It started with the toss – playing Watson and White with absolutely no match practice behind them was the first indicator.
White’s selection did not surprise me – Australia lost Perth because of over rates and they were not going to repeat that mistake again.
But playing 8 batsmen and going light in the bowling department pointed to a team that was intent on grinding things out, playing time and only when losing was no longer an option was it going for a win ( shades of Sydney 2007).
The second indicator was Ricky Ponting’s innings – he had to exorcise his ghosts and so the 100 could not be better timed. It was the post 100 innings that surprised me. 102 in 185 balls was stretched to 123 in 243 balls – 58 balls for an additional 21 runs when the Indians were there for the taking.
The final indicator – the session by session breakdown of the runs scored
Lunch – 70/1 in 26 overs ( RR 2.69)
Tea – 91/1 in 30 overs ( RR 3.03)
EOD – 93/2 in 33.2 overs (RR 2.79)
Granted that the early loss of a wicket and the assistance available to the seamers called for consolidation in the first session. And the partnership between Katich and Ponting did well to turn the heat on India in the second session.
It is the approach in the 3rd session that intrigues me. India was there for the taking , Ponting had already scored a 100 and the game was favorably poised for the Australians. And yet, instead of ramming home the advantage, the Australians decided to adopt a wait and watch approach.
And the wicket in the last over of the day’s play definitely did not help. Ideally, Australia should have had at least 300 runs on the board as this would have been the ideal cushion for a bunch of players making their debuts in India.
400 is the minimum Australia should be targeting. If they continue at the current rate, it will take them an additional 52 overs – effectively 5 sessions to get 400.
5 sessions out of 15 for 1 completed innings – not the intent expected from a team that has not previously lost at the Chinnaswamy stadium.
