Sambit Bal
Sambit Bal Sambit BalRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Editor, ESPNcricinfo

Australia have lost their presence

Australia's batting is formidable still and Krejza might still spin them to victory but their manner in the field in the series so far has been an admission of ordinariness

Sambit Bal

November 7, 2008

Comments: 37 | Text size: A | A

Australia's strategy has mainly involved bowling four feet outside the off stump and begging batsmen to have a go © AFP

It took a hat-trick ball and a No. 11 batsman for an Australian field setting to make its first appearance in this series. Ricky Ponting crowded six men around Ishant Sharma after Jason Krejza had removed Zaheer Khan and Amit Mishra off successive balls. By then India had 437 runs on the board.

It has been strange watching Australia in the field on this tour. In the last four Tests against India, including Adelaide earlier this year, they haven't looked like taking 20 wickets in a match. Television doesn't always reveal the full picture. Watching Australia's struggle on the field, it is easy to sense the subtle difference: they have not looked to take 20 wickets.

It will be wrong to say this is a poor imitation of the great Australian teams of the recent past. This team feels decidedly un-Australian. Admittedly the bowling resources have been thin, the spearhead hasn't fired, and till this Test they haven't played a bonafide spinner. More than anything, though, they have lacked intent. It has been apparent from the first Test, the one they had the chance to win, that their big strategy has been to bore the Indian batsmen out.

The strategy drew inspiration from Australia's tour here in 2004-05, when they adopted defensive tactics to choke the free-stroking Indian batsmen. But then Glenn McGrath, Jason Gillespie and Michael Kasprowicz strangled the Indians by bowling straight and homing in on the stumps. This time the strategy has mainly involved bowling four feet outside off stump and begging batsmen to have a go.

It's a plan based more on hope than expectation. It has made for tiresome watching, and it has sent a clear message to the Indian batsmen: we can't get you out without your collaboration in your dismissal.

Occasionally the Indian batsmen have obliged. Rahul Dravid has twice got out chasing wide balls - uncharacteristic strokes that speak of an uncertain mind; Sachin Tendulkar has twice lobbed catches to cover; and Virender Sehwag dismissed himself on Thursday by trying to create a stroke. Mostly, however, they have been ruthlessly professional and have ground out the runs clinically. They have manoeuvred the balls skilfully into the gaps and still managed to hit plenty of boundaries. Consequently the Australian gameplan has looked effete and confused. By depending on the batsmen's charity, they have let the opposition dictate the course of the match.

Ponting has been eager to push his men back at the first hint of an offensive. When Sehwag welcomed Krejza on the first morning with a four and a six, mid-on fell back to the ropes and out went forward short-leg. It was Krejza's first over in Test cricket and only the 13th over of the Test and there were four men on the boundary.

For years the Australians have set the pace in cricket. It was left to other teams to raise their game to match Australia's. India have managed to do it consistently; England overcame Australia by playing brilliantly in 2005. But the rules - and the roles - have changed in this series: Australia have done the chasing

One way of describing it would be tactical retreat, but it felt like a surrender.

Despite the defensive field, the Indian openers still scored at more than five an over through the morning session, and eventually two attacking moves fetched their wickets: Shane Watson got M Vijay by following up one short sharp ball with another, and posting a man at silly point pushed Sehwag into a back-foot stroke. It also must be said that Ponting kept Krejza on after he had gone for 32 in three overs.

On the evidence of Krejza's performance in this Test it would now seem a scandal that Cameron White, who doesn't even think of himself as a bowler when he captains Victoria, was preferred to Krejza in the first three Tests, and to Stuart Clark and Peter Siddle in this Test. The most plausible explanation for this could be that Ponting values White's batting at No. 8, a strangely diffident approach from a team that must win the Test to keep the Border-Gavaskar Trophy.

It mustn't be missed that Krejza earned his wickets. Eight wickets are a bit flattering, but he worked for them. The Indian batsmen went hard at him, lofting, sweeping, pulling and reverse-sweeping, but he didn't panic into lowering his trajectory or quickening his pace. Along with his eight wickets he also secured the unflattering record of having conceded the highest number of runs on debut; without him, though, India might have got to 600. Single-handed he has kept Australia in the game.

On England's tour of India in 2001, Nasser Hussain got his pace bowlers to bowl wide outside off stump, and Ashley Giles outside leg, to frustrate Sachin Tendulkar. To an extent he succeeded. Tendulkar charged down the pitch in Bangalore and was stumped for the first time in his career. From the beginning, though, it was an admission of weakness from Hussain. To watch it coming from Australia now, still the No. 1 team in the world, is jarring.

