Warner saves Clarke from the mistake of not batting first
Columnist By Spiro Zavos, 14 Jan 2012 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, David Warner, india cricket, Michael Clarke
David Warner has saved Michael Clarke's blushes with his commanding century AAP Image/Tony McDonough
Related coverage
At the end of the day – and what a sensational first day of cricket it was at the WACA – Michael Clarke will claim his decision to send India in to bat was totally justified.
A lethargic and forlorn Indian side was bowled out for 161.
Australia in less than a session scored 149 for no wickets lost. David Warner (104) has played one of the great attacking opener’s innings, scoring his century in 69 balls, the fourth-fastest hundred ever scored in Test cricket. Ed Cowan is 40 not out from 58 balls – pretty quick for an opener whose main strength is his ability to let balls go through to the keeper.
This opening partnership has taken the Test away from India. At Sydney the Indian bowlers could only take four wickets in the entire Test. At Perth, Australia is within 12 runs of their opponents’ total, with all their own wickets in play. Australia could bat for two more days and still have two days to bowl India out a second time.
Cricket is a funny game, as per the oft-used quote, but India at this stage look unlikely to take even four Australian wickets in this Test.
Australia is in the sort of situation captains dream of when they put the opposition in to bat. But let’s be realistic. What often happens when a side is put in to bat is that they scrape up enough runs to set up a difficult fourth-innings chase. This is what happened at Hobart when Clarke put New Zealand in. Australia failed to knock off the runs in the fourth innings, even though Warner batted through.
Winning the toss and putting the opposition in to bat, especially against demoralised opponents, gives the opposition its one chance of winning. New Zealand took this chance at Hobart. India look to have spilled the chance at Perth.
The rugby analogy is to win the toss and give a weak opposition the first use of the wind. Often the weak opposition gets some points on the board and then is very hard to knock back in the second half. The cricket equivalent is runs on the board.
At Hobart, New Zealand’s low score was enough to keep them in the game. At Perth, India’s low score, thanks to Warner’s historic innings, looks to be totally inadequate.
Clarke’s gamble looks to have paid off. But the pathetic Indian response in their first innings disguised the fact that the pitch in fact is nowhere near as fiery as its green tinge suggested it might have been. The pitch is, in fact, a perfect batting strip for any batsman used to its bounce, pace and carry.
By rights, Virender Sehwag should have carved out a century in the same manner as Warner has done. And the great Tendulkar should still be batting.But there is no stomach in the Indian side at present for the hard grind of churning out runs, session after session.
Brad Haddin’s claims that the Indians are totally demoralised appears to be true. We had the spineless batting. This was matched with poor bowling, slovenly fielding and even worse captaincy.
Why was Ishant Sharma, for instance, kept out of the attack until Australia had reached 88 runs off only 12 overs?
All the talk, though, about this opening day’s play will be about Warner’s innings, and rightly so. There was hardly a false shot in the 79 balls he has faced so far in the innings. His sixes were massive blows, hit down the ground with a straight bat. There were no slog-sweep shots. One of his drives with his legs bent and the bat just smashing the ball to the boundary was in the grand West Indian manner, a sort of left-handed version of Everton Weekes at his best.
The hitting was natural, not artificial. It seemed to be correct in approach and in execution. This was batting for the ages.
If Warner can continue in this manner he could give Clarke’s 329* a good shake.
After this Perth Test, there is one more Test at Adelaide. The best way of ensuring a victory in the last Test is for Australia to bat on and on and on at Perth. This is what will probably happen. Clarke is in the happy position of being able to win the Perth Test by batting for the next two days, if possible. If he does this, Australia won’t have to face a second innings chase.
Warner’s batting has created this possibility for his captain, which is why I would claim that the opener has saved his captain from the mistake of not batting first when he had the opportunity to do so.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, David Warner, india cricket, Michael Clarke
January 14th 2012 @ 3:36am
AndyMack said | January 14th 2012 @ 3:36am | Report comment
I disagree Spiro. Think that Clarke has shown a flair in captaincy, and picking 4 quicks and putting India in, and then knocking over the top order by lunch is pretty much the captains dream.
And if it was the wrong call to bowl first, surely it was his bowlers who spared him his blushes, not Warner.
January 14th 2012 @ 11:21am
The Bush said | January 14th 2012 @ 11:21am | Report comment
“And if it was the wrong call to bowl first, surely it was his bowlers who spared him his blushes, not Warner.”
