There’s been a lot of talk about India’s maiden Test series victory in Australia riding on the back Cheteshwar Pujara’s stellar performance with the willow and Jasprit Bumrah creating mayhem with the ball, but there’s more to the win than that.
While this group of players certainly played a vital role in ensuring India dominated much of this high-octane Test series, the real reasons the visitors applied themselves so well were due to the more subtle aspects of each game that may not have been as obvious to most of our readers.
This is what India actually did to win their first ever Test series in Australia.
They nullified the spin threat of Nathan Lyon
Australia boasted a stellar fast-bowling cartel, with Mitch Starc, Pat Cummins and Josh Hazlewood providing unique options to make life uncomfortable for India. However, it was Nathan Lyon’s off spin that would be the main game changer in Perth and even Adelaide, where India only just won by the skin of their teeth.
Lyon proved to be dangerous on the wearing Perth surface, and despite India stereotypically being known to be good players of spin, Lyon’s five-for in India’s first innings proved to be the catalyst that put the visitors behind in that game.
The 2017 year was by far Nathan Lyon’s most successful as Australia’s premier spinner – he amassed 63 wickets at a phenomenal average of just 23.55, numbers that would quite literally put him in the same club with the likes of Muttiah Muralitharan and Shane Warne.
With Lyon now maturing and understanding his game better as a finger spinner, it became obvious to this Indian team that conquering Lyon would go a long way on their march towards a maiden Test series victory on Australian soil. And how right they were.
After bagging 16 wickets in the first two Tests, Lyon was made obsolete in Melbourne and Sydney. In the Boxing Day Test Lyon could claim only one scalp for the entirety of the match as India romped to near invincibility once they decoded his spin. The Sydney Test saw Lyon bag a four-for, but by then India had forged an impenetrable score and the likes of Rishabh Pant and Ravindra Jadeja were hitting sixes off him for fun.
Pujara played Lyon the best, though – the Indian No.3 shelved the sweep shot and often played with the turn from Lyon’s off breaks, meaning any chance of him being pinned LBW or caught at bat-pad would be cancelled out. When Lyon tried a wider off stump line to draw Pujara out of his crease the great batsman simply padded those balls away or tightened his forward defence, as he knew he couldn’t get out LBW.
Subduing Nathan Lyon certainly paid dividends for India’s triumph, and the results show this very clearly.
(AP Photo/Themba Hadebe)
They learnt quickly from their Perth loss
The aftermath of the second Test at Perth Stadium would prove to be the wake-up call India needed to realise what was at stake in this series. With many fellow Roar writers buoyed by Australia’s victory, with one even suggesting the state of the Indian team was ‘precarious’ – the optimistic fervour surrounding this win caused most to believe the home side was back on track to arrest the momentum their way.
Australia had the edge now, or so they hoped, and all would be well to prevent the visitors from achieving what had previously been viewed for them as impossible.
What Aussie fans failed to realise was that they were dealing with the No.1 Test team in the world. Whereas previous Indian sides of yesteryear would have succumbed to such a loss and thrown in the towel for the rest of the series, Virat Kohli refused to surrender. Instead he went back to his team’s selection think tank and made calculated changes to his side’s make-up to produce the best 11 to atone for the aberration in Perth.
Instead of lamenting their mistakes, India decided to learn from them.
India paid a huge price for not having a specialist spinner for the second Test, and they immediately rectified this by including Ravindra Jadeja back into the side for the third Test. The underperforming Murali Vijay and KL Rahul were dropped, and in came the highly rated Mayank Agarwal and Hanuma Vihari, both of whom boast batting averages over 50 in Indian first-class cricket and even have triple hundreds to their name as well.
Having such a solid, experienced opening pair ready to go for the Boxing Day Test ensured that India’s habit of losing quick, early wickets when scoring would have a greater chance of being prevented.
Umesh Yadav was also a liability in the Perth Test. Despite his quick action, high pace and ability to generate steep bounce off fast tracks, he was erratic, wayward and expensive, conceding almost over four runs per over during his spells. Dropping him to make way for Jadeja was a smart move, as the visitors’ core group of quicks in Ishant Sharma, Mohammad Shami and Jasprit Bumrah would be more than enough to place a stranglehold on the Aussies throughout the series.
