CHENNAI: After a big win, you don’t really want to rain on someone’s parade. But then, if that win comes with a display of a flaw or two, that threatens to have adverse consequences, then you do feel like pointing it out. Those keyed into the India-Australia first Test know what the two problems are. For the rest, here’s a recap: a stubborn bunch of tail-enders who raised hopes of an improbable heist for the hosts, and a bunch of far-from-stubborn tail-enders who showed as much fight as a tranquilised elephant.
India’s troubles with lower-orders are not new. Since the start of their tour of South Africa in 2013, they’ve been conceding 31.97 runs per lower-order (No 7 to No 11) wicket in South Africa, England, New Zealand and Australia. That’s only behind West Indies’ 32.35, the only other team with a 30-plus statistic in this context. If that isn’t enough, India have conceded 23 50-plus stands to these batsmen since then, the most. Seven of them reached triple digits.
“I would say India’s bowlers were a bit unlucky in this match; missed catches (Nathan Lyon got a reprieve on 7 in the second innings) and all. Even though the match became close, all of them did well in Adelaide. But yes, our team has been having both problems for a while,” said former India batsman Hemang Badani.
The other headache that Badani is referring to comes up when India’s tail bats.
It hid between legs in Adelaide, yielding only 25 runs in the second innings. In general, it stiffens up and refuses to wag when abroad. India’s Nos 7 to 11 are the only bunch among the current top-5 teams with a per-wicket yield of below 20 in the same time period: 17.4. The explanation for India being undone by tails is as short as the word “short”. In the first Test, the percentage of short balls by India went up from 2 on Day 4 to 16 on Day 5. Yes, they did work against the likes of Travis Head and Tim Paine, but the ploy backfired against the tail.
Barring Josh Hazlewood, the rest of Australia’s lower-order (Mitchell Starc, Pat Cummins and Nathan Lyon) relishes short balls. As per Cricviz’s data, Starc’s and Lyon’s averages multiply nearly 1.5 and 4 times respectively against such deliveries. But the two and Cummins are susceptible to full lengths (none of them average more than 17). But all these four batsmen saw every third — second, in Starc’s case — ball rise off short lengths. In simpler words, not bowling fuller saw the match coming 31 runs close to breaking Indian hearts.
On the other hand, the explanation for India’s tail getting undone was also succinctly summed up by Badani in just four words: “They need more application.”The 42-year-old, though, did feel that making use of Jasprit Bumrah in the way Starc is deployed by Australia could help India stop opposition lower-orders from infuriating them.
“It’s an option they could look at in the future. It’s no secret that when it comes to tearaway quicks, lower-order batsmen will be susceptible when the ball is speared into their feet or stumps. Starc does exactly that. Bumrah is fast, and perhaps the only one in India’s battery who can land yorkers when required.”
Quick silver lining
India’s quicks did keep up their energy throughout their spells. As per Cricviz, the pace attack’s average speed of 141.58kph is the fastest they’ve bowled in SA, Eng, NZ and Aus since 2006. That also included 48% of deliveries on good length. Despite that and their short-bowling strategy not working, it still says a lot about their accuracy.