In the aftermath of Australia being handed an eight wicket drubbing in the first Test, a simple question has to be asked; is it possible for any team to go to India and win a series with just one recognised spin bowler in the team?
It seems highly unlikely.
England thought that it may be possible late in 2012 and attempted to use just Graham Swann in the first match of the series. After a heavy loss in the first Test, Monty Panesar joined Swann in the team.
Panesar took seventeen wickets in the next three Tests of the four match series (along with Swann’s twenty for the series) and England went on to win the series.
Now Australia faces a similar predicament.
After losing the first Test with only Nathan Lyon as a front line spin option they find themselves well on the back foot.
The Test was heavily dominated by spin with spinners taking all twenty wickets for India. In fact, India used spin bowlers for 193 of the 226 overs they bowled during the match.
In contrast, Nathan Lyon was left to shoulder Australia’s spin load virtually without an ally.
Lyon bowled 52.3 of Australia’s 166 overs. Part time tweakers Michael Clarke and David Warner bowled just eleven overs between them.
Lyon’s figures (particularly his economy rate) didn’t exactly set the world on fire. The fact that he is alone as a specialist spin option means that if things aren’t going well, there is no “Plan B” in terms of spin.
The stupendous début of Moises Henriques will guarantee him a spot in the second Test squad and he offers a third quicker option should Australia select two main pace bowlers.
Should Australia follow England’s lead? Obviously Australia doesn’t currently have two spin bowlers in the same class as Swann and Panesar but would another be better than three pace bowlers plus a medium pacer?
If so, who do they turn to?
Xavier Doherty was picked in the touring squad and would seemingly be next cab off the rank.
Doherty is more known for his one day cricket prowess but does have Test experience (two Tests). Doherty also has a reputation for being frugal and not leaking too many runs which may provide a great foil for Lyon.
Michael Beer had a big domestic Big Bash season which is a far cry from Test cricket.
Like Doherty, Beer is a veteran of two Tests and also a reasonably tight bowler. Unfortunately an injured shoulder has ruled him out of calculations.
Adam Zampa is a young up and coming leg spinner who has taken ten wickets in just three first class matches at 23.90. To select him for this tour would be absolutely hurling him in at the deep end.
Ashton Agar is also a precocious youngster who, at nineteen years of age, has started his career in an imperious fashion.
Agar has fifteen wickets in just four first class outings at 29.80. Again, it is highly unlikely that throwing him to the lions in India is something he is ready for just yet.
The ever reliable Nathan Hauritz could well be the forgotten man in the scenario.
A relative veteran of 17 Tests, Hauritz has taken 63 wickets at 34.98 and harbours a plethora of experience. Possibly not the worst choice, but a choice that selectors are unlikely to make.
Regardless of which second specialist spinner is selected, the elephant in the room appears that someone has to be.
Selectors need to bite the bullet and admit they got it wrong in the first Test.
England has given Australia a blueprint on how to beat India and were quick to correct their own selection misgivings. Perhaps that sort of thing is one of the reasons they’re the number one Test team in the world.
Let’s hope that the Australian selectors are humble enough to do the same rather than bury their heads in the sand.
matt h
Guest
"is it possible for any team to go to India and win a series with just one recognised spin bowler in the team?". Yes - Australia did it in 2004. West Indies in the 80's. It is possible. Is it likely? No. But then we get the same answer for "is it likely for Australia to win a test series in India". No we've done it twice in 50 years. If Henriques did not exist I would stick with 3 pace plus 1 spinner, but given he is a servicable third seamer, then Doherty, as the selector's choice of next best spinner, should play.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
The reason England won wasn't due to them playing two spinners. It was the dreadful form of R Ashwin. He was bowling all sorts. Carrom balls, leg breaks, top spinners but very few off breaks. If you look back at the Chennai Test, he stopped all the rubbish and just bowled the big turning off break. With the likeliness of Ojha returning in Hyderabad, the job just got that but harder for us.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
"In the aftermath of Australia being handed an eight wicket drubbing in the first Test, a simple question has to be asked; is it possible for any team to go to India and win a series with just one recognised spin bowler in the team? It seems highly unlikely." Australia's only series win in India in the last 40 years or so came exactly that way. Admittedly that spinner was Warne on his only good tour of India, and the pace attack included McGrath. I think its fair to say the gap between our spinners then and now is even greater that the gap in the pace attack at the same times. The best Australian bowler in the first Test was Pattinson. The best spinner Australia has available bowled alright, but got a poor return because the Indians play spin very well. Doherty is no Monty, Maxwell and Smith aren't even Doherty equivalents with the ball. Going by that, our best chance is by relying on pace despite the conditions.
AndyMack
Guest
Surely the idea of picking Moises as the allrounder gave us the freedom to pick another spinner as a front line bowler. We we didnt exercise that freedom is beyond me. Even England in their first test picked Patel as their #6 allrounder. Still lost but closer to the ide then we had.