The historic day-night Test at Adelaide Oval was absolutely fantastic. Despite only lasting three days, the game generated plenty of excitement, discussion and drama.
The match itself was a great advertisement for Test cricket, and the innovative elements surrounding it made it even more of a spectacle.
Everyone involved – administrators, players, media and fans – deserves a pat on the back for not just making it happen, but for making it a success.
Though Australia’s new-look team will be happy in winning the three-match series 2-0, there were a number of concerns they need to address.
The retirement of Mitchell Johnson and a foot injury to Mitchell Starc will once again test the depth in Australia’s fast bowling ranks.
Meanwhile, the fielding will need to improve. A number of catches were dropped in the series, and the general ground fielding wasn’t quite up to the level the team would expect of itself.
In a related point, having a dedicated 12th man – rather than a masseuse – is probably something that needs to be looked at.
However, the batting is where I’d like to concentrate my attention.
It may seem crazy to nominate runs as an area of concern, considering Australia declared in their first four innings of the series.
They knocked up scores of 4-556, 4-264, 9-559 and 7-385, before the somewhat difficult conditions in Adelaide, which saw them all out of 224 in the first innings, before notching 7-187 in the second.
Yet were the conditions in Adelaide really all that difficult? Though it certainly takes two teams to tango, was that really a three-day pitch?
Peter Nevill admitted the ball was easy to see, and most of Australia’s struggles came during the day sessions, so we can rule out the pink ball and the supposed tricky nighttime batting as causes for Australia’s low scores.
Rather, it was a seaming and swinging ball that presented Australia with issues – two things a Test batsman shouldn’t really be too nervous or uncomfortable about.
Unless you’d like to simply call it bad batting, it would seem a moving ball remains the Australian batting line-up’s Achilles Heel.
Which brings us to one of the most overused words in cricket: technique. More specifically, the fact that Australia’s batsmen have some technical issues to iron out, or need to better apply the techniques they have.
During the Adelaide Test, the Channel Nine commentators often dissected the Australian batsmen’s dismissals, and analysed the particular shot in question.
It often highlighted an angled bat, a head not over the ball, feet not moving to the pitch of the ball, playing at a ball way out in front of the pads, hard hands, etc, etc.
When a batsman is out, you’d expect it to be because of some type of error they made, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that analysis highlighted the above reasons for batsmen making their way back to the pavilion.
Personally, I love seeing these technical breakdowns of a batsman’s dismissal. What’s frustrating is the inconsistency in the assessment of a player’s overall innings.
Time and time again, a batsman would be savaged for how they were dismissed; yet the exact same shot by another player (or even the same batsman) would be commended if it led to a boundary or runs.
There does appear to be a shallowness of thinking around what’s a good shot and what’s a bad shot. The issue here is judging a shot solely on the result, rather than analysis of the mechanics of the shot.
It’s an issue because in Test cricket occupying the crease and batting for long periods is vital. That’s hard to do if you continuously make mistakes with the bat in your hands. Moreover, you’ll be found out – as many have – if you have a suspect technique.
That’s why it’s vital Australian batsmen are judged on every single shot they play – not just the ones that lead to their undoing – and irrespective of whether shots went for four or not.
Case in point: after being dropped by Mitchell Santner the previous ball he faced – off a truly horrible ‘shot’ that was more of a heave – Steve Smith creamed a ball to the cover boundary. Michael Slater described it as a great shot, but it really wasn’t. Smith’s feet barely moved as he threw the bat at a wide delivery.
It was a fantastic piece of hand-eye coordination, but not necessarily a good Test match cricket shot.
If you’re going to judge a shot on the results only, fine, it was four ‘glorious’ runs. But it was the type of shot that will see you in the sheds more often than not.
One of the features of Smith’s game during his run-fest last summer was his leaving, and it’s often said you can tell how good a cricketer is by his leaves, especially in Test cricket. In many ways, that’s the pure definition of “not judging a shot by its results”.
On good batting decks, like we saw in Brisbane and Perth, a batsman can attempt to play at every ball, and score freely. On wickets or conditions where the ball moves around a little bit, batsmen need to be a little more circumspect.
If Australia have designs on being the undisputed number one Test-playing nation, their batsmen need to be effective and successful all around the globe, on all types of decks, in all conditions.
