Michael Clarke was right on sending India in, but…
Columnist By Spiro Zavos, 16 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
Alright, I’ll admit it, I was wrong in my criticism of Michael Clarke for winning the toss and putting India into bat in the third Test at the WACA in Perth.
My argument was that when you give an opposition, especially a weak opposition, the first use of the pitch, you also give that team its only real chance of winning the Test.
The chance comes, as it did for New Zealand at Hobart when Clarke foolishly put them into bat, if that weak opposition can muster a good third innings and leave you a chase of about 240 or more.
That’s the theory. But Clarke can rightly claim the Doctor Johnson defence. The great paragon of English common sense was once asked about Bishop Berkeley’s idea that the existence of humans is not a physical thing, it is all in our minds. Dr Johnson kicked a large rock, winced in pain and exclaimed: “I refute Bishop Berkeley thus!”
Clarke can point to the result that flowed from his decision to give India the first use of the pitch. That result was a victory by an innings and 37 runs. The formerly great Indian batting line-up was dismissed twice in the space of seven sessions of play.
The victory was total and absolute, or at least it looks like this on paper.
But examine the matter a little closer. When I wrote my article dishing Clarke’s decision, I also argued that it was apparent, even after the first day, that he was saved by David Warner.
I should also have added that the Australian fast bowlers did their job splendidly. They bowled in partnerships. They moved the ball. They had good plans, which (and this is the important thing) they carried out perfectly. A little instance of this is that to the front-line batsman the ball was pitched up, and to the tailenders, the ball was bounced.
The result was that a player like Sehwag was caught behind the wicket, nicking a pitched-up delivery. For Sharma, a useful defensive tailender who can push forward effectively (like Jason Gillespie) for an hour or so, the ball was pitched short at his body. The result was that he pushed a catch to Ed Cowan at silly mid-on in the debacle of the second innings.
But to get back to my main point. If you look at the Australian scorecard, you will see just how dependent Clarke’s gamble to bat second was on Warner’s sensational innings. He scored 180 runs off 159 balls out of a team total of 369. Take Warner’s contribution out of the Australian and it amounts to 169, only 8 runs more than India’s 161 in its first innings.
I know, I know. You shouldn’t make hypotheses about what might have happened if something had been different. But when you do, it becomes obvious that Warner saved Clarke. If Warner had nicked some of those balls early in his innings as he wafted his bat and had made a low score, then the game would have been very different.
It is becoming clear that Warner should be Australia’s next great batsman, picking up the torch that is being reluctantly being passed over by Ricky Ponting.
And fortunately for Clarke, Warner is being paired with an opening partner, Cowan, who perfectly complements his dashing, risky game with a sound, defensive and attritrional style. While Warner scored his runs at faster than a run a ball, Cowan made his 74 from 120 balls.
Clarke, in my opinion, despite his penchant for putting his opponents in to bat when he wins the toss, is evolving into a superb captain. He is lucky in the sense that fortune favours the brave. I reckon he will end up in the pantheon of supreme captains (Richie Benaud, Ian Chappell and Mark Taylor) by the time he is finished.
Right now all the moves he makes seem to come off. His bowlers (in the Tests against India particularly) are moving the ball around at high pace. The batsmen are scoring plenty of runs. An opening pair, with different styles, is starting to consolidate at the top of the order.
All this augurs well. Strong captaincy, intense and penetrative fast bowling and a secure opening pair represent the building blocks of a great team.
Watch out England when the next Ashes battle begins.
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 16th 2012 @ 8:10am
Vas Venkatramani said | January 16th 2012 @ 8:10am | Report comment
Spiro, you can never make decisions based on the notion of your team won’t be able to succeed.
If Warner had fallen early in his innings, what’s to say that one of the middle order wouldn’t have rescued us? Cricket is about living the moment, and the mindset of Ricky Ponting coming in 2/210 would be different if he came at 2/21. When he failed in one, he may have succeeded in another. Who knows.
All you can do is make the best decisions based on the conditions presented to you. Warner definitely did that, and Clarke was right to send India in, because India had previously shown they were not comfortable against Australia’s quicks.
Personally, I feel this may have been one Test match where the toss wouldn’t have made much difference in the final outcome, for the conditions always had something for the bowlers.
