Tactical comparison

[PhatBoy]

Was just thinking while watching Inside Cricket and hearing them talk about what the Australians must have been thinking when they lost warner on day 2 - the lack of composure etc.

I think they would do well to watch what happened in the SA second dig.

Like the aussies, SA when they lost Duminy were coming off a big partnership that hadn't quite won them the match at that stage but was threatening to do so. Australia, while they didn't try to smash their way forward after Warner went, didn't seem to make a discernible effort to just say 'OK, let's soak up 10 overs here and just edge our way to 200 and then start again.'
When Duminy went, Du Plessis and Elgar immediately went into cautious mode. they still lost Elgar and Bavuma but Faf made a methodical 35 or something, and De Kock and Philander both batted well within themselves until they'd taken that lead well beyond 400.

Not really a startling revelation as virtually everybody has noted how bad australia's approach was, but the commentators and to a lesser extent the players in the media seem oblivious to the fact that the ideal method to counter their problems was on show right in front of them.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

The key to good batting is partnerships. When you lose a wicket, the priority is to re-group and not lose another one straight away. This is the worry I have with Warner. When he first came into the team, we had a solid batting line up and his quick starts were a real bonus to the team.

However, now he's vice captain of the team, and needed to play an anchor role when the situation demands, especially now the batting line up is brittle. However, he doesn't adapt his game and just continues to go for everything. When he loses his mate down the other end, he needs to pull his head in and bat for survival for awhile until they are settled.

Not blaming Warner for all our batting woes, but is a leader of the team and needs to set an example.

In the second Test, the tail end batting was poor as well. They had Smith at the other end making runs. All they needed to do was just hang around, pick up the odd single and just stay there while Smith was at the wicket. They did not even attempt to do so, apparently keen to get the ball in the hand and bowl on a supposedly bowler friendly wicket.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Was just thinking while watching Inside Cricket and hearing them talk about what the Australians must have been thinking when they lost warner on day 2 - the lack of composure etc.

I think they would do well to watch what happened in the SA second dig.

Like the aussies, SA when they lost Duminy were coming off a big partnership that hadn't quite won them the match at that stage but was threatening to do so. Australia, while they didn't try to smash their way forward after Warner went, didn't seem to make a discernible effort to just say 'OK, let's soak up 10 overs here and just edge our way to 200 and then start again.'
When Duminy went, Du Plessis and Elgar immediately went into cautious mode. they still lost Elgar and Bavuma but Faf made a methodical 35 or something, and De Kock and Philander both batted well within themselves until they'd taken that lead well beyond 400.

Not really a startling revelation as virtually everybody has noted how bad australia's approach was, but the commentators and to a lesser extent the players in the media seem oblivious to the fact that the ideal method to counter their problems was on show right in front of them.

The Aussies always appear oblivious to what the opposition does. I can never work out if it's arrogance or stupidity, so it's probably both.