Australia's Mental State

[honestbharani]

I think that's mostly true but there's also the case of the Ashes in 2019, where frankly Australia was clearly the better side in all departments yet dropped two Tests anyway.

It could well just be that Pujara is kryptonite for this attack. None of what happens in the last two Tests - at least in terms of the failures to bowl India out - happens if Pujara nicks off early a few times and the bowlers remain fresher throughout.

You are just the anti-Ponting then.

 

[Senile Sentry]

I think that's mostly true but there's also the case of the Ashes in 2019, where frankly Australia was clearly the better side in all departments yet dropped two Tests anyway.

It could well just be that Pujara is kryptonite for this attack. None of what happens in the last two Tests - at least in terms of the failures to bowl India out - happens if Pujara nicks off early a few times and the bowlers remain fresher throughout.

Yes, statidiots a few decades from now might look at Pujara's series avg of 33 and say meh, and probably will never understand his true impact, unless they watch it ball by ball.

Or how Gill and Pant established a mental stronghold on their two best bowlers - Lyon and Starc.

Batting is often regarded as an individualistic endeavour, but this Indian lineup batting was more of a team effort, with each batsman playing according to, and amplifying their strengths while reliant on the others. Without Pant and Gill blazing at the other end, Pujara's efforts could have been a footnote and probably would have been criticised for lack of intent and killing the momentum. Conversly, without Pujara's glue like innings, Pant's and Gill's efforts may have been glimpses of youthful exuberance and not really sustained enough to win for India.

 

[Smudge49]

The Grade Cricketer podcast was interesting about these discussions. They felt that if Australia played exactly how they played against India, they would have beaten just about anyone else. Maybe the Aussie selectors feel the same way too and that is why there are very few changes in the squad for RSA.

Through the series Australia couldn't manage a single score of 400, apart from Hazelwood no other Aussie bowler had a 5 wicket haul, all this when Aus were at their full strength and India were playing with their 2/3 choice team.

This hardly was anything like 05 Ashes series where Australia literally threw everything they had but Poms found a way to better them, this was just a series where Australia were exposed on both tactics and execution despite having man for man a better team and favorable conditions.

Langer pretty much asked the media after the series, "who else you would you have rather picked" the same rigidity and unwillingness to learn is what we see from the squad selection for RSA.

 

[Starfighter]

Or how Gill and Pant established a mental stronghold on their two best bowlers - Lyon and Starc.

Neither Lyon nor Starc have been our two best bowlers for most of the time they've been in the team. None of us who watched Starc bowling in the Sheffield Shield prior to the series would have been surprised that things happened as they did - he was horrendous. The only real surprise was that he held it together for two tests. As for Lyon, I knew we were in trouble from pretty much his first over in Adelaide when he turned the ball about half as far as I expected. He's had an impact against the rest of this team in the past and without it Australia was in a worse position before you even consider Pant.

While Pant evidently has a kryptonite aspect for Australia, partly because he plays in a style that works very well here (and don't forget that still requires Paine's butterfingers at Sydney) I think it's silly to talk about 'player x having a hold over y' when India's victory was collective, which different players being able to contribute at different times and overcome issues like bad fielding and inexperienced bowling to frustrate a team dependent on too few players and operating on strategic and tactical autopilot. Despite the freak events of Adelaide India simply proved to be the more resilient and responsive team overall. The question is why Australia is so lacking in both, and it seemingly comes down to the leadership or lack thereof.

 

[the big bambino]

Yes it seems we were outplayed off the park as well as on it. It sort of indicates good planning when a team wins as a collective too. Ironically Australia had greater difficulty compensating for the injury to Warner and Starc's loss of form than India did with their many problems. The injury to Pattinson and unavailability of Jhye Richardson being particularly felt and suggests no real confidence in the likes of Neser.

 

[Smudge49]

Let's get real here. India didn't withstand any hostile wicket taking spells or countered fire with fire.

India just played smart cricket, they understood that Hazelwood and Cummins were the only wicket taking threats and they largely tried to wore them down as they realised runs can be scored easily off Starc and Lyon. This is the primary reason India kept batting better in 2nd innings compared to their 1st innings as the series kept progressing.

Poor ol' Watto used to bowl 10-15 overs an innings and then go open the batting, Mitch Marsh has a 5-fer in the last test he played, so this protect Green at all costs behavior while you bowl your best bowlers into the ground was also a sign that Aus leadership isn't all that bright.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Let's get real here. India didn't withstand any hostile wicket taking spells or countered fire with fire.
.

Actually Aus was all fire and India countered it with ice and fire - Pujara being the ice, and likes of Pant , Gill etc being the fire.

Fire vs Fire is fun to watch but generally has a short shelf life, but ice vs fire was bound to be long drawn and in the end the fire would be neutered

 

[Daemon]

Actually Aus was all fire and India countered it with ice and fire - Pujara being the ice, and likes of Pant , Gill etc being the fire.

