Australia can’t say they weren’t warned. Long before this 2013 Border/Gavaskar Test series commenced, pundits were pointing out the visitors needed to be wary of the spin threat – ‘trial by spin’ was a common refrain.
The plans of the hosts were never a secret; cricket strategy – except, it could be argued, for the Bodyline series – never really is. Playing in India, opponents know they will be confronted by a battery of spinners on turning pitches and a line of gluttonous batsmen seasoned in such conditions.
Few teams have managed to overcome this searching and unfamiliar examination – you can prepare for a coming hardship but it can still be so unremitting as to overpower you.
Of the 133 overs of the Australian first innings only 30 were bowled by the seamers, and the visiting batsmen didn’t face an over of pace in their second innings until Ishant Sharma came on to deliver the 76th over.
For reasons best known to them, Australia chose to go into a Test match on a surface they knew would turn, against opponents staffed with three slow bowlers, with only one spinner in their XI, despite having another in the squad.
Xavier Doherty did not set the world on fire when he got the opportunity during the 2010/11 Ashes, but if he is good enough to tour then he has to be good enough to play in some of the friendliest conditions he might encounter in his career.
And as former United States Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld infamously said, “you go to war with the army you have.”
This is not to say that Australia would have won or done better had he played at Chennai. But Mitchell Starc and Peter Siddle took a single wicket between them for 141 runs in the first innings. Doherty could hardly have done any worse.
Last November, England made the egregious error of going into the first Test at Ahmedabad with Graham Swann as the only spinner, leaving Monty Panesar on the sidelines. Chastened by a nine-wicket defeat, they inserted him for the Test at Mumbai and won the game by ten wickets.
It is a lesson Australia should make sure they learn. It doesn’t mean they will win the second Test in Hyderabad, but including the left-arm spinner might just improve their chances. It has to be worth a try.
Apart from captain Michael Clarke and all-rounder Moises Henriques, no Australian batsman suggested any kind of longevity at the crease.
David Warner scratched out 59 in the first innings but could have fallen to a large number of the 93 balls he eventually faced.
Only the very gifted are able to dance to spin bowling’s tune like Clarke and only the very confident would dare try, but the other batsmen need to work out a better approach, and Henriques’ less mobile but assertive method might be worth emulating.
The Australians should also consider whether it would not serve the team better for their captain and best batsman to move higher up the order.
Clarke currently occupies the number five spot and might understandably be reluctant to move in view of the mountain of runs he has gathered from that position. But operating from one slot higher, or maybe even from number three for the rest of this series, could possibly allow him to have a bigger say in the direction of his side’s innings.
Of course Australia could do everything suggested here and still lose the remaining three matches. And it will not necessarily be that India has the better team, only that it had the more effective weapons in the prevailing conditions; much like Australia did with their hotter pace on high bouncing surfaces when India last visited.
And just like the hosts dished out a drubbing then, India will be looking to administer a clean-sweep this time round.
Sydney Kiwi
Guest
Ridiculous that Patterson won't be playing, he might be good but he's made of glass. So Bird and Patterson are leaving. Johnson in for Patterson as he is a similar type of bowler, then its tricky I would rather Siddle than Starc I'm sure he will come right in the next game. Then Doherty and Lyon. Really hoping they will send SOK back-bowler for bowler or Haddin could argue as replacement for Watson and rotate out Wade to give him a rest- he proberly needs one the most out of everyone. He's played in every game so far this summer, some way up the order as a specialist batsman. Clarke should move to at 4 if not 3 as mentioned above India are pretty much opening with spin anyway. So how about this team? Watson-Hughes-Clarke-Kahwaja-Warner-Henriques-Haddin-SOK-Johnson-Siddle-Doherty. PLENTY of batting Clarke can support either opener if there is an early wicket, Warner down the order so he can bowl more, Clarke needs a break from bowling he cant risk getting injured he is too important. Basically bat right down to the bottom. The only problem is Johnson is the only real strike weapon so maybe sub in Starc instead of Siddle. Other wise it relies on the two spinners getting much more of the wickets which is what you would expect. Haddin would give some good batting via spin to support the tail end and hopefully take more chances via the spinners.
marees
Guest
on the evidence of the first test, Watto was the only top4 batsman who looked assured while dealing with spinners. He still keeps finding daft ways to get out, but as long as he is in, he did look composed.
