Australia’s first-innings capitulation at Edgbaston, where they were all out for just 136 runs and James Anderson bagged six wickets, perfectly illustrated why it’s not always ideal to bat first.
It was the visitors’ lowest innings total on English soil since 1968, an innings in which Australia crumbled for just 78 runs on a green Lord’s pitch.
The ever-reliable Chris Rogers was Australia’s only notable contributor, making his ninth 50-plus score from his last 11 innings, while the others dropped like flies.
The relentlessness with which Anderson hit the top of off-stump and swung the red leather saw faint edges to carry to Jos Buttler behind the stumps.
Now there is nothing wrong with giving credit where credit is due, but the elephant in the room is that Australian captain Michael Clarke won the toss and elected to bat on a green wicket beneath overcast skies.
Couple that with the fact that Anderson is arguably more suited to such conditions than any other paceman in world cricket, and it is hard to see why the Australian captain didn’t send the hosts in to bat.
The problem is that there seems to be an unwritten rule in cricket that nine times out of ten you bat first, and the other one time you think about bowling yet still bat. We’ll call it the ‘bat first’ myth.
As we saw in the first Test in Cardiff, batting first gave England a considerable advantage straight away. The hosts sailed to 430 in the first innings, leaving Australia well behind in the match and with a mountainous psychological barrier to overcome.
England won the match by a whopping 169 runs.
In the second Test at Lord’s, Australia had the luxury of batting first and took the opportunity with both hands, cruising to 8/566 declared and eventually trouncing the Poms by a mammoth 405 runs.
What one must realise that on both occasions, is the pitches were extraordinarily flat and offered very little in bounce and variation.
Bat-first decisions justified.
However, if there is a good chance that some serious damage can be done by electing to bowl first, then there is no reason why a captain should choose otherwise.
Former Australian captain Steve Waugh said exactly that in the lead-up to the first Test in Brisbane against South Africa in 2012:
“You bat or bowl according to the conditions, the strength of your side and the weakness of the opposition.
“If you think you should bowl first and believe you’re capable of taking 10 wickets on the first day, you go for it.”
A classic example of this was when Michael Clarke won the toss against New Zealand in Hobart in 2011 and sent the visitors in to bat on a typical, green Bellerive pitch under sour skies. James Pattinson took 5-51 as he tore through the Black Caps.
Given England’s sheer annihilation of Australia’s batting order in the first innings, there is no doubt that Clarke should have played the same cards at the toss.
However, the wider issue that needs addressing is the undeniable existence of the ‘bat first’ myth.
Let’s hope it doesn’t come back to haunt the baggy greens during or beyond these Ashes.
JGK
Roar Guru
One problem for Aust is that it is an utterly useless 4th innings team. They've barely chased more than 200 ever in the last decade. So bat first is the way to go and sometimes you take the good with the bad, like this match.
Andy
Guest
As an Aussie i dont feel we can complain too much about the lives given to Ali considering how Cook got out. He was looking very comfortable. Il give a number 8, no matter if he is as good as Ali, half a dozen close calls if we can get Cook like that.
Andy
Guest
Yeah England are shite, bowled shite, all about the deck, then when they came out to bat the deck was beautiful for batting then as soon as Australia started batting again the deck was rubbish.
Stucco
Guest
Unlikely that the Kiwis have found his achilles heel - we haven't played against him in test matches yet! And only in a couple of ODI's (in which he averages over 40).
Geoff from Bruce Stadium
Guest
Load of rubbish. If Australia had batted well enough it would have been advantage Aussies. We'll have top agree to disagree on this one.
josh
Roar Rookie
There is no myth, winning the toss and batting first is the best way to win or draw a test.
Zachary Gates
Roar Guru
Clarke's decision at the toss put England in the driver's seat from the get-go.
Zachary Gates
Roar Guru
"Interestingly, when presented with the same pitch the Aussie bowlers really were ineffective at the start of England innings." The first thing I will say is that the pitch had improved by the second day which the better innings of England was indicative of. Secondly, I noted in the article that Clarke should have sent England in not only because of the green pitch and overcast skies but because Anderson is probably the best bowler in world cricket in such conditions. However, you do make a good point in saying that the Australian bowling was ineffective and therefore partly to blame for England's solid reply with the bat. Indeed Hazlewood is the sort of bowler who, given his usually controlled line and length, you would have thought should have been able to hit the top of off-stump and allow for natural deviation off the green deck to bring the slips into play and do the rest. Unfortunately that wasn't the case, though, and it has got to be said that Ryan Harris has been sorely missed.
