The fourth Test between Australia and India ended in a draw. More importantly, after the Clarke-Kohli series ended 1-0, the Smith-Dhoni series ended 1-0, we had the Smith-Kohli series end here 0-0, with the Indians fighting back strongly.
Here are the ratings for the final Test of the summer.
Ashton Agar
Grade: B-
One of the most exciting moments of the fourth Test took place several days before it began when Ashton Agar was added to the Australian squad. This was the final straw for MS Dhoni, who felt that if the Australians weren’t going to take the series seriously, he was going to retire.
Personally, I think Dhoni over-reacted. It seems much more likely to me that Darren Lehmann was just having a bit of fun. I fully expect Boof to continue to surprise Ashton Agar with unexpected Test selection at random points throughout the next 15 years. Like, when Agar’s 33 and working in marketing for BUPA: “Hey, Ashton, put down that 3D-printed lung and get to the KFCG immediately.”
Still, if the selectors were going to add Agar to the squad to bolster the bowling, they should have doubled down on the idea and selected the following XI:
Glenn Maxwell (c, w)
Mitchell Johnson
Mitchell Starc
James Pattinson
Ryan Harris
Pat Cummins
Peter Siddle
Jackson Bird
Nathan Lyon
Josh Hazlewood
Ashton Agar
Now, that’s a team.
Richard Kettleborough
Grade: F
One of the highlights of any series featuring India is the potential for their batsman to be wrongly dismissed and for everybody else to yell ‘review it’ at them. Never gets old.
While there were a few opportunities to pounce on such errors this series, there were nowhere near as many as one would hope, thanks primarily to the number one ranked umpire Richard Kettleborough.
Over and over again, slow motion replays and Eagle Eye and hotspot and real time snicko showed that virtually every tight decision Kettleborough made was the right one. It was very reassuring to see DRS technology prove the extremely high accuracy rate of Kettleborough’s decisions.
It makes one wonder if we could somehow use him to also prove the reverse is true to the BCCI.
Sir Donald Bradman
Grade: C
Such was the consistency of Steve Smith’s batting this series that he eventually overtook Sir Donald Bradman’s record for most runs in an Australian-Indian series.
Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. It’s about time that desperate showoff was wiped from the record books. The SCG scoreboard celebrated Smith’s achievement by duly showing him above Bradman on the overall run tally made while playing for the Border-Gavaskar trophy.
Which does, of course, imply that Bradman once played for a trophy named after apparent time travellers. Something that Smith, as far as I’m aware, is yet to do. So looks like the Don gets to hang around the record books a little longer yet.
Batting pitches
Grade: D
This Sydney pitch was made for batting, with more than 1500 runs scored for the loss of only 30 wickets.
In addition to Smith’s Bradmanesque antics, Chris Rogers continued a streak of scores above 50, securing his spot for the foreseeable future. After all, where are the young colour-blind batsmen threatening to replace him? I’d like to think that he’ll continue on to the age of 60, when he’ll celebrate by going on a similar spree of scores above 60.
David Warner leapt high with a century, prompting speculation about whether his celebratory leap might achieve escape velocity if he ever scored a Test double century. Shane Watson made 81 in his first innings and immediately got people talking about ‘dead rubber runs’, just as his job description demands. Ryan Harris was briefly on target for the fastest double century in Test match history. But only briefly. And so on and so on and so on.
For India, Kohli made his own inevitable sublime century. KL Rahul also chipped in with a hundred of his own. Heck, the wicket was so easy to bat on at this stage that players were able to comically fall over in the middle of the pitch and not be run out. A true batsman’s paradise.
Spidercam
Grade: C-
But, of course, the main talking point of this Test will forever be Spidercam, which successfully distracted Steve Smith from taking a skied top edge during one of the interminable batting marathons of the first three days. This prompted immediate media outrage, particularly from such infamously anti-Spidercam journals as J. Jonah Jameson’s Daily Bugle.
Older fans took a more measured view, recalling the previous time that Spidercam was blamed for messing up a vital catch. This was Spidercam in his secret identity, of course, but the Pakistan team still haven’t forgiven umpire Peter Parker for not giving Justin Langer out at Bellerive in 1999.
So, Spidercam. Hero or menace? You decide.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
I was being serious. Perhaps a slight dig at others thoughts on other matters (e.g not looking at the facts).
Brett McKay
Expert
Kev, they finally fallen onto a reason that has merit. But given their opposition to DRS has been based on different reasons, its hard to know how long this will be the reason for. Initially, it was because it wasn't 100% accurate. Then it was because not all technology is available in all countries. Now it's about the fictional spirit of the game. For what it's worth, I agree with this latest reason, and I've stated my preference along these lines for several years now. But if the BCCI are serious, they'll bring it up at the next ICC meeting and threaten not to tour to any country that doesn't fall into line. If they're serious..
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Although he has, I'm pretty sure, signalled his intention to call it quits after The Ashes.
