I am shocked by what I am reading about Australia’s travails with the bat against Pakistan.
The popular theory is is that they were too cavalier and needed to bat patiently like their opponents did.
Granted, Australia’s batsmen never looked capable of producing the sort of marathon Test innings played by Younis Khan.
But was that because they were too aggressive, or was it in fact because when they attempted to defend Pakistan’s spinners they did so with poor technique?
The reality is that, overwhelmingly, the Australian top seven lost their wickets playing either defensive or entirely justifiable shots.
I know this because, after being surprised that so many fans and pundits believed Australia had stumbled due to overly-attacking batting, I went back through the highlights and re-watched each of the 28 dismissals by their top seven.
Only three of those 28 were from what reasonably could be classed as irresponsible shots. There was Glenn Maxwell’s ill-advised attempt to lift Zulfiqar Babar over midwicket against the spin which saw him bowled in the first dig at Abu Dhabi.
David Warner’s final dismissal for the series was similarly poor as he tried to swing Mohammad Hafeez across the line and was caught off the top edge at backward point.
The third dismissal which could be chalked up to unnecessary aggression was Brad Haddin’s wild drive at Imran Khan which saw him play on at Dubai.
Here is a rundown of how each top seven Australian batsman was dismissed in the series.
Chris Rogers
1. Chopped on playing a cut shot to a delivery which decked back in sharply off the seam from left-armer Rahat Ali.
2. Yorked by a hooping in swinger from Imran Khan from around the wicket.
3. Caught behind pushing forward meekly at a full delivery from Imran Khan.
4. Caught at leg slip prodding defensively at a full ball from Zulfiqar.
David Warner
1. Bowled defending a Yasir Shah delivery that turned in sharply from around the wicket.
2. Stumped while trying to drive Zulfiqar Babar through the offside.
3. Gets a rank, wide long hop from Rahat Ali but toes end his cut shot to point.
4. Caught at backward point from a top edge after trying to heave Hafeez across the line.
Alex Doolan
1. Run out
2. LBW trying to deflect Zulfiqar through the leg side off the back foot.
Michael Clarke
1. Caught at short leg after prodding uncertainly at a length delivery from Zulfiqar.
2. LBW while defending on the front foot to a Yasir Shah slider.
3. Bowled playing a half-hearted forward push against a sharp in swinger from Imran Khan.
4. Bowled trying to defend a Zulfiqar delivery from the crease.
Steve Smith
1. Cuts a wide, short ball from Yasir Shah straight to backward point.
2. Advances to Yasir and caught at short leg trying to nudge the ball through leg side.
3. LBW trying to defend Zulfiqar off the back foot.
4. LBW pushing forward defensively at a Yasir Shah slider.
Glenn Maxwell
1. Advances to Zulfiqar, attempts to heave the ball over mid wicket and is bowled.
2. LBW while playing back to a Zulfiqar delivery which he looked to bunt back past the bowler.
Mitch Marsh
1. LBW while playing defensive prod to Zulfiqar.
2. Caught at silly mid off again prodding at a full delivery from Zulfiqar.
3. Gets a full toss from Imran but plays a half-hearted drive and chips the ball to mid on.
4. Caught at leg slip glancing a legside delivery from Hafeez.
Brad Haddin
1. Wild drive at Imran khan and played on.
2. Bowled playing a defensive push to a Zulfiqar arm ball.
3. Bowled trying to defend a slider from Yasir Shah.
4. Played on after defending a Zulfiqar delivery which then rolled back onto his stumps.
You can see then that it is a myth that Australia regularly gifted wickets to Pakistan through irresponsible batting. Rather they were exposed for allowing Pakistan’s spinners to dictate terms to them.
Pakistan’s batsmen showed patience when necessary, indeed. But they recognised that given the complete lack of pace or bounce in the decks, Australia’s slow bowlers could pose a bigger threat than the tourists’ much-vaunted pace unit.
So the Pakistan batsmen ensured that Nathan Lyon, Steve O’Keefe, Glenn Maxwell and Steve Smith never got a chance to settle into a rhythm.