It were these tactical selection moves that helped India towards securing that elusive maiden Test series win Down Under.
(Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
They won the mental game
Asian cricketing nations of the past have often viewed winning a Test series in Australia as something akin to catching a unicorn. “Can’t happen”, they say. “We’re just going to try and draw this series, it’ll feel like a win”, say others.
Since their inauguration to Test match status 1981, Sri Lanka have also never triumphed in a Test series in Australia. In fact the last time they came here they were demolished 3-0, and that Boxing Day Test they played in ended in complete farce, finishing in just two and a half days.
Pakistan, even with star-studded rosters boasting champions like Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, Javed Miandad, and Inzamam ul-Haq, were still unable to topple the Aussies at home in over ten attempts.
It’s no wonder then that Subcontinent cricket teams have often viewed defeating Australia on their own turf as mission impossible no matter how weak and brittle the home team may be.
Virat Kohli thought otherwise. In a press conference during this series he told the media that to win in Australia you need to be obsessed about it. He also said that preparation for India’s maiden Test series triumph in Australia began over 12 months before the series started, again showing that Kohli knew the magnitude and importance of achieving this goal.
Despite the boos, jeering and racist taunts from Australian crowds, and despite even the comical sledging from the home team, Kohli and his Indian side remained fixated and steely eyed on the goal at hand. This time India had come to win and show the Australians that they were not going to back down at any point to get it. The mental battle had now been overcome.
They capitalised on Tim Paine’s uninspiring leadership
When Australia won the Perth Test I really hoped that this would be the opportunity for Tim Paine to stamp his authority as the captain and make his presence felt in this team. I was expecting him to motivate and push his side to secure a victory in Melbourne and deliver Australian fans something significant to cheer about given how disastrous 2018 has been for them.
Winning in Perth should have provided Australia the psychological advantage and the confidence to know that they can topple the No.1 Test nation with the team they have.
Instead they squandered it. Tim Paine made so many tactical errors with his bowlers in the Boxing Day Test it was no wonder they would be knackered and out of ideas once Pujara got going. Yes, India’s No.3 had an incredible series with the bat, but he is not immortal.
Had Australia paid more attention to developing a strategic plan to dismiss Pujara instead of getting sucked into all the hype surrounding Kohli, the result of this series could have been much different. Kohli was relatively subdued in this series because Australia had clearly done a lot of homework on how best to prevent him from having an impact. Now just imagine if they had done the same with Pujara.
Lastly, Tim Paine is a loveable character and an all-round good bloke, but I am not sure he is the type of Test captain Australia needs right now. He just doesn’t have that aggressive and killer instinct to hunt for victory like Australia’s more successful captains of the past.
The sledging and banter between him and the visitors was hilarious, witty and downright funny at times, but the words exchanged indicated to me that mentally Tim Paine had already conceded defeat to India. The fact that he sarcastically asked Rishabh Pant if he would babysit his kids says to me that he had subconsciously declared in his mind that all hope was lost for Australia and he was just going through the motions.
This is not the type of attitude you want from your captain, especially when your backs are against the wall in a high-profile Test series against the No.1 Test team.
At the series conclusion Ian Chappell rightly remarked that Tim Paine needed to shut it with the sledging and focus on playing good, hard aggressive cricket. His nice-guy approach was not doing this struggling Australian team any favours. India sensed this and went for the kill.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
Ironically - in 4 tests v India Lyon this season took 21 wickets at a S/R of 1 every 69 balls. Last season in 5 tests v England Lyon took 21 wickets at a S/R of 1 every 74 balls. So - a better wickets-test ratio, a better S/R, however the runs average a tad off with 30.4 compared to 29.3 v England. Also the economy of 2.6 vs 2.36 v England. All in all - it's a bit tough putting this on Lyon. It was the Big 3 quicks that let the side down (I've submitted an article investigating that side) - especially come Melbourne and Sydney given after Perth it was 1-1.
