Australia’s win in Pune was both emphatic and record-tumbling. Only 120 deliveries were required from front men Mitchell Starc and Josh Hazlewood, the lowest tally in 82 years by an Australian strike attack.
It was also India’s first Test defeat for 19 Test matches, their previous best having been a 17-match streak in the late 1980s.
Some symmetry was remarkable. Steve O’Keefe’s outstanding figures of 6/35 were directly mirrored in the second innings. Similarly, India’s first innings total of 105 was only just surpassed by their second dig of 107. It was the unlikeliest of scripts.
But despite the victory curtailing attacks from major critics and pessimists towards Australia’s chances this tour, observers must remember a few things.
1. India remain the best team in the world
The Indian cricket team last lost a Test match midway through 2015. They also had not lost their last 20 matches at home. They have the top two ranked ICC Test bowlers, the number two batsman, not to mention a host of other talent to be collectively dubbed ‘team incredible’.
As one demonstration of their depth, an individual by the name of Karun Nair, who made 303 not out in December, in just his third Test innings, did not make the team. What’s more, their captain is already the country’s third-most successful skipper for Test wins, despite his tenure of just 23 Tests.
Most good teams relapse; it keeps the audience alert and gives supporters more material for appraisal upon return to success. What separates good from champion teams is how they respond to their own hiccups. Recent history suggests that India’s return will be devastating.
2. Luck was on Australia’s side
The pitch was dusty, the outfield was patchy, but Australia undoubtedly got the rub of the green. The tourists’ fortune began with what Darren Lehman predicted would not determine the outcome of the match: the toss. Steve Smith’s correct call did not necessarily determine Australia’s fate, however it made the match their Test to lose.
A steady head from 20-year-old Matt Renshaw and a key contribution from tail-ender Mitchell Starc pushed Australia past 250 in their first innings. It was calamitous for India from thereon in.
Their inexperience with the DRS became evident, as they failed to recognise the tactical significance of the technology. This is something they will have to review, as is their catching, with Steve Smith dropped four times on his way to a match-winning century.
Although India has never been renowned for their fielding prowess, the number one Test side in the world will understand how the game may have changed had they taken their chances.
If India wins the toss, makes better use of the review system, and remembers to catch the ball, the outcome may well be vastly different in Bangalore.
3. Australia’s poor subcontinent record
Before the miracle of Pune, Australia had won just one Test on the subcontinent since 2006 – in 2011, against Sri Lanka, where Nathan Lyon took a wicket with his first delivery in Test cricket. Unfortunately, this was no omen for Lyon, who has struggled in these spin-friendly conditions, particularly against Sri Lanka less than seven months ago.
Lyon is not to blame alone. Australia suffered a batting collapse in each of their three matches last year, where in each match they were unfortunate enough to bat second each time. Poor form, poor selection or poor luck does not excuse a record of losing ten of the past 14 matches in Asia, with the four others ending in draws.
Fortunately, that drought was broken with some class and luck last week. It is hoped that the success in Pune will rid Australia of previous demons they have faced in the most foreign of conditions. However, it will take more than one convincing victory before the recent memories of Sri Lanka and Pakistan in the UAE are diminished.
4. Inexperience
Matt RenWhat? Steve O’Who?
The Australian captain mentioned that the youth and inexperience of his side might have been of assistance in their win. Players with less experience were not reminded of bad subcontinental memories, and they had the liberty to trust their own game. Being fearless may well have been a barometer for the victory.
Prior to Pune, the team averaged just 27 Test matches per person, with six having played under 20 matches, and three having no cricket experience in India at all. That is without considering the likes of Ashton Agar, Mitchell Swepson, Glenn Maxwell and Usman Khawaja, who eagerly wait in the wings, offering some-to-no wealth of Test match experience themselves.
Naivety, inexperience and youthful enthusiasm can bring unforeseen success: just look at the current president of the United States (although not all that youthful it must be said). Nonetheless, be it in sport or politics, it is often the wiser and more knowledgeable who prevail.
