Why do teams like to bowl first against Australia?

[Craig]

It just doesn't work at of the time does it?

At least in recent times I can think of. An away team hasn't won in Brisbane for 22 years bowling first against the Australians, and so some of the biggest defeats Australia has dished out is because teams have sent Australia in on a wicket offering false pretences to the opposition bowlers who think that the a bit of green or over head conditions will enable to run through the Australian batting line-up or pick up some early wickets. That's fine if they have the bowling attack to go with it, but is quite a low percentage of succeding as overhead conditions can change quite quickly. My gripe isn't so much if the wicket has a lot of grass on it, but more so like a wicket at Brisbane who live with this myth about Brisbane wickets through lack of quality information.

The tatic would be bat first and to play conservatively and being patient while conditions became favourable for batting. But countering this would be looking at rotating the strike by taking ones and twos and threes thrown in with the odd boundary. It is no secret that it winds up bowls if batsmen are constantly changing strike. Especially with the field up there is plenty of low risk run scoring opportunity to bat positively without going out there and batting like Virender Sehwag as IMO positive batting doesn't mean going hammer and tong after the bowling. Doing this and keeping wickets in hand by not panicing the runs will flow.

Agree or disagree?

 

[gettingbetter]

They don't want to be bowled out for less than 200.

 

[Craig]

They don't want to be bowled out for less than 200.

As opposed to conceding 500+ runs?

I think the Brisbane Test has shown us how poor Sri Lanka batted 1st time around and having learnt their lessons they batted at lot better and got within 40 runs of the follow-on target.

 

[gettingbetter]

You have a better chacne of drawing a match when conceding 500 rather than bolwed out for less than 200.

 

[Craig]

You have a better chacne of drawing a match when conceding 500 rather than bolwed out for less than 200.

Very true, but if you bat well or rather smartly you won't get bowled out for less then 200. If you think you will get bowled out for 200 on a wicket that offers a little bit of help to the bowlers and think if you concede a big total you can get out with a draw then it is very negative and tells us that they don't think they can be beat Australia and very dubious tatics.

 

[Ikki]

I think it really does not matter. Australia don't look like they're going to lose either way.

 

[Craig]

I think it really does not matter. Australia don't look like they're going to lose either way.

Because nobody has challenged them or at least pushed them. But you have to give Australia credit for that I guess if a team is crapping themselves before they play and bend over before the Test has even started.

 

[gettingbetter]

Very true, but if you bat well or rather smartly you won't get bowled out for less then 200. If you think you will get bowled out for 200 on a wicket that offers a little bit of help to the bowlers and think if you concede a big total you can get out with a draw then it is very negative and tells us that they don't think they can be beat Australia and very dubious tatics.

Easier said than done.

Its well known the psychological dive teams take when fronting Australia and this is just a response to it. I can't recall all that accurately the type of pitches that the Gabba produces, but uncertainty and selecting what is believed to be the safer option - bowling first is putting the ball in your court.

 

[shortpitched713]

Personally, I feel the best option for those facing Australia is to bat first and look to play for a very long, long innings. The Australian attack nowadays isn't quite as penetrative as it was with McGrath and Warne, and I feel that Lee and Clark can very much be played in non bowling friendly conditions. Even despite demolishing the Sri Lankan batting in both innings of the most recent Test, the bowling didn't particularly impress me and it was more of the Sri Lankans collapsing under pressure for mine.

Anyway, so if you can play a long innings first up it will put the draw in play and would probably force the Australians to take some chances, for example an early declaration, which would give your side a better chance of putting pressure on the Australians.

 

[iamdavid]

I agree with what Ian Chappell (I think it was him) said during the just-completed test match, if you bat first and you get knocked over for 180 then you are not out of the game, it's been demonstrated there is something to be gained from the pitch and theres every chance if you bowl well that you will remain in the contest.
However if you bowl first and concede 500+...then 99% of the time you arent going to win the game, regardless of how well you bat and bowl for the rest of the game.

Pretty much everyone agreed they would have done as Jayawardene did and bowled, the only thing that would've played on my mind if I were him was the weather, he knew that although there was likely to be juice in the pitch it probably wouldnt last long (final session of day one at best), and with rain clearly hanging about it was a big possibility alot of the time where batting would be difficult would be lost to rain (which is what eventually happened).

