Winning a Test in India is never easy; winning a Test series in India is like climbing Mt Everest – a battle of four stages, as some mountaineers suggest.
Perhaps you can overcome obstacles and setbacks on Stage 1. The First Test at Nagpur was pretty much a disaster but it was early days with further opportunities to redeem themselves still available and the greater prize a long-term possibility. Memo: why leave out Travis Head?
On to Delhi. Oh, so promising – after an even first innings battle, a solid lead with wickets in hand after 2 days. Then reverse sweep mania, 90 minutes of madness, and an inadequate target to defend. The series is gone as far as regaining the Trophy is concerned. Everest lost but still a chance of gaining a foothold for future reference.
Indore. Forced changes, toss lost and it’s India’s game to lose. They bat badly, we do a bit better; the GOAT has a day out and we have a modest target to chase. In the end, we coast in. Why couldn’t we have shown the same resolve in Delhi? Were they complacent or were we better?
Ahmedabad and a pitch to blunt everybody after three low, slow turners. We get to the fourth day, the fifth day. Only 21 wickets fall for the whole match. Gee, we had almost that many on some days in the first three games! In the end it’s a dull draw.
India wins the series, and because another result goes their way in NZ, we’ll meet again at The Oval in July for the World Test Championship.
What to make of it all? India remains a place too far away; Everest is still the ultimate challenge – reference Justin Langer’s ultimate challenge as coach.
Was it just that 90 minutes of madness in Delhi that tells the tale of the series? Probably, but who knows for sure?
The positives? The Third Test fightback; the blooding of Murphy and Kuhnemann; Head emerging as the successor to Warner as opener; the coming of age of Cameron Green; Lyon in the Third Test in particular; the form of Khawaja.
The losers? Ashton Agar; Matt Renshaw (although English conditions will suit him better – if he’s picked!).
The lasting feeling – almost, but not quite good enough when the big session came along at the start of Day 3 of the Third Test. What price an extra 50-75 runs?
Or is that being a bit generous?
To return to our Footy Almanac home page click HERE.
Our writers are independent contributors. The opinions expressed in their articles are their own. They are not the views, nor do they reflect the views, of Malarkey Publications.
Do you enjoy the Almanac concept?
And want to ensure it continues in its current form, and better? To help things keep ticking over please consider making your own contribution.
Become an Almanac (annual) member – CLICK HERE.
About Ian Hauser
A former teacher with a (very) modest sporting CV enjoying his retirement years. A Queenslander through and through, especially when it comes to cricket and rugby league. Enjoys travel, coffee and cake, reading, McWilliam's Cream Apera and a glass or three of wine. Footy Almanac's Thursday online editor who moonlights as a hobby editor.
Cassandra, I agree with all that in spades but a briefer precis along the same lines goes something like this.
Apart from two short sessions of crap cricket, we were just as good if not slightly better than them for the remainder of the series. But those two sessions were, of course, the final difference between the two teams so, overall, the better team won the series.
BTW, one you didn’t specifically mention was Handscomb. Not a stellar series but certainly solid enough in my book to go to England. And full marks for his perseverance over the last five years.
And don’t even get me started on pitches.
Pollyanna (aka RDL)
I did overlook Handscomb, RDL, a mistake on my part. He didn’t look at all out of place. I’ve always been a bit of a fan and would be happy to see him go to England. But I’d also like to see Renshaw go as he has played well there in county cricket.
It was a strange tour, though the score line flattered us. Much of the tour seemed a veritable oversight. Let’s touch on this.
The lack of first class cricket leading into the opening test was no help. Both the fixation with the BBL, as well as no pre test tour match(es) could not be seen as a great basis for a tour of the sub-continent. No, we escaped a 4-0 shellacking, but the tour preparation seemed very ad-hoc.
Tying in with this is how Ashton Agar was treated. Played in the SCG test, though was wicketless. Then goes to India only to be sent home with the Queensland left armer Matthew Kuhnemann sent across to play the last three tests. Bizarre.
Dave Warner, maybe his last time in the baggy green. Yep, he made a 200 @ the G vs South Africa but what else has he done of late? In England last time Chris Broad owned him. Say no more.
Josh Hazlewood, Lance Morris: their purpose of going to India?
Matthew Renshaw? I’d take him to England, but batting middle order in India?
The flipside is that Travis Head may be an opener we can get a few years of good cricket from. Cameron Green is delivering on his promise, Todd Murphy made a promising start, with Stephen Smith also showing he still has the captaincy touch.
Anyhow there’s an Ashes tour on the radar, as well as the Test championship . Let’s hope a better balanced line up is picked so we can play some good winning test cricket.
Glen!
Ian,
I was disappointed but not surprised at how the first two Tests went. India certainly can prepare all manner of pitches.
Remember back in the 70s, 80s and 90s? Indian pitches were roads. Batting first meant scores of 500+ then the pitch broke up. India have always had an emphasis on spin bowlers. So they’re preparing pitches to suit that.
I’d prefer Tests on pitches that give everyone a chance.
That said, you don’t get a second chance in India. The batting was inept in patches. Yes, we could’ve won the series. But a sobering fact is the number of Indian players who missed the series.
We lost to a team that wasn’t full-strength.
In my lifetime, I have seen Australia win a Test series once in India – 2004.
That was amazing. I long to see it happen again.