Australia v England, 4th Test, Melbourne, 4th day

Clarke wards off Edgbaston ghosts

Daniel Brettig at the MCG

December 29, 2013

Comments: 13 | Text size: A | A
Michsel Clarke lauds 'a very special win'

Eleven times Steve Waugh sent the opposition in to bat in Tests, and 11 times he won. Ricky Ponting won at his first attempt at the trick in Christchurch in 2005, then lost catastrophically when doing the same at Edgbaston in that year's Ashes series. He never dared to do so again, even on pitches as green as Sydney and Headingley against Pakistan in 2010.

Having observed the contrasting fates of his predecessors, Michael Clarke has tried to forge a path between these two extremes. The Boxing Day Ashes Test was his fourth insertion of his opponents, all occasions arriving at home. His only loss was to New Zealand on a verdant Bellerive strip in 2011, the rare pitch on which bowling is more a necessity than an option.

More open to debate was his decision in Melbourne this week, on a drop-in pitch known for improving as the game progresses but also in circumstances where three previous wins at the toss had allowed Clarke to bat and drive the game from day one. There were times throughout the Boxing Day match that Australia flirted with a result of that kind that so haunted Ponting.

But a stirring counter-attack, aided by the dreadfully fragile disposition of England's increasingly bereft tour party, allowed Clarke to escape the question of "what if". He was able to say after an eight-wicket victory that his decision was tailored to the team he has now, not those of Waugh, Ponting, Mark Taylor or Allan Border.

"If you bowl first you're always judged on your results, so the ups and downs throughout the Test match are irrelevant as a captain in that case," Clarke said. "It's more if you win the Test as a captain you get away with it, if you lose the Test you're going to be hit hard and you're accountable for making that decision.

"But I believe our team aren't the team of the 80s or the 90s. For our team I thought conditions were conducive enough to bowl first, our bowlers have been doing a fantastic job not just in this series but also against England in England. I was confident with the overcast conditions we were confident we were going to be able to bowl England out for a low score."


Michael Clarke tosses the coin, Australia v England, 4th Test, Melbourne, 1st day, December 26, 2013
Michael Clarke's decision at the toss was a talking point throughout the match © Getty Images
Enlarge

Confident maybe, but Clarke was far from adamant about bowling first. When he was departing the dressing room on the first morning to toss the coin he left Ryan Harris with the distinct impression he intended to bat once more. When he delivered his verdict to Mark Nicholas for television a few minutes later, he uttered the words "I can't believe I'm saying this, but..."

Between those two conversations, Clarke and the coach Darren Lehmann engaged in discussions in the middle of the ground. As the bowlers marked their run-ups, a final perusal of the pitch appeared to change their minds. It cannot be known whether Clarke changed his view or was cajoled into doing so by Lehmann. Either way, Lehmann admitted it had been a decision made with some trepidation.

"It was the right decision. I would have bowled. And we made it quite late. We were marking out some of the run-ups for the bowlers and we just had a gut feel. The skipper decided to go that way and we fully support that," he said. "We don't like doing it. We'd like to bat first every time. I thought there was enough in the wicket.

"I don't think we bowled as well as we should've in the first innings either and we bowled England out for 255. Overcast conditions and it had a green tinge on it, I think it was the right call. You're judged by the result, but if we lost the game I'd still say the same thing."

Clarke admitted to some worry on the first day when his bowlers did not extract the sort of life he had hoped for. What happened instead was that a slow surface gained a little in pace and hardness across the four days, making strokeplay less challenging in the second innings. England's disintegration had very little to do with the turf, while Chris Rogers and Shane Watson played freely on the final afternoon.

"Was it the right decision or not?" Clarke wondered. "The result will say yes, but after the first five overs on day one, the wicket certainly played better than I expected it to. So I don't think it mattered too much whether I batted first or bowled first."

Having escaped a tight spot in Melbourne, Clarke will feel free to make the call again. He will not be haunted.

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

RSS Feeds: Daniel Brettig

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Kolpak1989 on (December 30, 2013, 5:39 GMT)

@PrasPunter, I don't think it was a mistake for him to bowl first in Melbourne. But it certainly would be in Sydney. Sydney tends to be slow, low and gets decent turn late in the test. He will want Lyon to be bowling last on that one. But when he marched out at Melbourne and saw a green pitch with cloud overhead, if you're ever going to field first that is the time to do it. Restricting England to a first innings total of 255 was hardly a disaster.

