I wonder how many other people took themselves away from work early to watch the amazing conclusion to the second Test. It was a highly improbable comeback by the Australians; only six times in the history of Test cricket have teams come back from more than a 200 run deficit on the first innings to win the match.
Amidst the congratulations, there’s one slightly disturbing note; Ricky Ponting seems to be claiming that the unlikely win somehow proves his decision to bat was right. It didn’t do that for a minute.
For Australia to win the test from the position they were in, Peter Siddle had to bat for three and a half hours, keeping out 117 deliveries. Michael Hussey had to produce his best innings in a long time. But, more to the point, the Pakistani wicketkeeper had to drop easy catches from Hussey three times and Siddle once. Pakistani captain Mohammed Yousuf had to set bizarrely defensive fields while Hussey and Siddle gradually accumulated runs. And Pakistan had to throw its wickets away, not only in their second innings run chase, but towards the end of their first innings where they could have completely batted Australia out of it. As Fairfax’s subeditor put it, Australia was gifted victory by Panikstan.
I can understand Ricky Ponting’s public bravado. But, in private, if the powers that be in Australian cricket regard this as anything other than an extremely lucky escape, they’re deluded.
Elsewhere: Howard Cunningham celebrates the team’s determination and self-belief, and draws parallels between the team’s efforts and the Australian national character. I’ll happily acknowledge the former, but am pretty skeptical on the latter.
If Pakistan were a race horse, the stewards would be demanding a swab, and having a long conversation with the jockey.
Pakistan have been taking lessons from the masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory – the Fremantle Dockers.
While I agree with your assertion that the victory did not vindicate Ponting’s decision to bat first on a green pitch, it was not merely gifted to them.
Granted, Hussey being dropped three times on Day 3 was very important, but the most important factor was that Australia is probably the only side in the world who firmly believed they could have won from the position they were in at the end of Day 3. For this, see Adelaide 2006.
My further thoughts can be found at my blog.
I think the Aussies deserve some credit. It’s not like all the Pakistani batsmen were out ‘hit-wicket’ or something… It was a great victory requiring enourmous belief and mental toughness.
You really have to wonder why with one whole day remaining, it looked like Pakistan thought they were playing in a ODI.
Howard C, Andos: I agree that Australia did very well to give themselves a chance, and that never-give-up dedication deserves praise, but if Pakistan had not made so many mistakes (dropped catches, poor shot selection in their 2nd innings, defensive field settings with Aus at effectively 8/80, etc) nothing Australia did could have realistically stopped them. Probably if just one less mistake had been made by Pakistan the outcome would have been reversed.
And as to the original post: I agree, there’s no way that choosing to bat first and getting a 200 run first innings deficit suddenly becomes a brilliant decision just because an erratic opposition somehow failed to chase 176 on an excellent batting wicket with a day and a half left to play. That Hussey and Siddle could survive for so long shows just how good the pitch was for batting.
This summer Australia has enforced the follow on and used a nightwatchman, both practices that have been shunned by Australian teams in recent times. Looks like it’s time to reconsider the “bat first regardless of conditions” policy too.
I agree Andos that the victory required enormous belief and mental toughness, and it was a great victory. But as a rabid cricket fan this in no way vindicates Pontings appalling captaincy decision to bat first on a very green top with every condition favouring the bowlers. Regardless of the win it is one of the worst bits of captaincy I have ever seen. It’s a shame that a player as great as Ponting doesn’t realise he dodged a bullet, and admit it was a poor decision on his behalf.
That first day pitch was greener than my front lawn.
I’m no cricket nut but it just looked like a bowler’s wicket to me.
Not much of a fan of Punter but, as with Gordon Brown – who else?
Speaking as a cricket tragic, I find little to disagree with in Andrew B’s assessment. On general principles, the deicsion to bat first was poor — not completely mad mind you, but on balance poor risk trading.