TheCunningLinguistic
Guest
While I applaud your bravery in putting your predictions out there, Gene, it does beg a question: how's that working out for you? :-) Yes, yes, I know it's early days in the second Test, but the resolve in this Oz team, and conversely, the lack of it in the Indian team, says it could pan out very differently to your predictions. I'm not saying I would have predicted anything different to your good self, but the steely determination shown by the Aussies so far has dared me to dream of something beyond my wildest hopes prior to this tour.
sanjay Poojar
Guest
India India alway India
Steele
Guest
The best team in the world tag has regularly changed over the last couple of years. You say India are the best team with such conviction. They are flat track bullies that only do well in the subcontinent. The last time they toured Australia, Sth Africa, New Zealand and England they lost every one of those series. In fact they only managed one test victory across four tours! And don't forget about the roads the Aussies dished out for them last time they were down. I find it staggering when people try to tell us they are some kind of world force.
qwetzen
Guest
Adrian said: "I dispute India’s title as best team in the world. Best team in India on doctored pitches, yes. Best team outside of India? No way." Does the ICC ranking system factor home ground advantage in? But yes, it's a payback at the Indians who sneer that SKW wasn't an ATG because he dudded there. If that's the method then it's only fair to state that India can't be the BitW while they've *never* won a series in Oz (11 series) or RSA (6 series). Crikey! They've even only won 2 of their last 19 Tests in Kiwiland! And more recently, they've been smashed in their last 2 series in Pomgolia (4-0 and 3-1). You're pretenders India.
Adrian
Guest
Winning the toss certainly helped Australia, so that is where the "luck" bit came in. If Australia win the toss again in the 2nd test, I'd expect a similar level of "luck". Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that unless India win the toss, they won't win. But India winning the toss doesn't guarantee them a victory either, or a draw. But it just makes it possible. I dispute India's title as best team in the world. Best team in India on doctored pitches, yes. Best team outside of India? No way.
bargearse
Guest
agree
Bob Sims
Guest
The second Test should be a great tussle. Some good points made in the article. However, although India have the second best batsman in the world, Australia has the best. From all accounts, this pitch will be more conducive to pace bowling, and Australia has two of the best, if not the best. Australia now know they can beat India at home, and that is priceless. Australia's relative newbies (Renshaw, Handscomb, O'Keeffe) haven't tasted defeat against India and will therefore come out with greater confidence, Nobody expects another Australian win of the magnitude of the last, but my money is still on Australia.
Jameswm
Guest
And Starc might have one of his bursts too.
Jameswm
Guest
I'm struggling to agree with much of this. 1. India remain the best team in the world - well, IN INDIA maybe. "They have the top two ranked ICC Test bowlers" - Ashwin averages 55 in Australia. He does well IN INDIA. Jadeja takes wickets IN INDIA but not elsewhere. You do realise that Jadeja - for example - has played his last 10 tests in India (and 14 of his last 15)? This is why he is ranked so high. In England and NZ he took 12 wickets in 6 tests at 56. The Indian spinners are only ranked so high because they basically only play at home on tailored pitches. India have the number two batsman - so what, Australia have the no.1 batsman (by a big margin on current rankings) and the no.5 batsman. Yes this series is also in India on doctored pitches (we know that for a fact now). But I wouldn't pay much attention to the overall ranking of the Indian bowlers as proving anything, when they only play at home and are useless overseas. They are good in India. But they don't deserve those rankings. If they played half their games at home and half overseas, their ranking would plummet down to the teens. 2. Luck was on Australia’s side - seriously? We won by 333 runs and were lucky? Australia had Kohli out LBW in the 2nd innings and didn't go to DRS. They made DRS mistakes too. India's DRS mistakes in the 2nd innings made no difference to the match. If the Indian openers hadn't challenged, maybe they would have had a review left so their no.11 could get a reprieve - big difference that. The toss? Let me repeat - you are not lucky to win a toss, nor are you unlucky to lose a toss. It is 50/50 and one will win it. In terms of the state of the pitch, the toss made ZERO difference - witness Smith's 2nd innings ton. 3. Yes Australia has done poorly in India previously. Australia have also not prepared like this before. We have two good finger spinners and some batsmen who appear able to score runs there, plus a fast bowler who thrives on reverse swing (more than one). Maybe things have changed. That we don't know yet.