JohnB
Roar Rookie
No-one's blaming the pitches. India were the better team and won fair and square. However, it would be disingenuous in writing an article on the real reasons India won the series not to acknowledge that the low and slow nothings served up in Melbourne and Sydney, and not playing in Brisbane, played into the hands of India and were factors in the series win.
Leftwhinge
Guest
Jeez...the Aussies sure are sore losers. So many comments on here are full of sour grapes.
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
The way India bowled, and got better and better at executing their bowling plans, I think they would have quelled Smith and Warner. That said, if they had've been there in Adelaide, we would almost certainly have won. But then India would likely have selected differently for Perth. So, who knows. Also, as evidence that you can't guarantee just because a batsman has a great record they will still perform, Kohli underperformed (avg 40, well below his career of 53), so we can't assume Smith and Warner would have performed. Yes, they would have done better than those in the team, but maybe not enough. It also should be noted, and a lot of people seem to forget, India was short their world class spinner (Ashwin) for the last three Tests, and lost their in form opener (Shaw) before the series.
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
Some good points, Nuwan. I think India won because they played Test cricket, the Aussies some sort of mixed up Test and white ball cricket. India batted and bowled patiently. The Aussies batted and bowled impatiently. Not to say that either didn't do the other - the Indian batsmen certainly played some impatient shots in the first two Tests, and likewise the Aussies displayed patches of patience too. But the Indians not only sustained their patience longer, but improved on it as the series progressed. It feels like a long time since I've seen a Test series won by playing traditional, attritional, patient Test cricket. And it was great to see.
Block & Leave
Roar Rookie
Nice rebuttal. Although I do agree with Paul on Kohli's captaincy but here are few more supporting arguments in your defence. Toss Argument : This is the perfect argument candidate for a losing team. But in MCG Australians wanted to bowl first and in SCG , the test was practically rained off. If not for the rain the result would have been 3-1, we should thank the rain. Also analysis is done on the basis of the game that was played on the field and not on factors beyond control. Smith/Warner - Kohli/Pujara Argument - This is pure whining. Well we were at home, so there is a home advantage. During the last series in India, Kohli was not effective and still India won. Their record back home is enviable and even their Ranji Team would beat us given their mastery over conditions at home. Ashwin was enough to give us nightmares in India. Also either Smith or Warner or both could have had a horrible series , we would never know. Lyon Argument - India did not nullify Lyon in last two test was the worst argument of the season. Please look at the scorecard. Even batting on flat tracks , not giving wickets and scoring at 3-4 RPO equates to being nullified for a lack of a harsher term. Kohli/Pujara in Perth and Melbourne - In Perth Kohli scored the only century of that test. Talk about not batting in favouring conditions. They lost the test because of tactical management error of not including a spinner. Else it would have been 3-0. Bottomline - Considering Paul's obsession in discussing the "have not's" - We would have practically lost 4-0 if not for a tactical error in Perth and Rain in SCG. I would rather look at the reality which was a better side won the series 2-1 and gave us Marcus Harris, the rise of Pat Cummins, the issues with domestic structure and the opportunity to get back on track before Ashes.
Block & Leave
Roar Rookie
Agree with most of your points, also raising few other factors. Lyon – Yes, he tapered off at the end. Hardly bowled right lines in MCG and seemed like he lacked confidence going to SCG test. Also support from other end was pathetic to put more pressure on Batsmen. Pace – But the biggest disappointment was the Pace attack. It lacked venom. Starc wasted the new ball, was way too erratic with his lines and “elephant in the room” – Hardly any Swing. Tenacity – Another factor that ties to the mental aspect you touched upon. We lacked temperament and application to grind and dig in. I doubt if any of the batsmen actually played two sessions in day. Toss – All the toss argument is juvenile. You have to judge any game by what it played out on field and not through factors that we do not control. Also in Boxing day Test, Australians wanted to bowl first and SCG Test pretty much rained out. So it would have made no difference. This is like what if India played a spinner at Perth. What if Ashwin was fit. What if we had Warner and Smith. We didn’t and move on with what happened on the field for analysis. Captaincy – Kohli is still a work in progress and if India is down he actually chases the ball. His lack of skills to apply pressure on the Australian Tail actually highlights his weakness. Any performing team makes their captain look good, ask ‘Sr Waugh’. Paine was not too bad, except for few bowling changes I found him alright given the resources and the skills at his disposal. His banter was fun and alright.