However, Warner, Cowan and Kohli showed how good the pitch was once you got in. I think the fact 19 other players didn’t says more for the dearth of survival technique than anything else…
January 16th 2012 @ 5:05pm
BennO said | January 16th 2012 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
I agree. Nice post.
January 16th 2012 @ 8:11am
B-Rock said | January 16th 2012 @ 8:11am | Report comment
Clarkes decision was all about confidence – he had confidence in the team to execute the plan, particularly the quicks.
The amount of confidence the Australian team is displaying at the moment (in all parts of the game) is the major difference between the teams, which doesnt show up on the scorecard
A bit early to be earmarking Clarke for captaincy greatness – lets give him at least a couple of seasons and an ashes series before we all get too excited.
January 16th 2012 @ 1:13pm
nafe said | January 16th 2012 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
thankyou B-Rock for stating that the difference between the teams is essentially a mental one. The attitude difference between the teams is striking. the Indians slow running between the wickets, and lethargic in the field. the aussies pushing hard for twos and threes and taking their chances in the field with sharp fielding. there is a gulf between the teams in this respect. it might be the honeymoon period with a change of captain & coaching set-up, but regardless its hard to argue with. and hate to use a cliche but: a champion team will always beat a team of champions, something that is being beautifully illustrated in this series!
January 16th 2012 @ 8:32am
B.A Sports said | January 16th 2012 @ 8:32am | Report comment
Ok, so if we run (your) theory that only Warner saved Clarke, what happens if Aus bat first? In more difficult conditions to bat on the first morning, they could have been even worse off!
They were playing against a team without a spin bowler, allowing them to bowl fourth wasn’t going to be a problem. He would have been planning on batting day 2 and 3, when it was easiest, and worst case if they were batting on the last day he had two experienced locals (all be it one seriously out of form) in his Top 6. The decision seemed sound and was vindicated even if the way they won was probably unexpected.
January 16th 2012 @ 9:27am
jameswm said | January 16th 2012 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Spiro
You have to get it out of your head that bowling first in Hobart was the wrong decision. In fact it was proven right by the pitch conditions throughout the match. The wicket was at its toughest on the first day, so why bat on it then?
Australia (in SA recently) and many other teams recently have proven that with improved wickets that deteriorate less, chasing on the 4th innings is not that big a deal. We only lost in Hobart because of two insipid batting displays – not because we wrongly elected to bowl, and certainly not because NZ’s tailenders flayed 30 late runs in the 3rd innings.
Runs on the baord aint what they used to be.
January 16th 2012 @ 8:28pm
Seiran said | January 16th 2012 @ 8:28pm | Report comment
I agree jameswm. Clarke was right to send India in first and I reckon he would have been quite happy about losing the toss in Sydney and getting to bowl first too. He may even have been planning on sending India in to bat in Sydney if he won the toss.
The pitch on the first days of all the tests this summer have been dogs, and India have clearly struggled to deal with them. Much like Aus struggled to bat on them against England.
January 16th 2012 @ 9:36am
Chris said | January 16th 2012 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Even blind freddie can see that (right now anyway), Australia’s strength is in its bowling. And the Indian batsmen have proven over the past year or so that they are VERY fragile when playing overseas. So, Clarke took those two pieces of information and came up with the logical conclusion – pit his strength against the Indian weakness.As it turns out, logic (and bowling ability) won out.
January 16th 2012 @ 1:22pm
Disco said | January 16th 2012 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
Yes, exactly. Australia’s bowlers had an edge on India’s top order coming out of Sydney, so why not exploit that if the conditions suit bowling anyhow?
January 16th 2012 @ 9:45am
Harry said | January 16th 2012 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Interested to read in today’s paper that Clarke was exhausted going into the game – not surprising, batting for the best part of two days will do that to you … and I think the old boys Hussey and Ponting were probably in the same boat. I don’t think people acknowledge the physical toll batting for long periods in heat against test match attacks takes. In that respect Clarke was lucky that Warner and Cowan came off with the 200 run opening stand. I don’t think the middle order could have been relied on to get big scores again if Australia had lost early wickets.