bearfax
Guest
Well said Vas. I agree that the second test will be much closer than than the first. I felt India were not on their game in the first, with missed catches and some uncharacteristic batting lapses. It wont happen again. India will be much tougher now that they know Australia is there to play and win. SOK was under estimated and you can be sure they are examining ways to defuse his accurate and subtle bowling style. The batting of both sides will decide this next match more than the bowling.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
1. India may have the number one ranking at the moment, but that's a ranking that's shifted around all over the place recently with lots of teams having it for a short period. They've had some good form lately, but they've also played a massive percentage of their recent tests at home and the only away matches since their last trip to Australia have been against West Indies, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. This has dramatically helped their recent run of good results. While they are a good team, they aren't the sort of dominant, worlds best team, that you make out. They are good enough that you'd expect them to come back well in home conditions and Australia will have to play very well to beat them. But that's because of their long time dominance at home, not because they are overall a better team. 2. I don't see anything you listed as luck being on Australia's side. Sure they won the toss, but they had two scores of 250+ and India barely made 100 in both innings. Conditions barely changed across the 3 days. Can't blame any of the to the toss. Australia had situations where they didn't review ones where it would have been out if they had reviewed. Sure Smith got some luck, but Australia won by 333 runs, if he'd been out to the first chance he gave Australia still would have thrashed India there. And while I can call dropped catches luck when it comes to an individual batsman getting runs, (ie Smith was the lucky batsmen to get dropped), but in the context of the game, it's part of playing better. Australia did a better job of taking their catches, that's not luck, that's playing better. 3. History means nothing. This team have done all sorts of preparation different to any previous tour, in the first test they showed that. The tests to come will be in different conditions, but there's no reason to automatically rule out Australia handling those conditions better than expected like they did in the first test. 4. I can't see inexperience as an issue. You pointed out an Indian player who made 300 in just his third test innings. Players can perform despite inexperience. SOK may not have played a lot of tests, but he's been playing first class cricket for a long time.
Basil
Guest
Lifes to short for articles like this. If you prefer to view every positive achievement as luck and wish to have a grim outlook than I feel sorry for you. Celebrate the highs, learn from the lows, and enjoy the ride.
Rob JM
Guest
The four things that will stop Australia from winning the second test Rain on day 2 Rain on day 3 Rain on day 4 Rain on day 5 The four things that will help Australia pull off a win Our better bowling Our better batting Our better fielding Our better preparation. Indias winning strategy was "Australia is poor in the subcontinent" They are manifestly underprepared. You cant turn that around in a week. By the third test they will be back to their best.
Peter Z
Guest
I'm backing O'Keefe to bewitch them again. We have every reason to be upbeat. He didn't beat them with vicious turners; he beat them with guile. They looked as clueless about his straight ones / arm balls as our boys did in Sri Lanka against Herath. We shall see I say to all the pessimists. Strap yourselves in for a wild ride tomorrow.
El Loco
Roar Rookie
Thoroughly agree, three of the four are just broad points that apply to the whole series. They're reasons not to get carried away with the win, not why we'll struggle. On the good fortune front, time to stop calling winning the toss luck. It's part of the game, someone wins it, it's a bonus. India batted for 73 pathetic overs, it's not because they lost the toss. And yes, Smith survived some chances, but close catching gets affected by the state of the pitch as well. Close catchers rely a lot on instinct, a feel for likely trajectories. On minefields like this one, tough chances are more likely to go down. Apart from all that, I'd say it's pretty bad luck for one of your openers to have a bout of gastro out on the pitch.
Vas Venkatramani
Roar Guru
Out of the four points, three were well known and widely acknowledged as weaknesses prior to the series starting. They therefore need no further embellishment, even despite India's loss in Pune. But Point 2 I think takes due credit away from how well Australia played in Pune. To chalk up poor DRS decisions or even worse close catching on India's part as luck for Australia is not justified. On that token, would Australia not being able to play spin bowling well in the last 10 years be counted as luck for the likes of Ashwin, Jadeja, Herath, Ajmal, Yasir Shah, and Swann? I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss how well Australia played, even if India made their job easier on the way. If India needs to win the toss in order to nullify the attributes that Australia may have to win the Test, then that falls down on a 50/50 flip of a coin. Australia didn't win in Pune solely because they won a toss, but because they batted responsibly on Day 1, bowled full length and fielded well on Day 2, and backed it up with further sound batting followed by cleaning up India on a minefield on Day 3. Bangalore will be a different challenge, but Australia have so far shown they are not the pushovers everyone deemed them to be.