As I said in the match thread, while Australia performed much better than expected, I thought it would be prudent to make an extended post analysing this series, what we did right, what we did wrong, and the possible implications going forward.
What we did right:
Preparation/Strategy: There is no doubt that we prepared for this series extensively, unlike with past subcontinental tours. Credit for this idea probably has to go to Smith, not Lehmann, since the Lehmann/Clarke duo never prepared this extensively. Our preparation for this series showed in the way we usually played as straight as possible, rather than playing for extensive turn.
Our strategy was also broadly more defensive and attritional than usual. Not only did we grind out our runs much more than usual, we also bowled to relatively defensive fields to restrict Indian boundaries and choke their run rate. This approach was adopted by Adam Gilchrist in 2004 and I would say it worked relatively well here too. We coaxed quite a few wickets from dumb shots and even when we didn't, we restricted their run rate to the point where we gave ourselves a shot at a draw, as in Ranchi.
Selecting Glenn Maxwell: He added verve in the field and made meaningful contributions in both the matches he played.
Selecting Pat Cummins: He bowled with real fire and surprisingly impressive control given his reputation. While he did bowl the odd pie, he only really went for runs when he was pulling out all the stops to grab a wicket, as in Dharamsala's second innings.
Team Spirit: Unlike the past India tour, which was marred by dressing-room tensions and controversies over homework, this Australian side has kept up a united front and has shown commitment to the task at hand. Both Smith and Lehmann IMO deserve credit for this.
Bowling: As mentioned above, our bowlers rarely bowled badly, except Starc in Bangalore's second innings. They kept up their lines and lengths well even when things weren't going their way. SOK usually kept things tight, exploited the Pune turner quite magnificently and showed incredible endurance, while Lyon exploited the bounce at Bangalore and Dharamsala to great effect.
They also kept India's talismanic captain Kohli quiet. Considering he had scored a million runs against England, this was some feat.
Fielding: Was simply magnificent at Pune and generally good throughout. Except Renshaw's dolly at Dharamsala and Wade's at Ranchi, we only erred in not grabbing more of the half-chances.
Steve Smith's batting: He plundered 500 runs for the series and was generally batting on a different surface to his teammates. The only criticisms I have of him are that he could have scored more runs during the Bangalore/Dharamsala second innings.
Wade: He wasn't outstanding, but his keeping was much better than expected and he did make some useful runs down the order. Just about receives a thumbs-up from me.
What we did wrong:
No killer instinct: Steve Smith's sides often appear to lack a killer instinct. We saw it in Sri Lanka, where we could not capitalise on two first innings leads, against South Africa in Perth where we should have bowled them out for about 150 in their first innings and again in India. In Bangalore, Ranchi and Dharamsala we were in advantageous or at least 50/50 positions on a number of occasions and we could not capitalise.
I suspect strongly that the problem is a lack of match awareness, which leads onto...
Tactics: Steve Smith's man-management, strategic preparation and apparent willingness to learn from his mistakes deserve praise, but not so much his on-field tactics. IMO he lets the game drift for too long and lacks inspiration. He could have used his part-timers and changed up his fields more and when the match situation changed he found it difficult to alter his run-saving strategy. For example, in Bangalore's 2nd innings he seemed unsure whether to chase wickets or save runs and ultimately did neither.
The Marsh selections: I said at the start of the series that while Shaun's selection made some sense, in light of his relative ability against spin versus Khawaja's, Mitch's selection made zero sense. He was basically thrust back into the side not long after being dropped for extended under-performance. Predictably, he failed with the bat and bowled very little.
Unfortunately, while I don't think we could have saved Ranchi without him, Shaun generally didn't justify his place. The old problems of inconsistency and injury bedeviled him and while he batted better than his average of 18 suggested, I do wonder whether we should have just gambled on an in-form Shield batsman like Patterson instead. At least that would have served the longer term.
Batting fragility under pressure: Part of the reason why we lack a killer instinct is because we collapse under pressure. We did it in Sri Lanka, against South Africa in Perth and again in Bangalore and Dharamsala.
I'm not sure what the problem is. Probably a combination of expectation, inexperience, Marsh's inconsistency and the fact that touring sides tend to collapse in India.
Dharamsala selection: With hindsight Bird would have been a better pick for the conditions at Dharamsala than SOK. I don't necessarily blame the selectors for assuming that this pitch would be like the others however.
Implications going forward:
Shaun Marsh: IMO Shaun Marsh's Test career should be over. He's almost 34, inconsistent and injury-prone. He's played some fine innings for Australia over the years but I think we would be better served giving a younger batsman some Test experience in the event someone gets injured or loses form. Whom that player should be is probably for more avid SS watchers to decide.