Long way to go for Clarke but there has been much to like about his captaincy this series – he’s rotated his bowlers imaginatively and sensibly, his Sydney declaration was spot on, he was right to insert the Oppo here, and of course a triple century to lead the way on Sydney gave his bowlers the luxury of virtually unlimited time and runs to bowl India out a second time on what was a pretty good batting strip. He’s still to be tested in this series when things don’t go well but its certainly been the making of him. Win the Ashes back, no more embarassing slipups and beat India in India will make him a great captain, but we are still some time away from that. He and Australian cricket needs at least one more 20 something batsman to step up and score consistently in tests – Khawaja, Lynn, Phil Hughes are possibilities. Who else? And another spin option to the highly promising Lyons.
January 16th 2012 @ 10:47am
jameswm said | January 16th 2012 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Peter Nevill averages 49 in FC games, including about 60 this season. He’s 26. He’s probably close to as good a batting prospect as Lynn etc.
The remaining Shield games will be fascinating, esp if Haddin fails again in Adelaide or drops another dolly. The NSW conspiracy could live on, though Nevill is originally a Victorian.
Young Burns at Qld did well in the first half of the Shield season and Tom Cooper is the other specialist bat doing well.
Our next best spinner (who isn’t retired) is Hauritz, but they might shy away from him. Seriously though – how good have Warnie, Magilla and Hoggie been in the BBL? Some of the younger batsmen don’t have a clue.
January 16th 2012 @ 11:02am
Matt F said | January 16th 2012 @ 11:02am | Report comment
If they’re going to persist with Haddin until Paine is fully fit again, or if he is ever fully fit again, then maybe we need to consider the likes of Wade and Nevill as purely batsmen? Looking at their Shield records so far, you’d have to think that they’d be much higher up the pecking order if they weren’t fighting for just the one spot. Sangakara and McCullum seem to do OK despite not keeping at test level anymore.
January 16th 2012 @ 11:29am
jameswm said | January 16th 2012 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Matt I think Haddin will stay in for the 4th test (he’s v-c), and if he does bugger all there, and Wade or Nevill has a whopping 2nd half of the Shield comp, there will be a big call for one of them to replace him.
Clarke’s comments are typical of a captain believing in his players, but a classic example of why he should not be a selector. The captain naturally favours the incumbents (his mates).
January 16th 2012 @ 11:39am
Matt F said | January 16th 2012 @ 11:39am | Report comment
No doubt Haddin will stay for the 4th test. You’re right that a big end to the season for Wade/Nevill will mount heaps of pressure on Haddin, especially if he fails in the tri-series as well.
January 16th 2012 @ 1:35pm
Disco said | January 16th 2012 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
A problem compounded by the coach/selector playing favourites too.
January 16th 2012 @ 2:13pm
Matt F said | January 16th 2012 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
The coach and captain, no matter who they are, will always have an inherent bias to incumbent players because they are familiar with them and they are more of a “known quanitity.” because they spend so much time with the national team, and less and less time in domestic cricket, they will have barely had a chance to see any potential test candidates in action. It’s the main reason (one of many really) why the captain/coach shouldn’t be selectors. How can we seriously expect Michael Clarke to make an educated judgement on whether Wade is better then Haddin when he would have barely seen Wade play?
January 16th 2012 @ 2:20pm
jameswm said | January 16th 2012 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
…and Haddin’s one of his best mates…
January 16th 2012 @ 11:56am
Harry said | January 16th 2012 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Really hope the selectors pay close attention to form in the remaining shield games when selecting the touring party for the West Indies. Also hope they leave Haddin at least behind, I have low expectations they’ll tap Ricky or Hussey on the shoulder and say its time.
January 16th 2012 @ 1:27pm
Disco said | January 16th 2012 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
I’m really looking forward to the Shield’s resumption and particularly keen to see if anyone can put to bed the defence of Ponting’s position that no-one else id “banging the door down”. Outside of those two young Queenslanders, you’d imagine Cooper would be considered if he can piece together a couple more tons this season; Khawaja, obviously. I suppose the performance of young players in the ODI tri-series (perhaps the likes of M Marsh, Christian and Faulkner will feature there) will also have a bearing on the future Test middle-order.
January 16th 2012 @ 7:44pm
jamesb said | January 16th 2012 @ 7:44pm | Report comment
jameswm
i’m glad you mentioned Joe Burns. So far he has a good start to his first class career, where he is averaging 47 in 9 games. And his a number 3.