Fire vs Fire is fun to watch but generally has a short shelf life, but ice vs fire was bound to be long drawn and in the end the fire would be neutered

wtf you've clearly never played pokemon

 

[Smudge49]

Actually Aus was all fire and India countered it with ice and fire - Pujara being the ice, and likes of Pant , Gill etc being the fire.

Fire vs Fire is fun to watch but generally has a short shelf life, but ice vs fire was bound to be long drawn and in the end the fire would be neutered

Good to know you consider loopy half-volleys and short and wide pies to be fire.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Neither Lyon nor Starc have been our two best bowlers for most of the time they've been in the team. None of us who watched Starc bowling in the Sheffield Shield prior to the series would have been surprised that things happened as they did - he was horrendous. The only real surprise was that he held it together for two tests. As for Lyon, I knew we were in trouble from pretty much his first over in Adelaide when he turned the ball about half as far as I expected. He's had an impact against the rest of this team in the past and without it Australia was in a worse position before you even consider Pant.

While Pant evidently has a kryptonite aspect for Australia, partly because he plays in a style that works very well here (and don't forget that still requires Paine's butterfingers at Sydney) I think it's silly to talk about 'player x having a hold over y' when India's victory was collective, which different players being able to contribute at different times and overcome issues like bad fielding and inexperienced bowling to frustrate a team dependent on too few players and operating on strategic and tactical autopilot. Despite the freak events of Adelaide India simply proved to be the more resilient and responsive team overall. The question is why Australia is so lacking in both, and it seemingly comes down to the leadership or lack thereof.

1 What I meant was that Starc is one among the best Aus bowlers - which is a fact. And so us Lyon.

2. Pant and Gill had their stronghold on Aussie bowlers as they realised they could play unorthodox/ unconventional cricket. For example- Lyon sticks to his wide outside off and has been successful , particularly because RHBs are schooled not to hit against the spin and with the bounce, trying to smother or going for expansive shots would result in a higher percentage of catchable shots. Rohit Sharma, usually a good player of spin in SC, was found put by Lyon in both 2018 and 2020. Rohit was largely tied up on the off side (unless short pitched) as he was conventionally not encouraged to drive against the spin. This resulted in him having to go for lofted strokes to mid wicket / long on and was dismissed twice in each series in the same manner.

In comes Gill, with a refreshingly different approach. The very first ball he faced from Lyon ever, he stepped out and drove it to extra cover- against the turn - for a two and then followed up it with another for a four. The reaction from Lyon was priceless, like a top level magician whose best trick had been found out by a member of the audience. He was backpedalling to his run-up startpoint looking intently at Gill. For the entire series, Gill had no problems with Lyon.

Pant also used the same trick against Lyon in addition to many others. The result was that when he came into bat at Gabba, with Indian needing 165 odd from 35 overs or so, there was a long on, a long off and zero close in fielders. If that isn't a symptom of a batsman's mental stranglehold on a bowler, I dont know what is.

I also loved how Gill played different varieties of the pull and hook on Starc. And based on the interview with Vikram Rathour, it was a plan worked out by Gill himself. For the usual bouncer at the head, Gill would hook it for six. For the bouncer at head high but outside off - Gill would smash it over third man. For the short ball aimed at the rib, Gill would execute the short arm pull to square leg, and for the short one just outside off - he would employ the rasping full blooded pull to cow corner. It was magical to see how a 21 year old had developed and executed a plan to completely neuter a world class fast bowler.

I think more than Pant, who always gave a chance, it was Gill who was the X factor in Indian batting.

 

[Senile Sentry]

wtf you've clearly never played pokemon

Nah, I was more into WWE trump cards. I have no clue about Pokemon

 

[Senile Sentry]

Good to know you consider loopy half-volleys and short and wide pies to be fire.

Pujara's bodymap begs to differ.

 

[Smudge49]

Pujara's bodymap begs to differ.

Not sure it was a UFC match where you KO someone by hitting them on their body, also pretty sure most of Pujara's body blows came from Hazelwood or Cummins, because Starc short balls were mostly going left, right of Paine or over his head.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Not sure it was a UFC match where you KO someone by hitting them on their body, also pretty sure most of Pujara's body blows came from Hazelwood or Cummins, because Starc short balls were mostly going left, right of Paine or over his head.

They did take out Jadeja and Shami with bodyline - and I meant the collective bowling lineup, not just one bowler.

 

[Smudge49]

They did take out Jadeja and Shami with bodyline - and I meant the collective bowling lineup, not just one bowler.

Jadeja and Shami are lower order bats who aren't supposed to be great at playing the short ball, but the implication that guys like Starc and Lyon were bowling great before likes of Gill and Pant disrupted their merry ways is totally not how things went.

