Australia’s first Test defeat in Nagpur was as telling in its structure as it was crushing in its magnitude.
Australia may have lost its remaining second innings wickets in the afternoon of the third day, but the damage had been well and truly done by that stage. Indeed, you could make a solid case that Australia were beaten before a ball had even been bowled.
Australia came into the game on the back of a preparation that left little opportunity for acclimatisation. They may have hoped that a scuffed wicket at North Sydney Oval could replicate the type of surface that would greet the teams in India, but the twenty-two-yard strip they faced would prove to be only a fraction of the challenge.
Cricket in India is unlike anywhere else in the world. The constant attack on the senses. the light, noise, heat, humidity and aroma, has in the past thrown touring teams off balance.
India is a place where, in 2013 in Hyderabad, Michael Clarke famously became the first captain in Test cricket history to declare his team’s first innings closed and then go on to lose the match. The following Test saw the Australians concentrate more on over rates than getting back into the contest on the third evening, with a side weakened by internal suspensions after ‘homework-gate’.
In the first Test of the following tour in Pune, a set Matthew Renshaw was so affected by the local conditions that his innings was interrupted when nature could simply not wait.
Matt Renshaw. (Photo by Jason McCawley/Getty Images)
This tour’s wobbles began with the side embroiled in concerns that the Nagpur wicket was prepared to favour the home spinners to an unfair degree, especially with a concentrated area left underprepared outside the left-handers off stump. In reality, the conditions in Nagpur favoured the slow bowlers no more or less than those in Perth assist the pacemen, but this was secondary, the psychological blow had been struck.
The doubt placed in Australia’s minds then manifested itself in the selection process. Australia left out the one batsman, Travis Head, best equipped to take the attack to the Indians and strike blows for Australia in return.
The Australian logic was that Head’s record against slow bowling in helpful conditions was not as solid as they would have wished, but it was interesting that his replacement, Peter Handscomb, was a right-hander selected in favour of the deposed leftie.
After winning a crucial toss and batting first, Australia lost a marginal leg-before decision against Usman Khawaja, and a comprehensively beaten David Warner in the first thirteen balls.
Warner must be a concern to the tourists. He appears slightly slow of reflex, being late on a Mohammad Shami delivery that swung nicely but not prodigiously. Many Australian’s will be hoping that this is not the beginning of the end of a brilliant career.
After Marnus Labuschagne and Steven Smith had righted the ship, the innings subsided with a speed seen in more than one recent touring team to India. The comprehensive nature in which the second half of the Australian batting order fell away will be what gives coach Andrew McDonald the greatest of headaches, let alone what happened in the second innings.
The traditional masters of mental disintegration saw the tables turned on them. Years of stewardship by such flint-hard generals as Sourav Ganguly, MS Dhoni and Virat Kohli has seen India learn their trade well, and their psychological mastery of their opponents is to be applauded.
Head must play in Delhi, and he must succeed if Australia are to seize back the initiative. He should be allowed, as much by himself as team management, the freedom to take the attack to an Indian line-up that, in Nagpur, not so much pinned Australia to the ropes as bent them back over them.
The other vital inclusion is Mitchell Starc, as much for his rapid left-arm deliveries as for the rough he will create outside the off stump of the right-hand centric Indians. This will assist a Nathan Lyon that looked unusually powerless on a wicket that offered him little deviation and even less bounce.
What is beyond question is that Australia needs to rediscover a portion of the hard edge and was seen in the Langer era if they are to stay alive in this Border-Gavaskar series.
Simoc
Roar Rookie
The hard edge is complete b/s. Did you watch any of the first game? There is no doubt that Smith and Labuschagne are as capable as the Indian batters in their conditions and the rest aren't, based on the first test. Making this test last four days will be an improvement. But it really hard to see our guys compiling a 350-run first innings which would be a target but I'de reckon 300 is really good and that would require a century or two. Firstly it's hard to get in, then it requires maximum concentration to stay there. Carey has a plan to sweep everything but it looks very hard to spot the turner so you have to be back or forward. Getting caught on the crease line turned into so many LBW decision last test. Certainly if Ashwin isn't playing we might score more runs.
matth
Roar Guru
The hard edge from the Langer era that saw them give up an Ashes lead in England and lose a deciding test at the Gabba to an India B team and who never won any series overseas. That era?
