It was more than a thrashing. It was a massacre. Like losing a tennis match 0-6, 0-6, 1-6 or a rugby match 0-50.
It was not just a whitewash, it was an annihilation. Realistically, Australia lost the first Test in Dubai by 221 runs and eight wickets because Pakistan had declared their second innings for the loss of two wickets.
Likewise they lost to Pakistan in the second Test at Abu Dhabi by 356 and 11 wickets as Pakistan had declared both innings closed for the loss of six wickets and three wickets.
Note the huge differences between the two teams.
• Pakistan aggregated 1683 runs for the loss of 21 wickets (average 80.14) with nine centuries. Younis Khan in the first Test hit centuries in both innings. Both Misbah-ul-Haq and Azhar Ali scored centuries in both innings in the second Test.
• Australia totalled 1026 runs for the loss of 40 wickets (average 25.65) with one century and a 97.
• Three Pakistani batsmen averaged over 100 each. Man of the Series Younis Khan scored 468 runs at 156.00, skipper Misbah-ul-Haq scored 271 runs at 135.50 and Sarfraz Ahmed scored 143 at 143.00). Azhar Ali missed out narrowly, 292 runs at 97.33.
• The highest average by an Australian was 59.70 by David Warner. Apart from Warner, Steven Smith and Mitchell Marsh, the other batsmen disappointed.
• Three Pakistani batsmen – Younis Khan 468 runs, Azhar Ali 292 and Misbah-ul-Haq 271 – scored 1031 runs in eight completed innings. This was five runs more than Australia’s aggregate of 1026 for the loss of 40 wickets.
• Two Pakistani bowlers – Zulfiqar Babar 14 wickets and Yasir Shah 12 – captured 26 wickets.
• In sharp contrast, it took nine Australian bowlers to take 20 wickets. Apart from Mitchell Johnson, the others appeared pedestrian.
• Fielding, usually the strong point of Australian cricketers, fell short of expectations.
So what’s the solution for Michael Clarke’s men when the Indians arrive in Australia for a 4-Test series?
We were debating the same problem last year this time awaiting England down under. Australia was beaten in England but not walloped, as they have now been. And how the Aussies came back in Australia, whitewashing England is fresh in our memory.
To select a winning combination is as difficult as to pick the Melbourne Cup winner. Warner is a certainty to open the innings with Chris Rogers.
But who will bat at no.3? I would go for Philip Hughes or Shane Watson.
Clarke seemed to regain his confidence in the first innings of the second Test and should do well at no. 4 against India. My choice for no. 5 is Usman Khawaja. He has the technique and temperament.
Smith and Marsh did enough in UAE to retain their place in the Test team.
Will Brad Haddin be retained as wicket-keeper? I think not.
Apart from Mitchell Johnson, the bowlers looked inapt. We’ll have to watch their performances in the Sheffield Shield.
Who knows, just as the Pakistanis recovered sensationally after being smashed to smithereens by Sri Lanka, can Australia too turn from zeros to heroes?
Kersi Meher-Homji
Expert
A long innings rom Michael Clarke will fix most problems. Australia depends heavily on his batting.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
The problem is that Maxwell seems to have tainted the enitre team with the 'too much aggression' brush. Marsh did his best to bat like a test batsman and I wouldn't say he was playing like a cowboy over any of his innings. Warner bats the way he bats, Rogers is just hopeless against spin and Clarke is miserably out of form and quite possibly injured. The only one who really looked like an utter lunatic out there was Maxwell. Oh and Haddin played his usual reckless shots but I've given up on him as regards assessing match situaitons. Haddin must have played and missed more than anyone I've ever seen in international cricket in his career.
Pope Paul vii
Guest
Be afraid Birdy.
JGK
Roar Guru
And Harris. Of the 14 Tests they've played together Aust is 10-3-1 with one of those losses being the 47 game.
JGK
Roar Guru
He didn't play in the 2013 Ashes. If he did, it probably would have had had a different outcome.
Birdy
Guest
They weren't shivering about 'Mitch' in the 3 ashes series before the last one - if he maintains a 1 in 4 Ashes performance they'd take that.
ak
Roar Guru
Australia depends heavily on Johnson.
Professor Rosseforp
Guest
Good point about Katich. I think if you dropped him in the test 5 days ago he would have done a better job than most of the players. I also kept hearing Clarke's advice to the batsmen for the 2nd test as I watched his dismissal(s) -- "use your bat more".
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
Great point Spruce, and i agree entirely :)
spruce moose
Guest
I had forgotten about Katich. I am also a fan of controlled aggression. Controlled aggression is....controlled. I would actually think Lehmann defines aggression as disrespect. The moment you don't respect your opponent, the pitch, the conditions: you are going to get out. Smith is controlled because he is respectful of the opposition.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
They'll be back Stephen and they'll do well. Your boys are still shivering at the mention of the name Mitchell Johnson.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Expert
What a paradox! India beats SL by 169 runs in the 1st ODI. Previously SL had shattered Pak in Tests who smashed Australia in Tests. Now will Aus beat India to complete a circle?!
JGK
Roar Guru
Yes but in both cases Pak has substantial first innings leads. In the second Test in particular Aust (pathetically) looked like they didn't want to be there.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Expert
I don't think toss would have made any difference, JGK. In the third innings of both the Tests Pakistan declared at 2-286 and 3-293, proving that the pitch had not deteriorated on days 3 and 4. Australia scored 303 and 246 in their first innings (second innings of the Tests) on days 2 and 3.
JGK
Roar Guru
Not that I think it would have made a big difference in the 2nd Test, in every Test Australia has played this year, the team batting first has won.
DJW
Guest
Be interesting to see what India take out of this performance by Australia and how they adapt there game plans for the upcoming test series. I don't think India are going to be the walk over some people are predicting.
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
I think the ditching of Katich was up there amongst the worst selection gaffs But Maxwell is a challenger, especially when selected as the teams number 3. I am old ( 63 ) as well as old fashioned, and I have always embraced the test ethos of 3 spot is for your teams best batsman, and they insert Maxwell....... As for Lehmann, i agree, and though I am a fan of controlled aggression as shown in Steven Smith's excellent batting, the more I watch Australia under Lehmann, the more I think he defines recklessness as aggression
Ret
Guest
Wind back the clock a year, and I'm pretty sure many Poms wanted Mitch in the team as well.....
spruce moose
Guest
Tim, spot on. The lack of respect shown to test cricket by the Australian team was not just the primary reason for them losing, but as a viewer, extremely troubling to observe. How one of the flagship holders of the test game could treat it with such contempt does not bode well for its future. Maxwell's selection was the second worst selection in the past decade. Imo, only the dropping of Nathan Hauritz for Xavier Doherty in the first test at the Gabba a few years ago was worse. The coaching philosophy of Lehmann is flawed and needs an urgent review. Aggression gets you nowhere in a test match.
jammel
Guest
Sadly, yes - I think it is worse than when Maxwell opened (batting and bowling)….this was in the context of our third and fourth biggest ever losses…. I found it painful to watch Maxwell this Test.