There is no doubt the tour of India was an extremely disappointing series from an Australian perspective. Going in, I think most people expected a series loss; but that most matches would be hard fought.
At one point I feared Matt Wade’s keeping would be the crucial factor in losing the series. That was not the case.
A complete inability to even attempt to adjust to conditions from almost everybody was largely at fault, along with simple lack of ability.
Perhaps the most worrying aspect was that those few who seemed to get a little better as the tour progressed were older payers who probably will not be around for the next Test tour of India.
These were Peter Siddle and Ed Cowan, the others maintained their starting level of either mediocrity or worse throughout.
Maybe Phil Hughes could be added to the list of those progressed, but he started with 39 balls against spin for no runs and four times out. It would be difficult not to get better from that.
That no other player seemed to learn during the tour is a damning indictment on the coaches, the team, and the players themselves.
It is in that light that the homework task needs to be seen. The whole squad, other than Michael Clarke, was under-performing. Forcing the players to provide feedback on where improvements could be made was a reasonable thing.
Outside cricket, in other sports, the surprise was not that the task was set but that it was deemed unusual and that some players did not respond.
The suspensions were, however, over the top and the whole debacle was perhaps a summation of the tour for Australia. That Shane Watson could fail to the point of being deemed worthy of suspension, and then be promoted to captain after missing a game he would have missed anyway, is bewildering.
The whole series, and supporter faith in the team as well as those around them, had unravelled in the most disheartening manner. Andrew Flintoff’s tweets were the only light point in the whole ordeal.
Normally, even from a tour that goes wrong, somebody emerges as a possible future leader with bat or ball. This series was so bad that not even this positive came out of it.
In the first Test, Moises Henriques looked promising. That now seems to have been a flash in the pan.
The much, and mostly correctly, maligned Steve Smith looked to be the best after Clarke against the spinners. There is no doubt he has talent, and that he suffers in the public eye due to his being rushed in years before he was ready; but he does still play tennis forehands rather than cricket shots at times.
Smith probably did enough to ensure himself consideration for the next series in India, regardless of his form between now and then, simply because he at least tried to play to the conditions, and did so with relative success.
Yes, the pitches in the first and fourth Tests were not really Test standard. That happens. India make the same complaints every time they get a hard, fast pitch in Australia.
While India do seem to tailor their pitches more, it is generally thought that adjusting to bounce is harder than adjusting to spin. It is an adjustment that our batsmen failed at in the most extreme terms.
That failure, in and of itself, probably should not rule guys out for other tours; but for those whose spot was already looking dodgy, it might signal a break from wearing the baggy green for a while.
By the numbers
Team averages
India 2190 runs at 43.8, losing 50 wickets
Australia 2046 at 25.9, losing 79 wickets
Australia lost almost three innings worth of wickets for 144 less runs.
Compare that with India in Australia in 2011-12, also over four Tests:
Australia 2205 runs at 53.78, losing 41 wickets
India 1847 runs at 23.09, losing 80 wickets
What is clear is Indians struggle with Australian conditions as much as Australians struggle with Indian ones. That the two remain similar in ICC rankings is probably a fair reflection.
Little separates the teams other than complete inadequacy in the other’s conditions.
Centuries – India six, Australia one
50s – India five, Australia 11
That Australia actually managed more scores above 50 seemed a surprise, until one considers that India lost far fewer wickets and therefore had far fewer innings.
Siddle, Henriques and Starc account for five of the Australian 50s, leaving only seven scores over 50 which were scored by the ‘batsmen’.
The ‘failure to go on’ is revealed fairly starkly by these numbers. Indian batsmen, if they got set, looked comfortable and often were. Rarely did Australia’s batsmen look comfortable. No matter how long they had been in for, they almost always looked ready to get out any ball.
Build your own fantasy cricket team and put it to the test with Draftstars daily fantasy competitions. Pick your match, pick your team and watch the points roll in to take out cash prizes on each match. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.
The Aussie needed every centimetre of his height and reach to reel that one in!
Royal Challengers Bengaluru needed 21 off the final over...but after three sixes, a caught and bowled and a run out, Mitchell Starc's Kolkata had…
Jake Fraser-McGurk smashed the fastest 50 of the IPL season and the fastest in Delhi Capitals history. But it still wasn't enough as Sunrisers…
Test great Steve Smith is to play for Washington Freedom in the second season of Major League Cricket as the Australian influence in the…
Nathan Lyon has revealed his disappointment that Australia's cricket chiefs have prevented him from playing his first full season of county cricket in England…
Some of you may have watched the recent Fox Sports Series 'A Brief History of Australian Cricket: the Eighties'. If not, I’d definitely recommend…