That is exactly what I was thinking. Anytime you dismiss a team for under two hundred (200) on the opening day, it is your bowlers who have justified your decision to field.
Even if Australia was 0/50 at the end of the days play, you would still have said that Clarke’s decision was justified.
January 14th 2012 @ 6:28pm
langou said | January 14th 2012 @ 6:28pm | Report comment
When i read the headline I thought the same thing, that it was the bowlers who justified the decison, however after reading the actual article I think Spiro makes a good point(something I had never really considered) Often we judge the decison to bowl first simply by the first innings of the test match, without taking into account how hard it is to chase runs. Without Warner, the game would be close and if that was the case you would be much better to set a total than chase a total.
January 14th 2012 @ 6:11am
Old Pete said | January 14th 2012 @ 6:11am | Report comment
I agree with both you and AndyMack Spiro -you for your general comments about Clarke’s decision;AndyMack for his observations about who are Clarke’s real saviours.Our bowlers aren’t being given enough credit.If we stopped the series right now,the Man of the Series award,if there were any justice in the process,would have to go to an Australian bowler -take your pick between Siddle and Hilfy,or give it to them jointly.
January 14th 2012 @ 8:11am
Rabbitz said | January 14th 2012 @ 8:11am | Report comment
I am far from a fan of Clarke, M. But to give credit where credit is due, at least Clarke is having a red hot go.
What would prefer, Spiro, the same insipid, soft tactics that Ponting has used for the last eon? Or would you prefer an Australian cricket team that has a go, takes a few risks and plays some interesting cricket?
I seem to recall certain The Roar contributors almost constantly harping about NSW Rugby “playing not to lose” and how it is better to risk a loss than to bore the pants off everyone. Well is this not the same?
Crickey, they have their foot on India’s throat, and with a bit of self belief, they have put India in and all it has done is to add weight to that foot. I am not a Clarke fan but he has lifted his (and the teams) game so far against India.
January 14th 2012 @ 8:15am
Ian Whitchurch said | January 14th 2012 @ 8:15am | Report comment
You pick four quicks, it’s the WACA, and you’re playing against a demoralised India. Of course you have a bowl !
January 14th 2012 @ 8:27am
Jason said | January 14th 2012 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Have to agree. Bowling first was the right option once you chose 4 quicks.
Clarke’s captaincy to date (ie since the SL tour) has been rather fantastic actually. It’s like Ponting is watching him saying “so that’s how you do it”.
January 14th 2012 @ 8:38am
Chris said | January 14th 2012 @ 8:38am | Report comment
I disagree Spiro – I thought it was excellent captaincy by Clarke. Haddin’s comments during the week about the lack of spine in this Indian team have been proven correct. Clarke shared this belief and had faith in his bowlers to get the job done – which they did. Now hopefully the Australian batsman can step up and post a mammoth first innings to crush what little hope India has.
January 14th 2012 @ 9:14am
Vas said | January 14th 2012 @ 9:14am | Report comment
It’s ridiculous to think fielding first is a mistake. If it’s a mistake now against a brittle Indian batting lineup on a bouncy deck with a strong pace attack, then when ever is it justifiable Spiro?
Both Clarke and Dhoni would have known both XIs to be played before the coin was flicked. Both captains knew neither team were playing a specialist spinner, so the risk of batting last would be substantially less than usual.
Also, I think Steve Waugh made a wonderful point about the merits of bowling first, which he often did in scenarios that pundits would have expected him to bat on first.
His simple theory was that to win a Test match, a team has to take 20 wickets, and so it made sense for him to try and pick up 10 straight away for not many and have that edge as the game progressed.
Clarke’s decision was not a mistake Spiro, it was attacking captaincy aimed at keeping a wounded opponent down. Decision vindicated for now, but still a way to go before Australia can win this.
January 15th 2012 @ 1:39am
Dubble Bubble said | January 15th 2012 @ 1:39am | Report comment
”If it’s a mistake now against a brittle Indian batting lineup on a bouncy deck with a strong pace attack, then when ever is it justifiable Spiro?”. Well said.
January 14th 2012 @ 9:22am
A1 said | January 14th 2012 @ 9:22am | Report comment
A big part of captaincy is instinct and gambling. Batting first is certainly the safe option, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right option. You would have been a conservative skipper Spiro, and all the great ones were gamblers.
January 14th 2012 @ 9:30am
Brendon said | January 14th 2012 @ 9:30am | Report comment
“and all the great ones were gamblers”
Which is why Ponting was not a great captain. He was very average.