 

[Johnners]

I agree with what Ian Chappell (I think it was him) said during the just-completed test match, if you bat first and you get knocked over for 180 then you are not out of the game, it's been demonstrated there is something to be gained from the pitch and theres every chance if you bowl well that you will remain in the contest.
However if you bowl first and concede 500+...then 99% of the time you arent going to win the game, regardless of how well you bat and bowl for the rest of the game.

Pretty much everyone agreed they would have done as Jayawardene did and bowled, the only thing that would've played on my mind if I were him was the weather, he knew that although there was likely to be juice in the pitch it probably wouldnt last long (final session of day one at best), and with rain clearly hanging about it was a big possibility alot of the time where batting would be difficult would be lost to rain (which is what eventually happened).

That 1% of the time being Adelaide last year

 

[pup11]

I think most touring sides come to Australia with a very conservative approach and for them even a draw here is as good as a win and that approach or mindset reflects in their decision making, obviously Australians are a very tough side to beat in their own backyard but atleast the opposition should try to test them and every right move possible to that.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

I think it's psychologically easier for teams to bowl first against Australia than try to build a first innings total. It's not easy batting first against Australia. Teams that try to play a long innings become sitting ducks. The best approach in recent times was England in the 2005 Ashes where they put up a big score in relatively few sessions, but if every team could do that then Australia wouldn't be the best side in the world. The problem with bowling first is even if you restrict Australia to a modest score, it just gives their bowlers added motivation, like in ODI cricket where they always bowl better defending a low score. Basically, Australia win no matter the outcome of the first innings.

 

[Jono]

That 1% of the time being Adelaide last year

And Adelaide 2003

Dravid ftw

 

[White Lightning]

I think most touring sides come to Australia with a very conservative approach and for them even a draw here is as good as a win and that approach or mindset reflects in their decision making, obviously Australians are a very tough side to beat in their own backyard but atleast the opposition should try to test them and every right move possible to that.

thats it isn't it... your spot on.

the coaches and captains that come out here have to take responsiblity and have the mindset, well if we lose who cares. we weren't the first team to lose here but lets give it a crack and see

of the last 12 gabba tests, the touring side has won the toss and sent australia in 7 times:
2 draws and 5 losses have been the results. the last 3 of those losses have been particularly severe - england 02/03 384 runs, windies 05/06 379 runs, and this innings defeat of Sri Lanka.

at least if you bat first you can put some runs on the board (even if it is only 200 or 250) and put them under some sort of pressure.

at the end of the day, if your bowled out for 230, you can at least go out with the attitude thats its still 230 runs australia has to make to get their noses in front. and by batting first it means your going to be bowling to australia last to win the match and anything can happen then. for all the strenghts of australian cricket in the last decade, they do have a history of choking chasing small totals....

and as i said at the end of the day, if you bat first and get smashed. you've just gotta walk of the field and think stuff it - forget about that because every other team has been smashed by these guys anyway.

 

[Neil Pickup]

One word - cowardice...

 

[silentstriker]

Well adding a few facts to this discussion:

Since 2000, Australia are 26-3-4 when sent in to field after losing a toss.
Since 2000, Australia are 8-1-5 when sent in to bat after losing a toss.

So out of 47 tosses that Australia have lost, they've been sent in to field 33 times and sent into bat only 14 times. So I don't think the notion that teams like to bowl to Australia is true. Though looking at that record, you're better off sending Australia in to bat first because your chances of a draw increase significantly, while your chance of a win remain about the same (around 11.5%-12%).

 

[shortpitched713]

Well adding a few facts to this discussion:

Since 2000, Australia are 26-3-4 when sent in to field after losing a toss.
Since 2000, Australia are 8-1-5 when sent in to bat after losing a toss.

So out of 47 tosses that Australia have lost, they've been sent in to field 33 times and sent into bat only 14 times. So I don't think the notion that teams like to bowl to Australia is true. Though looking at that record, you're better off sending Australia in to bat first because your chances of a draw increase significantly, while your chance of a win remain about the same (around 11.5%-12%).

Which ones are the draws, and which ones are the losses?

 

[Mister Wright]

I agree with Jayawardne's decision to bowl first. There was enough there to suggest the conditions were favourable to the bowlers. They should have played Malinga though.

 

[Laurrz]

yea it baffles me too... if a team bats first and even makes 250 ...then that can sort of put Aussies under pressure..

especially having Murali to bowl last on...