Australia Fail To Escape To Victory
Before this Test, Washington Sundar had survived 100 balls in a first class innings four times in his life. Shardul Thakur had done it twice. Yet, both Thakur and Sundar made this XI with one team management eye on their potential batting. If India go on to win this Test match, and that’s still possible, it will vindicate Ravi Shastri’s preferred five bowler strategy. I wonder how much Shastri’s preference for this approach has to do with the fact that he and Kapil Dev played so many games together for India and provided such balance to the XI.
This Brisbane wicket is quick and that keeps the bowlers in the game. Even well set batsmen can play a false shot. It is no surprise that so many wickets have fallen to attacking strokes. Marcus Harris, Steven Smith, Marnus Labuschagne, Matthew Wade, Tim Paine, Rohit Sharma, Ajinkya Rahane, Mayank Agarwal and Rishabh Pant all fell attempting to score. Six out of Australia’s top 7 survived more than 20 balls and all but one of them failed to score more than fifty. Seven of India’s top 8 survived more than 20 balls, and none of them reached 70. The conditions have guaranteed that the probability of dismissal is rarely negligible. The first innings scoring rate in this Test has also been higher (3.1) and it was in the previous Tests in this series (2.6 at Adelaide, 2.8 at Melbourne and Sydney).
Once you hose away the thicket of psychology and atmospheric embroidery, cricket is simple. It is simpler still at the highest level where every participant is too skillful to be done in by underhanded chicanery. And it is even simpler in the longest form, where quality trumps over-to-over tactics. The only explanation for the innings played by Washington Sundar, Shardul Thakur and every other batsman in this and every other series, is that batsmen just try to bat - ball, after ball after ball. If they get beaten or hit or whatever, they have no option but to face the next ball. And so they do it. And keep doing it until they get out. Innings emerge. Some last a 100 balls, while others last 10 balls. Now, some batsmen are more skillful than others, and in the long run, they last longer and score more runs. And that's pretty much it. That's batting.
What's left to describe is the skill of the batsman and bowler - the range of threats the bowler offers, and the capacities of the batsman. Even here, patterns emerge over a period of time. Thakur and to a lesser extent Sundar were over-matched, but survived not only the old ball, but the 2nd new ball too. But there is perhaps some method to the events in this series.
Over the course of this series, the evidence for the idea that this Australian pace attack prefers to bowl at right-handers compared to left-handers has been reinforced. The record bears this out. Hazlewood, Cummins and Starc combine for 172 wickets against left-handers requiring 53.8 balls and conceding 27.1 runs for each. Against right-handers, they combine for 452 wickets at 24.2/50.3. The two right arm fast men demonstrate an even stronger preference for right-handers. Hazlewood and Cummins have dismissed 95 left-handers at 28.4/60.8, and 275 right-handers at 22.0/49.6. Perhaps it is no surprise that Shastri and India have basically fielded every available left-hander - Jadeja, Pant and now Sundar - in the squad after the 1st Test. If Shikhar Dhawan had been around, I dare say that he would have played as well. Nathan Lyon is this Australian attack’s maestro against lefties. Lyon has dismissed 146 lefties at 24.3/54.1, and 251 righties at 36.6/70.2 in his 100 Tests. Starc does marginally better against righties than lefties. But neither is as lethal against them as Cummins and Hazlewood are against righties. Shastri’s hunch has worked.
Overall, the stand of 123 between Thakur and Sundar was India’s 38th century stand for the 7th wicket. It was their 18th such stand outside Asia. 17 of the 38 stands have started with the score under 200. As the record shows, it has not always been enough. Australia have a first innings lead, and are favorites to win, weather permitting.