Good risk management implies trying to make your strengths count and your weaknesses irrelevant. With this in mind …
1. Australia’s best bat all season has been Watson, whose stroke play and reaction time once he gets a start has been excellent. Asking him to play when the ball is likely to behqave anomalously neutralises this advantage and might even turn it into a weakness. Being sharp enough to edge a ball leaving you off the pitch is much worse than missing it completely. As it happened on Day 1 Watson managed to edge a sharply moving delivery which he had to play at. That hurt Australi because in 6 of the 8 innings Watson has played this season he has been within 16 runs of 100. One one occasion he got 120*. The likelihood that the pitch would improve on day 2 and Day 3 as it dried was great. M Yousuf, Pakistan’s captain wanted to bowl, unsuprisingly and was delighted when Ponting invited him to.
2. Pakistan’s bowlers had done pretty well in the last match and here, those that traded on bounce and pace but weren’t able to swing it much would now get swing as well. The same could be said of Australia. Siddle and Jonhson(Australia’s leading wicket taker) get wixkets bowling straight with lift. Johnson gets batsman by getting them to play at balls going across their bodies towards slip that bounce sharply and leave them off the pitch. If they can resist playing, he tends to pitch closer to middle, but that often results in a half volley on middle and leg that can be hit behind square for four, since the legside will probably not have more than three fielders when he is on and attacking. If however, the ambient conditions allow him to swing it in then the batsman has to play at deliveries pitched just short of a length on middle and off and so he will be much more effective, and so will Siddle who bowls mostly right arm over. Bowling first means that two Aussie bowlers who are good have their strengths (pace and bounce) incremented in value and the weaknesses of the opposition made more salient as they bowl when the pitch is dry.
Ponting’s decision narrowed the gap bewteen the teams rather than widening it and so was poor, though it did lead to a more interesting contest. He does have a tendency to be mechanicla in his decision-making — Hussey joked that when he batted at Joh’burg some time back the pitch it was a “Commonwealth Bank pitch” with “branches everywhere”. In cricket, the rule of thumb when you win the toss is “think about it, then bat”. This was very much affirmed by the presence of Warne in the side, who could be devastating when bowling last and in concert with McGrath very effective even when the track was good on Day 2. Australia doesn’t have anyone comparable to either of these two all time greats now.
Ponting showed what a mind he was explaining his decision post Match to ex-Aussie skipper “Tub” Taylor. “The Theory is you get more in your first innings than they get in their last”. Australia got 127 and Pakistan 139. What got Australia home was that Australia’s second exceeded Pakistan’s first by more than 12 …
I wouldn’t have wanted to have been in the Akmal household post match. Big brother Kamran was the keeper who dropped Hussey cold three times on the way to 50 only to see him finish with a score the size of the Pakistan second innings. He also dropped Siddle on 25 all the while prasiing the bowlers. He also holed out twice.
Little brother 19-year-old near debutante Umar did better but the fact remains that he played a wild shot to get out on 49 when Pakistan had less than 40 to get and he was the last recognised bat at the crease and was part of the Pakistan first innings collpase. Long faces at the dinner table? I’d say so
2.
Hmmm…. it all looks very odd. It would be interesting to know what was at stake in the match.
Razor:
“Pakistan have been taking lessons from the masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory – the Fremantle Dockers.”
Hey, I resemble that remark!
But yes, it did remind me of Freo vs Melb at the G a couple of years ago.
My apologies to the good people at the MCG for the broken plastic seat-back in front of me, and the knuckle-blood stains in the vicinity. Some insight into the Freo supporter’s brain here – when I lashed out at the innocent inanimate object thusly, we were still in front by three goals. I just knew what was going to happen.
Andrew B:
“Probably if just one less mistake had been made by Pakistan the outcome would have been reversed.”
Yup. None of those mistakes alone were enough to lose it, and any one of them not made would have fixed it. That’s why Yousef kept harping on his own single example of poor shot selection – it allows some face-saving for everyone else (esp. the Akmal bros), and allows him not to dwell on his systematic field placement lunacy, late in the Oz 2nd innings.
I was very disappointed indeed. Not because I’d like a series loss, but because I want to see Ponting punished for his stupidity and hubris (hubridity?), and because a dead rubber at Bellerive is boring.
“Hmmm…. it all looks very odd. It would be interesting to know what was at stake in the match.”
Are you suggesting what I think you’re suggesting?
I hear that in Hobart Ponting will unleash more of his crazy genius. Not only will he win the toss and bat he will reverse the batting order. And then, he and Haddin will open the bowling.