Hugh Maclean
Guest
I do apologise one and all: that should have read, “go on to lose the match BY AN INNINGS”. Poor error by me…
Ben Pobjie
Expert
Yeah, Sobers was ok as a cricketer. He was decent on his day. Mind you the current crop of commentators would’ve loved that declaration. They start calling for declarations at about the 20 over mark these days.
sheek
Roar Guru
Ben Pobjie, May I go back even further & introduce you to some random cricketer named Garfield St. Aubryn Sobers, captain of West Indies in 1967/68 against England. After 3 boring draws during which the bat mostly dominated Sobers, frustrated out of his head, declared at 2/92 in Windies 2nd innings in 4th test at Port of Spain, setting England 215 to win off about 55 overs. England got there with only 3 wickets down & a few overs to spare. Cowdrey played an unusually attractive innings of 71 while barnacle Boycott carried his bat for an unbeaten 80. Making Sobers' declaration even more inexplicable is that Wes Hall was out injured & Charlie Griffith injured after only 3 overs (1st innings), leaving Sobers the only paceman. Admittedly PoS was a spinner's paradise, but having only one paceman made it so easy for England. That was the only decided test of the 5 match series. Windies were desperately unlucky in 2 other tests. In the 2nd test, England were 8/68 down still chasing 90 runs & in the 5th test, England were 9/206 still chasing 101 runs. While Sobers had a brain fade with his captaincy, his batting & bowling was okay: 545 runs at 90.8 with two centuries & 13 wickets at 39.
Ben Pobjie
Expert
Sorry to quibble, but “ in 2013 in Hyderabad, Michael Clarke famously became the first captain in Test cricket history to declare his team’s first innings closed and then go on to lose the match”? Let me introduce you to a fella called Kim Hughes and a match called Headingley, 1981…
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I think that's where our spinners can get wickets. Everybody knows that the Indian spinners are better than ours including their batsmen. Handled right we could compete at the same level. You see our batsmen know they're up against. India's batsmen are supreme in their knowledge that they're better. That's why we need a seamer, Scrooge McBowlin, to strangle one end. Sooner or later they will have to go against our spinners and be found out. If we go with 3 we will have 6 capable spinners if Head plays. We could open with Lyon and bring Head or Labs on when they're expecting Murphy. We need to be wide ranging in our response. If we do 'predictable' we'll be stuffed.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Nah it was out that day of the week. The ump gave it not out because it was far from plumb. The Indians only sent it up with 2 seconds to go. So they were most definitely on the punt. Meanwhile the tv replay shows the ball swing to leg after it pitches on leg stump (but how adjacent to leg is debatable). Mark Waugh commented on the swing to leg and it also explains the Indians leaving to almost the last second. So things are set up for close one you would think but perhaps in favour of the batsman and the on field ump. Off to Ball Tracking – where the actual ball is replaced by the Ball Tracking fantasy ball before* it pitches. The Ball Tracking ball goes on to pitch fully adjacent to leg stump and then, defying the tv replay and physics, continues dead straight to obliterate leg stump. Ball Tracking is hopelessly flawed. There were several baffling examples in the Aus Summer just gone. *Why not start ball tracking after the ball hits the deck? Surely that is logical because it indisputably identifies where the ball lands. And the ball swung after pitching, as shown in the TV replay. Even if the ball did supposedly claim the majority of leg stump, there should have been a curve to the leg side. I don’t care if it was actually out but at least depict accurately what happened.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Yes and if they think Warner’s shot was bad, it was against a much quicker ball that seamed off the pitch and ricocheted off the pad, whereas Khawaja’s was a stock standard outswinger (inswinger to him) that a left handed opener must expect all the time. His dismissals in both innings were very poor.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
“ This will assist a Nathan Lyon that looked unusually powerless on a wicket that offered him little deviation and even less bounce.” But Jadeja and Ashwin didn’t have much trouble spinning the ball. From the area right in front of middle and off to the right handers!
Parky Claret
Roar Rookie
Thanks for commenting, and you're by no means the first person that I've heard say the same thing. Likewise I've heard several people say that they had serious doubt that the ball would have taken leg stump. Like most here, I'm only going off what I saw on television and I'm in the latter camp, but totally respect all that have the opposite view...
Parky Claret
Roar Rookie
The further along the timeline that we go, the less that decision makes sense to me. It all goes back to the central point: the information and images that the Indians sent to the world were calculated to provoke a reaction and Australia took the bait. Hook, line and sinker. And this is no criticism of India - quite the opposite. I remain convinced that a large factor of that first test result was Australian naivety.
DJM
Roar Rookie
I couldn’t get past the bit where he described the lbw decision against Khawaja as marginal. That was out every day of the week.
Full Credit to the Boys
Roar Rookie
I agree that the non-selection of Head was mistake on a number of levels. It meant we lost his aggressive attack which might well have come off. Renshaw certainly didn't, that we do know. It might have undermined his confidence at a time when he was rightfully riding high. People in such form should be given the opportunity even in an environment where they have previously been unsuccessful. We lost his more than capable spin bowling. All up a bad move by the selectors.