That starts with harsh analysis and assessment on all the shots they play, not just the ones they get out on.
Don Freo
Guest
Did you not hear, in his post match interview, that they were his instructions? Is Warner's guided catch to slip not "giving his wicket away"? I wouldn't be quoting Liebke as an authority. His raison d'etre is to belittle others.
Joel
Roar Rookie
Warner and Burns didn't throw their wicket away but Mitch did. He didn't read the situation of the game and tried to belt the spinner out of the park, which is exactly what NZ set him up for. Dan Liebke would refer to it as #MaxwellBall
Don Freo
Guest
That's just rubbish. He did a great job. Your argument extends to blaming Warner and Burns. If they didn't get out, none of the others would have been called upon.
Joel
Roar Rookie
In Adelaide MM should have still been standing at the end of that match. He gave his wicket away at a time when he was set and risked the outcome of the match by trying to hit another six. As well as he batted earlier in the innings, he undid all that good work getting out to an obvious ploy. He's also uncertain outside off stump, doesn't judge length that well and has very hard hands in defense. Even when he's defending it looks like he's still trying to hit the ball hard. Certainly lots of talent, lots of potential but at the moment he is not a top order test batsman,
Bearfax
Guest
So who said he should bat like a bowler. I can just see it now. Lehmann sending Mitch out to bat, the game in the balance, the crowd tittering in anticipation, the conditions just right for an onslaught and Lehmann then says to Mitch 'now remember I want you to bat like a bowler. Forget all your batting skills. Just go out there and lose your wicket cheaply, 'cause that's what we want.' Either that or he's been taking advise from big brother again...never a smart idea. Meanwhile the bowlers who follow are batting like all rounders...but then they dont have the time to bat like bowlers.
Don Freo
Guest
Nup. Not with you there. MM has had very few chances to bat like a batsman. When he does, he'll comfortably get to an average over 40 (which stats slaves seem to have decided is ok). Just remember how quickly Khawaja's average improved from 25 once he got a score. Look at how quickly Burns' average diminishes if he doesn't get a score. Very happy with his batting in Perth and Adelaide (especially Adelaide). Brisbane didn't factor.
Bearfax
Guest
Come on Don. That's just an excuse. You well know that the best batsmen tend to bat at 1, 2 and 3 and that in fact those at 4, 5 and 6 tend to be heavier scorers, not lighter scorers. At No 6 he has the easiest task as a batsman to score runs because he doesnt have to meet the new ball. Sorry Don but Mitch is playing pretty ordinary recently as a batsman at present and needs to up his game. You know I think he's a quality player and have time for him and believe he has immense potential, But I'm not going to blind myself to the realities of poor performances with the bat.
Don Freo
Guest
That's one of the sticking points, though. Marsh is not being an opener or #3. He comes in when the quest for runs is regularly on but the loss of a wicket doesn't matter. Posters that have discovered Statsguru often know how to cut and paste a stat but have no desire to contextualize the innings that lead to the stats. If you want Mitch to have the stats of a pure batsman, you'd best judge him on game situations where that kind of innings was required.
Bearfax
Guest
Some of what you are saying Don is justified. And I agree there are too few innings to judge, though others such as Khawaja and Hughes have been negatively judged on better performances. But players, unless they have fairy god selectors, are judged on their outcomes., no matter the causes. Maybe Marsh has had bad luck, maybe not. But it is blunt outcomes that will decide his selection, not whether he looked good, was unlucky, came in at the wrong time etc. Selections arent usually based on 'what ifs'
Don Freo
Guest
He has not batted enough. Almost always he is going in when nothing matters except quick runs. In the Ashes there were failures but they were universal. Basically, he was facing a new ball. If his failures were unique, you'd worry. For slaves to stats, that gas an impact on numbers. When he has played 25 tests and numbers look like that, there would be a problem. He gets picked because selectors know cricket. Backyard statisticians can carry on until the cows come home but very little of it makes any valid comment at all. He's got out played on, caught and bowled, caught behind, caught in the outfield...How is that "working him out"?
