An Analysis of Two Tests

I am a keen follower of cricket, especially Test cricket, and hence diligently followed the two most recent International Tests. One Test was billed as the Ultimate Test but ultimately turned out to be a damp squib. The other Test ended up as an all-time classic. There were a few commonalities between the Two tests: (1) both were played in England; (2) both were won by Australia and (3) both were won against a team playing "aggressive cricket". However, despite the similarities in results, the differences in the quality and competitiveness of the matches suggest that one team played "aggressive cricket" much better than the other. As India has been the dominant Test team over the last decade, the quality of players does not seem to be a reason. Hence, this post explores other possible reasons for the lop-sided result against Australia.

"Aggressive cricket" is not confined to scoring at a fast rate. Taking 20 wickets is arguably a more important aspect of it and the fast scoring is one of the enablers of the same. Secondly, "aggressive cricket" requires a culture change. India's decision to bench the world's current best bowler, Ravichandran Ashwin, was not in line with either of these tenets. To pick 20 wickets, one needs to pick their best bowler. Horses-for-courses is a lazy "analytical" perspective that misses the importance of skill and experience. Curiously, both Australia and England, the pioneer of "aggressive cricket", picked up their best XI rather than going for this horses-for-courses nonsense. Unlike India, their actions were in line with current change management literature which suggests that to induce change in mindset, either current incumbents should be provided psychological assurance of job security or new personnel picked up on the basis of mindset, not skills.

The absence of culture-related selection decisions could also be linked to the absence of context for a change in playing style. England's decision to adopt a new aggressive style was motivated by the fact that they were lagging in Test cricket despite investing substantial resources. Their under-performance in Tests coincided with their strong performance in limited cricket, where they are the reigning T20I and ODI world champions. Thus a decision to play Tests more like limited cricket seemed a reasonable proposition. Being a well-thought decision, the change in style was accompanied by a change in personnel. A new captain (Ben Stokes) and coach (Brendon McCullum), who evinced the new style in their own cricket, were bought. In contrast, India adopted a new style despite performing well in their old style and continued with their old captain and coach, who is famed for dogged defense rather than attack. The management perhaps felt that playing IPL in India would enable them to play attacking cricket in England. The results indicate the sagacity of their decision.

The possible imposition of a new style by the management brings me to my third point- the loss of player agency. Unlike other team sports where the coach/manager is the conductor, cricket thrives on the agency of the captain and players. I cannot prove that Indian players lack agency but certain actions, like the bowling coach rather than the captain defending the exclusion of Ashwin, indicate the same. On the other hand, Ben Stokes's proactivity and agency was visible in everything from team selection (testing Moen Ali) to the declaration and field placements.

Change is inevitable and I have no qualms with the Indian team changing its playing style if the same is justifiable and done systematically. However, whimsical changes based on mindless imitation are not tolerable to me as a fan. Despite systematically executing a well-thought plan for change, the England team still lost to the Aussies and part of the blame can be laid on their aggressiveness. Similarly, there was nothing implausible in Australia defeating an Indian team containing Ashwin and playing its traditional style of cricket. However, I strongly feel that even a negative result in such a case would have been the outcome of a hard-fought match rather than a tame surrender. As a fan, the manner of defeat pains me more than the fact of defeat.