The fourth Test is almost over. The Aussie batsmen are following on, and no matter what happens today, the series will end in a comprehensive Indian victory.
Before the series began, with India ranked No.1 and Australia ranked No.5 in the world Test rankings, common sense said the tourists were the favourites, especially because Australia had shot themselves in the foot with sandpaper-gate, relegating our two highest-rated batsmen to local district cricket grounds.
But the first two Tests, leaving the sides tied with one win apiece, dared us to dream that Australia may upend the common-sense predictions. In the end it wasn’t to be, and it went wrong in five ways.
1. The expectations
Our expectations were completely unrealistic. The rational fans were drowned out by parochialism backed by an enthusiastic local media to have us believe we were favourites. India had won only an occasional Test in this country – how could they win an entire series, and for the first time in their history? Well, they could and they did.
2. The batting
India’s team is filled with experienced Test cricketers who have been through the Test mill. Even the reserves are experienced first-class cricketers with sound records.
Our lot had two experienced Test players whose failures always seem to outweigh their successes. As it turned out, this was a series in which their failures seemed to be all we got.
Each Aussie batting card was filled with batsmen who got a start and then played an unwise shot and got out. Only six scores over 50 were recorded and no-one scored over 100.
3. The bowling
When an attack is frequently described as the best attack in world cricket, the only way is down. After watching Pat Cummins, Mitch Starc, Josh Hazlewood and Nathan Lyon bowl hundreds of overs on wickets that did not permit lift or sideways movement and then be comprehensibly out-bowled by every Indian bowler, they now have to be referred to as the most exhausted attack in world cricket.
They tried so hard, and apart from Starc’s wayward efforts in Adelaide, they did as well as they could have.
4. Cheteshwar Pujara
He was the rock. No flashing blade, no extravagant gestures – he just defended solidly and picked up runs at an old-fashioned Test cricket pace of under 50 runs per 100 balls. That textbook style drove everyone but the Indians crazy. He must be the man of the series.
5. The Australian selectors
They deserve a lot of the criticism. Knowing the weakened nature of our side, what did they do? They picked the same old failures. If I hear Mark Waugh on Fox Sports say one more time that Shaun Marsh must keep his place, I will launch my remote at my screen.
Why Peter Siddle? Why not Jhye Richardson or Billy Stanlake? What harm could that do? Mitchell Marsh? Forget it. Try Marcus Stoinis. Last and certainly least, there was Marnus Labuschagne as a No.3. I hear Ricky Ponting crying in his beer.
And the one-day side? Peter Siddle again, both Marshes and no D’Arcy Short. Do they even watch anybody play?
I read a Dean Jones article saying that the selectors must be replaced. I agree, and soon.
That’s where it all went wrong.
Brendon
Roar Rookie
Pay TV offered the most money. That's the reality. Should we go back to the days of the ABC broadcasting cricket and paying peanuts for it? Good luck finding youngsters to take up cricket if that happened. As for scheduling useless matches quite often that is because Australia has commitments and requirements to play other teams on a regular basis. Its called "international cricket". Other countries suffer the same problem but they survive through it. Its funny that both Knox and Haigh are the same age and write the same old tired crap. Everything they write comes down to that the game has changed, the international game is no longer based around Australia and England, T20 is a big deal and has ruined everything, TV rights are killing the game and fail to realise and factor in cricket is competing with other richer sports who are ruthless. It just comes down to two middle-aged guys who don't like that cricket has changed and want it to revert back to way it was played and run in their youth. Haigh might be a bit more sophisticated about it than Knox (who is just awful) but his disingenuous nit-picking is just a whinge that cricket has changed and those damn kids need to get off his lawn.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Player payments have nothing tovdo with anything mentiined above.
Franctony
Roar Rookie
He almost destroyed Indian cricket when he was coach, was foolish enough to pick on Sachin tendulkar and was promptly kicked out by the Indian board.
bazza200
Guest
The Toss we won one toss and won that game. Massive advantage batting first. Our batting was poor 2. The First test was super close 2 31 runs and the last catch looked like it hit the ground.
Spanner
Roar Rookie
He murdered South Aust. cricket !
Rob
Guest
For the life of me I can’t cop the we aren’t getting paid enough to preform well. Sure if you are getting minimum wage or struggling to house and feed yourself with better opportunities. If theses players don’t love playing they shouldn’t be out there because they’re not going to do their best.
terrykidd
Roar Pro
As for the batsmen ..... who was the last Australian test batsmen you saw play a good old fashioned straight drive? If any have been played in this series then I missed the odd one or two. Our batsmen have forgotten how to play straight, probably because of too much 20/20 cross bat strokes. Performances in Shield and Test cricket should be the only ability/form indicators for test selection.