The hosts went after the Australian tweakers not just early in each spell but also early in each over to try to rattle them. This approach proved effective, with all of Australia’s spinners responding by bowling too short.
This length was a reaction to the fact Pakistan’s batsmen were intimidating them by constantly getting to the pitch of their deliveries by using their feet or employing the sweep shot.
Combined, Australia’s slow bowlers went for 4.21 runs per over in the series. Meanwhile, barely a sweep shot was seen from Australia’s batsmen, many of whom tried to play Pakistan’s spinners mostly from the crease.
This meant that Zulfiqar Babar and Yasir Shah rarely had to adjust their lengths and were able to get into a groove. The animated pitch maps show that Zulfiqar, in particular, was able to group his deliveries tightly together, rarely being forced out of his comfort zone.
On Asian pitches which foster natural variation of bounce and turn, being tied to the crease against a spinner is fatal. If you sit tight and defend grimly you will eventually receive a delivery which will undo you by either kicking up, staying low, turning sharply, or skidding on.
That is why the Pakistan batsmen either got to the pitch of spinning deliveries or shuffled deep in the crease to give them adequate time to read them off the surface.
When you do the former it tends to force spinners into a shorter length which makes it easier to do the latter. By comparison, the Australian batsmen were often caught out doing neither – stuck on the crease in no-man’s land.
Accordingly, Zulfiqar and Yasir gave up just 2.98 runs per over across the series, while combining for 26 wickets at 22.
Only twice were they gifted wickets as a result of cavalier batting by Australia’s top seven. By my reckoning, 15 of their 20 dismissals of Australia’s top seven came from defensive or half-hearted shots, mostly played by batsmen mired in the aforementioned no-man’s land.
So then, was Australia’s abysmal batting really the result of excessive aggression as we’re being told by all and sundry? Or was it in fact a lack of consistently positive intent against Pakistan’s spinners which allowed the bowlers to dictate terms?
Pakistan’s batsmen lorded it over Australia’s tweakers. Did they do this by playing them conservatively or by placing them under constant pressure through the attacking strategies of using their feet and employing the sweep shot?
By now, you should know the correct answers to these questions.
broken-hearted toy
Guest
If there is anything in the pitch, Bhuvi Kumar will find it. Damn fine bowler, as accurate as hell. He reminds me a lot of Mo Asif, he's got those sort of flexible wrists.
Joel
Roar Rookie
Good debate here gents. Just wanted to add that S.Marsh has had six ducks in sixteen test innings. When you are relying on the most consistent players to be part of the test team, it is impossible not to take that into account.
Bearfax
Guest
Marginally Tim but I'll pay that one. Mind you Vaughan averaged 37 in first class cricket and 41.4 in tests. Still say they're rare though. Thats only a 4-5 run difference. Marsh would require a few more runs on average to equal that and his 32.86 test average after 9 matches given his age does engender much confidence. And as far as no other batsmen being available, I think that's just opinion. How good Burns for example would be is only speculative because he's never been given the opportunity, despite as I've demonstrated a superior average and consistency.
Tim
Guest
Bearfax- Michael Vaughan off the top of my head, averaged mid 30's in County cricket, and 42 odd in test cricket I agree on solid 50's, over flashy 100's, but, my choice of Marsh is because I just cannot see anyone else I deem as better, at present... As for me dismissing Hughes, I do it on the fact that i have no faith in overcoming the weaknesses that were so ruthlessly exposed, as well as his other deficiencies- I just do not think he has it, and ever will Anyway, maybe we should end this debate, lol, for it has become an epic Thanks for the great chat, and i sincerly hope Hughes does come up trumps :)
Bearfax
Guest
This could go on forever Tim. Hope you're counting on reaching at least 90. I am never enamored by the occasional flashy performance Tim. All batsmen have their purple patches and days when it just all happens. Pretty to watch and remember, but in my mind not the criteria for choosing a test batsman. I would rather a batsman who consistently scored 50 to one who scored 100 every 15 innings, which is just about Shaun Marsh's conversion rate You picked Ramprakash as an example of someone who didnt progress his fine first class performances to the test arena. I put to you that that is quite rare. I would also suggest to you its even rarer for a batsman to do the reverse, that being becoming a heavy test run getter while being an average first class batsmen, except where they are during their developmental years between 21-28/29. It would be a most extraordinary sight to see S. Marsh suddenly consistently get a test average over 40 at this stage in his career. The others I mentioned have achieved that level and at a much younger age. To me its all about consistency, not the occasional fine innings. You pointed out that Burns needs to score more runs. I would suggest to you that that is an illusion based on media attention to one over the other. .Burns scores 100s every 11.8 innings. Marsh scores centuries every 16.2 innings. Burns scores 50 or more every 3.2 innings. Marsh scores 50 or more every 4.6 innings. Even more decisive is Hughes performances. He scores centuries every 7.8 innings (only surpassed by Warner, Rogers, Clarke and D Hussey). Hughes scores 50 or more average 2.9 innings. Its is not Burns or Hughes who needs to score more runs consistently. Its Marsh. Seems to me Tim you go very much on appearances. You're prepared to dismiss Hughes despite his dominant first class performances and age, yet support Marsh with his very average first class efforts and older age. So you are suggesting both are rare birds who dont follow the trend that almost all other batsmen follow based on averages. Interestuing.