Starc is averaging 40 for his 11 wickets at a strike rate of 75 and Lyon was even worse with 9 wickets costing him a whopping 55 a piece with a strike rate of 125. To make matters worse they were going at an economy of 3 runs per over, in a series where run scoring was generally tough for both sides.

This resulted in Paine literally going to Cummins or Hazelwood everytime he started leaking runs, so much so he literally wore down even Hazelwood and Cummins in doing so.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Jadeja and Shami are lower order bats who aren't supposed to be great at playing the short ball, but the implication that guys like Starc and Lyon were bowling great before likes of Gill and Pant disrupted their merry ways is totally not how things went.

Starc is averaging 40 for his 11 wickets at a strike rate of 75 and Lyon was even worse with 9 wickets costing him a whopping 55 a piece with a strike rate of 125. To make matters worse they were going at an economy of 3 runs per over, in a series where run scoring was generally tough for both sides.

This resulted in Paine literally going to Cummins or Hazelwood everytime he started leaking runs, so much so he literally wore down even Hazelwood and Cummins in doing so.

Jadeja is averaging 50 with the bat in the last five years and have amply demonstrated his ability to play the short ball - if you watched the matches on this tour.

As to your second and third paragraphs - they averaged 40 and 55 because Indian batsmen played them well. Not just because they bowled **** suddenly. Starc was doing pretty well after the first two tests actually, as the pitches were more suitable. But India played the long game and wore him down.

 

[Spark]

Also, contrast this with what the Indian coaching staff did. The entire leg side lines, batting line up shuffles, team selection calls, bringing Ashwin on early etc etc. have all seem to have originated from the coaching staff. Seems Vikram Rathore made presentations on the lines and lengths the Aussies bowl and asked batsmen, during lockdown, one to one on how they plan to combat that and how they see themselves making runs against that kind of attack etc. It does seem like India were a lot more prepared for this series than Australia were. Wonder how much they took the foot off the pedal in terms of planning and prep once they heard Virat was going back after the first test.

Yeah this is something I commented on a lot through the series. Indian bowlers, from Bumrah right down to Sundar and Thakur, were clearly bowling to set, well-defined plans with clear methods in mind to get the batsmen out. Australian bowlers, on the other hand, and batsmen, just seemed to be bowling consistently to basically default fields with at best vague plans and very little attention to detail. How many times, for example, did we see edges going through at catchable height through the same gap at third slip, or fielders being moved where the ball just went in the air the ball before? There was a real lack of precision in Australian cricket throughout the entire series, from batting to captaincy.

As to your second and third paragraphs - they averaged 40 and 55 because Indian batsmen played them well. Not just because they bowled **** suddenly. Starc was doing pretty well after the first two tests actually, as the pitches were more suitable. But India played the long game and wore him down.

I mean, I just don't think this is really accurate. India played him well but Starc in particular started bowling some horrendous stuff throughout the second half of the series.

 

[Smudge49]

Jadeja is averaging 50 with the bat in the last five years and have amply demonstrated his ability to play the short ball - if you watched the matches on this tour.

As to your second and third paragraphs - they averaged 40 and 55 because Indian batsmen played them well. Not just because they bowled **** suddenly. Starc was doing pretty well after the first two tests actually, as the pitches were more suitable. But India played the long game and wore him down.

Jadeja got pinged on the head during the T20 and got concussed and was out for sometime, he got bounced out at the G and then later got his thumb broken with the short ball, none of that really screams a good player of short ball, the fact he is averaging 50 and still batting at 7 implies the Indian team management also thinks the same.

Also if you are suggesting Lyon and Starc were hemorrhaging runs simply because the Indian batsmen played well against them, then that would mean Hazelwood and Cummins were bowling fireballs.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Jadeja got pinged on the head during the T20 and got concussed and was out for sometime, he got bounced out at the G and then later got his thumb broken with the short ball, none of that really screams a good player of short ball, the fact he is averaging 50 and still batting at 7 implies the Indian team management also thinks the same.

And in between all these he made scores of 24, 25, 66*, 44*, 57 and 28* (244 runs @81.33 at a strike rate of 77) in this tour. Not even one failure with the bat.

He played bodyline quite well from those stats. Obviously if he is getting majority of his deliveries at the body he is bound to get out to one of those.

Also if you are suggesting Lyon and Starc were hemorrhaging runs simply because the Indian batsmen played well against them, then that would mean Hazelwood and Cummins were bowling fireballs.

Yes, Cummins was just brilliant more or less throughout. Haze too was quite good. I fail to see what you are implying here.

 

[Senile Sentry]

the fact he is averaging 50 and still batting at 7 implies the Indian team management also thinks the same.

Indian management has for some reason been rigid minded in their approach towards Jadeja's batting - probably a closeted thinking like Australian management who wanted Gilchrist to bat always at no.7, despite averaging more than 50 with the bat.