Sri Lanka v Australia, 1st Test, Galle, 1st day August 31, 2011

Australia struggle despite Mendis' absence

Given Australia's struggles against Sri Lanka's mystery spinner in the limited-overs games, it was surprising he was not picked for the Test
16

So much of Australia's preparation for the first Test revolved around the perceived threat of Ajantha Mendis that the tourists were given something of a shock when they heard he was not part of the team. Alongside Lasith Malinga, who has retired from Tests, Mendis had been responsible for much of the most panicky Australian batting in the limited-overs portion of the tour, and there was still some trepidation on the way to the ground on match morning.

Australia's subsequent progress on the first day in Galle was extremely wobbly on a pitch that tended towards the spiteful, but they were aided by a Sri Lanka team that was curious in its construction. If the tourists' had sighed with relief when Malinga reiterated his decision to retire from Test cricket at the conclusion of the ODI series, they were whooping with delight to discover that Mendis had been omitted from the Sri Lanka XI.

Mendis' Test match returns have diminished down the years against opponents who have got a proper sight of him but Australia are not one of those teams. While the Australia Twenty20 and ODI sides had plenty of opportunity to sight Mendis' variations in the fixtures that preceded the Tests, there are five members of the Test team - Phil Hughes, Usman Khawaja, Trent Copeland, Ryan Harris and Nathan Lyon - who have never faced Mendis before. Another, Brad Haddin, seemed no closer to solving his riddles at the end of the ODIs than he had been at the start.

Assisted by Mendis' absence, Australia struggled on via the admirably broad bat of Michael Hussey. Some of the other batsmen, Michael Clarke and Ricky Ponting in particular, could be censured for inattentiveness, and their mistakes made Hussey's contribution all the more spinal. His accomplishment against slow bowling and on subcontinent pitches is clear - since 2008 he has averaged 65.29 when facing the tweakers, soaking up an average of 141.7 balls while doing so - but the variations presented by Herath and the pitch made this a most noteworthy effort.

Of those watching from the dressing room, no-one should have been observing Hussey more closely than Khawaja, whose first two balls in subcontinent Test cricket were not for the squeamish. Arriving at the wicket following Ponting's failure to get to the pitch of a Rangana Herath delivery, Khawaja aimed an expansive drive at his first delivery and could manage only an inside edge into his back pad as the ball turned back at him. Next Herath offered a straighter variation to which Khawaja played for spin and was beaten conclusively on the outside edge. While subcontinent flourishes do exist in Khawaja's game, he can learn a great deal from Hussey, who began life as a stolid opener and gained an affinity for spin only with time and great care.

Hussey's form entering into the Test had been indifferent, and the observations of the Argus review about selection needing to be based more squarely on performance were clearly made with cases like his in mind. For too long leading into the Ashes, Hussey had been allowed to subsist on inconsistent contributions, and would have been one of several players Simon Katich could have pointed to as proof he should have been persevered with at 35.

Nevertheless, the application evident here was equal to that demonstrated by Hussey against England, but the poor showing of most of his fellow batsmen has maintained an unhappiness in the team despite a gap of nine months and a change of captain.

With their continued troubles against spin, Australia needed all the help they could get. Mendis' omission was the closest thing to a charitable gesture.

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on September 1, 2011, 5:24 GMT

    I agree with MJ Penter..How on earth did you draw the conclusion that Hussey's test match form was indifferent? I think he was Australia's top scorer in the Ashes.

  • Indunil76Shantha on September 1, 2011, 4:20 GMT

    We have to understand something here, after all they can play only 11 players. So, whom to drop from the side to include Mendis? Dont tell me we go with only one fast bowler ''coz we have Mathews as a back up. If we need a longer service of Mathews we have to protect him from bowling. He is not that fast anyway to call as a fast bowler.

  • Chrishan on September 1, 2011, 3:37 GMT

    Mendis isn't that great! Yes he took 26 wkts in his first 3 games but then in his next 13 games has taken just 36. That's less than 3 wkts/match which is atrocious. He has the ability to get a massive haul in the odd match or two but lacks consistency. I think the selectors got it right with Herath and Randiv. But then again Dilshan should give Randiv more overs than hog the ball for himself.

  • MJPenter on September 1, 2011, 3:02 GMT

    "Hussey's form entering into the Test had been indifferent" - How do you come up with that? Since Jan 2010, 18 months ago, Hussey has scored 669 runs at 51.

  • Raj2000 on September 1, 2011, 2:15 GMT

    I think including Herath was a great choice. With Herath you also get a decent batsman. Let's not forget he opened for SL on few occasions. By including Herath Sri Lanka's batting became stronger.

  • RandyOZ on September 1, 2011, 1:52 GMT

    Took 6 for in the T20 and did nothing in the ODIs. We've worked him out anyway.

  • johnathonjosephs on September 1, 2011, 0:53 GMT

    Umm it was perfectly reasonable. Mendis was being hit in the ODI's. He only amazed in that T20 game

  • D.V.C. on September 1, 2011, 0:10 GMT

    @randikaayya: Maybe they should have been thinking they could get them our for less than 200 with Mendis.

  • NRI- on August 31, 2011, 23:37 GMT

    Also shocking was the omission of the wold's best legspinner - Seekugge Prasanna!!!!