Nuwan Ranasinghe
Roar Pro
Thank you marees yes my parents are of Sri Lankan heritage.
Nuwan Ranasinghe
Roar Pro
I was wondering when I would be hearing from you Paul. Let me begin my rebuttal to your comments. First of all, I am not looking at this through 'Indian-tinted glasses.' To set the record straight, I am an Australian whose parents are migrants from a little island nation called Sri Lanka. Some even refer to this country as Ceylon depending on which generation you were born in. My name is a very common Sri Lankan name, if you would like to do a Google search on it. Also, if you bothered to read my article carefully, I was doing my best to support Australia and even praised Tim Paine for winning in Perth. I gave positive comments on Australia's bowling attack and even said they had the ability to win the series if Tim Paine displayed better leadership. I even clearly said that I had hoped that Tim Paine would press on the advantage in Melbourne but he didn't. India deserve to be praised for the way played. They played better cricket overall, and blunted Australia in all areas of their game. Kohli's captaincy was not 'average' or 'woeful'. Why? Because he actually WON THE BLOODY SERIES!!! It's a shame I had to be Mr. Obvious to point that out to you. A great captain learns from his mistakes after a loss so he can be successful next time. After Perth, India made better changes to their team, whilst Australia stayed with the same team. Paine may have shown 'adventure' with his field placements but he was practically clueless on what to do with Starc when the latter was spraying the ball everywhere. Tim Paine is not a tactically astute captain and Ponting will probably highlight this to you better than I can. India certainly did nullify Lyon's spin and I described this in some detail in my article, given that I am knowledgeable on the art of off-spin bowling. Refer to Trent Copeland and Aakash Chopra's analysis on the touch screen for an expert insight on the technical changes India made with their batting to tame the Lyon. Yes Pujara and Kohli didn't make runs in India's second innings in Melbourne, but if you look at the context of that match India were miles ahead and so the mindset those two played in was slightly more carelessly compared to their other innings. They can simply be disregarded. Australia didn't fare too well either in both innings so I'm not sure what your point is here. Even if Pujara and Kohli didn't play India's batting would have still been superior to Australia's. Why? Because of the quality of domestic cricket India plays at home. Unlike most Australian cricket fans, I actually took the time out to research first-class and domestic cricket in India and some of the stats their blokes have are unbelievable. Mayank Agarawal and Hanuma Vihari average over 50 and have triple tons to their name. Teenage prodigy Prithvi Shaw averages almost 60 with the bat in Indian domestic cricket. When was the last time we saw an Aussie domestic batsman achieve the same feat? This again proves the gulf in batting skill level between India and Australia. India's batting bench strength is powerful and given that MS Dhoni is coming back for the one-dayers it just goes to show how much depth they have. Lastly, in regards to your opinion about where I got the idea that Australia were 'going through the motions' in reference to Tim Paine's babysitting sledge towards Pant, it's pretty obvious to most that someone would only make such a sledge if they have nothing better to say, or if they are losing badly. It's the sledge of a defeated player. Tim Paine even admitted this in the press conference. When Channel 7 asked him why he jokingly asked Pant to babysit his kids Paine simply replied that he wanted to have a bit of a laugh and inject a bit of positivity because Australia were so far behind in that game. The intention of the sledge was purely to add a bit of fun to an otherwise hopeless situation for Australia. Think about it logically. By Tim Paine asking Pant if he could put babysit his kids, what was he hoping to achieve? Was Pant really going to get distracted by that and be put off his game? The bloke was approaching a hundred for heaven's sakes! It's not a typical nasty sledge aimed at insulting or degrading a player. Tim Paine would be a fool for making that kind of sledge. Why? Because Australia were getting hammered in that game! And so all Tim Paine can do in that situation is provide a bit of banter. I am just as Australian as you are mate and given how thoroughly I have rebutted you I think it's fair to say I know a bit more about Aussie cricket than you have assumed. I fair dinkum know what a great sledge is, I even have a book with some of the best sledges from players all around the world. In fact, my last article was based on some of the best sledges from Asian cricket teams, I am happy to link this article to you too. Next time please think twice before you comment and make assumptions on other writers' knowledge of the game. I like to see myself as a fan of cricket as a whole, not just the Australian team only. Cheers.