Jason Krejza has single-handedly kept Australia in the Test © AFP

For years the Australians have set the pace in cricket. It was left to other teams to raise their game to match Australia's. India have managed to do it consistently; England overcame Australia by playing brilliantly in 2005. But the rules - and the roles - have changed in this series: Australia have done the chasing. They have been handicapped by meagre bowing resources, by the flatness of pitches, and by losing successive tosses. But it is undeniable they have lost their presence.

Their batting is formidable still, and who knows, Krejza might still spin them to victory, but their manner in the field in the series so far has been an admission of ordinariness.

Sambit Bal is the editor of Cricinfo

RSS Feeds: Sambit Bal

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by livespaces on (November 11, 2008, 8:30 GMT)

All this heartburn on Australia's decline and the innumerable reasons attached to it, only shows that people have not studied the game well enough.If u look at the success rate of of any great teams in history you will notice it is not the batsman of the team but the bowlers who make the teams great. once you have great bowlers in your side even an avarage batsman becomes a giant. This is what happened to the teams of Australia with Mcgrath and Warne in their side. Cricket is equally a mental game and the presence of good bowlers boosts the confidence levels of the batsmen and the teams start looking invincible.Look at India, Four great batsmen could hardly achieve much for the country till some good bowlers arrived.

Posted by AP_Devils on (November 8, 2008, 17:00 GMT)

If its not "Australian Way".. then its not the "Right Way". This is what i take out from most of the Aussies commenting here. The "Bowler Unfriendly Pitch" have been same for both teams.. so if Indians can take 20 wickets then why cant Aussies. Time to stop the sorry cry from you all, accept the series loss and not be "Sore Losers".

It has been only one Team of the cricketing world that seems to challenge and beat the Aussies at their own game and that is TEAM INDIA. They have shown the world how to beat Aussies.. more than once. Its just a matter of time that we will see rest of the world sticking it to the Aussies.

Oh by the way Popcorn.. Aussies weare just 333 shy from 689 and the DREAMS of inflincting series win is just a Pipe-Dream. So eat some of your popcorn and enjoy rest of the game.

Posted by ptoodle on (November 8, 2008, 7:41 GMT)

1-0 down and the critics are out already, We have underdone players, Not our best spinners OR batsmen for that matter in the side, India will lose 5 great players over the coming year or 2, Who have the Aussies got, They have Nannes, Bollinger, Tait, Hilfenhaus to name a few in the bowling and Marsh, Symonds, Rogers, Ronchi and co. just waiting to get a game, India beat a second rate Pakistan side 1-0 got spanked by Sri Lanka, drew 1-1 with SA, Even with doctored batting tracks flatter than a car tyre that suit thier strength and take our 3 great pacemen out of the equasion, Sharma is going to be a great bowler, Khan's playing above himself, No other fast men in the side, Theyv'e lost thier great spinner in Kumble, I'd be panicking if i was India, Thier 3rd on the rankings and will drop once Dravid and co. retire, Australia will always be in the top 3 and that's being generous as i don't think they will drop out of the top 2 to be honest.

Posted by ullasmarar on (November 8, 2008, 6:17 GMT)

I love this...every time someone criticizes Aussie tactics, the question of bias comes in. Interestingly, most criticism of Aussies has been limited to the way they have played this series. Everyone admits that they are still No.1. But some people don't see reason, do they?

Posted by SamD on (November 8, 2008, 6:01 GMT)

On another note - there seems to have been quite a bit of noise from India about overtaking Australia as the leading side in the world. (Anyone asked South Africa what they think of this one?) It may indeed happen, but not while you have a team that is one nil up in a series and with a sizeable first innings score playing negative, defensive cricket. Yes, that's right - bowling outside off to an 8-1 field is not about the aggressive pursuit of victory - it's about trying to hold on to what you've got. And that's not what makes a team great like Australia. There's more to it than a 1-0 series win. It's a mindset that other teams respect in you. And it's something that India, if they are serious about being the best look like they might have to learn.

