|
Australia won the big moments and small
The big difference between the sides was skill. Australia had better batsmen, greater depth, better fast bowlers, better fielders, and, would you believe it, the better spinner. And as ever, they were focussed, driven, and relentless
October 18, 2007
 |
|
If you were looking for a few instances that illustrated the difference between Australia and India in this series, billed as the "battle of champions" by some local television channels, try these couple of moments, both from the sixth match of the series in Nagpur.
The first involved free hits. Brad Haddin looked to swing Murali Kartik down the ground, but the top edge ended up in Sreesanth's hands just outside the circle at mid-off. Haddin, however, managed to scamper two. Later Sourav Ganguly, looking for a free swing over midwicket, top-edged Brett Lee behind the wicketkeeper and Adam Gilchrist collected the ball on the first bounce after making considerable ground. The Indians strolled a single. Palpably the difference here was in the intent.
In the same match, with Australia 109 for 3, Andrew Symonds top-edged Harbhajan Singh, and the ball swirled high over midwicket; Sreesanth, who was back on the ropes, was quick on his feet to make the ground, but his hands let him down and the ball slipped out of his grasp. Symonds, on two, went on to smash 107 off 88 balls. Later, Ganguly floated a tired lofted shot off Brad Hogg in the direction of long-off and Brad Hodge made the distance from the boundary and caught the ball with a slide. India never recovered from losing their set batsman. Give the Australians a chance, and they are most likely to make the most of it.
In his syndicated newspaper column on the morning of the final match, Gilchrist reflected on the closeness of the series despite the 4-1 scoreline. The difference, he wrote, was that Australia had won most of the "50-50 moments". In other words, whenever the match had been in the balance, Australia found the men and means to swing it their way.
All that separated the teams in Nagpur, possibly the best match of the series, was a couple of loose overs at the start of Australia's innings and a few tight ones in the latter half of the Indian innings. The margin was 18 runs - not insignificant in the context of one-day cricket - which boiled down to a few extra singles, some singles converted into twos, and a few runs saved in the field.
In the end, a 4-2 result looks far better than 5-1, which it could have easily been. But India will reflect and rue that it could very well have been 3-3. It will be difficult to argue, however, that Australia weren't decidedly the better side.
The first ten overs of the match tell a story. The ball swung prodigiously, a wicket fell first ball, batsmen were struck on the pad and they played and missed regularly. In far less testing conditions in Vadodara, India had been reduced to 45 for 5. But Australia were 66 for 2
|
In between the odd balls that were on target - the batsmen looked uncomfortable every time the ball was in the right zone - the Indian bowlers, RP Singh in particular, were horrid. Eleven wides were sprayed on either side of the wicket, four of them in Singh's first over. And, more criminally, the new ball was wasted in conditions tailormade to make it talk. When Australia bowled, the ball did talk. Brett Lee swung it away at pace, Mitchell Johnson curved it both ways, and Nathan Bracken made it wobble. After their first ten overs, India were 38 for 2, and were lucky not to have lost a couple more.
For this Australian team to lose, two things need to happen. The opposition must play at the top of their game; and Australia need to be slightly off the boil. When the series was alive, it happened only once, when India won in Chandigarh.
The big difference between the sides was skill. Australia had better batsmen, greater depth, better fast bowlers, better fielders, and would you believe it, the better spinner. And as ever they were focused, driven and relentless.
Australia's success in any form of cricket - give them a year, or perhaps a month, they will master Twenty20 - has never been a mystery. They are an outdoors-loving country with a strong sports culture; their domestic system produces tough, competitive cricketers who are ready for the big stage; they pursue victory single-mindedly; and they are supported by the most professional administration of all the cricket-playing countries. Most Australian teams have possessed a couple of great cricketers, but eventually it's the sum of their parts that makes them a great team. After an indifferent performance in Twenty20, a form they regard with suspicion, they were awesome again, and for India there is no disgrace in losing to them.
|
|
|
Perhaps India needed the reality check after being swept away by the hysteria generated following the World Twenty20 victory. By all accounts the felicitation at the Wankhede Stadium bordered on the obscene, with politicians clambering on to the stage to appropriate part of the glory. To those older fans who remember 1983, this series must be an eerie reprise of the post-World Cup drubbing at the hands of the West Indians, the best team of that era.
But unlike then, India now are in the process of building a new team, and they have just gone through their toughest test. After competing with Australia, it can only get easier. Hopefully they have learned more from their opponents than how to give lip.
Sambit Bal is the editor of Cricinfo and Cricinfo Magazine
Feeds: Sambit Bal
What do you think was the difference between the two sides?
| ||||||
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
Top
Editor Sambit Bal took to journalism at the age of 19 after realising that he wasn't fit for anything else, and to cricket journalism 14 years later when it dawned on him that it provided the perfect excuse to watch cricket in the office. Among other things he has bowled legspin, occasionally landing the ball in front of the batsman; laid out the comics page of a newspaper; covered crime, urban development and politics; and edited Gentleman, a monthly features magazine. He joined Wisden in 2001 and edited Wisden Asia Cricket and Cricinfo Magazine. He still spends his spare time watching cricket.
Sponsored Links
Western Union Instant Win Game
NoPurchaseNecessary. Subject toOfficial Rules
Buy Ashes merchandise - clothes, books, DVDs & more
At Cricshop
Get the right speed and online tools
Rogers Business Internet
No Minimum Balance NRI Account
Citibank
and get a calling card
I read a comment from previous person, saying something about "LUCK". Its not about luck its all about performance. We people use term luck to bludge. I agree there is a need for luck to perform, but luck deficiency is not the sole cause. I am a strong supporter of Indian side. But when it comes to Brilliance and performance, we need to agree Australia stands out. By the way, Luck cannot give three streak world cup championship and maintaing topper in cricket rating from last decade. Our corrupted and rationalised cricket board can give only this to our Cricket dedicated nation. Thats why its hard to beat them even in australia Vs Rest of the world matches. So the solution: Not available for Indian team at the moment. Might be good Mangement in BCCI but still too remote to deserve streaks.
