Perhaps the time has come to stop selecting squads and draw up single contracts to single forms of games - make separate teams for each form - with a clause banning participation or at least limiting it in IPL.
The Aus trio bowled 80/120 in the first innings and 60/80 in the second. Do you have the nic data for them?
"So a fast bowler, especially one who is good enough to be selected in the Indian Test squad in 2024, is likely to offer a more sustained threat than even the greatest finger spinner in history."
Is there a way to quantify this statement? For example, is it possible to compare the nic data for the three bowlers on either side as the ball gets older? Are AUS able to get more false shots when the ball is >40 overs old? Did IND fast bowlers do much better than the spinners with the older ball (how many of the 130 came in 1-40 and 80+ …)?
Maybe, just maybe, the IND team management doesn’t expect the 4th seamer to be any better than the "respectable alternative" in the 40-80 over range (in the first 40, there is parity as per the cricinfo video). Given the continuity of players across management, and the prevalence of data, a change in strategy that is considered so drastic by many seems unlikely. For example, PK played two tour matches at MCG, so they may have some data showing his lack of effectiveness once the ball is old, thereby not offering support when it is actually needed for the first 3 bowlers?
All fast bowlers have been more threatening than spinners. The question is whether a specialist fast bowler would be more difficult to play than a finger spinner or a part-timer like Reddy. Its clear that he would. A 4th quick bowler provides depth.
Its not really a question of data. Its more a question of strategy. And being willing to play four tailenders is a risk. It increases the likelihood of winning. But it also increases the likelihood (however marginally) of losing. Cummins and Starc can both bat a bit, so AUS don't have to make this choice, even though Lyon and Hazlewood (or Boland) are tailenders. For IND, given how none of their quick bowlers can bat at all, it is unquestionably a more difficult question.
Great article! Thanks. I do wonder what the team management thinks of Prasidh Krishna since he seemed to do all right in the A games. Especially considering that he can be a 4th hit the deck fast bowler. But those are also just questions that are probably answered with Rohit saying something along the lines of not wanting to compromise batting. (First time commenting, long time reader)
Great article! Agree with everything except "India did about as well as they could have hoped to given the side they picked"
With 7 wickets in hand, 26 overs against the old ball and about 12 overs against the new ball (light allowing), a draw was a reasonable hope. They actually played out an entire session without losing a wicket and Aus resorted to part timers.
Taken from X - "Five Indian batters got out to deliveries that had an Expected Average of more than 50 while batting for a draw.
For the second innings wickets at MCG, Indian bowlers had an xAvg of 9.4, for Australian bowlers it was 28.7."
Considering this, either IND were very careless with their batting or AUS bowlers got the rub of the green in the 2nd inns. If it is the former, a 4th fast bowler doesn't help. Sure you will concede 300 instead of 450 but you will also likely score < 200 instead of ~300, in this form. IND went with 4 pacers in SA, they conceded 400 once in 3 inns of bowling and didn't cross 250 in any of 4 inns of batting.
AUS were definitely luckier than average in both innings.
Describing batting as careless goes to motives. There's no reason to doubt the players motives.
If you concede fewer runs, the opposition can't attack as much when they bowl. They have to defend runs more often, put more fielders on the boundary than they would like to. That makes runs scoring a bit easier.
Its not particularly complicated. How much threat a bowler creates in a Test match is a function of how much the bowler is able to do with the ball in terms of speed, seam, swing, turn, dip. A shallower attack does that for a smaller share of the total overs it does than a deeper attack. Australia have the deeper attack in this match in this sense, especially since they batted first and bowled fourth.
All batters get out to attacking shots in all Test matches. Its only noticed when a team loses.
The number of time 'luck' gets mentioned in these articles and/or comments, makes me think that these articles are being written by an astrologer, instead of an analyst.
If everything was luck, then Smith wouldn't have dropped Rahul's catch in Brisbane, and Khawaja wouldn't have dropped Jaiswal's catch in Perth...and India would have been 4-0 down, instead of 2-1 down.
Mentioning 'luck' so many times questions the capability of international cricket players and the intellectual capacity of the readers.
Also the 'control percentage' is being used as a 'gospel truth'. It looks like 'control percentage' is actually dependent on Sid Monga's bias and interpretation. Whether Ricky Ponting edged Harbhajan Singh's ball past slip in the Vizag ODI in 2001,
or opened the blade at the last moment to guide the ball past slip is a matter of interpretation and the personal biases of the person making the entry. If it was really a relevant factor, it would have been recorded in score-cards like bye's , leg byes etc. Also as per many of your articles, many matches have been won by teams with lower 'control percentages'. Seems like it is actually not a defining characteristic of the outcome.
It is a bit like Mohammed Kaif tweeting that India are the real ODI world champions in his opinion, regardless of the actual result.
Great piece and well researched about team strategy. Kohli had philosophy of bowlers who can take 20 wickets which worked well not always but india did compete and was never out of any game.
Perhaps the time has come to stop selecting squads and draw up single contracts to single forms of games - make separate teams for each form - with a clause banning participation or at least limiting it in IPL.