MrKistic
Guest
Just plunge that front foot forward... in line with the stumps and let the ball hit it... oh wait, we don't want him to do that. Tell me, if Watto is so capable of the big scores, why does he only have two centuries to his name?
MrKistic
Guest
This is the same Watson everyone claims *must* open because he's so good against the new ball being delivered fast? At the same time you want Clarke to open because he's so good against spin? Uh huh.
Jake
Guest
Henriques at 4 and Johnson at 6......??? Wow! Glad your not picking the team.
pope paul v11
Guest
Well Clarke has spoken and says he's not movin'. He's also cagey about 2 spinners. I can't believe Patto won't play the next match. Can't he just relax for the next couple of days? The batting was a pretty ordinary, and Clarke was none to pleased. They might name Khawaja in the 12 and make a late call. Same with Doherty. Johnners prob come in for Starc.
John Edgar
Guest
I would add Khawaja to that list, if he is given proper run he can be a big run scorer for us too.
Whiteline
Guest
James, I think the reason people are suggesting (and it's only a suggestion!) that Clarke bats 3 is because we are in India and he needs to get in there as early as possible as he's the best player of spin. In regards to Wade, he's an ordinary sweeper. He gets away with it occasionally but in the main he is too high and picks poor lengths and lines.
John Edgar
Guest
With a bit of twist we have Watson, Warner, Hughes, Clarke, Khawaja, Henrique, Wade, Pattinso, Siddle, Lyon, Dohery and that's a match winning team.
John Edgar
Guest
Agree 100%
Jaiden Florimo
Roar Rookie
looks better to me too. you are correct.
Jaiden Florimo
Roar Rookie
dont run anyone out...lol..!!
Jaiden Florimo
Roar Rookie
pattinson in for johnson. johnson was only there to keep my bet going but we need to beat india so the bet can wait a bit.
James
Guest
yeah and those quicks and spinner were? plus the 7 other batsmen in the team were pretty decent too. so yes it has been done before by a freak of team that got insanely lucky by having 3 or 4 of the all time greats alive and playing at the same time, take the 2004 australia team and this team and the top 11 players are from the 2004 team.
dcnz
Guest
What the Aussie team needs to focus on is how do they get BIG scores, and create the best environment for players to get big tons... the only players capable of that currently are; Warner - play aggro from ball one and take his chances. Watto - just plunge that front foot forward and thwack everything to cow corner and please don't run anyone out. Phil Hughes - due a big score, some luck, and i like his unconventional style. will have to work out how to play spin tho. oops. Clarke - some one has to stay around with him so he needs to bat at four. Wade - if he ditches the slog sweep....
marees
Guest
VVS Laxman batted at 3 when he made 284*. This was the second innings. In the first attempt he came at 5/6 and made 50*. Imagine if he had repeated the same position in second innings?
marees
Guest
the main issue, I was trying to address was that, in India big first innings totals win matches. 380 is never enough in an Indian flatbed. Given the situation that even Pattinson can only be unleashed sparingly, Australa have no choice but to beef-up their batting and a top4 of Clarke/Watson/Warner/Henriques is what may be needed for that 500 in first innings I think.
Garfield Robinson
Guest
Are you batting Pattinson at 5 or are you dropping him?
Jaiden Florimo
Roar Rookie
Clarke needs to bat at number 4. The line up should be: Warner Watson Hughes Clarke someone else touring Henriques Wicket keper Siddle Johnson (only cause i have him in a bet to take more career wickets than siddle) lyon left arm orthodox dud
matt h
Guest
Border and Steve Waugh batted at 5 as well. And Border carried his team possibly more than any player in history. Kallis has mostly batted at 4. Chanderpaul comes in at 5. Pieterson has rarely batted at 3. So really we are mainly talking about Ponting and the Don. So it really is personal preference. This "best player bats at three" is crap. I suspect it was dreamt up by Ian Chappell to explain why he was a better bat than his brother who generally came in at 4 after him (and made more runs)