Posted by PANDE on (October 20 2007, 08:40 AM GMT)Guy's just Forget all the things in the past series. It,s game of cricket where one has to win and the second team has to lose . It,s not that Indian team is not playing well, I think they giving almost all thing they can .But on certain your Luck is low compared to the competator . Now one should concentrate on the todays T20 match ,I will be that the champions will not let us down today
Posted by Whale_Fart on (October 19 2007, 22:59 PM GMT)I think there is no magic to Australia's winnings. They collects lot of stats on the batsman and figure out how he was beaten the most and how he got out mostly. Then they figure out weakness by these stats (Everyone has weakness) and practice there bowlers to bowl for the weakness in the net practice. No wonder you see a bowling change to LEE or others when a high profile new batsman comes on crease. They are good players, but there winnings are no secrets anymore. I think India should use this tool as well. One more thing they provoke well set batsman so that they out of anger make mistakes. All they do is play mental games, no cricket really. I think this is not the best of spirits. Oh Well! India should at least start using the stats mechanism.
Posted by howizzat on (October 19 2007, 19:31 PM GMT)Aussies are superior. No second thought about this. Aussies are thoroughbred professionals while Indians still look amaturish or still learning type. Compare: Hayden/Tendulkar, Clarke/Ganguly, Symmomnds/Yuvraj, Hopes/Irfan, Dhoni/Ponting, Hogg/ Harbhajan..none of the Indians look better than their counterpart. But still, if not for a few tactical errors, India at least could have squared up the series. Like, 1.Irfan's two successive probing deliveries went through slips for 4 form Symonds bat and that woke up the out of form sleeping gaint who then never looked back and went on to win man of the series. If they had not woken up him... 2.After winning the toss at Kochi Dhoni decided to field litening to the weather men who are seldom right. If he had decided to bat... 3.If Dhoni and Irfan had consistantly batted at3&4.. Dravid/Karthik were misfit there... 4.If Sreesanth was not there in the team in Nagpur.. and to add salt to the wounds he dropped Hayden!
Posted by oldfox on (October 19 2007, 17:56 PM GMT)I believe, australia also cracks and badly under pressure, note the 20 tournament and chandigarh... the two batsmen in form hayden and symonds have clicked and when they fall in crunch situation the team collapses just as indians do ( albeit more often) and when they do they are poor loosers. The trick is to get them under pressure and thats where all the teams fail. the most capable ones seem to be the lankans and the indians.
Posted by drneilmukherjee on (October 19 2007, 15:40 PM GMT)The last paragraph of Samit's article sums it all...it can only get easier. This Indian team would possibly beat any cricket team other than Australia on current form. The Aussies may have been better in all aspects but it can be estimated with some confidence that the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2 TEAMS (as history will see it) WILL BE ONE DROPPED CATCH. Had that catch been taken the series would be level and the overall superiority and dominance of the Aussies would be lost to posterity. As for Sreesanth, the "culprit", he'd better make it up by turning around a couple of lost cause situations for us when we tour Down Under. Although, I doubt he's that good.
Posted by kondu on (October 19 2007, 12:57 PM GMT)The difference between the physical fitness and better facilities at the ground level. The Austrians have very good infrastructure at the domestic cricket level in addition to their naturally atheletic cricketers. It is a pity that though BCCI have huge funds, it couldn't provide the comparable facilities for our own cricketers at the grossroot level. Till such time that BCCI provides adequate facilities at the domestic cricket level, we have to see and tolerate such disappointing series of cricket matches.
Posted by Kannan_C_Haridas on (October 19 2007, 07:50 AM GMT)the comment highlights the difference between the sides.it also signifies the fact that one dimensional bowlers will not help India win close games .A bowler with wicket taking ability should not be ignored in any circumstances as was in the case of Sreesanth's.
Posted by SportsFanPJ on (October 19 2007, 06:32 AM GMT)This series definitely gave India and us fans the reality check that we're not as good as we think we are. Very disappointing to see them lose 4-2 at Home after coming off a great T20 World Cup tourney. I know that T20 is not the same as the 50 over format and I think the Indian team and their fans learned that valuable lesson. Seriously how long are we gonna sit around and watch them pass up on at least 25 runs a game through lousy running between the wickets [. If you want to develop the juniors and keep the big 3 involved then make Sachin, Saurav and Dravid the NO. 5,6 and 7 guys and give the young fellas the green light and promote them up the order. Uthappa is better served as an opener with Dhoni since both are big gap finding hitters. Yuvraj and Pathan can come in as NO. 3 and no.4 guys, they're good runners why not use their youthful legs in the middle overs? We can have the big 3 bring stability in the middle lower order and have 4 legit bowlers come in after them lineup
Posted by bala47 on (October 19 2007, 06:06 AM GMT)The article highlights the difference between the two teams. If analysed in depth the same is true for all sub continent teams.Look at the way the series in Pakistan is going ! its not winning or losing that causes the pangs, but the attitude thatis missing. Be it a Tendulkar or a Zaheer or Sreesanth, none of them show any signs for the public to repose confidence in them with any certainity. Well I must say here that I see no difference in approach from the teams of the past and this team The team Gavaskar led to Australia in 1985 was brilliant on the field. So was the case with some outstanding fielders during Azharuddins time.But they too failed more times than they suceeded. What is desperately needed is an attitudinal change.Are there any willing takers for this role ?