A lot of experts have criticised Australia for batting too quickly in the second Test against South Africa, suggesting it was the reason they got bowled out for 246.
Australia batted at 4.31 runs per over. South Africa by contrast made 423 in 150 overs.
I think this is a lazy analysis. In fact, the aggressive run rate was the only thing about Australia’s innings that should be applauded.
Let’s look at the dismissals.
Chris Rogers, Alex Doolan and Shaun Marsh all fell to swinging deliveries on Day 2.
None of them were looking to play attacking strokes. Marsh, and to a lesser extent Doolan, made the mistake of blocking balls not on the stumps, thereby providing catching practice to the slips.
They would be much better served by either leaving those balls or trying to hit them to the boundary.
Steve Smith was caught behind defending. Brad Haddin copped a Dale Steyn brute of an in-swinger.
Only Michael Clarke and David Warner played offensive strokes when they were dismissed.
Warner, who made 70 from 78 playing in his usual manner, edged a full blooded drive. The ball was a wide half volley and deserved to be belted. It was the right shot to play but the execution was lacking.
Clarke “chickened” out of a full blooded drive, perhaps misjudging the length from Vernon Philander, and popped a soft catch to cover.
The point is only two of the top seven went out trying to score runs.
The aggression was not the reason Australia stumbled. In fact, Warner and Smith’s attacking play, coupled with Mitchell Johnson and Ryan Harris making 27 off 23 and 26 off 26 respectively helped Australia avoid the follow-on.
The real reasons Australia were bundled out are as follows:
They had been fielding for a day and a half, they were facing a good attack who had runs on the board and the batting line-up is not overly strong.
I would also argue that the use of Nathan Lyon as a night watchman, an uncharacteristically defensive move, cost Australia too.
While it worked in protecting Smith from having to bat before stumps on Day 2, it meant Warner had to bat with a bowler on Day 3, which was not ideal.
Warner and Lyon could not build pressure as a partnership by rotating the strike because Lyon is not able to do that.
Warner went out too early on Day 3 to test the theory but I maintain the night watchman signals to the opposition a lack of confidence and stalls the batting side’s momentum.
It was only once Lyon went out that Australia rebounded, with Haddin and Smith able to work together.
By that stage they were six wickets down though, with the possibility the side would be bowled out before either could make an impact.
Thankfully, the aggression shown the tale meant Australia avoided the follow-n and has given them a chance of a draw with rain forecast for Day Five.
Maybe by the end of the Test, the same experts currently criticising Australia for being too attacking, will be saying South Africa batted too defensively on Day One.
fredstone
Guest
Funny how one summer's succes plastered over the underlying problems for the team. The same issues that Arthur were facing and trying to rectify are still there, the question is what will Boof do about it or will we see another coaching change in a couple of months when teams have learnt how to adapt to his approach?
mactheblack
Guest
Batting at four/five an over allows for more time for the opposition to bowl you out if you get out playing rash shots; which means if its the first innings you are on the backfoot already. It gives the opposition more time to build their innings and leaves them with enough time to plan a strategy in getting the opposition our a second time. Good for those watching but not always good for the team is the aggressive approach!
balanced
Guest
Pretty dumb reply Simoc. The whole point of Michael's post was to explain that the Aussies were NOT necessarily trying to play aggressive cricket. Warner alone makes the run rate seem aggressive, so that those who don't watch it see the scoreboard the next morning and make assumptions that everyone was out there having a whack. The Oz batsmen were simply beaten by good bowling of a type they have traditionally struggled with.
mactheblack
Guest
problem is Australia's 90/4/5 syndrome .. it was evident in the first test until Marsh/Doolan resurrected innings. Warner is there only for his gung-ho approach and ability to take a game away from the opposition .. but as a test opener you just can't play like that .. the luck, which he had over both tests won't always be there for him to exploit .. if it weren't for the spilled catches he would have had a rather sorry two tests. Pick him for T20s. Rogers, is the perfect opening batsmen .. however the jury is out whether he can handle express bowling on fast pitches and spin. Doolan after his first innings heroics .. seems to be at sixes and sevens against spin and too laid back in his approach. The weight of captaincy weighing heavily on Clarke's shoulders and affecting his batting. Clarke too will have to brush up on technique as he is suspect against good express bowling. One thing is notable is that the Aussies don't handle pressure very easily .. when the opposition has the foot on the throat so to speak ... Why did Rogers take that run? Why did Smith play first ball across the line? He had time to watch the TV replays of the reverse swing while waiting in the sheds? Why did Warner not play straight to the Duminy delivery? Australia prefer being in front of the game, not behind the eight-ball. However they should have known what they would have been faced with in terms of SA's bowling attack and batsmen like Amla who is too good to have had such a longish lean run. Their bowling lines bordered on atrocious, and they lacked the spark evident at Centurion. It was as though they were totally deflated by the pitch. It is now evident that SA's bowlling attack as a unit is far far better than that of Australia's. Which bowler in SA's attack armoury is only bowling four over spells? Why can they exploit reverse swing to the extent they did? Why do they have more than one back-up spinner, who can actually cause problems? The Aussies need to get with it and work with what they''ve got instead of underestimating the opposition's attack which is among the world's best at the moment. Who is their bowling coach? Can he not work on the reverse swing with them? Where's Starc and Pattinson. There is a long way to go before the Aussies can even think about achieving greatness. That might just happen once the Johnson, Siddle, Harris, era ends and they ride off into the sunset!
Ted
Guest
Completely agree. Being aggressive had very little to do with most of the first innings dismissals of our batsmen.
nick
Guest
Why commend the runrate? Blind Freddy couldn't care less to mix expressions. Our bats do seem to lack an ability to play for time and this isn't 20:20 so the run rate is entirely not the point. But I suppose you can't expect a middle order with two newbies and an out of form Captain to bat for time (Warner and Haddin can bat to their own unique tempos). On the one hand, their aggressive approach under Lehmann is working pretty well (6 out of 7 recently aint bad). For what's it's worth - I think Marsh has delivered true to form and I'd be glad to never utter his name again. Watson is now guaranteed a walk back into the side. Like others, I'd much rather keep Doolan than Marsh.
Simoc
Guest
Pretty dumb analysis Michael. They only made 246 after the Saffers had demonstrated exactly how to go about scoring runs. de Villiers in particular is as classy a bat as any. Of course you can make up any story to spruik and in Warners case he is best batting the way he does.
Axle an the guru
Guest
Its called self discipline an theres a few in our side that dont have it, an that includes Watson an Hughes. Clarke has always had a problem with it when it comes to batting so you carnt expect the rest to run through a brick wall if the captain wont. -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
ak
Roar Guru
You need to play according to the situation of the game. You just cannot say that well this is my natural game and I will play my strokes come what may. Just as a defensive test player struggles to find a place in the shorter versions of the game and gets in only if he adapts, an attacking batsman too needs to curb his natural game and adapt in a test match in a situation wherein preserving your wicket is the key to success. Had Australia got those 246 runs in say 75 overs then it would have meant that they batted for a session more. That would have eased the pressure while batting in the second innings as they would have been required to bat for a lesser period. And with rains lurking today the test could have been saved.
Jammel
Guest
You need to be able to do both the aggressive and the measured. Australia unfortunately don't seem to be able to do this!
Each team has their own methodology of how they approach test cricket. Some like Australia believe aggression is the best method, others like South Africa prefers a measured approach, if the requirement to build a big innings is to bad circumspectly they will, if they want to fast forward the game, they can do that too. Neither is wrong in my opinion, but then there are many opinions out there.