Bearfax
Guest
You're right Don. Figures dont show everything. But they are significant indicators. Everything else is secondary because they are based on impressions rather than factual information. His test performances show a pattern whereby in his first five innings, he was on top of the game scoring 27, 3, 87, 47, 41. The next four innings saw a little trouble with 11, 6 no, 12 and 27 no. Nothing worth worrying about at that stage and he was averaging a respectable 37.3. . But he has since gone into a slump with scores of 0,6,3,2,34,1,4 and 28 at an average of 9.7. Now I know you are going to make all sorts of explanations and dismiss the stats as usual. But the facts are that he is averaging around 23 now in tests and if it wasnt for his bowling, he would not be in the side. Now I know players always go through purple and pastel periods and given the number of innings involved its too soon to be criticising too heavily, though Khawaja was crucified and exiled for 2 years for far less failures than this. Am I wrong Don or has Marsh's style been worked out and he is being easily targeted. Or is he just not thinking about his defense enough. Whatever it is, he needs to address it during the West Indies tests or I can see him back in Shield for some extra training before he comes back into the team. But I dont doubt his potential, only his need to fix what is stopping him moving to the next level.
matth
Guest
Maybe, but their records at home are better than away (like most) and will stay that way. Smith scored in England on the less "English" pitches. Warner is an interesting case, I'm not as sure there. As for comparing to Williamson, Root and Kholi, I never said anything there and I would put Kholi down as a home town champion. Williamson and Root have more potential to do well away.
Don Freo
Guest
MM has "crafted" some wonderful innings over the last year. Look at some of them Joel. I suspect you don't want to.
Don Freo
Guest
Ho hum. Match situation...not numbers. This is cricket, not Maths.
Joel
Roar Rookie
M.Marsh is a hitter, more so than a batsman. He hasn't really got the ability to craft an innings just yet and needs a lot of work on his defense.
Bearfax
Guest
For me Don, Mitch's value at present is his bowling, which is more successful that Lyon in nabbing wickets and keeping the pressure on. That's what is keeping him in the test side. His batting to date has been at best moderate. In 18 innings he's been out seven times under 10 and passed fifty only once, and its not so much about opportunity (he's been not out only twice). His test average is less than Starc and Hazlewood and only slightly higher than Johnson, and they have even less opportunity to bat. But on the plus side Mitch has only just turned 24, and Steve Waugh's average after that many tests wasnt much different at a similar age. But there seems to be a flaw in his approach to his batting that he has to sort out. They talk about Maxwell's and Maddinson's flaws in batting yet their averages in first class are much higher, so denying that there is a problem is just head in the sand stuff. But having watched him a couple of times he has the talent no doubt. Mitch seems like his brother very much an 'eye' batsman and it seems 'eye' batsmen often get out early cheaply before their eye is set. This has been Shaun's problem throughout his career and its one I think Mitch needs to work on if he is to maintain his all rounder status. He's there because he does a good job with his bowling. There are at least a dozen young batsmen superior at this stage with the bat. I support the move to No 7 to give him a little more breathing space for a time. If he cant get into the runs before the end of the West Indies tour, he may need to go back to Shield for a time, like Hughes, Langer, Hayden etc did. Doesnt say he wont be a top line cricketer in future. Just means there's development that needs to take place. Personally I hope he gets into the runs and gets the monkey off his back.
Don Freo
Guest
Not at all. First and foremost, MM is a batsman. This series has not provided him with much of an opportunity to build an innings. Twice he needed to and scored a solid 34 (actually unfairly given) and a solid 28 (which was worth 58 in its context). Twice he failed. As a batsman, he is fine. Don't worry about the keyboard batting critics on The Roar. It is funny how so many forget everything but an ugly play and miss. He has played some wonderful innings over this past year. He will be one of Oz's top batsmen for the next decade. His bowling is the bonus.
Don Freo
Guest
He's a gun in the gully.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Smith is easily Aus's best fieldsmen as he does it better than anyone in slips as well as the in and out fields. Warner has only just moved into the slips and has done ok so far. Maxi is number two for mine but he needs to prove him self in a key catching position before I would rate him above smith.
Don Freo
Guest
Ross is that good. That's why I mention it. Filled in last season as 12th man in an Adelaide Test or ODI. I have Maxi way ahead of Warner and Smith. Easily Oz's best fieldsman. Freakish.