Posted by cricmatters on (December 29, 2013, 22:47 GMT)

The answer is very simple. The drop-in pitch does not behave like old Test match pitches which used to start breaking up and showing signs of wear by day 4 allowing spinners to come into play. These drop-in pitches actually get better as the play goes on as it was obvious from the way Rogers played, hitting the ball on the up and going for his shots as he could trust the pace and bounce of the pitch. There is no point comparing this pitch with the older traditional Test match pitches around the world.

Posted by BlueyCollar on (December 29, 2013, 21:55 GMT)

I reckon with Swann not being there had a lot to do with it.

Posted by millsy24 on (December 29, 2013, 21:39 GMT)

I think it was a good decision actually. Fact is that Clarke is never going to win every toss so the decision will be out of his hands anyway. This is a team that is learning how to win again and it is a team where the batting has more often than not let the bowlers down. With the Ashes safe, I think it was a good decision to put some pressure on the batsmen to win a game and also to show the team that they can come from behind. This self belief will give them more confidence in their ability. He wouldn't have done it if the Ashes were still in the balance.

Posted by 4test90 on (December 29, 2013, 20:34 GMT)

The pitch for State games improves as it goes on. Even Sth Aust beat us (Vic) there this year. Australia would have easily chased down 400 in this 4th innings. Clarke's decision was the right one. This Test was eerily similar to 1990 when in that game Eng led by 46 on 1st inns, got rolled for 150 in their 2nd dig, leaving Aust 197. The pitch then flattened out and Boon and Marsh batted all the 5th day to give Aust an 8 wicket win.

Posted by PrasPunter on (December 29, 2013, 16:51 GMT)

Not a great decision to bowl first. Sure MC won't repeat his mistake if he wins it in Sydney.

Posted by Akhter786 on (December 29, 2013, 15:55 GMT)

It doesn't matter, not anymore. England is a pathetic side, ageing side, no foreseeable good future. Pretty much embarrassing for all of their supporters. All credit to Aussies, don't know wht Lehmann had invoked in them.

Posted by mondotv on (December 29, 2013, 14:04 GMT)

Hmm - you've just won the toss in a test match in Australia @ the MCG - the skies are overcast, the wicket has a tinge of green, your 1st innings batting has a been a bit fragile and the opposition posesses one of the better swing bowlers to ever come out of England. What do you do? You bat of course - you think for a moment about bowling but then you just laugh and say "that's crazy talk" - this is Australia after all.

Why? Australia just became the 1st team in 50 years to bat down a total of that size in the 4th innings at the MCG. You don't bat last voluntarily in Aus, or anywhere really

Still Clarke is allowed the odd mistake because he makes so many good decisions - but sending England in at the MCG - that was a howler...

Posted by foeofdevil on (December 29, 2013, 13:53 GMT)

Bowling first by MClarke was a hidden gamble looking a tamed English side. Dont know if anyone may go to the England dressing room and advocate their own talent to themselves because they have forgotten their run while at home.Searching for justification wont help anyone even if your are 2005 ashes debutant playing for England or even scored two 100s against Aussies on that ashes.

Posted by RyanHarrisGreatCricketer on (December 29, 2013, 12:18 GMT)

It was not a very logical decision, but it does not matter if you have to bowl to a pathetic batting unit

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Daniel BrettigClose
Daniel Brettig Assistant editor Daniel Brettig had been a journalist for eight years when he joined ESPNcricinfo, but his fascination with cricket dates back to the early 1990s, when his dad helped him sneak into the family lounge room to watch the end of day-night World Series matches well past bedtime. Unapologetically passionate about indie music and the South Australian Redbacks, Daniel's chief cricketing achievement was to dismiss Wisden Almanack editor Lawrence Booth in the 2010 Ashes press match in Perth - a rare Australian victory that summer.
Tour Results
Australia v England at Sydney - Feb 2, 2014
Australia won by 84 runs
Australia v England at Melbourne - Jan 31, 2014
Australia won by 8 wickets (with 31 balls remaining)
Australia v England at Hobart - Jan 29, 2014
Australia won by 13 runs
Australia v England at Adelaide - Jan 26, 2014
Australia won by 5 runs
Australia v England at Perth - Jan 24, 2014
England won by 57 runs
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days
Sponsored Links

Why not you? Read and learn how!