Australia by an innings and 23 runs.
Cricket’s now got as many bent legs as a run at the dish lickers. Where’s the bookie?
“he and Haddin will open the bowling”
Bollinger keeping, Clarke at deep fine leg, Hussey at 3rd man?
Shaun
Once upon a time, in the days of uncovered wickets, reversing the batting order was seen (occasionally) as a good tactic. IIRC this was done in 1948 in England and at Brisbane once as well. Bradman saw no reason why he, a fine stroke player, ought to be forced to squander his skill in a lottery.
Some test matches were played on wickets so “sticky” that sides would declare on low scores — 5-67 for example just so the other side could wear the ball on their gloves and ribs before the pitch dried out. This was fairly common in the first 25 years of test cricket (and before umpires got narky about what the difference between throwing and bowling was).
In those days, someone with a batting average in the high 30s was actually doing pretty well. Although ball would lose its shine pretty quickly, the fact that the outfield would be left looking nothing like the bowling green surfaces we now see meant that even if you middled one, unless you hit it in the air, the chances of finding the boundary weren’t all that good. Of course, in those days, you were allowed to “pad up” to anything you didn’t like the look of and for much of it prior to WW1 tests were untimed, so you could bat as long as you liked. Patience and judicious shot selection was as much a virtue as thrilling stroke play.
@ FDB. Brilliant. We’ll win for sure
@ Fran. Yes. I’m aware of that tactic from the old days. I reckon a lot of those blokes would love to bat on the flat lifeless tracks that are almost routine these days.
One of the rare and few interesting comments from the Nine drongos was the rise of test batsmen with an average above fifty over the past few decades. Back in the 80s or so, an average of fifty was considered a sign of greatness. These days it is becoming all too common.
Being a bowler myself, I’d like to see less pitches for batting and more good all round pitches and even the occasional green top.
Then again, I play on green tops every weekend. Of course, they are synthetic pitches. Which as you play around the grounds, you learn that some have their own characteristics that can be used.
I don’t mind a synth pitch either Shaun. Not that I often have a choice!
But the SCG track was an awesome all-rounder. It was always likely to produce an interesting contest, and I say MORE OF THAT SORT OF THING PLEASE.
Batting tracks are just pandering to the 20/20 crowd. Test cricket should be played on pitches calibrated to produce a 5th day result, not a bunch of runs and a draw..
The only pitch where I would ever bowl first is Perth. Everywhere else the odds are massively in favour of batting first. And since when does a lousy batting effort prove that a captain was wrong to choose to bat?
I agree with Terry@1. Call in the stewards for sure. It wasn’t a great win for the Australians at all, let alone the claims being made that Ponting is one of the greatest test captains. He leads a team of cheats and sledgers and they certainly don’t deserve the wins they have had nor the Australian caps they wear. Pakistan’s performance yesterday was nothing short of disgraceful and they did not play like a team it was worth winning against. I don’t like Australia grinding its opponents under its heel as has been done in the past but neither do I like an opposite side who refuse to play as well as they could.
I agree that Australia started playing exceptionally well on day 4, and this more than Pakistani stuff ups contributed.
But in general, I find Punter a very boring, unadventurous, conventional, conservative and unimaginative captain. he would have batted because you always bat. I doubt he even really thought about the alternative.
He never enforces the follow on because he’s got it in his head that you never bat last – irrespective of actual circusmtances of a partcular game. The dude is the most inflexible thinker ever to captain Australia.
He must drive Ian Chappell absolutely nuts.
Hardly. Unless you have bowlers who will be advantaged by bowling on Day 5 more than late on day 3 and 4 (or the oppositon has) the advantage is zero in practice. Unless you get through the first 3 hours with minimal damage you will spend a lot of time playing cathc up and woinmdering whether you can make the match last long enough to get the advantages that might (or might not) be there.
This last match was instructive because it was very unliklely that come day 5 the pitch would be appreciably less playable than on day 3, and to the extent it was, it would have the kinds of characteristics one might find on the subcontinent.
Of course, the match didn’t even last until Day 5, meaning that the course of play was determined by the advantages available to the two sides on late Day 3 and four, when Australia could have been bowling, had they not elected to bat first.
