Everything seems to be going wrong for the Australians at the moment and they becoming the subject of all jokes is like life coming half a circle for the champions of yore. The Aussies of 2013 are staring at a 4-0 whitewash and it seems that they aren’t in a position to do anything about it because they lack the characteristic fight which is associated with them. Krishnaraj Singh Jasana finds out reasons for their sorry state
What is with these AustraliansIJ Some time back, the answer had a different meaning and it kept changing.
First, they were the Aussies from yore. They would hunt in packs, win all around the world, beat you at your own game. Teams became better losing to them. That team ruled for most of the last decade.
They gave way to a breed, who, would fight till their last breath, even if they lost they would give it all. You could beat them but you would have to fight out of your skin to do that. That made you tougher. Those were the recent Aussies, the ones around 2010 when they challenged India in India, though they lost but only just.
The Aussies of 2013 have derived an altogether different meaning of the question. The team baffles you with mediocre cricket, they bewilder you with their cluelessness with the willow on the 22 yards but there might also be a feeling of apathy with them not showing fire in the belly. With their huge defeat by eight wickets in Chennai and their humongous one by an innings and 135 runs in Hyderabad, and, a 4-0 whitewash staring ominously at them in the two Tests matches that follow, the current Aussie predicament is in itself a miracle.
Touring India is always regarded tough but complete capitulation not how the script is written. A look back at the mid-way suggests strategy and inexperience are areas where the visitors have faulted.
Misguided selection, baffling strategy
The Aussies went in with a three-pronged pace attack and a spinner in Nathan lyon on a turning track in the first Test at Chennai. Fast-bowlers are there strength, going with them a logical step, but, under the conditions a question mark. And, lyon did show that another tweaker would be handy when he got rid of Sachin Tendulkar in what was a classical dismissal for an off-spinner. Sachin put his left foot forward and got in line the of the ball but the rough at the crease made the ball turn viciously to knock him over.
In came Indian captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni and took lyon to task. But the off-spinner had shown good signs and might have deserved another go. In the very next game though, instead of being given a spin-twin to be more effective, he was dropped.
The reason given was of lowered confidence level of the bowler after being smacked in Chennai. He was replaced by Xavier Doherty and Glenn Maxwell, who is an all-rounder (his versatile skills were untested as was debuting) made the cut as the other bowler. On a pitch that Australian captain Michael Clarke termed as turner, the Aussies went in with one specialist spinner and another who was virtually support one. As his Indian counterpart Ravichandran Ashwin (he may be a better bowler than lyon) took seven in the match and spinners 14. The Aussies would rue that lyon should have been talked into playing.
Now, Maxwell’s inclusion meant that the bowling had become weaker but batting had strengthened with him coming at number eight. It meant that a wicket-keeper batsman who is still finding his feet in Test cricket Matthew Wade would be at six and one-match old all-rounder Moises Henriques at seven. Not so long ago, England had shown us with 2-1 win in India that SOS for specialists was key in the country. Their number seven was wicketkeeper batsman Matt Prior and the Brits played with specialists, batsmen or bowlers in the series. When they did experiment, with Samit Patel (an all-rounder) at Monty Panesar’s cost, they lost. That was in the first Test at Ahmedabad in November.
Inexperience
This was one problem that the visitors knew while in flight to India that they have just three players — Clarke, Shane Watson and Mitchell Johnson — in the squad who have played a Test match in India. That meant five of their top seven batsmen would be first timers in India, a threat as well as an opportunity. Clarke himself had shown in 2004, with 400 runs in seven innings at an average of 57.14, that runs can be accumulated even if you are new. Matthew Hayden’s astonishing 549 runs in 2001 or Damien Martyn’s 444 in 2004 are other examples.
What has happened though is that barring Clarke (268 in four innings) there haven’t been any other worthwhile contributions, especially from the top four. Ed Cowan, David Warner, Phillip Hughes and Watson (109, 114, 25 and 77 respectively) have been abysmal in handling spin. They’re not judging the length nor turn.
In the Hyderabad Test, both Warner and Hughes tried to play the sweep shot and got bowled by Ashwin. On both occasions the body wasn’t close to the bat so that in case the ball missed the bat, body would come in between and getting bowled would be out of question. Furthermore, 34 of the 39 Aussie wickets to have fallen in the two matches have gone to spinners. Clearly spin is a mystery and these Australians are slowly becoming history. And, Watson has been the biggest disappointment. He might have been tad unlucky in Hyderabad, but an experienced head in Watson is crucial to Aussie chances after the recent retirement of Mike Hussey (that has hurt Aussies a lot). He was required to fire because when he does, he dominates, that ‘when’ though hasn’t been seen.
Captain Clarke needs someone with him at the crease if the Australians are going to try and reverse their fortunes in the remaining two Test matches, else, they might have the Border-Gavaskar trophy in their cabinet, it might not stay Down Under for long.