Tim
Guest
Bearfax, Granted my selection of marsh, taking into account all my gripes over Hughes is hyprocrisy at the best. But, my defense is, yes, Marsh is inconsistent, but, when he gets it right he is a very accomplished player. as seen in to very fine innings , in diverse settings in both SL, and RSA. Plus, his name is due to me struggling to find any others of test class.... Of the ones you mentioned, and a few others Khawaja- not sold on him Burns- I like him, but he needs to start piling on runs Lynn- Talented, but needs runs Forrest- A forgotten man Fergusion- One that might come with a big rails run M Harris- One i love, but needs to start scoring heavily- he is a potential fine test opener As for Maxwell, I would only have him in a strong team, and at 6 or 7. His bowling is nowhere near test class
Bearfax
Guest
Oh Tim. You knock Hughes but then select one of the most flawed talented batsmen in Australian cricket in Shaun Marsh. Marsh is a swashbuckler and very attractive to watch in the one day format where he is a champion player. But he doesnt have the discipline or defensive technique to handle the longer form of the game in my opinion and his average testifies to that.. Sorry but with a first class average in the mid 30s and an age of 31, there are about a dozen batsmen I would put before Shaun Marsh. Totally lost me on that one. If you are not going to select Hughes, a mistake in my mind but that's only an opinion as they say, then go for someone like Maxwell. Sure he is also flawed defensively and a swashbuckler like S. Marsh, but he is only 25, is improving his consistency each year and is already 5 runs on average superior to Marsh. I doubt that Marsh will improve much but I think Maxwell, with also a little support bowling in his armoury, is far better. The other batsman I would look at would be Burns and Khawaja, both in my mind technically superior to Marsh, younger and with better results at the longer form of the game. As for support backing when Hughes and Waugh entered the test arena, I'll concede that Waugh started in a fairly weak team but within a few years he had Taylor, Jones, Boon, Border, G. Marsh and went on to have Hayden, Gilchrist, Martyn etc all top quality players (well G. Marsh wasnt but that's another argument). Hughes started with some top players but they were aging and dropped off leaving him with a group of youngsters such as Cowan, Smith, Warner, Maxwell, Khawaja, Shaun Marrsh, some potentially outstanding players of the future but novices at the time. Much more was therefore expected of Hughes especially as he was opening..
