India’s tour next tour of India looms large with the first Test exactly two months from today.
Much of the focus will be on whether Australia has the requisite spin bowling stocks to have an impact against a powerful batting line-up.
Perhaps, it is not that important a discussion.
I was lucky enough to commentate on Australia’s historic series win in 2004, the first since the Bill Lawry-led side in 1969-70.
In 2004, the Australians principally won the series on the back of their fast bowling.
In the first Test at Bangalore, which the tourists won by 217 runs, their only spinner, Shane Warne, sent down 60 overs in the match for figures of 2-78 and 2-115.
Jason Gillespie (5-96), Glenn McGrath (6-94) and Michael Kasprowicz (4-66) were the more influential bowlers.
The second Test at Chennai was a draw with two days’ play lost to rain.
In the third match at Nagpur, where Australia secured the series on the back of a massive 342-run victory, it was again the quicks that did damage.
Warne returned four wickets for the match and was required to bowl only 38 overs with India dismissed for 185 and 200 while Australia compiled scores of 398 and five declared for 329.
Between them, Gillespie (9-80), McGrath (5-106) and Kasprowicz (2-74) claimed 16 of the 20 wickets to fall.
The final Test was played on a pitch that was not up to Test standard from ball one with neither team able to score more than 205 in any of the four innings and the match lasted just over two days.
Such was its dust bowl status, part-timer Michael Clarke captured 6-9 off 6.2 overs in India’s second innings, a feat that the likes of Steve Smith could have emulated.
Still, in the first innings where India was dismissed for 104, the three quicks claimed seven wickets. In the end, Australia went down by just 13 runs.
With Warne being ruled out late with a hand injury, Nathan Hauritz was the sole specialist spinner remaining in the squad. He returned match figures of 5-103.
Had Warne been available, two spinners on that pitch would have been on the cards.
However, at the other grounds tandem spin was not required as evidenced by the final series statistics – Gillespie (20 wickets at 16.1), McGrath (14 at 25.4) and Kasprowicz (9 at 28.3).
Heading to India early next year Australia needs to play to its strengths, something it did not do in the recent 3-0 loss to Sri Lanka.
In that ill-fated series Australia played two spinners in each match – firstly Nathan Lyon and Steve O’Keefe, and when the latter was injured, Jon Holland was paired with Lyon for the last two matches.
A third quick and just the one spinner may well have been a better option.
England has just lost 4-0 in India and as former skipper Michael Vaughan tweeted, “Eight Test losses in a year … all because of no world class spinner!”
Aside from the result in India, England also drew one-all in Bangladesh.
In the first two Tests against India, England had three spinners in the side – Adil Rashid, Moheen Ali and Zafar Ansari, who was omitted for the last three matches of the series.
Come the end of the series, their averages were not overly flattering – Rashid (37.4), Ansari (54.3) and Ali (64.9).
Unless the pitches are going to be raging turners in India, Australia would be well advised to go in with just the one specialist spinner.
Currently the spin stocks in Australia are unlikely to regularly trouble India’s batsmen.
Pace is Australia’s strength. It has worked in India before. It should be the focus again.
Sumit Roy
Guest
Dharmasala and Bangalore will have a bit for quicks. Not Pune or Ranchi.
Sumit Roy
Guest
2013 were not dust bowls. Only the last test in Delhi was it really turning.Rest were proper standard Indian wickets. Not dust bowls.
Matt
Guest
I like all your suggestions but please no faulkner please. He just brings out the mongrel in kohli every time. How many time kohli has smashed faulkner its actually embarrassing which actually has a demoralising effect on team.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
Lyon did adapt to the conditions late in the series last time. He was quite good in the final Test, and got some wickets to go with that. If he is willing to give the ball some air, and give himself a chance, rather than bowl the traditional Australian fast, flat, non-threatening finger spin, he may well be valuable over there. There is nothing to suggest any other spinner would fare any better, maybe O'Keefe but he is much the same regular dart bowler except with the other arm. I agree with Glenn though, play three quicks and one spinner. Smith can bowl himself as back-up. Its a shame Voges fell away so badly, as he could have provided the containing dart part-time while Lyon tried to flight and attack more. But scoring over 400 regularly is going to be required, scoring under 150 regularly looks the likely result. The bowling line-up won't be the issue, and nor will selection. There simply is not the ability,or more especially mindset, to be competitive over there.
Tanmoy Kar
Guest
Very true, if Australia do not have good spinners they only have to rely on three pace men only, no other option left with them. But in recent series English pace men were not very successful as well.
Cam
Guest
1.S Marsh 2.Warner 3.Smith 4.Head 5.Handscomb 6.Nevill 7.O Keefe 8.Starc 9. Pattinson 10.Cummins 11.Bird
Alex L
Roar Rookie
Hard to say how the wickets will play in test matches; we'd have to assume typical dustbowls away from Bangalore but we really don't know about the others as they've not been used in tests to this point -- Ranji trophy results suggest Dharamsala isn't an awful place for quicks, and Ranchi can vary, which leaves Pune as the only absolute certainty (short of a freak rainfall).