The Aus trio bowled 80/120 in the first innings and 60/80 in the second. Do you have the nic data for them?
"So a fast bowler, especially one who is good enough to be selected in the Indian Test squad in 2024, is likely to offer a more sustained threat than even the greatest finger spinner in history."
Is there a way to quantify this statement? For example, is it possible to compare the nic data for the three bowlers on either side as the ball gets older? Are AUS able to get more false shots when the ball is >40 overs old? Did IND fast bowlers do much better than the spinners with the older ball (how many of the 130 came in 1-40 and 80+ …)?
Maybe, just maybe, the IND team management doesn’t expect the 4th seamer to be any better than the "respectable alternative" in the 40-80 over range (in the first 40, there is parity as per the cricinfo video). Given the continuity of players across management, and the prevalence of data, a change in strategy that is considered so drastic by many seems unlikely. For example, PK played two tour matches at MCG, so they may have some data showing his lack of effectiveness once the ball is old, thereby not offering support when it is actually needed for the first 3 bowlers?
All fast bowlers have been more threatening than spinners. The question is whether a specialist fast bowler would be more difficult to play than a finger spinner or a part-timer like Reddy. Its clear that he would. A 4th quick bowler provides depth.
Its not really a question of data. Its more a question of strategy. And being willing to play four tailenders is a risk. It increases the likelihood of winning. But it also increases the likelihood (however marginally) of losing. Cummins and Starc can both bat a bit, so AUS don't have to make this choice, even though Lyon and Hazlewood (or Boland) are tailenders. For IND, given how none of their quick bowlers can bat at all, it is unquestionably a more difficult question.
Great article! Thanks. I do wonder what the team management thinks of Prasidh Krishna since he seemed to do all right in the A games. Especially considering that he can be a 4th hit the deck fast bowler. But those are also just questions that are probably answered with Rohit saying something along the lines of not wanting to compromise batting. (First time commenting, long time reader)
Great article! Agree with everything except "India did about as well as they could have hoped to given the side they picked"
With 7 wickets in hand, 26 overs against the old ball and about 12 overs against the new ball (light allowing), a draw was a reasonable hope. They actually played out an entire session without losing a wicket and Aus resorted to part timers.
Taken from X - "Five Indian batters got out to deliveries that had an Expected Average of more than 50 while batting for a draw.
For the second innings wickets at MCG, Indian bowlers had an xAvg of 9.4, for Australian bowlers it was 28.7."
Considering this, either IND were very careless with their batting or AUS bowlers got the rub of the green in the 2nd inns. If it is the former, a 4th fast bowler doesn't help. Sure you will concede 300 instead of 450 but you will also likely score < 200 instead of ~300, in this form. IND went with 4 pacers in SA, they conceded 400 once in 3 inns of bowling and didn't cross 250 in any of 4 inns of batting.
AUS were definitely luckier than average in both innings.
Describing batting as careless goes to motives. There's no reason to doubt the players motives.
If you concede fewer runs, the opposition can't attack as much when they bowl. They have to defend runs more often, put more fielders on the boundary than they would like to. That makes runs scoring a bit easier.
Its not particularly complicated. How much threat a bowler creates in a Test match is a function of how much the bowler is able to do with the ball in terms of speed, seam, swing, turn, dip. A shallower attack does that for a smaller share of the total overs it does than a deeper attack. Australia have the deeper attack in this match in this sense, especially since they batted first and bowled fourth.
All batters get out to attacking shots in all Test matches. Its only noticed when a team loses.
The number of time 'luck' gets mentioned in these articles and/or comments, makes me think that these articles are being written by an astrologer, instead of an analyst.
If everything was luck, then Smith wouldn't have dropped Rahul's catch in Brisbane, and Khawaja wouldn't have dropped Jaiswal's catch in Perth...and India would have been 4-0 down, instead of 2-1 down.
Mentioning 'luck' so many times questions the capability of international cricket players and the intellectual capacity of the readers.
This is what luck refers to.
https://cricketingview.substack.com/p/what-is-luck
This article seems rather self-referential.
Also the 'control percentage' is being used as a 'gospel truth'. It looks like 'control percentage' is actually dependent on Sid Monga's bias and interpretation. Whether Ricky Ponting edged Harbhajan Singh's ball past slip in the Vizag ODI in 2001,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CYejniBKq4&t=3415s
or opened the blade at the last moment to guide the ball past slip is a matter of interpretation and the personal biases of the person making the entry. If it was really a relevant factor, it would have been recorded in score-cards like bye's , leg byes etc. Also as per many of your articles, many matches have been won by teams with lower 'control percentages'. Seems like it is actually not a defining characteristic of the outcome.
It is a bit like Mohammed Kaif tweeting that India are the real ODI world champions in his opinion, regardless of the actual result.
About control..
https://cricketingview.substack.com/p/control-faq
Great piece and well researched about team strategy. Kohli had philosophy of bowlers who can take 20 wickets which worked well not always but india did compete and was never out of any game.