Australia have not only surprised everyone by not being pummelled in the first Test match of the series – they actually won? And boy did they win big.
Despite what many believed to be a fatal collapse of sorts on the first day, losing eight wickets for just 86 runs through the middle session, Australia not just recovered from there, but went on to record a frankly ridiculous 333-run win over India, in India.
All the wash-up from India vs Australia
» Match report
» The Liebke ratings
» Australia embarrass India technically and mentally
» Australia must not repeat 2001 nightmare
» India buried in their own dustbowl
Australia have broken a seven consecutive Test match losing streak in India thanks to the two Steves, Smith and O’Keefe.
In just two and a half days, Australia have managed to ask more questions than they’ve answered leading into the other series after a Test full of collapses, surprises, wickets coming left right and centre – and runs where they should and shouldn’t be.
Let’s take a look at the six talking points from the first Test.
O’Keefe’s masterclass is making Lyon very nervous
Steve O’Keefe has had a weird international career so far, playing just a few Tests and being another victim of the post-2007 search for another Shane Warne. However, in one fell swoop, the Malaysian born tweaker could be in for a career renaissance.
On a turning wicket seemingly designed specifically for the Indians, O’Keefe tore shreds off a team of batsmen who specialise on these kinds of wickets.
Six wickets in both innings, kicking off a spectacular first-innings collapse of 7/11 and snagging six of the first seven in the second innings has not just put O’Keefe on the radar for India, but also his own teammates.
Nathan Lyon has been Australia’s front line spinner for the last five years, but over the past 12 months questions have been raised about his form and place in the side. While Lyon has continuously swatted that talk away, this surely has to make him nervous.
One of the reasons Lyon has never been troubled up the top of the spinners pile has been a perceived lack of competition for his spot, but O’Keefe has swiftly changed that.
Barring injury, you’d imagine these two are a lock in to share the duties for the whole series, but after that, could O’Keefe have just spun his way into a more permanent role?
Smith making India his bunny just for fun
He didn’t necessarily set the world on fire in the first innings, falling for a grinding 27 from 95 deliveries, but he more than proved why he’s the best in the world in the second innings.
Smith pieced together a sublime 109 from 202 balls in the second innings in challenging conditions while everyone from both sides collapsed around him. He has cemented his status as his generation’s golden player.
On top of that, this was his fifth century in a row against India, a side he clearly enjoys playing – or dominating, as it were.
The next best score was 31 in the innings, but Smith was able to keep concentration and hold out one of the best bowlers in the world in Ravi Ashwin.
In an era of the so called ‘Big Four’ in Smith (Australia), Virat Kholi (India), Joe Root (England) and Kane Williamson (New Zealand), the Aussie has been able to stand out against each one of the opposition and has proved the most consistent by far.
Yep, the Marsh brothers again
It wouldn’t be an article about cricket in Australia if it didn’t involve complaining about one or both of the Marsh brothers now would it?
Despite Usman Khawaja, despite poor form, despite no need for a third seamer in a spin friendly environment, despite history, despite nearly everything, Mitch and Shaun Marsh were picked for the opening Test.
The Australian public duly ripped on them, complaining about the amount of chances they continue to get and the better options within our domestic system. And the people have been justified!
Does that mean that either of them will now be dropped as they should? Probably not, but once again they’ve failed at the top level.
Shaun came in early in both innings thanks to Matt Renshaw and his Delhi belly, but failed to live up to the reasoning of his selection, “having good history on the sub-continent” being the idea as to why he was brought in.
Mitch failed with the bat as per usual, although did get the second top score in the second innings, however, didn’t bowl a single ball. The all rounder in the side for batting and bowling, didn’t bowl.
So does that mean he’s our specialists sixth batsman? If so, he still failed, and if that’s the case, then Mitch Starc now has a better Test match batting average, so he should be the specialist sixth batsman.
Kholi isn’t invincible after all
Virat Kholi came into this series in record-breaking form, having scored a double century in each of his last four Tests and the most runs in a single season, ever.
In his home conditions with runs pouring out of every orifice, Kholi was, and still is, the key target for Australia if they want to avoid losing the series.
However, in spectacular, and beyond surprising fashion, Kholi came to the crease in India’s first innings and was back in the sheds two balls later for a duck, his first in over 100 international matches and first at home.
In the second innings he came to the crease again earlier than he would have liked, with India in need of the hero they had become so accustomed to, but alas, he fell for 13.
O’Keefe caught him out leaving one on one off stump and just like that, a highly likely win became a certain victory. His lowest Test aggregate at home finished with a destructive defeat at home as captain.
So are we going to win 4-0 now?
Following a victory like this, people get pretty cocky, pretty excited about the potential and possibilities of a clean sweep. Why stop at one win? Why not win everything?
We shouldn’t get too ahead of ourselves though. This was the debut Test for Pune and the pitch was rough as guts five overs into the first day, so for the sake of the argument, the wicket was an anomaly.