Nuwan Ranasinghe
Roar Pro
Not having Warner or Smith was certainly a big blow for the Aussies, but I really think we shouldn't downplay how monumental India's historic victory is. They are the No. 1 Test team for a reason.
Nuwan Ranasinghe
Roar Pro
Again blaming the pitch isn't a great reason to justify Australia's loss. Australia lost this series because they played poor cricket as a whole, and didn't learn from their Adelaide loss and Perth win. I wouldn't say the pitches were 'Indian' by any stretch. Bumrah, Shami and Sharma were managing to get the ball to swing and seam in a very Australian way compared to the home team's bowlers, who would have practically grown up on these pitches.
Nuwan Ranasinghe
Roar Pro
I find that blaming the pitch is a very tired old argument which a lot of Australian fans use when their team is copping a beating from a better team. Had this panned out the other way around, would you still be blaming the pitch? India batted Australia out of the game because the home team was just too impatient with their bowling and couldn't think of any clever strategies to knock over the Indians. Prior to this series, Pujara was struggling in South Africa and England. Surely the Aussies could have looked at some footage of his dismissals in those series and think of a way to get him out? When I was watching the games on TV Ricky Ponting even gave a clear blueprint on how to knock over Pujara cheaply when he was commentating. Australia had the firepower and ability but poor leadership from their captain
Nuwan Ranasinghe
Roar Pro
Two guys don't make the whole team. There's another 9 blokes who need to contribute as well!
Nuwan Ranasinghe
Roar Pro
Yes, very chaotic article wasn't it? Don Freo certainly provided a more balanced argument whilst still supporting the Aussies which was good of him. I think as Australians we sometimes struggle to accept a thumping in cricket when it happens to us. We take a while to come to terms with it, and like to downplay the other team's success before finally letting it sink in. Another example I can think of was the 1996 World Cup final, when Sri Lanka announced their arrival as big boys of the cricket world. It took a while for many Aussies to accept that loss considering that the Sri Lankans were seen as minnows back then.
Nuwan Ranasinghe
Roar Pro
great pick up there, but I think what you're forgetting is that Pujara only did this to balls pitched outside the line of off stump, therefore he couldn't be given out LBW because of the doubt. Trent Copeland and Aakash Chopra explained this nicely on the touch screen TV during the channel 7 coverage of the Test series.
Nuwan Ranasinghe
Roar Pro
Valid point there mate, but they still won in Perth. Why couldn't they press home the advantage in Melbourne? India was also copping their own media storm too, with reports of infighting between Ishant Sharma and Ravindra Jadeja. Kohli was also copping a lot of rubbish for his sledging too. I think in regards to this series, it was quite equal on both sides, but one team clearly just wanted that trophy more than the other. I feel as though Australia let themselves get distracted by all the media furore compared to India, and this again helped them to win.
Nuwan Ranasinghe
Roar Pro
Hey mate, thanks for the feedback. Hmm I'm kind of 50/50 with you here. Regardless of whether the quicks put pressure on the Indian top order or not Nathan Lyon still has a job to do to get those key wickets. Australia clearly had a plan to use Lyon on Kohli, why couldn't they think of one for the rest of the batting order? I definitely agree he did quite well considering the how strong this Indian batting line up is. But from the results it's quite obvious that India's taming of the Lyon in Melbourne and Sydney paid off in helping them win.
marees
Roar Rookie
Huh, why do you say Nuwan is seeing thru 'Indian tinted' glasses his last name indicates that he is a Sri Lankan
Matt H
Roar Guru
They won the toss in Melbourne and Sydney, the two 'bat first' pitches of the summer. Australia failed to review when Pujara nicked off in Adelaide. Take that review and Australia are 2-0 up heading into Melbourne.
JohnB
Roar Rookie
To be fair, Adelaide wasn't that bad. Melbourne and Sydney certainly were. Not playing in Brisbane remains a heavily underrated factor.