Mitch Marsh: Should not be selected for a long while after this. He neither justifies his place in the side with bat or ball.
Ideal bowling lineup: If Cummins continues to display the control that he has and remains injury-free, I actually think our ideal bowling lineup in Australian conditions is Hazlewood/Starc/Cummins/Lyon, except maybe at the SCG. I think Bird is a solid third seamer, but he lacks Cummins' upside and Starc's left-arm variety. Pattinson is very talented, but IMO he's a bit too inconsistent to play with Starc, much in the same way I never liked playing Starc with Johnson. Other names like Sayers and Behrendorff could come into the mix too.
I think the ideal bowling lineup consists of one solid holding seamer (Hazlewood/Bird), one who can both constrict and attack as needed (Hazlewood/maybe Cummins?) and a pure strike bowler who can just go for the throat without worrying about conceding runs (Pattinson/Starc).
Lyon is IMO better than SOK in Australian conditions because he gets more bounce, turn and drift than SOK. SOK is a solid stock bowler who is hard to get away, but IMO he doesn't turn or flight the ball enough to trouble good batsmen in good conditions.
#6: The selectors and Smith appear not to be on the same page RE the #6. The selectors appear to be selecting for a batting all-rounder but Smith has relatively little interest in using his part-timers. This issue between them should IMO be resolved. Either tell Smith to actually bowl his all-rounder or just simply select the best batsman and have Warner and Smith roll the arm instead.
Change of coach: While I seriously doubt that CA would consider removing him, I do think Lehmann is not really required anymore. Lehmann was brought in to cover for Clarke's lack of man-management skills but Smith's man-management skills appear to be much better than Clarke's. I think what Smith needs is a more tactical coach whom can advise Smith in between sessions of how to adjust to the match situation, whether by changing his fields or bowling certain bowlers.
Resolving batting collapses: I think that such collapses will be curtailed as Renshaw and Handscomb become more experienced. However, a solid, consistent #6 would not hurt either. What has hurt us down the years is having flaky, inconsistent players or under-performers like North and the Marsh brothers batting down the order. Maxwell deserves a run in the side but I'm not sure we can afford for him to be a flake.
Wade: Has done enough to warrant a reasonable run in lieu of obvious better options.
What we did right:
Preparation/Strategy: There is no doubt that we prepared for this series extensively, unlike with past subcontinental tours. Credit for this idea probably has to go to Smith, not Lehmann, since the Lehmann/Clarke duo never prepared this extensively. Our preparation for this series showed in the way we usually played as straight as possible, rather than playing for extensive turn.
Our strategy was also broadly more defensive and attritional than usual. Not only did we grind out our runs much more than usual, we also bowled to relatively defensive fields to restrict Indian boundaries and choke their run rate. This approach was adopted by Adam Gilchrist in 2004 and I would say it worked relatively well here too. We coaxed quite a few wickets from dumb shots and even when we didn't, we restricted their run rate to the point where we gave ourselves a shot at a draw, as in Ranchi.
Selecting Glenn Maxwell: He added verve in the field and made meaningful contributions in both the matches he played.
Selecting Pat Cummins: He bowled with real fire and surprisingly impressive control given his reputation. While he did bowl the odd pie, he only really went for runs when he was pulling out all the stops to grab a wicket, as in Dharamsala's second innings.
Team Spirit: Unlike the past India tour, which was marred by dressing-room tensions and controversies over homework, this Australian side has kept up a united front and has shown commitment to the task at hand. Both Smith and Lehmann IMO deserve credit for this.
Bowling: As mentioned above, our bowlers rarely bowled badly, except Starc in Bangalore's second innings. They kept up their lines and lengths well even when things weren't going their way. SOK usually kept things tight, exploited the Pune turner quite magnificently and showed incredible endurance, while Lyon exploited the bounce at Bangalore and Dharamsala to great effect.
They also kept India's talismanic captain Kohli quiet. Considering he had scored a million runs against England, this was some feat.
Fielding: Was simply magnificent at Pune and generally good throughout. Except Renshaw's dolly at Dharamsala and Wade's at Ranchi, we only erred in not grabbing more of the half-chances.
Steve Smith's batting: He plundered 500 runs for the series and was generally batting on a different surface to his teammates. The only criticisms I have of him are that he could have scored more runs during the Bangalore/Dharamsala second innings.
Wade: He wasn't outstanding, but his keeping was much better than expected and he did make some useful runs down the order. Just about receives a thumbs-up from me.