Yes Australia still completely outplayed India in every facet of the game, but once the home side get their mojo back and play on more of the pitches they’re used to being gifted by the groundsmen around the country, then we might find them bouncing back to retain the Border-Gavaskar Trophy.
There’s no reason why Australia can’t win another one or more, or at worst draw the four-Test series, but winning one battle doesn’t make you king.
What does this say about England leading into the Ashes
On a side note, India demolished England 4-0 at home just a couple of months ago in these same conditions.
Heading into an Ashes year Australia are looking for every indication, every comparison and every leg up they can to take the urn and this is a good start.
In the same situation, Australia smashed India, where England were smashed by India.
Technically that means we are way better than them and are set for a clean sweep of the Ashes.
If anything, it’s a telling sign that Australia appear to be a much stronger side across all conditions than the old foe and have a stronger side overall.
qwetzen
Guest
To balance the ledger somewhat.... Lyon has two advantages over SOK; 1. He is a very good outfielder. 2. He appears a better adjusted human.
Armchair Expert
Guest
Most people seem to miss your second point Chris, I think SOK got 5 wickets in the 1st innings from outside edges.
Rob
Guest
He's smarter at spin bowling Chris. You know it and I know it.
Rob
Guest
Jameswm, you are spot on in every thing you said. The snubbing of Maxwell has to be a personality clash within the boys club culture of Australian Cricket. That pitch was plain and simple, made for spin. Why has Head been bowling consistently before Maxwell in the lead up to the series. With the bat Maxwell has a very good record at the SCG arguable Australia's best spinning wicket. He has also single handedly rescued team at state and international level. He holds a shield record for the highest percentage of runs scored by one batsmen in a teams total runs scored. That was against NSW. WR 20/20 score was in our top 3 bats at the 2015 WC. Most of the team headed to Dubai for extra preparation while Maxwell played the ODI's with Australia's 2nd XI in NZ. In India last tour Maxwell 7/193 at an average of 27 was our best bowler on the spin friendly pitches. M.Marsh has done nothing with the bat of note at FC or international level and with a FC. average 10 runs less than Maxwell he continues to be picked before him even in a warm up game. He is not a number 6 test batsman. He has never played a Test in India and has an away record in the Sub continent of 2/169. S.Marsh is the most inconsistent batsman at Test Level in the history of the game. I say this because he is leading the world in ducks achieved by a batsmen. This is a constant criticism of the Maxwell haters. S. Marsh FC average is only slightly better than Maxwell's. People are starting to say Maxwell at 27 has missed his opportunity. S. Marsh is nearly 34. They throw up the 3 Test batting average. Well guess what he averaged 20.5 in the only game he was selected for batting out of position up the order. Whilst Rodgers 22, Clarke 14, Haddin 11 played 2 games. They all continued to be selected. The people questioning Maxwell as having an ego are the same hypocritical grubs that pick him and make him carry the drinks. A cricketer plays the game to represent his country. Players shouldn't be getting picked at test level because they are good mates with the current captain or coach it's pathetic unprofessional misconduct. IMO
Thunder Nation
Guest
Selecktors wont change tha winning lineup I want both marsh boyz gone as soon as possum but not gunna happen get them out or boycot the corecrust in the 3rd test match marsh boyz guna cost us tha terst seires trust mee
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I think SOK has 2 big advantages over Lyon: 1. He bowls less bad balls and can keep the pressure on better. 2. He's a left-arm spinner, turning the ball away from the right-handers and the Indian batting lineup is full of right-handers. Lyon puts more spin on the ball, so when he gets the ball right it can potentially be almost unplayable. But he's not as good at just getting it in the right place ball after ball.
ChrisB
Guest
Renshaw was the big talking point for me. Confirmed what most suspected after the home series, he's one whose in for the long haul. Wade kept decently on a turner. I'm no fan but he can't be dropped after that game
ChrisB
Guest
Lyon didn't bowl badly at all, he just didn't get the breaks O'Keefe did. Both will play the series out barring some calamity. Kind of reminded me of what you hear about the Oval in 56 when Loci by all accounts Bowles as all as Laker and got 1 compared to 19.
