In chess terms- it is actually about a major prophylactic option, which could have put India in strong positions but they missed.
India were expected to beat an Australian side which was depleted, at home. Like many others, I too felt that the Aussie bowling would not last out 7 games with too much reliance of seamers and only one spinner- Hauritz- who was good but not lethal for sure.
There are many who point out to important moments- run outs, catches, and some brilliant performances on both sides with bat and ball. Yet, in my view this should not have even been as closely fought and India perhaps should have been far more convincing against this Australian side at home.
So let us analyze what the real issues were-
1. Australian side was affected with injuries but things actually fell in place - not apart! Shaun Marsh and Bollinger became assets rather than try-outs to put together 11 players. Full credit to them.
2. The Shane Watson factor is now giving Australia an all-rounder (opener+seamer) they missed after Gilchrist (keeper-batter), restoring much needed balance, and an extra match winning option.
3. India have played 3 seamers in this series. This is good, but I think there will be times, when one of them will be replaced with a spinner. Jadjea, Yuvraj and Raina did very well, but 2 regular spinners in India is an option to be considered. As it turned out Mohali/Hyderabad had good bounce and then Gauhati was almost like playing overseas, so India's choice of 3 seamers could not be faulted.
1. Australian side was affected with injuries but things actually fell in place - not apart! Shaun Marsh and Bollinger became assets rather than try-outs to put together 11 players. Full credit to them.
2. The Shane Watson factor is now giving Australia an all-rounder (opener+seamer) they missed after Gilchrist (keeper-batter), restoring much needed balance, and an extra match winning option.
3. India have played 3 seamers in this series. This is good, but I think there will be times, when one of them will be replaced with a spinner. Jadjea, Yuvraj and Raina did very well, but 2 regular spinners in India is an option to be considered. As it turned out Mohali/Hyderabad had good bounce and then Gauhati was almost like playing overseas, so India's choice of 3 seamers could not be faulted.
So what went wrong?
You can point out many details and how our pacers got spanked a bit, and batting that functioned in parts. Yet 300 were chasable in their first game and also 250 in the Mohali game.
You can point out many details and how our pacers got spanked a bit, and batting that functioned in parts. Yet 300 were chasable in their first game and also 250 in the Mohali game.
So instead of pointing little (though significant) moments and issues, here is what India failed to exploit-
As pointed out, many tactical shots had an effect on the series- with catches and run-outs etc. But strategically, India could have just had exponential impact by a prophylactic approach by the top order batters- by letting go strike rate but shutting wickets till 15 overs. If India had just got to the middle overs, with none or one wicket, Australia could have been exploited. Hauritz could then be attacked and seamers would be forced to bowl out of turn.
Sehwag vs Hauritz? did not happen!
Tendulkar did that thrice (30 run out, 40 lbw?, 175) and was intending it in the first match (14 of 30 balls). Australia also bowled full and wide, but I think Tendulkar would take that, by leaving most of them. He adjusts his game to the situation and that includes team composition. In this series, getting to middle overs without losing a wicket was not 'a steady start' but a potent weapon.
Sehwag unfortunately cannot think about holding his wicket, which is perfectly fine- because he is a destructive bloke. But as an opener, even in ODIs - it is a quality which will be important.
Forget the little things, India simply failed to exploit the 'depleted' aspect of Aussie bowling (they still play 11 players). It is not about a particular failure or limitation in skills, if you cannot prepare to put yourself in a position which exploits the opponent's weakness (few spin options in the middle overs for Indian conditions), you will end up in close encounters. You never want close encounters, when you can have a convincing impact.
I would like Sehwag bat at number 3 in Test matches (I have said this after that famous test match in Chennai against England, 2008, when India chased nearly 400 runs). It is now worth considering it in ODIs, with powerplays and the fact that he can destroy spinners (which is a big asset in India)....
Well played Ponting, Australia...
Posts