What we did wrong:
No killer instinct: Steve Smith's sides often appear to lack a killer instinct. We saw it in Sri Lanka, where we could not capitalise on two first innings leads, against South Africa in Perth where we should have bowled them out for about 150 in their first innings and again in India. In Bangalore, Ranchi and Dharamsala we were in advantageous or at least 50/50 positions on a number of occasions and we could not capitalise.
I suspect strongly that the problem is a lack of match awareness, which leads onto...
Tactics: Steve Smith's man-management, strategic preparation and apparent willingness to learn from his mistakes deserve praise, but not so much his on-field tactics. IMO he lets the game drift for too long and lacks inspiration. He could have used his part-timers and changed up his fields more and when the match situation changed he found it difficult to alter his run-saving strategy. For example, in Bangalore's 2nd innings he seemed unsure whether to chase wickets or save runs and ultimately did neither.
The Marsh selections: I said at the start of the series that while Shaun's selection made some sense, in light of his relative ability against spin versus Khawaja's, Mitch's selection made zero sense. He was basically thrust back into the side not long after being dropped for extended under-performance. Predictably, he failed with the bat and bowled very little.
Unfortunately, while I don't think we could have saved Ranchi without him, Shaun generally didn't justify his place. The old problems of inconsistency and injury bedeviled him and while he batted better than his average of 18 suggested, I do wonder whether we should have just gambled on an in-form Shield batsman like Patterson instead. At least that would have served the longer term.
Batting fragility under pressure: Part of the reason why we lack a killer instinct is because we collapse under pressure. We did it in Sri Lanka, against South Africa in Perth and again in Bangalore and Dharamsala.
I'm not sure what the problem is. Probably a combination of expectation, inexperience, Marsh's inconsistency and the fact that touring sides tend to collapse in India.
Dharamsala selection: With hindsight Bird would have been a better pick for the conditions at Dharamsala than SOK. I don't necessarily blame the selectors for assuming that this pitch would be like the others however.
Implications going forward:
Shaun Marsh: IMO Shaun Marsh's Test career should be over. He's almost 34, inconsistent and injury-prone. He's played some fine innings for Australia over the years but I think we would be better served giving a younger batsman some Test experience in the event someone gets injured or loses form. Whom that player should be is probably for more avid SS watchers to decide.
Mitch Marsh: Should not be selected for a long while after this. He neither justifies his place in the side with bat or ball.
Ideal bowling lineup: If Cummins continues to display the control that he has and remains injury-free, I actually think our ideal bowling lineup in Australian conditions is Hazlewood/Starc/Cummins/Lyon, except maybe at the SCG. I think Bird is a solid third seamer, but he lacks Cummins' upside and Starc's left-arm variety. Pattinson is very talented, but IMO he's a bit too inconsistent to play with Starc, much in the same way I never liked playing Starc with Johnson. Other names like Sayers and Behrendorff could come into the mix too.
I think the ideal bowling lineup consists of one solid holding seamer (Hazlewood/Bird), one who can both constrict and attack as needed (Hazlewood/maybe Cummins?) and a pure strike bowler who can just go for the throat without worrying about conceding runs (Pattinson/Starc).
Lyon is IMO better than SOK in Australian conditions because he gets more bounce, turn and drift than SOK. SOK is a solid stock bowler who is hard to get away, but IMO he doesn't turn or flight the ball enough to trouble good batsmen in good conditions.
#6: The selectors and Smith appear not to be on the same page RE the #6. The selectors appear to be selecting for a batting all-rounder but Smith has relatively little interest in using his part-timers. This issue between them should IMO be resolved. Either tell Smith to actually bowl his all-rounder or just simply select the best batsman and have Warner and Smith roll the arm instead.
Change of coach: While I seriously doubt that CA would consider removing him, I do think Lehmann is not really required anymore. Lehmann was brought in to cover for Clarke's lack of man-management skills but Smith's man-management skills appear to be much better than Clarke's. I think what Smith needs is a more tactical coach whom can advise Smith in between sessions of how to adjust to the match situation, whether by changing his fields or bowling certain bowlers.
Resolving batting collapses: I think that such collapses will be curtailed as Renshaw and Handscomb become more experienced. However, a solid, consistent #6 would not hurt either. What has hurt us down the years is having flaky, inconsistent players or under-performers like North and the Marsh brothers batting down the order. Maxwell deserves a run in the side but I'm not sure we can afford for him to be a flake.
Wade: Has done enough to warrant a reasonable run in lieu of obvious better options.
