By Stuart MacGill
November 5th 2008 @ 3:32am
I’m not defensive, I’m just a bowler
I like to think that I’m relatively independent. However, even if I am convinced that I’ve made the right decision or positive that my opinion is valid, it’s always a comfort when someone else agrees.
I understand that everyone sees the world through their own eyes (duh) and that differences of opinion are healthy, but some issues are so crystal clear to me that I am completely unnerved when I can’t find a single person who gets what I’m on about.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Australia batted an hour too long in Delhi.
Not a day goes by without another ‘expert’ popping his head up to condemn the current attack, but even though it’s starting to really piss me off, I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone could honestly believe that we could get ten Indian wickets in under two sessions on that pitch.
It’s always driven me crazy when bowlers are slated for their poor performance in a match despite the fact that neither team could take a wicket.
Quite often in the same games successful batsmen patiently explain to journos that their meticulous preparation and never say die attitude means that such an innings is always just around the corner.
Before you roll your eyes and think that I am trying to belittle Australia’s batting performance in Delhi, let me make myself very clear.
Spending two days on the field in sweltering conditions before you bat is not ideal. On top of that, we were 1-0 down in the series, with several top order batsmen undoubtedly putting themselves under plenty of pressure to get some runs and silence the critics. To put all of this aside and get Australia back into the game was an extremely impressive team batting effort.
I am assuming (danger!) that as it became clear we had batted well enough to be a real chance of winning, there was some discussion in the rooms about our best plan of attack.
As well as the battle for the Border-Gavaskar trophy, the two teams have been arguing throughout the series about which captain is the most defensive, so everyone would have been desperate to out-manoeuvre the Indians and put it beyond doubt.
Just for the record, during Australia’s first innings of 577, both of the Indian captains had a go, and both of them should thank their lucky stars that Virender Sehwag got them out of jail. Rick on the other hand, has inspired Australia to believe they can win a Test even when the fat lady has left the building, as we did in Adelaide against the Poms and the SCG with South Africa on their last tour.
The best way to put this battle of the captains to bed would have been to challenge the Indians to set us a target on the final day.
By declaring our first innings closed around tea on day four (or about 500 runs), an Indian team playing to win could have been 300 plus in front with 60 or 70 overs to bowl us out.
If they opted out and still played for the draw, case closed.
I have no doubt that we could have successfully chased down almost anything given the conditions, and I sincerely hope that the batsmen believed the same because both sides have subsequently admitted that the pitch didn’t deteriorate as much as they thought it would.
I bet if you ask the bowlers in each team how easy it was to bat on they would have some pretty colourful opinions.
The added bonus, of course, of inviting the Indians to set up a final day run chase would have been that Rick’s instruction to the bowlers would have been very simple.
Keep the run rate under control. Wickets would have been irrelevant.
Batting on clearly denied the Indians an opportunity to win and ‘saved the test,’ but I was under the impression that being scared of failure was the one thing that could get in the way of success. The best-case scenario for Australia now is a drawn series, and I find that extremely dissatisfying.
Having scoured the net in vain for any sign that someone else thinks we got it wrong, I’m convinced that I must be overlooking something obvious that would explain everything.
After all, I’m a bowler, so what would I know?
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(11)
Spiro Zavos said | November 5th 2008 @ 7:32am | Report comment
I don’t think we’ll ever see India trying to win a Test by setting a declaration. It doesn’t seem to be part of the culture of their game.
Mick of Newie said | November 5th 2008 @ 7:34am | Report comment
Stuie
Matt Hayden said at the end of day 3 that Australia’s aim was to draw the match. I agree with your position and made much the same observation to a mate on Sunday. Once you determined the track was flat why wouldn’t you have a go at setting up a victory with a declaration. If you need to bat to save the game do that in the 4th innings. I thinkn there is enough ego in the Indian shed to have wanted to win the match so it might have set up an interesting day.
Stuie, I would like to know what happens in the dressing shed during games like this. Do players talk about scenaros that could set up a victory or is that confined to the captain and coach.
Harry said | November 5th 2008 @ 9:17am | Report comment
India, 1-0 up in the series, and with their captain wicketless (had Aus declared at 500) were never going to set a target that Australia could have got. They would have been crucified by their home fans. Its clear attritional cricket is the order of the day for this series, and that the bat is on top of the ball.
Love, and fully agree with, your bowlers perspective of things. I have really felt for our bowlers this series, they have had everything against them. That said, clearly we are short of a quality spinner and for that we have to thank John Buchanan’s fool “bonding” exercise in October 06 which buggered you up a few seasons prematurely.
stu macgill said | November 5th 2008 @ 10:00am | Report comment
to mick of newie:
australian cricket dressing rooms over the past couple of years have been pretty open forums for discussion. all players, even the youngest or least experienced, are encouraged to ask questions and speak up if they have an opinion about a team issue. young players like mitchell johnson in particular are very valuable in this respect, because they have a very different point of view.
ultimately however the decisions are made by team management; ponting, clarke, nielson etc and you just have to feel grateful that you have been heard.
JohnB said | November 5th 2008 @ 10:26am | Report comment
It does seem a bit unlikely that the Indians would have declared a second time setting any sort of vaguely feasible target. They probably would have been entitled to also be thinking “what are our chances of bowling them out in 2 sessions?”. Given that, it seemed to me that keeping them in the field as long as possible while making as many as possible, then seeing what happened was not an unreasonable approach.
Having said that, I thought the Indian declaration was strange. Accepting that the conditions are different (no fielding restrictions, no over limits for the bowlers, 5th day pitch) if it was a 20/20 game would you not at least have some sort of a run at 245 in 23 overs? While also accepting that the attempt was highly unlikely to come to anything, as the bowling team you’re really on a hiding to nothing in that situation – if after a few overs a miracle doesn’t look possible, the batting team can just shut up shop.
