A Case Study In Scarcity

Australia ended the second day of the third Test in Brisbane on 405/7 from 101 overs, thanks in large part to a stand of 241 between Travis Head and Steven Smith. It should be no surprise that Australia’s best southpaw since Allan Border, and best batter since Bradman should have a big stand on a good pitch against the old ball.

But perhaps this is only part of the story. The scorecard at the end of the days looks something like this. It tells an old story. One of a scarcity of bowling thanks to an attempt to sneak in a little bit of batting among the bowlers. Nitish Kumar Reddy and Ravindra Jadeja, for different reasons, offered very little thrIeat with the ball. In Jadeja’s case, a Day Two (effective Day One, these are still the first 100 overs of the match) Brisbane pitch offered no assistence. It is not a surprise that he wasn’t brought on until the 49th over. This was because there was nothing in the first innings pitch for him, and there was plenty in the first innings pitch for the quick bowlers. In Reddy’s case, there was insufficient pace and control. In every over, Reddy delivered either a half volley or a long hop, and in several overs, both. The two combined for 1/141 in 29 overs. They barely beat the bat.

The second order effects of this scarcity of bowling due to the weakness in the 4th and 5th bowler make matters significantly worse. The first of these second order effects is that it forces the fielding captain to bowl the spearheads when he would rather not bowl them. The second of these is that it leaves the fielding captain with absolutely no leeway for contingencies. When Mohammed Siraj went off the field with injury after two balls of the 37th over, the Indian attack looked significantly bare. There were 43 more overs before the second new ball. And Jasprit Bumrah and Akash Deep had already bowled 20 overs between them. The bowling cupboard looked hopelessly bare. The third effect is that unsuitable bowling options force the fielding side to defend runs. This means having fewer catching fielders. This in turn means that an edge is less likely to go to hand.

Siraj returned to field, and even though he was obviously not entirely fit, bowled a lot of overs. To his great credit Siraj also bowled a lot of graveyard overs with the old, soft ball. He bowled 8 overs from 56-80, and spared his younger, less experienced colleague the inevitable mauling from Travis Head and Steven Smith. Akash Deep did not bowl after the 54th over until the new ball arrived. On most other days, he would probably have better returns for inducing 45 false shots in 24 overs of bowling. But not today.

It is difficult to avoid the feeling that having played two out of their five bowlers for their batting, India have conceded about 150 more they ought to have in the first innings. India won the toss and chose to field. India seem to have decided that if they are to win this Test match in these conditions, it would have to be a heist. Win the toss, bowl first, get a lot of wickets with the first new ball, and get ahead in the Test match.

The individual batters control percentages show that India induced 140 false shots in 101 overs, or one every 4.4 balls. Judging by these figures, these are not conditions where 450 is a par score. India have been negative with their selection in this Test match. This type of selection only works when the opposition is also equally negative with their selection. Australia have three great fast bowlers in their ranks. Mitchell Marsh, for all his apparent lack of seriousness, is playing his 120th first class match and has 171 first class wickets to his name, bowling in Australia for the most part. He’s a much better, more experienced fast bowler compared to Nitish Kumar Reddy. What’s more, Nathan Lyon will have the opportunity to bowl fourth. Australia are not negative.

It is a rare Test match when I find myself disagreeing with a selection decision. Even in this match, I can understand the temptation of picking such a negative squad. With rain forecast, it is not the worst idea to try and prolong the Test as much as possible. With the series tied and Melbourne and especially Sydney yet to come, I can see the wisdom in playing for time. Its just that its negative and risky. Besides, its difficult to see where Prasidh Krishna is going to play Test match for India if not in Brisbane, Perth or with the pink ball - Tests made for fast bowlers in conditions where the spinners have little to do. If it had been upto me (and it is for the best that it isn’t, and will never be), then fitness permitting, Prasidh Krishna would have played in place of Nitish Kumar Reddy.

Absent rain, or some miraculous bowling by Jasprit Bumrah, Australia will win the 3rd Test. They’ll win it because India didn’t pick enough bowling to compete in it.