Disco Stu
Roar Rookie
This article is ridiculous for many reasons. 1. So Shaun Marsh was picked for “having good history on the sub-continent” and he failed here. You know who else has a good history on the sub-continent - Virat Kholi - and the rest of the Indian team. They all failed. 2. Mitch Marsh wasn't bowled. Many people believed that in India we should play to our strengths - pace - instead of rely on average spinners. After the early success of Starc and Hazlewood on day 2, and O'Keefe being 0-30, you might have thought that logic was correct. Who would have expected O'Keefe and Lyon to suddenly cut loose, thereby rendering Mitch Marsh obsolete. 3. Mitch Marsh failed at No 6. Out of 44 individual innings, his 31 was the 6th highest, and his time at the crease was vital to help Smith get a hundred. 4. What does this mean for the Ashes? It couldn't possibly mean any less. *Australia didn't play against England at Pune. *The England series was a few months ago. *The Ashes won't be played in Pune. *England didn't play at Pune in their test series. *England played an ODI at Pune and scored 350, narrowly losing.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
A 2-1 win to Australia would be awesome. Can't rule anything out, but the idea of Australia winning 4-0 is pretty much unimaginable. But then, this test result seemed so too, not just winning, but an absolute thrashing like that. It will be interesting to see what comes in the next test. Have to think India are likely to bounce back and play a lot better and the pitch will likely be quite different.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Agreed. There were plenty of people out there who were just rubbishing anyone who raised even the possibility that Australia might not lose 4-0. Apparently a 4-0 loss was 100% guaranteed and anyone who thought Australia was even the slightest chance of salvaging a draw, let alone a win, was just dumb. I wonder where all those people are now.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Maxwell is likely the one to come in IF they decide they want to go for 3 main quicks, picking Bird, dropping Lyon and then Maxwell comes in as the 5th bowler. I don't know the likelihood of them getting a pitch where they'll opt for this. The next test is probably the most likely to provide this pitch, but coming off the match just played they'd be unlikely to make this call. If Mitch Marsh and Lyon both do badly in the next test and they feel a Bird/Maxwell selection is worth it there's a chance of making the call for the third test. But as mentioned, it's probably the second test that's most likely to provide a pitch to favour this call, thus reducing the chance it will be made further down the line.
bigbaz
Guest
He's a cat , he had 4 more up his sleeve.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
If we end up with 4 tests where Lyon and O'Keefe bowl together I wouldn't be surprised to see O'Keefe get the better results in all four tests. While this pitch gave O'Keefe the chance to rip through the Indian lineup, and others likely won't, in better sub-continental batting conditions, Lyon can be reduced to cannon fodder. Hopefully he gets confidence from this that helps him to bowl better in the following tests. But there's a good chance India will target him on a flat pitch and he'll got at 5+ rpo while O'Keefe will do a better job in keeping the pressure on. If O'Keefe continues to outbowl Lyon throughout the series, you've got to believe that he then earns the right to be the first picked spinner in a one spinner team when returning back to Australia. But as pointed out, that is still a big "if". It's been one match, and anything is possible from here. But quite possibly the next 3 tests may be more the type where the spinners need to keep the pressure on, pick up the odd wicket here and there, and allow Starc and Hazlewood to bowl short, sharp spells of reverse swing taking the majority of the wickets.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I must admit that while I'd have preferred Nevill over Wade and plenty of options over Mitch Marsh, this match doesn't really give any reason for such a call. In a low scoring match Mitch didn't do that bad. And on a raging turner, Wade actually kept pretty well by all accounts. (Just reading things as I have no access to being able to watch any of it at all).
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Mitch Marsh not bowling doesn't mean much. Australia bowled India out for 105 and 107 in their two innings. Starc and Hazlewood only bowled 2 overs each in the second innings themselves. In that situation you simply aren't going to need to go to your fifth bowler. If they come up against a bit more of a road in the next test, as it expected, where likely both teams will be expecting to score 400+ in the first innings, then the fifth bowler is much more likely to get a run. And it doesn't say anything about England and the next Ashes. Completely different conditions altogether. The next Ashes are in Australia, both teams have flawed lineups, but being at home Australia would well and truly be favourites regardless of the results here.
qwetzen
Guest
Didn't Smith have five lives in his 100?
El Loco
Roar Rookie
Pretty much covered all my thoughts as I read the article. Lyon won't mind O'Keefe having a freak outing knowing that he himself also bowled well. Wickets needed in more trying circumstances before we get carried away with SOK (though I hope to see him do so). The Marshes, much as I question their general presence, can't be dropped on those single performances. Especially Mitch not bowling, what's your point? He simply wasn't required. I haven't heard a single person suggest 4-0, in fact a great many of us still fear a 3-1 loss. Barely a talking point (yet here we are). Likewise relevance to Ashes. More interesting talking point - India's worse-than-Watsonesque use of DRS. For the record too, Kohli has a double century in each of his last four series, not tests.
Brendon
Guest
I know O'Keefe did brilliantly but since 1st Jan 2016 Lyon is averaging 34.88 with 51 wickets from 13 tests. Whats so terrible about that? I wouldnt count Lyon out of the upcoming Ashes series later this year. Theres 3 tests to go and no more until the 1st test in Brisbane in November. Shield form will also count on who gets selected.
Darren
Guest
From all accounts (I don't have Fox so going by the radio call) Lyon bowled beautifully. I don't think he will be anything but ecstatic at the moment. If O'Keefe is the dominant bowler across the series then he should definitely be considered as the number 1 - but a bit early to put it out there based on one game on a sub-standard wicket. Speaking of the wicket it was completely different to anything England played on so I don't agree with that take away either- although I would think Australia would be very confident of winning back the Ashes.