His team mate Chris Lynn has had an injury plague start to his season where he’s averaging in the twenties, which doesn’t reflect his ability. ATM Lynn is averaging 42 in 15 games, but injuries have halted his progress.
Glenn Maxwell from Victoria has played 9 matches with an average of 47 and also taken 16 wickets as well. handy cricketer.
Give those guys a year or two and I reckon they’ll be banging on the door for selection.
January 16th 2012 @ 9:45am
Matt F said | January 16th 2012 @ 9:45am | Report comment
I think you’re placing too much emphasis on the outcome of the toss. Pitches don’t deteriorate as much as they used to so batting on the 5th day is no longer the mine field that it used to be, though it’s still not wthout its challenges. Of course, the fact that no test this summer has even gone to a 5th day would render pitch deterioration irrelevant anyway.
I’m not a fan of taking out Warner’s score in an attempt to back up your arguement. Of course, had Warner gotten out early then we probably would have scored less, but by that logic, if Ponting kept out the ball that bowled him he might have scored 200 and we would have declared with over 600 on the board. If Hilfenhaus was hit by a car on the morning of the 1st day he wouldn’t have played and India may well have batted better!
We didn’t lose to NZ because we bowled first, we lost to them because our middle order collapsed. Keep in mind that was only the 4th day. Likewise we didn’t necessarily win in Perth because we won the toss and bowled. The way there series is going we probably would have won the match if we’d batted first. Though the fact that both teams played 4 quicks must tell you that both were going to bowl first if given the chance.
January 16th 2012 @ 11:31am
jameswm said | January 16th 2012 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Matt, Dhoni said as much after being sent in.
January 16th 2012 @ 11:42am
Brendon said | January 16th 2012 @ 11:42am | Report comment
The fact that so many teams batting 2nd have chased high scores in the past 10-12 years backs up your first point. South Africa chased 414 at the WACA 3 years ago but they were only 4 wickets down and could have chased down 600+ easily if that was the target.
Agreed on the NZ Hobart test. This attitude that when you bowl first and lose its ALL because you bowled first but when you bat first and lose the decision to bat first had nothing to do with the loss. Selective information choices.
Thankfully Australian cricket is emerging from its cocoon. Its only natural when you have great success to forever hold and cling to the ideas that brought you that success – even if those ideas are outdated and inadequate.
Just like from the late 70′s through the 80′s Australian sport was dragged into the professional era kicking and screaming like a petulant child. Australia is an extremely conservative country and sport is the bastion and symbol of the past and people are hostile to new ideas and ways of doing things. Thats why Australia tends to have extreme highs and lows in sport.
January 16th 2012 @ 12:36pm
Who Needs Melon said | January 16th 2012 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
Good point. I think the benefit of the toss (in a lot of sports) is more pyschological than anything else, making the loser think “oh no, they’ve MADE me do X, there must be some reason why X is bad”… even though they may have decided to do X themselves if they’d won the toss anyway.
January 16th 2012 @ 11:05am
mushi said | January 16th 2012 @ 11:05am | Report comment
This argument holds less water than a sieve, in other related news it is “clear” that I have $10m of your money trapped in Nigeria I just need $1000 to get it out!
- For starters he subtracts Warner but doesn’t actually put another batsman back in. We still get 10 wickets right?
- If you’re going to cherry picked the best score why not also see if that argument could be applied to the other side and say that the only danger to Clarke’s strategy was Kholi
- Why is it so fortunate that Clarke’s strategy was dependent on the quality of his team (the pairing of complementary batsmen as openers apparently is fortunate). I’m assuming (I know this may be a flawed assumption) that Clarke was at least vaguely aware of 10 other blokes in his side and adopted an approach that would take into account his own team’s ability to execute.
- When lamenting his ill informed decision in Tasmania why not make a similar argument that but for the failure of one Australian Batsman (Cowan for Hughes) or the subtraction of the other teams best contributor (Brownlie) he would have won the test?
So in short Clarke got “bailed” out (and by bailed out I mean won by an innings and 37 runs inside three days so real touch and go stuff here) by his openers scoring runs and his bowlers executing a plan in the conditions he selected. Hmm sounds like a straight up and down strategy for a test match.