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
I disagree Bearfax, Hughes entered an Aussie team that still had Clarke, Punta, Hussey, and then seasoned pros like Katich, North and Haddin to shield him. Whereas Waugh entered the team with only Border in it with any experience, and in the process of a major rebuild, after losing to NZ at home :O Granted Hughes batted in a harder position than Waugh, but, had more support within the ranks As for Brissy, I find it tough to pick a team. i agree with your points on watson, who shouldn't play if he cannot bowl, and, frankly, who i would shelve for tests, and look to the future. But there are not many replacements So: Rogers, Warner, Smith, Clarke, S Marsh ( if fit ), M Marsh, Nevill, Starc, Jono, Sayers, Lyon I would wrap both Harris and Cummins in the tightest of cotton wool, with an eye on the Ashes
Bearfax
Guest
In response to one of your comments about Waugh coming in too early and Australia being at its lowest ebb, surely the same applies to Hughes who was the great hope and who also came in at a time Australia was losing all its great players. If anything I think the pressure was greater on Hughes firstly because Australia I believe was in an even worse position than when Waugh came in, and second Waugh was able to hide down the list at somewhere between 4-7 whereas Hughes was almost always opening, the toughest role for a batsmen surely As for where I would put him. Well firstly I would not have Watson and Marsh in the same team. I think that weakens the batting even more than it is at present. If Watson doesnt bowl I wouldnt have him in the team. Same with Marsh. I agree that Rogers has done an adequate job, though no where near his potential. But I would have Hughes and Rogers in either 2 or 3. If not one of them then Smith. I would have, if I was selecting the team Warner Hughes Rogers Smith Clarke Marsh/Watson or Maxwell Whiteman Johnson Harris (if available otherwise Pattinson or Behrendorff) Stark Lyon or O'Keefe
Tim
Guest
Bearfax, i disagree to a degree, for while i pay some attention to figures, i judge more with my eye. With Waugh, i knew he had it. Plus there was a bias attached for I viewed him as being thrown in the deep end when he was not ready. A real deep end too, with the Aussie team arguably at its lowest point the examples you gave put me on the spot for this view, and my inability to see hope in Hughes. I must admit on first seeing Smith, I penned on my blog that he was the worst to ever wear the Baggy Green, but now, I have such respect for him, and see him certain as the next Aussie Captain. The one thing that made me really be in awe of him was that he was one of the few current day Aussies who just took everything on the chin, said nothing, and let his actions do the talking. too many of the current crop are too chatty in the media Warner, strange for me for i am such a test snob, but, i brought into I Chappell's view of him, that his slogging was indeed good cricket shots, hit real hard. After his high class century in his 2nd test on a difficult Hobart pitch, and against a very accomplished kiwi attack, I thought he could be anything. Back to Hughes, i concede like Smith, he could turn it all around, but, I just cannot see it i think we should agree to disagree on the issue, and hope for him, and the team as a whole that he can get it all together. But, would you play him in Brissy, and if so where? i think Rogers deserves to keep his spot, on what he represents to Warner, and the role he has played, but, maybe from a big picture viewpoint, Hughes should be inserted
Bearfax
Guest
I've often suggested appearances are just that, appearances. Steve Smith was considered to have a school boy batting style little over a year ago and wouldnt make it. Warner was considered a flash in the pan...and he was 25 when that opinion was in vogue and it was considered he wouldnt make it. Thing is with appearances, they are quickly forgotten when the player finally achieves acceptance. As for Waugh looking good, well he wasnt performing good given 15 of his 39 innings in those matches resulted in him being dismissed for 10 or less and he also had five not out scores compared to Hughes one over that period, thereby boosting his average. As I said, appearances are meaningless if there is no score to back it up. Your move Tim
Tim
Guest
I think there is a big difference between Waugh and Hughes. the difference being was that twice in his fledgling career Hughes has been humiliated, firstly outside off against the Kiwis, and then against spin. Waugh always showed something that made you believe, and though his figures were not there to begin with, he always inspired faith. Compelling you to persist with him Hughes to me, amongst his struggles has never inspired faith of better.... And granted that is a harsh judgement on one so young, but harsh judgements are synonymous with test cricket
Bearfax
Guest
Just to get it in perspective a little more Tim. I've already mentioned this to Ronan. Steve Waugh was averaging only 27.43 after 21 tests before he found his mojo. He at least was never dropped. Hughes has played only a few tests more but has been dropped several times despite a better average and was at the same age when last dropped as Waugh was. Just takes one or two break through innings to get the monkey off your back.
