The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Question marks remain over Australia's batting, and the analysis of it

30th November, 2015
Advertisement
Steven Smith continued his amazing form in India. (AFP PHOTO / GREG WOOD)
Expert
30th November, 2015
141
2940 Reads

The historic day-night Test at Adelaide Oval was absolutely fantastic. Despite only lasting three days, the game generated plenty of excitement, discussion and drama.

The match itself was a great advertisement for Test cricket, and the innovative elements surrounding it made it even more of a spectacle.

Everyone involved – administrators, players, media and fans – deserves a pat on the back for not just making it happen, but for making it a success.

Though Australia’s new-look team will be happy in winning the three-match series 2-0, there were a number of concerns they need to address.

The retirement of Mitchell Johnson and a foot injury to Mitchell Starc will once again test the depth in Australia’s fast bowling ranks.

Meanwhile, the fielding will need to improve. A number of catches were dropped in the series, and the general ground fielding wasn’t quite up to the level the team would expect of itself.

In a related point, having a dedicated 12th man – rather than a masseuse – is probably something that needs to be looked at.

However, the batting is where I’d like to concentrate my attention.

Advertisement

It may seem crazy to nominate runs as an area of concern, considering Australia declared in their first four innings of the series.

They knocked up scores of 4-556, 4-264, 9-559 and 7-385, before the somewhat difficult conditions in Adelaide, which saw them all out of 224 in the first innings, before notching 7-187 in the second.

Yet were the conditions in Adelaide really all that difficult? Though it certainly takes two teams to tango, was that really a three-day pitch?

Peter Nevill admitted the ball was easy to see, and most of Australia’s struggles came during the day sessions, so we can rule out the pink ball and the supposed tricky nighttime batting as causes for Australia’s low scores.

Rather, it was a seaming and swinging ball that presented Australia with issues – two things a Test batsman shouldn’t really be too nervous or uncomfortable about.

Unless you’d like to simply call it bad batting, it would seem a moving ball remains the Australian batting line-up’s Achilles Heel.

Which brings us to one of the most overused words in cricket: technique. More specifically, the fact that Australia’s batsmen have some technical issues to iron out, or need to better apply the techniques they have.

Advertisement

During the Adelaide Test, the Channel Nine commentators often dissected the Australian batsmen’s dismissals, and analysed the particular shot in question.

It often highlighted an angled bat, a head not over the ball, feet not moving to the pitch of the ball, playing at a ball way out in front of the pads, hard hands, etc, etc.

When a batsman is out, you’d expect it to be because of some type of error they made, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that analysis highlighted the above reasons for batsmen making their way back to the pavilion.

Personally, I love seeing these technical breakdowns of a batsman’s dismissal. What’s frustrating is the inconsistency in the assessment of a player’s overall innings.

Time and time again, a batsman would be savaged for how they were dismissed; yet the exact same shot by another player (or even the same batsman) would be commended if it led to a boundary or runs.

There does appear to be a shallowness of thinking around what’s a good shot and what’s a bad shot. The issue here is judging a shot solely on the result, rather than analysis of the mechanics of the shot.

It’s an issue because in Test cricket occupying the crease and batting for long periods is vital. That’s hard to do if you continuously make mistakes with the bat in your hands. Moreover, you’ll be found out – as many have – if you have a suspect technique.

Advertisement

That’s why it’s vital Australian batsmen are judged on every single shot they play – not just the ones that lead to their undoing – and irrespective of whether shots went for four or not.

Case in point: after being dropped by Mitchell Santner the previous ball he faced – off a truly horrible ‘shot’ that was more of a heave – Steve Smith creamed a ball to the cover boundary. Michael Slater described it as a great shot, but it really wasn’t. Smith’s feet barely moved as he threw the bat at a wide delivery.

It was a fantastic piece of hand-eye coordination, but not necessarily a good Test match cricket shot.

If you’re going to judge a shot on the results only, fine, it was four ‘glorious’ runs. But it was the type of shot that will see you in the sheds more often than not.

One of the features of Smith’s game during his run-fest last summer was his leaving, and it’s often said you can tell how good a cricketer is by his leaves, especially in Test cricket. In many ways, that’s the pure definition of “not judging a shot by its results”.

On good batting decks, like we saw in Brisbane and Perth, a batsman can attempt to play at every ball, and score freely. On wickets or conditions where the ball moves around a little bit, batsmen need to be a little more circumspect.

If Australia have designs on being the undisputed number one Test-playing nation, their batsmen need to be effective and successful all around the globe, on all types of decks, in all conditions.

Advertisement

That starts with harsh analysis and assessment on all the shots they play, not just the ones they get out on.

close