You sometimes see scorecards from drawn tests in pre one day cricket times where the team batting last made seemingly no attempt at targets in the low 200’s off around 40 overs, Through modern eyes, you can’t help but wonder why you wouldn’t at least have a shot at it. I wonder if future generations brought up on more 20/20 won’t think the same thing about this last test.
Greg Russell said | November 5th 2008 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Since the Christmas-New Year tests against England in 2002/03, matches in which Stuart played and suffered, I have been a firm believer that back-to-back tests cannot be seen in isolation. Let me explain.
On Boxing Day 2002, Hayden and Langer put on a fast 200. Langer went on to make 250, Australia 6 declared for 550, and then the Poms were rolled for 270. Following on, they got stronger and stronger as the tired Australian bowlers got weaker and weaker. Eventually England were dismissed for 390 (MacGill 5/150 off 50 overs), and Australia lost 5 wickets in making 100 to limp over the line and win.
Two days later in Sydney, Vaughan won the toss, batted under a very hot sun, and the rest is history: a much weaker England side defeated a much stronger Australian side simply because of the physical toll of too much back-to-back bowling: essentially it was three days on end in Melbourne before having to step straight back into the breach in Sydney, (because Vaughan won the toss).
What one takes from this is that when back-to-back tests are being played, captains have to see their decisions in the first match as having implications also for the second. (Anyone who doubts this has no idea of the mental pressures of being in the field for day after day.)
So now let’s have a look at Delhi-Nagpur in this context. Far from declaring at tea on day 4 in Delhi, was not Australia’s best strategy to bat on and on, preferably for at last half of day 5, until the Indian bowlers had been ground into the dust (OK, make that smog) of Delhi? Imagine if this had happened and then Ponting were to win the toss in Nagpur – how would Zaheer and Ishant feel about having to lace up the boots and go out to bowl straight away? Yes, this is a defensive, attritional strategy, but with Australia’s bowling attack, is there honestly a better one for retaining the Border-Gavaskar trophy?
I also have to wonder about Stuart’s line that “The best way to put this battle of the captains to bed would have been to challenge the Indians to set us a target on the final day.” Should the Australian team really care about India’s taunts about defensive bowling? Let them make all the taunts they like. The thing is to be steeled by these taunts. This series began with Zaheer taunting Ponting about his ability to bat in India, and look what that produced – a century to the skipper in his first bat. I don’t give a toss about “winning” any bragging rights over who is being more defensive. I just care about the lads pulling off a great escape of a victory.
My credentials: 7 seasons of over-35s cricket in Christchurch, New Zealand (don’t knock it mate, Richard Hadlee couldn’t get me out!). Stuart’s credentials: over 200 test wickets and many man-of-the-match performances. Be that as it may, it doesn’t mean I don’t know anything about the game!
Harry said | November 5th 2008 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Spot on analysis Greg – and India’s confidence can be shattered. We almost had them in the 1st test early on day 3 when after posting a big score batting first Mitchell Johnson got 3 top line batsmen out cheaply, but we allowed their tail to wag and save the game alas.
Agree the best bet is to win the toss (we are due) and ask lippy Zaheer and his young mate to spend another day bowling. Then lets see how their batting holds up.
JohnB said | November 5th 2008 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
Greg – agree in principle but worth noting that Zaheer and Ishant didn’t actually bowl a huge number of overs in the last test, given how long the innings was. The concept of grinding the bowling into the dust in the first of two back to back tests and reaping the reward in the second also applied in the 2001 series in India – the Laxman/Dravid partnership following on not only won them that game (although surely Australia should have made a better fist of holding on for the draw then) but also went a long way toward winning the next one. In the just completed third test I advocated Australia scoring about 800 by lunch on day 5, then having a go at the Indians from there – don’t know why they didn’t act on my suggestion.
Michael C said | November 5th 2008 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
Not defensive, just a bowler.
Alas, the Indian mentality after going 1-0 up in the first test is obvious and who can blame them. It’s one thing for one team to seek to win and the other to not do so…….but…..playing on such flat tracks doesn’t help.
And makes all the more crazed those folk having a go at the Australian attack – - because, short of the pacemen not getting reverse swing……….and the spin bowlers not getting handed a deteriorating track……….there really isn’t much they can do.
I was amazed at Cam White being belted around in the media again, based on 4 expensive overs on DAY 1, 2nd session, against some of the best players of spin in the world who had been played in by the stock standard pace downward progression bowling hierarchy.
Ironic, for Cam Whites short test career – - is Sachin Tendulkar his ‘bunny’???
I’m still trying to work out on what basis anyone feels that Krejza is more deserving of a baggy green……….or, is the argument ‘may as well give him a game’ reall a good enough premise?? Cam White at least has been earmarked for the future, and should benefit tremendously from the experience, as, thus far, he hasn’t been spanked around quite in the way anticipated, and if he is to be a bowler more in the mould of an Anil Kumble, well, even half of 500 wkts wouldn’t be scoffed at – - – and Kumble has not had a very happy time on those tracks.
Does Sehwag show the way to go? Run with an offie,………..any offie. Or………….does an offie still need to externally warrant selection in the first place? or is that being too defensive rather than just selecting a ‘bowler’?
pete said | November 8th 2008 @ 6:25pm | Report comment
Some good points here macgill … any chance you might roll the arm over again?
challa said | November 23rd 2008 @ 6:42pm | Report comment
Bring back MacGill – huge fan of your on and off field work. Great insightful article!