Australia had everything going for them when the first Test cricket match of the Border-Gavaskar Trophy opened in Nagpur on 9 February. Australia’s captain Pat Cummins won the toss against India and got a wonderful opportunity to bat first. This meant that India had to bat last on a wicket that was bound to turn as the match progressed. It was advantage Australia.
Sadly, this advantage was not realised because of something that happened miles away on the eve of the match, even before a ball was bowled on the wicket. The Australian sports media experts created a ghost regarding the wicket and arrived at the strange conclusion that it was curated in a way that parts of it were left untouched to create an uneven surface, which would make life difficult for left-handed batters.
This really came as a surprise to me. Ask any experienced curator and they will tell you that not much needs to be done deliberately to make a wicket challenging for a batter. The bowlers during the match themselves create a natural rough pitch for the batters with their constant follow-through during the innings. The only two crucial things that a curator can do is to negate the bounce from the track and ensure that it assists some spin. This is exactly what curators do in India.
Even when such a wicket is created, there are some hidden advantages for batters. If there is no bounce and the ball is kept low, it means fewer chances will be created at silly point and forward short leg. Only when there is sufficient bounce does the ball pop up in the air for close-in fielders to take advantage. This is exactly what happened during the India versus Australia match at Nagpur’s Jamtha stadium.
Also read: Indian cricket team registers most wins in calendar year, level Australia’s record
Learn the basics
Not a single Australian batter was caught at the silly point or forward short leg. Was this not an advantage for Australia? Australian cricket experts in their media seem to overlook some basic concepts of cricket. One such simple concept is that a test match is won not just by a single factor but as a result of several different variables. It’s ironic that on a supposedly doctored wicket in favour of spin, it was the two Indian pacers who initially broke the back of the Australian batting line-up.
Australia’s Usman Khwaja missed a straight ball from India’s Mohammed Siraj and was out leg before wicket. Similarly, David Warner missed a straight one from Mohammed Shami and was clean-bowled. In contrast, when the Indian team came into bat, Cummins was all over the place. He kept straying down the leg side and Rohit Sharma got some easy initial runs that helped him get set.
On Indian wickets, it’s very important that fast bowlers keep things tight before the spinners come in to bowl. The Australian captain bowled an irresponsible opening spell. This highlights another basic concept of cricket. Accuracy has nothing to do with the nature of the wicket. There is no excuse for inaccurate bowling.
Australia’s unrealised advantage
Every test loss is a result of several failures of the losing team. It was surprising and disappointing to see Australia’s off-spinner Nathan Lyon bowl. He was forever defensive and didn’t fly the ball at all. When a bowler doesn’t get success during an inning, it’s usually common sense to try something different. Australia’s main strike bowler didn’t.
It might seem a strange thing to say but luck was with Australia when India batted. India’s top-order batters KL Rahul, Cheteshwar Pujara and Virat Kohli gave their wickets away. This was a point in the match when Australia made a lucky comeback. More importantly, this was also the point that proved all talk about a doctored pitch was wrong and in poor taste.
The Indian lower-order batters applied themselves brilliantly and build the innings in a way that is expected and required in test cricket. If the wicket was doctored and unplayable then surely it would have been tough for Indian bowlers Ravindra Jadeja and Axar Patel to play long innings, and impossible for Shami to survive at the wicket. Even Cummins said that the pitch wasn’t unplayable.
Using the age-old tools of determination and discipline, the Indian lower order dug in to bring India out of a mini-crisis. Whereas the Australian top order was escapist and didn’t intend to apply themselves. When they did apply themselves, like in the case of Marnus Labuschagne in the first innings, the wicket looked easy and the Indian bowlers had no answer. Labuschagne played brilliantly in the first inning to score 49 classical test runs. The case of Alex Carey sums up Australia’s shoddy approach in this test match. Even though he scored 46 runs, it showed us what is wrong with the Australian mindset. On a wicket that demanded patience and discipline as a batter, Carey was all over the place. He was playing every shot against the line of the ball. It was escapism. A quick 30 runs do not win you a test match. Even a flamboyant Rohit Sharma has to dig deep and choose his shots carefully in test cricket.
Wrong selection of team
There was so much talk about the wicket and so little about team selection by the Aussies. Australia is carrying so many injured players who eventually could not participate in the first test of the series, which is always crucial.
They were short of one spinner. The home team needed three spinners and the away team thought two would be enough. It was a selection blunder. During crucial stages of the match, both Lyon and Todd Murphy had tired legs and dropped the length short for Jadeja and Patel to cut them repeatedly from making crucial runs.
The beautiful thing about test cricket is that even a one-sided match gives moments of hope to the losing side. Australia had a chance on the second day when Pujara and Kohli’s wicket fell cheaply. If the wicket was unplayable then the Australian spinners should have run through the Indian lower order.
Also read: It is tough to leave some out: Rohit Sharma on selection ahead of 1st Test against Australia
Don’t blame the pitch
It is surprising to see the Australian media whining. Their teams of the past have come to India and won in much tougher conditions. Great Australian cricketers like Ian Chappell never complained once about playing conditions in India. They have always got on with the job and won.
When the Aussies came to bat the second time, children watching the game in the stands sadly saw Australian schoolboys playing in the middle of the ground. This is why the match ended in two and a half days. Australia played poorly and the wicket had nothing to do with it.
The Nagpur diary ends with India at 1-0 up in the series. A few words for some sections of the Australian media: You confused your team. It’s a bad idea to judge a wicket before a single ball is bowled on it. In cricket, one doesn’t have to look at the wicket. One has to simply play on it.
Kush Singh @singhkb is the founder of The Cricket Curry Tour Company. Views are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)