Bearfax
Guest
I think there's a couple of young batsmen coming through who will be top notch test performers. But they are 1-3 years off yet. So Rogers is I believe secure in his spot for at least the next 2 years.
tinfoil hat
Guest
I also think blaming the Indians for poor umpiring decisions as something they 'deserve' shows the character of Aus cricket commentators. the triumphalism from the channel 9 cheer squad whenever the Indians copped a bad one was... uncomfortable. The umpire is responsible for making poor decisions, not the team on the receiving end of them.
Andrew
Guest
TWAS, was that a joke or your irreverent humour?
Brains of a bimbo (Atgm)
Guest
"In addition to Smith’s Bradmanesque antics, Chris Rogers continued a streak of scores above 50, securing his spot for the foreseeable future. After all, where are the young colour-blind batsmen threatening to replace him? I’d like to think that he’ll continue on to the age of 60, when he’ll celebrate by going on a similar spree of scores above 60." and here i thought rogers was in his 60's
Brains of a bimbo (Atgm)
Guest
"David Warner leapt high with a century, prompting speculation about whether his celebratory leap might achieve escape velocity if he ever scored a Test double century."hahaha
Red Kev
Roar Guru
Given that the ICC is flying in a complete suite of sports broadcasting equipment despite the presence of Channel Nine in Australia for the World Cup, the cost argument is null and void. The ICC can afford for 5 sets of DRS equipment to follow the active test series as well as a stable of specially trained third umpires.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Has a lot of merit when you lay out the facts.
spruce moose
Guest
Quite a bit I reckon. The 06/07 Ashes series for example. Australia 5-0 and every match had at least 1 of their 20 wickets not taken. When Australia got belted in India 2 years back, India were never dismissed twice in each match. Pakistan certainly never got bowled out twice against Australia just now (although that was only a two test series). That's just three of the top of my head. I haven't checked, but I'd be absolutely staggered if Australia lost 20 wickets in any of the matches against the West Indies in 2000/01. Boy that West Indian unit was dribble.
Paul Giles
Guest
The DRS system should mean that players accept the final decision. When there is no DRS, bowling teams know they can harass the umpire into giving batsmen out and carry on when it is given not out. Likewise with no DRS, often when a batsmen is given out, they are more likely to not accept the decision as they will still believe it is wrong. DRS in not perfect but works pretty well. In the 2013 Ashes series, I had no problem with Stuart Broad not walking and whilst the umpire made a howler, equal blame should have been given to James Pattinson for reviewing one shortly beforehand that would have missed the 3rd set of stumps and then cost Australia their reviews. If teams are only going to review the ones they genuinely believe are out, then instances like Broad's would not happen. Lastly, I find hotspot is the worst of the technology as there are already existing marks showing which at times can make it hard to distinguish an edge and sometimes the edges don't show on hotspot.
Andrew
Guest
Kettleborough was great, but some Ups ...certainly DON'T have 20/20 vision.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
Fair enough, I can certainly see the difference. The issue, as Chris mentions, is certainly to do with money though. It is just not feasible for all grounds to have this technology, meaning some series will have reviews while others wont. It would simply be too unfair, so unless the ICC commits a large sum to the pursuit of this goal, it seems unrealistic. In the absence of this, DRS may be the next best solution.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
Wasn't replying to you champ.
Chris
Guest
i actually agree with indias stance. the decision review is basically saying 'bugger off umpire im not listening to you'. i was always taught the umpire or refs word, im including all sports here, is final even if you know they are wrong. shit happens and as 99% of the time umpires are not biased at all things even out eventually. i also have a problem with it because all that machinery costs money, money that australia and england can afford easily but that many grounds in south africa, india, pakistan etc may not be able to. so we end up only ever playing at certain grounds. i like keeping things simple, bat and a ball thats all you need from under 5s to playing for your country. drs in 20/20 maybe but i like the elegance of test matches.
Red Kev
Roar Guru
Hawkeye is predictive, snicko is evidence based on actual events, that's why it's different. However the two are the least accurate parts of the video review. Snicko takes time to appear because the matching of the audio and visual streams is not an instant process (as they are coming from different sources), you have to match them against known events to ensure they are aligned before looking at the "snick".
Bearfax
Guest
Missed my point. I'm not against the DRS technology. I'm merely suggesting that the umpires should be made more accountable to have their decisions checked if there's a doubt or a questioning by the captain or a batsman. Still use the DRS technology, but do we really need the player referral system, which in itself seems inequitable because after two failed referrals you cant refer again.in an innings. The umpire needs to be made more accountable for his/her decision.
Craig Watson
Guest
I thought you were rather generous with Kettleborough Dan. By my calculations he made at least three errors including that LBW 'howler' which denied Hazlewood his third wicket on the last day. I would go as far as to say all but Brisbane were made for batting. Bearfax gave us the stats (15 tons 43 halfs) plus India's failure to bowl us out. Surely this tells the story. These decks were prepared to last for five days. There was absolutely nothing in any of three of the four, for the poor old bowler. Our quicks deserved 10/10 for their herculean performance.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
If every dismissal was able to be reviewed privately by a third umpire in less than 1 -1 1/2 minute, I agree there would be no need for the DRS. But surely hawkeye is crucial to this in the case of LBW. Why pick on this technology? Is there evidence it is inherently more likely to fail than say, Real-Time Snicko?