Pankaj
Guest
Yes Aussie spin bowlers are essential but batters also needed to be good enough for playing against worlds no.1 & no.2. Bowlers.
no one in particular
Roar Guru
A former English Test cricketer told me that is was easier to face good pace bowling in Australia than good pace bowling in India. Australian pitches are consistent with pace and bounce. The right line and length in India can pay dividends due to the inconsistently, the bowler just needs patience. trying to win in India with fast bowling doesn't work. Hazlewood and Bird will do better than Starc
davSA
Guest
You may be onto something here Glenn. I had a look at the stats of SA in India over previous test series and with the exception of the most recent where Ashwin and Jadeja were the top wicket takers in an Indian Whitewash of SA , the previous 2 series resulting in a series win for SA and a draw , the leading wicket takers were Dale Steyn and Alan Donald respectively . So yes pace can be effective on the sub-continent but it looks like it needs to be express pace. Is Pat Cummins listening.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
He's had a couple of dogs that showed he can at least hang around. Perth collapse had him digging in while others fell. Better option in every category than wade.
Suneer Chowdhary
Roar Guru
That 2004 series was made famous as much by India's defeat to Australia as it was by the pitches in question. The two Tests India did lose were curiously very un-Indian in nature. The Nagpur surface was green and was a manifestation of a supposed off-the-field political battle between the then BCCI chief and the Nagpur association head. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-323388/Ganguly-dismay-Nagpur-pitch.html Playing spinners for the sake of doing won't help but that said, not playing a couple of spinners on a turner might add to the bowling woes. The one factor that overseas teams have tried to exploit with varying amounts of success is reverse swing but it will need to reverse at some pace - pace that Dale Steyn has, something that Mitchell Starc also has. Pace without swing might not help too much on slow surfaces. There is one other factor that Australia might need to consider - over-rates. Not speaking from the perspective of the fans but overseas captains - most notably Ricky Ponting - have been put off by that issue and have been forced into bowling lesser bowlers at crucial times because of a fear of getting banned for a game or two. Playing four pacers makes it tougher in that sense. Even while playing three, Steven Smith will need to be careful not to be a regular transgressor. The good news is that two of the Tests will be played in Bangalore and Dharamsala - two surfaces that might have something in it for fast bowlers.
Rob
Guest
Thank you Glen. I agree Starc and Hazelwood will hold the key to upsetting India. Bird's pace, length and inability to move the ball will be murdered. Lyons predictable line and length could be a problem. S. Marsh fare well tour. Renshaw in first tour may struggle but deserves a chance to be tested. He actually doesn't seem to be worried by the world class Yasir Shah. Khawaja is a train wreck in the making and would be egg on a selectors face. Glen Maxwell worries the Indians with the bat because he won't get tied down. On the smaller grounds he can hurt them. Head looks a little shakey against spin and Ashwin loves left handers. I think Bancroft is a good smokie. Neville is a better keeper and with Maxwell, Starc in the bottom order he can hold up his end while they take on the boundry which will produce the best results. Bowling wise I think Faulkner can be used. Who is the quickest bowlers that can stand up in Test match conditions? Richardson, Berenadorff, Sayers,
matth
Guest
I also think Smith's spin play in recent years has been overrated. He is blindly jumping down the track and getting caught out of position time and again.
matth
Guest
Well he's hitting sixes for fun in the BBL...
Drew
Roar Rookie
Indian quicks did better than the Poms but it was the spinners who destroyed them. We need 20 wickets and a balanced attack is needed. 3 Quicks and 2 spinners. Maxwell or Faulkner playing as the 5th bowler. The selectors probably won't take either. Maybe they'll be swayed by David's article and unveil Cummins as our all rounder?????
Annoyedofit
Guest
there's literally nothing that suggests that Nevill can do anything in India.
Junior Coach
Guest
Agree Glenn- I remember Tony Greig being asked what it took to win in the subcontinent- He replied- pick your best team-the Poms won a series against the odds back in the 70's and John Lever and bob Willis took 46 wickets between them- they did aslo have one D. Underwood as a pretty handy spin option. We should simply pick our best attack- whatever that is- and someone needs to tell Lyon to slow down.
Brian
Guest
I did forget Marsh. Happy to have him open instead of Khawaja or bat 5 instead of Bailey. Nevill can suceed in India like Moeen Ali the batsman just did. India is not so much about being the complete player as much as have a great temperament. India do bat deep but if you can't take 20 wickets every game has only 2 possible results and in a 4 test series you will lose for sure
spruce moose
Guest
I'll also double down and say that Starc will also do well while the ball is new. A good yorker is a good yorker on any pitch.