Zachary Gates
Roar Guru
I think despite the loss in Hobart, the fashion in which Pattinson ripped through NZ in their first innings on a green deck under overcast skies illustrates the myth that a captain should always elect to bat first regardless of the conditions.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Our blokes lost that test in Hobart, after sending NZ in. Also the Aussies were rolled for 88 in a test in England in about 2010, by Pakistan.
While we're at it
Guest
Maybe Rogers should roll his arm over????
Geoff from Bruce Stadium
Guest
Didn't we have this same article a day ago. Give it a rest. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the Australian batting was of a sufficient standard to back up the decision to bat first. If the Aussies had made 250 to 300 in the first dig they would have been well in the game. Unfortunately they weren't up to it. And who is to say the Aussies would have bowled well enough to support a decision to bowl first. Mitchell Johnson and Nathan Lyon and Mitch Marsh to some extent were the only bowlers who maintained a consistent line and length. Starc and Hazlewood were just awful. If the batters and bowlers had performed at an acceptable level the Poms would be chasing 250 plus to win in the fourth innings on a pitch that is still offering some assistance to both the seamers and spinners.
John Hutchinson
Guest
On the subject of 4 Leaf Clovers, the same could be said about Rogers, although instead of the "windy woosh" it looks more like he is attempting to give the Slips catching practice.
John Hutchinson
Guest
I should be the last person to give Steve Smith advice on Batting, however instead of looking confident and assured, he looking arrogant and superior in his approach to batting in this match. Both of his dismissals were disgusting and England and before that the Kiwi's have found his Achilles Heal.
Zachary Gates
Roar Guru
As for Australia's bowling on day two, they clearly had a mountainous psychological barrier to overcome. Is it understood how hard it is to defend such a low innings total? I don't know if the onus is the batsmen, though. To me, Clarke's decision at the toss was when I could smell a rat.
Zachary Gates
Roar Guru
I have said all along that Starc is not up to Test standard yet, and time will tell if he ever will be. In my eyes he hasn't responded to Warnie's comments last summer. He was the most dominant bowler in the World Cup but that's another format - one in which fitness and line and length (given the value of variation) aren't as important. They are the young quick's biggest problems.
Zachary Gates
Roar Guru
It may have been very different if the Poms had been sent in and been rolled for 130-odd. I would suggest we would have seen a much more buoyant Australia.
Zachary Gates
Roar Guru
I really would say the first innings collapse was largely due to the green deck. After all, three of Anderson's six wickets were caught behinds. Chris Rogers made a good point in saying that the key to his first innings success was enduring the fight. My question then is that if it was such a fight to construct an innings on that sort of pitch, why did Clarke not send the Poms in? I think England showed the pitch had improved by the second day given their innings was about 150 runs higher. So a poor pitch-read in my eyes.
While we're at it
Guest
In my mind it was a brave decision. It certainly didn't work but as some others have written, part of it was due to bad batting, not just top notch bowling, of which there was some. Interestingly, when presented with the same pitch the Aussie bowlers really were ineffective at the start of England innings. Would they have come up trumps from 11:00am onwards if they had been given the chance? England seemed to be punch drunk on their bowling efforts and did not show a lot of discipline in their batting. I thought the pitch would suit Hazlewood to a tee but he was all over the shop, and he is meant to be the steady bowler of the quicks. On another note, how many 4 leaf clovers does Moeen Ali carry around? He is talked up as a great batsman but I lost count of the number of airy whoofs outside off that missed the edge, not the middle of his bat. The pies he tosses up when bowling also somehow have a "hit me" element which makes him look world class when batsmen go giddy on the offerings. Its a lot to ask but the Aussies could do with another 130-170 runs, young Nevill could ingratiate himself to the nation very quickly should he and his partners drag the innings out into the afternoon.
Bomb78
Guest
Australia wouldn't be in such a big hole if they had bowled tight early on day 2. How much more effective would Johnson been had Siddle, not Starc, been spelling him? The pressure constantly came off when Starc was bowling. That aside, the bowling attack can't be blamed for this impending result. Surely Clarke can't make it all the way to the Sydney test - a suitable venue to 'farewell' him - with his current form.