I was watching India vs. Australia test match, day 1, last night, and as it got to lunch time, Australia had Starc bowling. If I recall the over correctly there were four dot balls -- 88 mph bowls that nobody swung at but bounced over the wicket -- a single and a tapper for a dot ball.
And it sure looked like the batsmen were completely overmatched by the speed. It looked good on tv and it looked good on paper.
Here's what I'm not getting: What did it mean? The teammates, announcers and fans were exultant over this outcome. But what did he do to advance the team toward a win? He burned an over for the team and for himself, but did not get a wicket that would get his side closer to the end of the game. He didn't seem to be fooling any of the batsmen such that they were likely to bat themselves into outs later.
And while he was helping break up the pitch (which affects both sides), he was also softening up the ball and giving India more chances to play with a softer ball.
I am thinking India wouldn't be too disappointed with that aspect of their game once they hit lunch: Even though we can't touch him, Starc didn't do us any damage, and we are that much closer to not seeing him again in this game.
Please explain.
Pressure.
Cricket is a game all about pressure. Who can create it, and who can exert it.
To understand this, you have to understand what is going on in the players minds.
Every batsman knows that, eventually, at some point, he will get out. His innings will come to a close. Like death, it's inevitable. He might get out due to a dumb mistake, he might get out due to bad luck, he might get out because he get's an unplayable delivery. However it will happen, it will happen. And he knows that the success of his batting will be measured by how long he survives at the crease, how many runs he scores, and how much he advances his team's cause.
So as he faces the bowler, ball after ball, he is simultaneously looking to survive but also looking to score. A confident batsman feels he will never get out, and so he is more judicious in his stroke-play. He doesn't go chasing after half-opportunities, he waits for the right ball, and when he gets the right ball, he doesn't miss out. A nervous batsman doesn't believe he can bat forever, is acutely aware of his flaws, and as such, may try to pounce on scoring opportunities that aren't quite there, or not back himself in his strokeplay, playing with hesitancy that will cost him his wicket. And sometimes that comes off, and that doesn't. As much as it's a battle between him and the bowling attack, it is also between him and his mind.
As for bowlers - every bowler works in 'spells'. That is, they bowl a series of overs in a row. How long that spell will be is determined by many factors. Obviously how well they are bowling, but also their style of bowling and their fitness (Starc, for instance, cannot bowl as many overs in a row as a spinner like Lyon can, simply because his style is more physically demanding), and the strategies in place, and the match situation. So when a bowler is brought on to bowl, he knows he cannot bowl forever. He knows he has a brief window in which to make an impact on the game. So how will he go about it?
Well in a strong bowling attack, they will all hunt as a pack. They will see themselves as part of a bowling unit, with strategies and plans and roles, and will go out there and look to simply execute their job as well as they can for as long as they can. That is what Starc was doing. He was performing his role as a cog in the Australian bowling machines. That is why everyone was cooing about his performance, even though in isolation, that over doesn't look very meaningful. It had no real impact on the game in of itself, but seen in the broader context of Australia's strategy for the entire innings (testing the Indian batsmen's patience, inviting them to play loose drives, bowling dry to build pressure) it was excellent. As was more or less every other over in that innings.
But in a weak bowling attack, you will see a different dynamic. The 'star' bowler will come on to bowl with the goal of producing a wicket. This leads to a very different strategy of bowling - every single ball and over gets more focused attention, and all his plans will be set almost independent of what the bowler at the other end is doing. Depending on the bowler's skill and conditions, he may try to attack with every single ball, thinking short-term over long-term strategy, or he may bowl to a longer plan, but one that only extends to the length of his spell.
Now, the way a batsman approaches a bowler will also be tied into the way the bowlers operate. When a good bowling attack is bowling as a unit, a batsman realizes he can't just see off one particular individual and cash in on the rest. This has a marked effect on the way he approaches his batting. In this current Test, the way the Australians were bowling had some batsmen in the Indian lineup believe that they were going to get out sooner rather than later. And so they tried to attack the bowling, thinking they could put the pressure back on them. But they failed, and perished to the traps that were set for them expecting them to do exactly that. They failed to handle pressure. Che Pujara, on the other hand, choose to be patient and see off the bowlers, and looked to just score when the ball was in his strong areas, or when the bowlers missed their mark. He had confidence in his defence, and by not getting out, he put pressure on the bowlers to find a way to get him out, and that in turn created more run scoring opportunities. He won the game of pressure, scored a valuable century, and is getting praised by everyone for his grit, determination and patience. And his giant balls of steel.
But not every batsman has to absorb pressure like Che Pu to succeed. Many of the greats did what the Indians tried to do today, and take the attack to a good bowling unit, and rattled them in the process. It's the stuff of legends, but when it doesn't come off, it's terrible for your team.
And it's a totally different dynamic when a batsman plays an attack that doesn't function well as a unit, and that relies on one or two star individuals. You might see them play in an excessively defensive manner against said individuals, knowing full well that if they deny that bowler a wicket, there rest of the attack poses less of a threat. This then affects how the bowler bowls - like I said earlier, the bowler knows his spells are limited. He may lose patience and try too hard to get a wicket within his spell, and end up not bowling well, and thus concede runs in the process. Or he tries really hard and it comes off, and he tears a lineup apart. Or he plays it cool, and goes wicketless, and his team falls behind until he can come back to bowl. Or he plays it cool, and gets the wicket anyways. And the batsmen have struggles too - playing defensively against their nature could lead to them making a mistake, or missing out on scoring opportunities, thus putting pressure back on themselves. And trying to attack a weaker bowler could lead to a wicket through mis-executing a stroke.
It's a constant balance of attack and defence from all individuals, and it's all about absorbing and exerting pressure. This isn't even including the captaincy strategy (bowling changes, field placements), or reading the pitches and conditions. There is a whole range of possibilities and outcomes, and if you watch cricket long enough, you'd have seen everything happen. It's a crazy ****ing game. There are no right or wrong strategies, or right or wrong answers. There are bluffs, double bluffs, triple bluffs. The 'smart' decision can fail, the 'dumb' one can succeed. Some cricketers have thrived being aggressive and counter attacking, others have thrived being patient and gritty.
It's a fantastic game.
