On the odd occasion I get to have a game of golf, I usually play with my Dad at his home track (Whittlebury Park, very good if you ever get the chance).
The second hole on one of the club’s three nine-hole courses is a relatively short par four that lends itself to a mid to long iron and a sand wedge.
Every now and then, however, if everything is in your favour, it is just about drivable but it often makes for tricky chip and it generally pays to play the conditions for what they are.
That perhaps isn’t the greatest example but the principle of what is about to be offered is more or less the same.
Frankly, the decision to go into the Chennai Test with just the one recognised spinner was either startlingly naïve or plain idiotic.
A powder-dry surface that couldn’t have been any more geared towards those of a slower-bowling persuasion needed, actually demanded, that a pair of spinners were selected. Yet the Australian brains trust put rational reasoning to one side and instead opted for its cousin, who should not have been listened to.
With a good dose of hindsight, which every review has the benefit of, the outcome of the contest could have been very different if a few factors had played out in alternative fashion.
At 8-406, just 26 runs in the ascendancy, the first innings lead garnered by the hosts could have been substantially less than the 192 that materialised.
A little bit more circumspection, as shown by the impressive Moises Henriques, by the rest of the order could well have produced a better score first up and a more stubborn effort the second time around.
And had Nathan Lyon been at the races then the Indians would have had more difficulty in building such an impregnable position.
But all of this doesn’t detract from the obvious mistake that Michael Clarke and Mickey Arthur made prior to taking the field.
At the time it would have seemed like the right choice to take, of course it would, and every coach in every team sport will have had similar experiences, but next to nothing pointed to what they came up with in this instance.
This kind of stubbornness – no spinner on an Oval dustbowl in 2009 springs to mind all too readily – should be a thing of the past and if either Glenn Maxwell or Xavier Doherty weren’t considered to be up to it last week then they shouldn’t be on the sub-continent at all.
Test standard or not, they are in India for a reason and need to be trusted to do what they are there for.
In such arid conditions, spin has a greater chance of consistently succeeding than seam and the logic that if the third seamer is superior to the second spinner then he should be preferred is plain daft.
On the whole, Peter Siddle or Mitchell Starc are comfortably better than either Maxwell or Doherty but one of the latter has to be given his head and if the same tactics are used again then it is tantamount to running with your ankles tied.
You’ve got what you’ve got and if Australia don’t invest some faith in their spin they’ve got next to no chance of clawing their way back into the series.
Driver or long iron?
sheek
Roar Guru
Hi AD, Yes, I see Maxwell & Doherty are in for Starc & Lyon. Well, we're going to find out if Maxwell & Doherty can bowl at test level, or whether they've been included purely for the sake of having two spinners.
Renegade
Guest
“Glenn Maxwell or Xavier Doherty weren’t considered to be up to it last week then they shouldn’t be on the sub-continent at all” They are both playing in the second test..
Atawhai Drive
Guest
Sheek, pic running on Twitter of Maxwell wearing baggy green No 433. He's in. Doherty must be in too. They wouldn't pick two RH offies. Tough on Lyon, although he must be battle-scared from Chennai.
sheek
Roar Guru
Hindsight is a wonderful thing & then there's this underlying assumption if either or both Maxwell & Doherty had played, they would have taken enough wickets cheaply for us to win the game. Where's the evidence of this? Playing a spinner "just because" we should isn't sufficient an argument. While I can understand the angst, it's not as if we are deliberating to play MacGill alongside Warne. We simply don't have those spinning options available to us at present. In the tour game against India A, it was the spinners who took the wickets, but Doherty & Agar were also quite expensive, Doherty taking 3/108 off 24 & Agar 3/107 off 20. Lyon was more circumspect with 2/113 off 30. This was a three day game & the Indian batsmen took their liberties, also giving chances. The Aussie selectors decided that taking either Doherty or Agar into a five day test against India's best batting lineup whereby they wouldn't be in any hurry to push the score along, might be too burdensome for either player. Regrettably, Doherty in his few opportunities for Australia has not demonstrated himself to be anything out of the ordinary. Even Warne, in his first half a dozen tests, demonstrated the possibility of future greatness. Doherty hasn't. I hear the arguments for playing a spinner. For a long time I've been an advocate of playing a spinner in a test. Cricket still needs spinners. But I no longer see the point of selecting a spinner if they're not up to the mark. Meanwhile, Cricket Australia should give themselves continuos uppercuts until they knock themselves out for allowing this situation - a dearth of quality spinners - to occur.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
"Glenn Maxwell or Xavier Doherty weren’t considered to be up to it last week then they shouldn’t be on the sub-continent at all" That's the problem. The selectors backed themselves into this hole when they picked the original squad. They didn;t include a second playable spinner. Given the squad they chose, under no circumstance can they afford to play two spinners. Indian batsmen face better than we can offer, on similar conditons at domestic level. As much as conditions favour the spinners, the Australian spin option are so bad that the pace attack provides more hope (not much, but more than the spin options). Add to that a keeper who is bad as any in Test history to spin, and there really is no choice but to keep playing the quicks.
pope paul v11
Guest
Wade will prob play anyway but if not I'd bring in Khawaja. Yep Doh should play for Starc or Siddle but apparently that won't happen either.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
Wade has broken his cheek, if Hughes keeps get Maxwelk in a 7. Axed Starc for Doherty.
Vicboy
Guest
Can't agree. The selectors would have picked Maxwell, leaving Moses out. Our best performed bowler was a quick anyway! Your golfing analogy is a good one. Can't make the green in one? Play to your strengths! Why over swing and end up in the rough. England's quicks took wickets, and then their spinners took wickets. Siddle & Starc need to step up. Why do people want to follow the best, even knowing they have something average? We do not have spinners who will bowl them out - extrapolate Lyons figures to give the Indian scores!
Johnno
Guest
Problem is all our best spin bowlers are at home, putting there feet up.
Scifi
Guest
100% agree. Horses for courses. If they persist in driving the ball into the rough again and still don't pick two front line spinners then selectors' heads need to roll. How deep in the bunker do we need to be before things change? The selection of Doherty, Maxwell and Smith as your backup spin options now looks highly questionable but our spin stocks are thin, your 4 iron might be a chipped blade with a bent stick but it is the right club. The only good things to come out of the first test for Australia was Moses Henriques' debut and the smart bowling of Pattinson. Doherty has to be picked and even Maxwell could be an outside chance (not that I rate his bowling for tests), another dustbowl and we could have Pattinson,Lyon, Doherty, Maxwell and Henriques as your bowling crew backed up the part timers. Your batting lineup probably got stronger as well. India opened the bowling in the second innings with spin and took all their wickets with spin. With our batsmen struggling against spin aside from Clarke and Henriques, the Indian groundsmen must be out there drying the pitch with hair dryers right now.