  • on August 31, 2011, 20:36 GMT

    Yes it worked, but with more than half the side not having faced Mandis and entire team concerned it sll might be questionable choice. Let us see the second innings! Nandi Jasen.

  • on September 1, 2011, 5:24 GMT

    I agree with MJ Penter..How on earth did you draw the conclusion that Hussey's test match form was indifferent? I think he was Australia's top scorer in the Ashes.

  • Indunil76Shantha on September 1, 2011, 4:20 GMT

    We have to understand something here, after all they can play only 11 players. So, whom to drop from the side to include Mendis? Dont tell me we go with only one fast bowler ''coz we have Mathews as a back up. If we need a longer service of Mathews we have to protect him from bowling. He is not that fast anyway to call as a fast bowler.

  • Chrishan on September 1, 2011, 3:37 GMT

    Mendis isn't that great! Yes he took 26 wkts in his first 3 games but then in his next 13 games has taken just 36. That's less than 3 wkts/match which is atrocious. He has the ability to get a massive haul in the odd match or two but lacks consistency. I think the selectors got it right with Herath and Randiv. But then again Dilshan should give Randiv more overs than hog the ball for himself.

  • MJPenter on September 1, 2011, 3:02 GMT

    "Hussey's form entering into the Test had been indifferent" - How do you come up with that? Since Jan 2010, 18 months ago, Hussey has scored 669 runs at 51.

  • Raj2000 on September 1, 2011, 2:15 GMT

    I think including Herath was a great choice. With Herath you also get a decent batsman. Let's not forget he opened for SL on few occasions. By including Herath Sri Lanka's batting became stronger.

  • RandyOZ on September 1, 2011, 1:52 GMT

    Took 6 for in the T20 and did nothing in the ODIs. We've worked him out anyway.

  • johnathonjosephs on September 1, 2011, 0:53 GMT

    Umm it was perfectly reasonable. Mendis was being hit in the ODI's. He only amazed in that T20 game

  • D.V.C. on September 1, 2011, 0:10 GMT

    @randikaayya: Maybe they should have been thinking they could get them our for less than 200 with Mendis.

  • NRI- on August 31, 2011, 23:37 GMT

    Also shocking was the omission of the wold's best legspinner - Seekugge Prasanna!!!!

  • on August 31, 2011, 20:36 GMT

    Yes it worked, but with more than half the side not having faced Mandis and entire team concerned it sll might be questionable choice. Let us see the second innings! Nandi Jasen.

  • Charindra on August 31, 2011, 19:54 GMT

    Good move I say. Aus was waiting for Mendis. So SL held back the "mystery" and stunned Aus with the orthodox!

  • randikaayya on August 31, 2011, 18:09 GMT

    What were the SL selectors thinking, that they can get Aussies bowled out for less than 300 on day 1 without Mendis???? Oh wait....

  • on August 31, 2011, 17:41 GMT

    That was the game plan,, they always do that. Oz were thinking of Mendis and getting ready for him,, but SL change the table and that paid off,, good work :)

  • WTEH on August 31, 2011, 17:23 GMT

    Good move from SL side. Hold him back till Aussies get comfortable with orthodox spinners and then unleash the mystery attack.

  • on August 31, 2011, 15:51 GMT

    yes, mendis ommission was a shocker, what on earth SL was thinking?

  • Aussasinator on August 31, 2011, 14:57 GMT

    It could be a clever ploy on the part of this very crafty Sri Lankan set up. Changing spinners for each match will prevent the opposition from preparing themselves for a particular bowler. The surprise element has paid off. Mendis should come in, if I think right, in one of the remaining Tests.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Aussasinator on August 31, 2011, 14:57 GMT

    It could be a clever ploy on the part of this very crafty Sri Lankan set up. Changing spinners for each match will prevent the opposition from preparing themselves for a particular bowler. The surprise element has paid off. Mendis should come in, if I think right, in one of the remaining Tests.

  • on August 31, 2011, 15:51 GMT

    yes, mendis ommission was a shocker, what on earth SL was thinking?

  • WTEH on August 31, 2011, 17:23 GMT

    Good move from SL side. Hold him back till Aussies get comfortable with orthodox spinners and then unleash the mystery attack.

  • on August 31, 2011, 17:41 GMT

    That was the game plan,, they always do that. Oz were thinking of Mendis and getting ready for him,, but SL change the table and that paid off,, good work :)

  • randikaayya on August 31, 2011, 18:09 GMT

    What were the SL selectors thinking, that they can get Aussies bowled out for less than 300 on day 1 without Mendis???? Oh wait....

  • Charindra on August 31, 2011, 19:54 GMT

    Good move I say. Aus was waiting for Mendis. So SL held back the "mystery" and stunned Aus with the orthodox!

  • on August 31, 2011, 20:36 GMT

    Yes it worked, but with more than half the side not having faced Mandis and entire team concerned it sll might be questionable choice. Let us see the second innings! Nandi Jasen.

  • NRI- on August 31, 2011, 23:37 GMT

    Also shocking was the omission of the wold's best legspinner - Seekugge Prasanna!!!!

  • D.V.C. on September 1, 2011, 0:10 GMT

    @randikaayya: Maybe they should have been thinking they could get them our for less than 200 with Mendis.

  • johnathonjosephs on September 1, 2011, 0:53 GMT

    Umm it was perfectly reasonable. Mendis was being hit in the ODI's. He only amazed in that T20 game