It is true that 4 out of the 7 with averages within cooee of 50 threw away their wickets with low percentage strokes, and you can hardly blame the pitch for that, but if Pakistan had bowled well and held their catches a first innings of about 250 and a deficit of 100 would have been entirely plausible. They’d still have conceded more of the quality batting time to their opponents and handed them of more of the bowling advantage time than Australia had.
Had Pakistan been more professional and attacking when Australia led by 80 with two in hand, they probably would have kept them to a 120 lead and probably have won.
Enforcing the follow-on is generally considered the more negative tactic as it involves less risk. Sometimes (as in rain affected matches) it is the only way to give yourself a plausible chance of winning, but the fact of the matter is that if you enforce your bowlers may end up bowling 150-200 overs or more in sequence, and bowlers’ effectiveness starts to tail away after about 120 overs. Moreover, as most injuries to cricketers occur when fielding it exposes you to elevated risk of personnel loss. Going down a bowler is a severe blow if it happens early and of course losing a batsman to an onfielf injury may prejudice you in the series even if you win the match. Let’s face it, if you lead by 200 or more you should rarely lose.
It’s notable that on the three occasions in test history where Australia has led by 200+ and lost, all involved enforcing the follow-on.
But enforcing the follow on has that real “grab game by scruff of neck, play to win, no quarter given” vibe as well Fran. Its certainly the Chappellian way!
I get the sense they’re more interested in resting the bowlers these days.
And again, my plaint is that he NEVER enforces it – not that he hasnt at times.
Inflexible.
Human resource management principles, specifically OH&S hit the cricket field. Who’d ‘a thunk it?
Good bowlers are hard to come by, and if you get one do you really want to run the risk of losing one during a match? Asking them to play in their top performance band for three bowling innings in a row in a series with back-to-back tests? Not if you’re smart.
Given Australia’s bowling resources, a new and better game plan might be bowl first, bat for 175-200 overs for about 550, bowl to win the match. There might be reasons occasionally not to aim for that scenario (e.g. a particularly taxing effort in the field in the last innings in back to back matches; an absolute road to bat on first up) but I’d want a good reason at least until I had proven fourth innings bowling match winners and good grafting openers and a reliable number 3. Ponting has averaged just 43 over the last 3 years.
Punter is so out of form and he’s never been a particularly good captain in my books anyway. But as Fran said many moons ago when they lost they ashes, who else is there?
That said it was freking unbelievable result. The Aussies have used up about dozen get out jail cards and Mike Hussey might still get to play for Oz for a bit longer. Shane Watson is turning out to be a real surprise packet and Hauritz actually is starting to look dangerous. Miracles…
Robert, there were two teams in this contest and you were remiss not to give the other team some agency. Andrew B’s point about poor fielding is well made. The Second Test was like one of those elections where one party is dire and the other is worse, and when the dire party wins they get all upset when nobody cheers.
I wish the Australian team had been as
luckytough-minded in the two Tests theyshoulda wonlost against England last year.One really needs to separate the decision to bat from the outcome from that decusion.
I don’t think the decision to bat was that bad. After all, Tubby Taylor and Shane Warne both claimed that’s what they would have done in Ponting’s shoes. The pitch was greenish, it was overcast, but it was hardly an MCG pitch from the early 1980s, or Mumbai 2004. Batting was possible on day one – a combination of nerves (Hughes) and poor to abysmal batting (Ponting, arguably Hussey, definitely Haddin) led to the debacle that was the first innings.
The decision to bat would have been clearly wrong had Ponting expected the strip to play like one of the runways at Sydney airport – but I doubt that between Ponting, his team, the coaches and every other hanger-on who got to go on to the SCG to kick the turf on Sunday morning, that anyone thought batting was going to be totally easy in the circumstances.
The history of teams chasing a winning score in the 4th innings isn’t great – Australia hasn’t done it successfully since the last Ashes test of 2007, and then there was less than 50 to get in a dead rubber.
Steve said:
Not definitely Haddin. Haddin had to play and the ball straightened. He was probably guilt of a shot which, in the circumstances, was over ambitious — and should have attempted to and orthodox on-drive rather than the lofted shot,. Had he done so, the ball would probably have finished somewhere between mid-off and cover and he might have got the single. So not abysmal, but a bad risk trade.