Posted by SamD on (November 8, 2008, 5:37 GMT)

Once gets the feeling that Sambit can't help but let his snide resentment of Australia's success (yes Sambit - we have been noting your writing for a while now...) colour his analysis of this series. The fact is that the team is in a transitionary period - as happens to all teams. To call a team un-Australian is to deny the fact that teams change. Are all future teams that play a different style of cricket to the past 'un-Australian? Did Steve Waugh in re-inventing the style played by Aussie cricketers during his reign render his team 'un-Australian'? It's a ridiculous and rather fatuous idea really. Essentially what we have here is a team trying to redefine itself in a country that produces featherbed pitches to suit it's home team (pitch-doctoring during the recent SA v Ind series anyone?). Oh, and a rather ungracious chief editor...

Posted by valvolux on (November 8, 2008, 4:13 GMT)

Settle down - it's 1-0. jeepers. remember, the aussies are playing with an undercooked hayden, their first choice spinner limped home before the series, the thorn in india's side symonds is missing - stuey clark got hurt and wasnt up to his usual standard. then throw in a heap of inexperienced can't expect them to go hell for leather. in fact the tactics so far have been spot on - and mostly have been working. they have lost one test - and if they lose the series 1-0 big deal. as we saw in australia, this unit minus mcgrath and warne is capable of smashing this indian side when fully fit. if australia can pull this test off...youd have to say they have been the better team - they had the better of india in the first and third tests after all. it is india who should be concerned that they cannot easily defeat this weakened aussie team in their own conditions.

Posted by kalbavigr on (November 8, 2008, 1:14 GMT)

In this series India has dominated so far. However, the Aussies have not only taken the 10 wickets they needed to at Nagpur, but have gotten off to a great start. Clearly, they are batting very well indeed. I don't believe any of the nonsense about India being arrogant in attacking Jason and giving their wickets away. This test will be the first test of the series where India is going to be tested to the limit. Can they continue to be agressive and win this game or will they go on the defensive and lose it?

Posted by adelaidemax on (November 8, 2008, 0:35 GMT)

I agree that India have been the better team this series, but this fawning over India is a little over the top, they have only won one test... perhaps when India can win consistently OUTSIDE of India, then we can all gush about how fantastic they are. It's also worth pointing out that the Aussie team are in a transition phase at present, similar to what India are about to embark on... in other words, wait until India are ranked number one in the world (not third) and can stay there for at least a decade before starting this one-eyed love-fest.

Posted by JoshC on (November 8, 2008, 0:34 GMT)

A fact Sambit Bal has conveniently ignored in this article is that the pitches prepared for this series have not exactly been bowler-friendly. His bias towards the Indian side is as obvious (and irritating) as Roebuck's.

I hope that Australia manage to scrape a win here, not just for pride but also to shut Roebuck and Bal up for once. They deserve to eat some humble pie.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Sambit BalClose
Sambit Bal Editor-in-chief Sambit Bal took to journalism at the age of 19 after realising that he wasn't fit for anything else, and to cricket journalism 14 years later when it dawned on him that it provided the perfect excuse to watch cricket in the office. Among other things he has bowled legspin, occasionally landing the ball in front of the batsman; laid out the comics page of a newspaper; covered crime, urban development and politics; and edited Gentleman, a monthly features magazine. He joined Wisden in 2001 and edited Wisden Asia Cricket and Cricinfo Magazine. He still spends his spare time watching cricket.
Related Links

    Automaton, man, inspiration

Twenty years on, Shivnarine Chanderpaul continues to be understated. And that doesn't bother him. What's not to like? By Brydon Coverdale

    85 Tests, 70 defeats

Numbers Game: Bangladesh's stats are easily the worst among all teams when they'd played as many Tests

Zulu finds fulfilment in coaching

After limping out of international cricket, Lance Klusener slipped off the radar, but his coaching stint with Dolphins has given them a higher profile and self-belief

Chanderpaul, the coach's nightmare

Modern Masters: He developed a rhythm that worked for him and gave him better balance at the crease

Johnson v McLaren: a tale of two blows

Russell Jackson: The South African allrounder had the misfortune of being in the line of fire twice this year

News | Features Last 7 days

Champions League T20 still battling for meaning

The thrills are rather low-octane, the skills are a bit lightweight, and the tournament overly India-centric

From Constantine to Chanderpaul

As West Indies play their 500th Test, here's an interactive journey through their Test history

Busy keepers, and Waqar's bowleds

Also, high scores and low averages, most ducks in international cricket, and the 12-year-old Test player

'My kind of bowling style is gone now'

Former New Zealand seamer Gavin Larsen talks about wobbly seam-up bowling, the 1992 World Cup, and his role in the next tournament

The umpire's bowling change

Plays of the day from the CLT20 game between Kolkata Knight Riders and Chennai Super Kings

News | Features Last 7 days