Bearfax
Guest
Point noted Tim. I really cant compare Shield cricket to English County cricket though I see Rogers has a huge average over there well in excess of his average at home. Mark is obviously a rare one but I think there is some difference here in that Mark never exceeded the mid 20s in his test average and by the time he had turned 25, Hughes age, he was averaging only 17.93 at test level. Hughes is not outstanding at test level yet but he is averaging 32.65, almost double what Ramprakash had at the same age. But I do take your point that there are those that dont seem to be able to move up to the next level though they are rare if they are prolific scorers in first class cricket. But I would suggest it is way way too early to be saying this about a 25 year old who has passed fifty on ten of his 26 tests. Hughes was identified with definite flaws that he has been addressing and apparently has hardened up. Judging him so severely before he's had a chance to test his improvements is a little unfair wouldnt you say?
Tim
Guest
The one thing I will say in Hughes defence was the selectors did him a massive disservice a few years back by holding him out against RSA, and letting him feed on a SL bowling line up that was described as the 'worst ever seen in OZ '. Admittedly that comment was made by a noted drama queen in Rod Hogg, but it had justification. For, I buy into the confidence side of the Hughes debate, and how he would be less burdened when confident. So, by doing that they basically said to him that we believe in you, but we still doubt your ability against quality. I think if they had of played him against RSA , and he did well, it could have been his fork in the road to test respect
Tom from Perth
Roar Rookie
One of the most learned discussions of Hughes I've read. Well done Gents. I'm with Bear though. I expect in a few years once Hughes is settled in the test team we'll be wondering what all the fuss was about.
Tim
Guest
Bearfax, once more you make great sense, and it is not that i do not agree, but I just don't think he has got it. To me he is a lot like Mark Ramprakash was in England, an absolute run making juggernaut in County Cricket, but, every time he was in test cricket , he came up short.
Bearfax
Guest
Points taken Tim. I am also 63, just a shade under the Beatles famed song 64 which I've been playing incessantly in recent weeks preparing for the moment. I guess my point is this. Hughes has no trouble at all in first class cricket and over the past two years has been the dominant batsmen in Shield, just as Hayden was. In playing that role he had had to face the best of Australia's fast and spin bowlers and in that time has actually been out to spin bowlers less than fast bowlers. Now it may be said that his problem is overseas such as in India and England. But other than Smith and Warner, no Australian batsmen has been successful in those locations in the past 5-6 years. Add to that his outstanding performances in LIst A and T20 where he has also one of the strongest averages, and you have a batsman overall who is, based on those stats, the most complete batsman in the country. Check the averages of his three main competitors Hughes 1st Class: 46.59 List A: 47.25 T20: 42.69 Clarke 1st Class: 47.59 List A: 42.8 T20: 21.05 Warner 1st Class: 50.16 List A: 36.39 T20: 32.72 Smith 1st Class: 46.73 List A: 36.19 T20: 27.25 If he was so flawed he wouldnt be scoring so consistently as he has been. His stats speak surely for themselves. I suspect watching Hughes in tests, that like Khawaja, his problem isnt skill, its confidence and the pressure of public opinion as well as the selectors. I'm not saying either of them didnt have faults that had to be addressed, but both are class acts and when their confidence is up there are few in Australia to compete with them. In my mind both are much better batsmen for test style cricket than all but Clarke, Smith and Warner at this stage, and Hughes is I believe the equal of those three now. But sitting him on the sideline without even a chance to play back home, like they did with Khawaja is a sure fire way of diminishing their confidence and performance at the highest level. As Border said of Hayden, if he is scoring so heavily at first class level, he is ready for tests.
Don Freo
Guest
Sri Lanka could be a sub-continental island (hence, 'sub')...maybe it is just 'incontinent'. I'd better go off and buy Ronan's travel article and look for answers.
Tim
Guest
Bearfax, Great replay, and as always very plausible. as for my vintage, i am 63, but being Irish, only had my first introduction to this great game after being schooled in South Africa from 64-66. As for Hughes, I can emphasise with your point of view , bringing up others who have overcome gaping weaknesses, or over exaggerated weakness, as made out by the peanut gallery. But, I just struggle to make a leap of faith with Hughes, to me it is not just the points i have touched on previously, but, he just struggles with the basics of batsmanship. I say this from my view of him as a potential top order batsmen and the need for him to accumulate runs, he struggles mightily with this. which not only puts a focus on him, but undue pressure on batting partners..