January 14th 2012 @ 9:57am
Red Kev said | January 14th 2012 @ 9:57am | Report comment
I don’t disagree, but it is highly amusing that a guy nicknamed “punter” is not considered a gambler.
January 14th 2012 @ 12:35pm
Schtumpy said | January 14th 2012 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
I’m not convinced last summer was Ponting’s fault.
Siddle is actually moving the ball this summer!
Hilf is a different bowler too.
And Pattinson – like Cummins in South Africa – has been a revelation.
And there has been no Johnson leaking 5 runs an over and taking no wickets.
I’m fairly confident that if Alistair Cook and Jonathon Trott had to face this attack rather than the rubbish served up last season, the Ashes would have been much tighter.
While I think our best attack contains Pattinson, Cummins and Harris, I’ve been blown away by how well Siddle and Hilf have bowled.
Attacks win Test matches and Clark has a better one at his disposal than Punter had.
January 14th 2012 @ 9:11pm
Brendon said | January 14th 2012 @ 9:11pm | Report comment
It just wasn’t last year’s The Ashes that Ponting failed as captain. Batting first against Pakistan at Headingly would have to rank as one of the dumbest and ignorant things a supposed professional cricketer has done.
The Headingly pitch was green, Pakistan had one of the best bowling attacks (when they werent spot fixing) and one of the weakest, if not weakest batting line-ups in test cricket. At the time Pakistan’s batting was definitely weaker than Bangladesh’s and probably not much better than Zimbabwe’s.
The ODI series at home against South Africa in 2008-09 etc.
Ponting, like Spiro, are trapped in a bygone era. Just like Australia were never going to reach their full potential under Border. Taylor had to come in bring a new thinking to the team for it to succeed.
January 14th 2012 @ 9:48am
Nate Hornblower said | January 14th 2012 @ 9:48am | Report comment
what a load of rubbish from spirro, another Clarke hater obviously. The skipper sent the opposition in, his bowlers responded to the situation & rolled India. Warner put the icing on the cake to take the game away from India.
the bowlers justified the skipper’s choice
January 14th 2012 @ 9:56am
Red Kev said | January 14th 2012 @ 9:56am | Report comment
I have never really considered batting first to be the safe and correct option.
You look at the conditions and decide if you back your batsmen on a juicy first session pitch to only lose 1 wicket and then play on as the pitch flattens, or your bowlers to take 3+ wickets in the first session and then rip through the opposition before the wicket flattens. I would say Clarke made the right choice to back his bowling attack rather than his batting lineup (the top three are still finding their feet and a mini collapse in the first session would not have been good for them).
January 14th 2012 @ 11:27am
The Bush said | January 14th 2012 @ 11:27am | Report comment
“I have never really considered batting first to be the safe and correct option.”
Have to disagree. batting first is absolutely the safe option. As Spiro sets our (rightly), runs on the board are always better than runs to be chased. Doesn’t mean it is always the correct option (as you set out in the rest of your post), but it’s certainly the safe option.
However, as others have set out above, Clarke took a small gamble and backed his in form players – the bowlers. Whilst we’ve all talked up Clarke’s innings and now Warner’s innings, in reality this series has been dominated by Australia’s three quicks. The reality is that Australia didn’t score that many runs in the first innings in Melbourne and were on the verge of a horrifc collapse in Sydney until Clarke stepped up.
In contrast, our bowlers have been consistent and got the job done every time.
January 14th 2012 @ 11:31am
jamesb said | January 14th 2012 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Red Kev
i agree. Look when you see a green pitch, along with its bounce, something which you know the opposition is not comfortable with, than you bowl first.
clarke was going to his strengths, which ATM is the fast bowling. All 4 fast bowlers had success. Even Starc, at times he bowled rubbish, but he also had a few unplayables.
Hilfy was still swinging the ball in the 60th over of the innings. Hilfy for mine is the player of the summer. IMO, he is NOW realising his potential.
sure there was a time when Kohli and Laxman looked comfortable. but you always had the feeling that Australia needed 1 wicket, which would than set up a collapse. And it did.
January 14th 2012 @ 10:21am
Michael said | January 14th 2012 @ 10:21am | Report comment
A lot of good points have been made in the comments section. The simple truth is, if you name an all-seam bowling attack, you really have no other option but to win the toss and bowl first. With so much grass, the pitch will not break up. Those cracks are going to widen up over the next two days, so Australia has to bat long enough so they only bat once.