to stand its ground, survive the difficult periods and return fire when the opportunity arrives.
That has always been the attraction of playing South Africa in its own backyard.