Hughes, Ponting, Hussey and North’s attempts however were very poor indeed, especially in Hughes case as he’d just been given a “life” and was first game back.
BTW Johnson’s shot wasn’t all that clever either. OK he’s not a specialist bat, but he does have a test 100, has 500 runs in the caledar year, the wicket was playing well and he was well in and hitting it in the middle. He ought to have made it his business to be there at stumps.
Unluckiness award: Watson — dismissed twice by great deliveries, the second one near unplayable when on 97
Luckiness award: Hussey — dropped cold three times and went to 98 with the lefthander’s equivalent of what Watson above got in the second innings after the ball ricocheted off the gloves and sailed over 2nd slip to the boundary for four. What must Watson have been thinking?
I think Haddin’s innings was inexcusable, not just the dismissal. The way he was taking 2-3 steps down the pitch before the ball was released is fine in a 20/20 whackfest on a pre-prepared flat track, but indefensible 5 minutes before tea when batting for a team in trouble on a deck with movement. The dismissal was over ambitious to careless, and anyone can drop their guard for one ball and do something rash – but his whole innings was the sort that would have had the Channel 9 crew sniggering had it come from a Pakistani tail end batsman. Instead, it was written off as “Haddin batting the only way he knows how”.
Steven, that’s a fair point.
But I’d still reckon that Pakistan had by far the better of the pitch conditions; it seemed to be doing considerably more on day 1 than it was on day 4.
Sticking the boot into Punter has become as fashionable as a touch of self loathing at ongoing Australian cricketing success. Opting to bat first was not an obviously poor decision prior to the collapse, and backing his batsmen to survive the early difficulties was not unreasonable given the opposition.
Anyway, it was a pretty impressive comeback and great viewing. Long live test cricket!
Jenny @19
Perth is no longer a bowler’s deck, hasn’t been for some time now. The WACA Committee are making efforts to re-liven it.
Nor is the Gabba a bowler’s deck any more. All the wicket shave flattened in recent times.
Another myth: Adelaide is not a spinner’s wicket. Quicks take the lion’s share of wickets there. Greg Chappel said sometimes the Adelaide deck doesn’t spin OR seam going into day 5. It just dies. Mostly it favours the seamers more later with a tad of variable bounce and some additional movement.
Typical Adelaide scenrio: 2/3 wickets before lunch on Day 1 when the deck has some freshness in it, few wickets until stumps session day 3 when wickets fall regularly until teh end of the match
And yet Steven@32 … if Haddin had managed to get a quick 20 and the field had been pushed back, Australia’s struggle would have eased. It also forces the keepr to field up at the stumps, increasing the chances that a thick edge either side would be missed and go for four. That’s why these things are done.
On balance, as I said, I think it was a poor trade given the state of play, but not clearly implausible. Haddin should have feigned the big shot and then tried playing it sedately into a gap. Double bluff. Keep ‘em guessing.
Hey, I’m not at all interested in sport generally, but even my attention was caught by this last Aussie-Pakistan Test match. The little I saw of it, I really enjoyed.
It was very absorbing, PB. Test cricket is, for me, the most appealing of all elite sports, precisely because of the extended comedy of errors and soap opera and high drama elements.
I guess any country that plays cricket seriously generally has civilised values, whatever the cultural differences. The admirable sportsmanship of the Pakistani captain was a good example. Will have to take more of an interest in it.
)
(Hope I’m not sounding like an anglo neo-imperialist colonial.
I disagree, Paul. Yousuf’s admirable sportmanship is no good from the Pakistani POV. Just think how a successful captain – Chappelli or Steve Waugh – would have behaved after the match in these circumstances; I reckon no-one would have been game to go near them. Such a captain would have done whatever it takes to give the other side a damned good thrashing in the next match, which Yousuf will not.
Test cricket is as much a mental as physical game, which is its big attraction.
Pakistan certainly appeared very sporting, joining in the McGrath Foundation appeal with pink before the start of play. But I think I would have been more impressed if some homage to the 100 odd Pakistanis killed by suicide bombing in a sporting stadium the day before the test had been made. A minutes silence perhaps or at least some black armbands on Yousuf’s men.