January 16th 2012 @ 12:01pm
Tock said | January 16th 2012 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
Spiro
While I generally enjoy reading your articles I think you need to be more circumspect with your meanderings concerning cricket. There is an underlying negativity towards Michael Clarke in this article that is unnecessary.
It’s interesting to note that conventional wisdom suggests that you always bat first yet this is not supported by statistics as was pointed out by Steve Waugh a number of years ago. The win loss ratio is roughly 50-50 whether you bat or you bowl. What is crucial if you bat second is that you bat well otherwise the game will be lost. However if you bat very well the other team will be under enormous pressure to chase runs just to make you bat again, you gain the advantage of the freshness of the wicket and what moisture is available by bowling first and and when the wicket is at its best on days two and three is when you will be batting. If you can convert this sadvantage the test match is yours every time.
Michael Clarke’s captaincy has been a breath of fresh air to the Australian team although, as Ian Chappell noted of his own captaincy, it helps to have good bowlers.
January 16th 2012 @ 12:14pm
K Jin said | January 16th 2012 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Why is Steve Waugh never mentioned in Spiro’s great captains list,even though his record puts the others records in the shade. Oh yeah because the name in the middle of the list once said ‘Steve Waugh was not the best cricketer in his family’,gives the author time and talking points.
January 16th 2012 @ 2:29pm
Chris said | January 16th 2012 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
Because I could have captained Australia with the team he had and still won. Note that Bradman wasn’t there either.
I’d probably add Allan Border to that list. He had crappy teams (comparatively) for much of the time that he captained, but he was generally able to get those players to perform at their best.
January 16th 2012 @ 2:58pm
jeznez said | January 16th 2012 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
Agree Chris – I think the three mentioned plus Border are the standouts.
January 16th 2012 @ 4:19pm
jameswm said | January 16th 2012 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
Guys just because SWaugh had a good team around him doesn’t mean he wasn’t a good captain.
Did he make them and the team better by being their captain? He probably did.
January 16th 2012 @ 4:34pm
Chris of Vic said | January 16th 2012 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
Actually Chris, I doubt your first point. Both Hayden and Langer were retreads who other captains and selectors had discarded as not being test standard. Ian Chappel carped on at every opportunity to get rid of Langer even when scoring 100′s. Damien Martyn was another retread who made a solid comeback with S.Waugh. Darren Lehman, again a Waugh insistence who only retired to give Clarke a go. There are other examples.
What S Waugh was able to do was instill a belief in players to play their own game, that he personally believed in them and had his full backing. He also insisted on high skills and to practise the same – always. Simple rules, build partnerships, batting and bowling, look for personalities that could achieve this. By building a depth of solid players with self belief, who could be relied on to do the job, it allowed Gilchist, Warne, McGrath and Ponting to do what they did best. And this allowed Waugh to do what he did best, be ruthless and drive home an advantage. Ruthlessness that was born out of the dark days in the mid 80′s when Waugh (as the only member left of that era) new what it was like to be the World’s easy beats and having the bloody mindedness not to ever let that happen again while he was playing.
The Australian team lifted off the canvas under Border, became world class under Taylor, but Waugh took it to a whole new level. That’s why Steve will always top my list of best Captains of the past 40 years (followed by Border).
January 17th 2012 @ 1:11pm
jeznez said | January 17th 2012 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Steve Waugh is one of my favourite players of all time but when judged as a captain I think he was a little one dimensional with his all out attack. I was never as confident with him that he had other plans to try and get wickets when managing his team in the field as compared for instance to Taylor.
CoV you talk about the performance of retreads and you are right there were some phenomenal cricketers who had previously failed who came back strongly. Just look at the general strength of the team in that period and I have trouble detecting if it was the captain doing something or just the culmination of a fantastic period for Aussie cricket.
If you look at the ICC all time player rankings (I know some people don’t like this list but I’m just trying to demonstrate the quality of players that were in the squad through this period).
Batsmen with all time ICC ranking –
3. Ponting
10. Hayden
17. Hussey
28. S.Waugh
45 Gilchrist
55. Clarke
60. Martyn
Bowling, again with all time ICC ranking:
5. McGrath
15. Warne
38. Clarke
65. Johnson
70. Gillespie
71. Lee
Pretty much the only guys from that period not named are Langer and Boof – we were very lucky to see all those blokes running around through the same period.