Australia have lived up to my prediction that they will not roll over and get done by the Pakistanis so far.
But the controversial tactics adopted in the second Test throw up questions about decision making after Justin Langer walked away from the team.
Yes, batting again seemed like a good plan at the time.
But it did also open up a vulnerable situation as the home team chanced their arm and attempted to run down what seemed an improbable target.
The game in the end could have gone either way.
(Photo by Jono Searle – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images)
But hindsight suggests enforcing the follow-on would have been the safer option, giving the Aussies control.
And a win would have been there for the taking, rather than the twists and turns.
The last Test in Lahore sees the Australians in better shape mentally as they quickly adapt to the conditions and this gives them confidence to know they can break the home team’s back.
Ideally, the tracks in Pakistan strongly suggest a three-pronged pace attack with two spinners will be the best option to unsettle the talented Pakistan batting line-up.
Hopefully the locals will not repeat the dead track produced in the first Test, which would kill off the series and make it forgettable.
On paper, the teams are well matched and possess match winners in both batting and bowling.
They are, in fact, at the top of the Test Championship with India, New Zealand, England and perhaps South Africa.
Pat Cummins and Andrew McDonald will be under the microscope as their decision making faces heavy scrutiny from the cricketing hierarchy in the third Test.
Chanon
Roar Rookie
I agree it doesn’t exist they just tell us ‘ the process’ sounds more like George Constanza Seinfeld episode :stoked:
Jeff
Roar Rookie
It's the WAY Langer left the building, is probably the issue. It was the right call that management structure moved on, but it seems like CA, via incompetence to manage the transition, ended up creating a void via inability to be proactive rather than reactive; the CA Board/executive just seemed not to want to deal with it properly. It just seems like it's been this way with CA for such a long time. They consider themselves empowered to make decisions (as they should; that's their role), but at the same time they seem reluctant/incapable of making those decisions by backing it up with fore-thought re a longer-term pathway. For example, where is the CA decision making process at right now re appointing the next coach and what is the strategic framework they are working within to make that decision? Does it even exist?
Chanon
Roar Rookie
Lots of mistrust between Captain-Coach-selectors that’s a given. How do we correct this apparent lost in translation approach will be challenging but the public well only the ones that love cricket need to feel vindicated especially after LANGER left the building!
Jeff
Roar Rookie
(I kept adding to my reply after you were replying, sorry). I do agree that there is a dynamic between captain and selectors that needs to be sorted out re the best approach. It certainly seems that Cummins' has great influence and that's fine IMO, but we (they) do need to be clear on what the role is of the NSP and to what extent they control selection, or are otherwise reactive. We need a clear structure. I think at the moment it's probably rather uncertain - I get the "Google" approach of "flat" hierarchy and decision making - it's something that has been influencing and permeating a number of corporate set ups in Australian businesses over the last 5 years; but is Australian cricket there yet re making the most of that approach?
Chanon
Roar Rookie
Really poor by the selectors it’s blatantly obvious the true selector is Cummings & the three puppets aren’t doing squat.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I suspect Starc’s “reverse” achievements in Karachi will see him as first pick behind Cummins. I can actually understand it given the potential for reverse in Lahore and, TBH IMO, he’s probably more likely to achieve broader impact than Boland, given the potential to exploit reverse. – A controversial position would be to maintain the 2 spinner attack, but drop a batsman for another new ball bowler to maximise the styles of the quicks available – i.e. Boland/Hazelwood in place of probably Head (Smith??) – but can not see that happening. – I guess the above position would be on the basis that taking wickets is likely to be more challenging than scoring runs. So there’s probably enough runs available across the XI, whatever the make up, but do we have enough variety to rely on, to pick and choose the right bowlers to exploit conditions at the right times, depending on innings situation? – Aus has not had to exploit – even close to – all its batting potential in the First two Tests, so do we need to maintain a “loaded” top 7? Yes it places some reliance on the lower order to make some runs, but when was the last time we didn’t expect them to be contributors to run accumulation – and more to the point, when was the last time they didn’t provide that contribution? -b It certainly places more “expectation on the specialist bowlers to score runs, but they do it anyway, so perhaps it’s best to recognise what they can are likely will do when batting, rather than look at as “but that’s not their job”. If they are likely to make the runs needed in aggregate, perhaps an extra bowler to bolster variety is a better way?
Chanon
Roar Rookie
Bloody joke why did they bother sending Boland to India, wasted his talent he’s not getting any younger very disappointed. Starc is the most over rated cricketer this century!
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I think Aus will go with the same attack.
Gee
Roar Rookie
The Sydney media pack are backing their captain to the hilt so don't expect too much flack if Patty makes another big mistake.
John66
Roar Rookie
Cricketing hierarchy? I don't think so. Some cricket journalists and fans perhaps but Australia's cricket hierarchy have got exactly what they want. It will take series losses to change anything there.