Skip to main content

At last, we have a contest!

That was a surprise. Not even the most one-eyed of Australia's supporters would have expected them to make this sort of start to the series. A win (after 4502 days as Steven Smith reminded everyone a few times) would have sufficed. A 333 run win on a surface that was bouncing and turning from day one probably felt (and still feels) like three or four Santa Clauses come at once in a golden sledge.

And while the two Steves will get most of the plaudits deservedly, Mitchell Starc with his 91 runs in quick time (in both innings) and the double wicket over of Pujara and Kohli played an equal part in turning the match (especially in the first half of it). If Pujara and Kohli had stuck around for a bit longer and India got to 200 in their first innings, an Australian collapse to double digits in the second innings was not out of the question. Funny the way scoreboard pressure works on modern day cricketers, even in Test match cricket.

Australia will be further heartened by the fact that they won this well despite nearly half the team playing mostly peripheral roles. Apart from the Smith, O'Keefe, and Starc, Matt Renshaw and Nathan Lyon were solid in their jobs. The rest were more or less passengers though Handscomb took some spectacular catches and Hazlewood made a key early incision. Nevertheless, Smith will believe that with bigger innings from Warner and Shaun Marsh, and more from his fast bowlers, that Australia will pose a really stiff challenge under any conditions. The #6 slot is still proving a tricky one but with flatter pitches likely, Mitch Marsh's bowling will probably keep him in the side.

Virat Kohli and his boys on the other hand will be licking their wounds. Eight out of nine possible victories meant that the team had probably started to believe a little bit of its own hype this season. As Kohli said after the thumping, a reality check might have been needed. This is not the first time that this batting line-up has been exposed against better than average spinners (and sometimes average ones). Kolkata 2013 (against Shane Shillingford), Southampton 2014 (Moeen Ali), Adelaide 2014 (Nathan Lyon), and most recently Galle 2015 (Rangana Herath) all saw the batting slide dramatically, and with the exception of Galle largely on blameless pitches. India were lucky all season that the likes of Santner, Sodhi, Patel, Rashid, Moeen Ali, and Ansari never really posed a huge challenge to their batsmen. Bangladesh should have done better but they flattered to deceive too. At the first sign of decent spinners on a turning track, the batting caved in. What will worry Kohli and Kumble more is that the Australian batsmen looked better defensively against spinners of a higher quality. And to add to that, the second Test is at India's least successful major venue at home and one where the Aussies have won twice (though India did win the most recent match).

All of which makes for a fascinating tussle and one that truly sets up the series to be a battle of mental strength and perseverance. In other words, real Test cricket.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Et tu?

As a single sport website, I think Cricinfo has brought about a revolution and the fact that they were bought by ESPN is testament to how highly valued they've become. Their editing and approach to articles/opinion has been refreshing to say the least and even though they seem to have had a lot of editorial staff movement they've usually maintained very high standards. Off late though, both in their headline styles as well as in actual content, there seems to be an occasional slippage of standards and an inching towards the modern media sensationalism which is a bit of a pity. This piece  by Siddharth Monga is a classic example. Granted that the last two press conferences by Dhoni and Sehwag  indicated clearly that the captain and his deputy did not agree on this aspect of selection but "discord", "dissent", "public sniping" feels rather presumptuous and heavy handed. Yes, it is a team sport but there is no reason why everyone on the team needs ...

Quick singles: Why the double standards?

I'm no fan of David Warner's but for once, I'm firmly and squarely on his side . Sportspersons are probably treated the most unfairly by public opinion (and often the media) whenever they are involved in pay disputes. "Oh, look these millionaires are complaining about not getting paid enough" seems to be the gist of the general reactions. I find this attitude inexplicable at best and grossly hypocritical if I'm feeling less charitable. Like the rest of us, all athletes have the right to fight for what they think they should be paid. That is the fundamental part. In addition (and unlike many of the rest of us), most sportspersons operate in the knowledge that they only have a short period available as a performer, and therefore only a short period to maximise earnings. Most people that I know would behave exactly the same as Warner and his colleagues are doing. So why all the hue and cry?

A kick up the backside

Its very interesting (and revealing) that so many Indian cricketers pull up their socks and become better players once they've been dropped from the side and left out in the cold for a while. The trend is even more prevalent currently when the selectors have a larger pool of good players to choose from. Dravid (from the one-day team), Kumble, Ganguly, Sehwag, Yuvraj, Zaheer, Harbhajan, the list goes on. In fact, the only people I can think of who haven't been dropped at any point in recent years are Tendulkar (in any form of the game), and Dravid (from the Test team). This article in the TOI attributes their post-drop performance improvements (at least in Yuvraj's case and a few more as well) to anger. I'm not too sure I agree. I think its more a generic Indian mentality of taking things easy and getting soft and comfortable too easily. Its a national trait and one that needs great guarding against. I've discovered the hard way how getting physically unfit or slack...