Paul
Roar Guru
Keith, I think we need to look at the Test series in two halves. In the first two Tests, where the pitches were equally competitive for both sides, we were right in the series. This had the unfortunate result of papering over our failings in the batting, after all, we'd just flogged India by 140 runs in Perth. The second half of this series saw us lose the toss on a Melbourne pitch that was a road for the first two days and progressively harder to bat on - the much vaunted Indian batting was lucky to make a hundred in their second dig. Our batting lived up to expectations, at least from Roar pundits, with the Marshes failing (again) and the rest of the side being shown up by Cummins with both bat and ball. We get to Sydney, lose the toss on another road and watched Pujara make hay. I assume the same guys will choose the team to play in the Sri Lanka Tests and I suspect if they stay and we don't win those games 2-nil, the selectors will be queuing up at Centrelink soon after. We were nnever a chance to win this series with the batsmen selected and I think the team's done extremely well to take a Test off India. That said, it makes it impossible NOT to bring back Warner & Smith. I wonder how India would have gone without Pujara & Kohli?
Paul
Roar Guru
No we don't!
Rob
Guest
Australia had 11 batsmen. We didn’t pick the best top 6 available either IMO but we played dumb. India have played smarter, batted first 3 out of 4 Tests and had some luck go their way. Warner and Smith probably help the top 6 issue but so could picking Maxwell, Renshaw and Burns instead of Finch, Head, Hamdscombe and the Marsh boys.
Paul
Roar Guru
you mean Corporatization. Yours is still a good word though!
Paul D
Roar Guru
yes ok spruce, they were suspended for one year for lying about ball tampering deep breaths
Rob
Guest
Keith, this started at the selection table. You mentioned the experience of India over Australia’s batting line up. The balance was wrong and they did everything possible to help India. Firstly Renshaw can bat all day and has proven it against India. Renshaw’s Test average is 63 opening on home turf. We pick Finch? Maxwell scored his first test 100 and finishes second in the batting averages 39 gainst India. Shaun Marsh averaged 19 and Mitch averaged 12 against India? Handscomb averaged 28. Head and Khawaja were not even considered because of there flaws playing spinners? The last two actually improved their cases (against spin)after playing well in UAE but Maxwell and Renshaw couldn’t get a start? Maxwell has done everything he can to be consider for Test selection but someone very powerful doesn’t like him and it’s obviously a personal issue IMO. Whoever it is they need to be removed from the position because it’s unprofessional disgusting behaviour. The second thing Australia has done is prepare very flat, slow, lifeless home pitches which is in complete contrast to those which India would prepare at home. Australia has also batted and bowled dumb for long periods throughout this series. They bowled short for the pitches that they were playing on. Pujara (2nd on average against Australia last series) and Bumrah have played very well. Respecting India as a very good team is fine but accepting that they should beat us at home is garbage.
Matt H
Roar Guru
You'll need to read the book to understand what Haigh means, but it's more about the appointment and running of the Board and the CA Executive on a corporate model that doesn't account for the fact that they are supposed to be custodians of the sport at all levels. the emphasis on the National Performance Centre to the detriment of all else, to the point where good young players don't see playing club cricket as necessary to progress and the states are shut out of the decision making processes. It has nothing to do with player payments, etc.
keith hurst
Roar Pro
His latest exploits are not very impressive
keith hurst
Roar Pro
I can’t understand the point you make about league union and AFL. All are now professional sports where money rules.
keith hurst
Roar Pro
South Africa were not relying on him steady the side. They had a number of great players at the time
keith hurst
Roar Pro
Funny! The whole Australian cricket public thinks they were.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Spot on Rell. The Argus report was utter rubbish. Almost entirely resulted from Australia being clobbered by a particularly handy english touring team. Big Whoop. Whatever happened to acknowledging that sometimes the opposing team is better. How any cricketer, of any level let alone test level, could have endorsed this is beyond me. Cricket is cyclical and often unpredictable.
Rob JM
Guest
By corporatization we mean financial Profit as priority to the detriment of all else. The sell out to Pay TV, the scheduling of useless series that keep key players out of shield at the start of the season, the instructions to groundsmen to make 5 day pitches, all of that comes back to bite you in the ass in the long term. Yes some things like D/N test and 20/20 are growing the sport and making money. But you cannot afford to squander test cricket which a huge proportion of supporters see as the highest form.