Border-Gavaskar Trophy: What ball-tracking and control data tell us

High seam and low bounce proved to be the ideal combination for India in Perth. They could stick to bowling their 6-8-metre good length and still hit the stumps with it. Australia went with their traditional 5-7-metre good-length band, getting driven and then going too short in reaction. Even though Australia bowled India out for 150 on the first morning, they bowled 35 balls fuller than the 5-metre mark, conceding 20% of that total.Either India learned from what they watched or they just stuck to their natural good lengths, which turned out to be the best for these conditions. Australia were at the stumps less frequently than once in two overs; India attacked the wicket once every over. Eight of the 18 wickets India's fast bowlers took were either bowled or lbw.Excessive seam movement remained a feature of the series. Jasprit Bumrah drew an average movement of 0.9 degrees in the first innings in Perth. The most he had ever extracted was 1.1 degrees in Christchurch in 2020, and he matched that in Sydney - the one other Test where India threatened to beat Australia, even securing a first-innings lead, but ran out of fast-bowling options when conservative selection and the injury to Bumrah combined to set them back.Nathan Lyon was called upon to bowl just 122.4 overs, the fewest he has done in a home series in which he has played more than three Tests.It pays to defend like Cheteshwar Pujara in Australia. The argument these days is that bowling hardly gets easier, so it's better to play your shots before the eventual delivery with your name on it. In Australia, though, the current Kookaburra moves extravagantly when it's new, and then settles down considerably once it becomes soft.Nathan McSweeney, Usman Khawaja and Marnus Labuschagne decided to play that Pujara role for Australia. In two of the three first innings where he entered after 30 overs, Travis Head scored centuries. Not just any centuries, but quick ones that deflated India.This is not to absolve Rishabh Pant of the responsibility of fighting the movement - which he tried to do as it shows in his leaves percentage and his strike rate - but, as a team, India would have been better placed if attacking batters had more suitable points of entry.Australia still got Sam Konstas in and empowered him to play like England do. Having lost eight wickets at 6.5 to Bumrah with the new ball, they were probably desperate to take some chances against him because, really, how much worse could it get?The result was the earliest attempt at a reverse scoop in a Test, and a 65-ball innings with 28 false shots amounting to the second-lowest control in a half-century in Tests since 2015, behind Tim Southee.Konstas made India bowl too full for 90 minutes, but India's lengths were good in the rest of the series. Their fast bowlers remained in the 5-8-metre band 56% of the time as opposed to Australia's 51, but bowlers other than Bumrah struggled to get results from there. Take out Bumrah, and India's other quicks bowled 52% of their deliveries in the 5-8-metre band for 16 wickets at 36.25. Australia took 38 wickets at 24.71. Bumrah 20 at 11.7.The inability of Indian bowlers other than Bumrah to take wickets cheaply enough from the business area was a big point of difference between the two teams. There could be various factors behind it. Akash Deep's lines were not great with the new ball in Brisbane. In the middle three Tests, perhaps the taller bowlers drew more out of the pitch. Perhaps India's fast bowlers didn't enjoy great luck.India were actually a little unlucky in Melbourne and Adelaide. Konstas survived that first session in Melbourne after which batting generally became easier. In the day-night Test, both sides played an equal number of false shots, but India were bowled out twice and Australia only once. Through the series, Akash Deep drew false shots 30% of the time for just four wickets at 54. But, then again, India were really lucky in Brisbane with the rain.The short ball was another point of difference between the sides. Both the sides competed on even terms till the 40th over of the innings on average. The India bowlers swung the ball more, matched Australia on extracting seam - Bumrah might have actually seamed it more than the home seamers - but Australia pulled away in the next 40 when the ball grew old and there was less assistance from the surface.Even though Australia themselves played just four bowlers in the first four Tests, they had more quality and experience among their four frontline bowlers.Australia took ten wickets with the bouncer against India's one. Most of these were timely strikes: Yashasvi Jaiswal in Melbourne, Pant in Adelaide, Ravindra Jadeja in Brisbane. Leading from the front was Pat Cummins, sending down 146 bouncers for nine of his 25 wickets.India didn't have any such threat with the old ball when Head and Steven Smith made merry.Australia really do know how to play the day-night Test. They snuck in four wickets with really full deliveries and bounced out five batters, while India stuck to the good lengths for little reward. It seems Australia wanted to maximise the extra bounce and pace available with the pink ball even though the ball seamed the least in Adelaide.