Australia's tactics in India where they won Test series 2-1 in 2004/05

[Dulex9]

From Wiki

The Australia national cricket team toured India in the 2004–05 season and played a four-match Test series, during October and November 2004, against India, Australia winning the series 2–1 with one match drawn, their first series win on Indian soil since their 1969-70 tour. The future Australian Test captain, Michael Clarke, made his Test debut in the first match, scoring 151 in the first innings. In the fourth match of the series, Clarke took 6 wickets for 9 runs in the second innings.

===

The series in India which Australia won in 2004.

We seen India batting first, however Australia opted for a defensive field in the tests, pace bowlers opening the bowling, only one slip, 4 players on the legside, there was some bowled, lbw's,

What was the reason for this tactic? You can see the field set and its defensive, was the tactic was just to starve the Indian batsman for runs? What about extra slips for wickets?

What was this tactic for, the defensive field? Was it some plan to starve them for runs and make mistakes?

 

[MenInG]

I recall how Clarke got wickets in this!

 

[KP From India]

They had a well executed plan against VVS who couldn't score much in that series.
Other reason was Warne doing well with 14 wickets and learning from 2001 mistakes.
Nagpur Greentop meant our series win was out of equation.

 

[Buffet]

Aus got very lucky with Nagpur's pitch, but even ATG teams need that kind of luck to win against a good team playing at home. That's why away wins are rated high if conditions are different from home conditions.

 

[Ashmal]

They had a theory that if they could stop Indian batsman from scoring boundaries, they will eventually make a mistake and get out.

Plan was to choke the scoring and bowl as many maidens as possible.

It was a plan which was executed perfectly specially by McGrath

 

[Slog]

You can make all the specific plans in the world but then you also need quality of McGrath, Warne etc to execute tjat

 

[Varun]

According to Matthew Hayden, they profiteered by bowling aggressive lines to defensive fields, and defensive lines to aggressive fields.

Also, Warne had his only good tour of India - averaged about 30 I think.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

They would've won the 2001 series as well if warne, Ponting and langer weren't that pathetic. By 2004, Aussies were not as great as 2001 but they were better prepared and learned their lessons from the previous tour.

 

[Savak]

That Australian team over prepared for the Indian tour in 2004, for them it was the final frontier, it meant more to them than the Ashes because they had won each and every Ashes series since 1989 and therefore the Brits were a joke not to be taken seriously. They got a huge shock on the tour to England in 2005 where England were up for the contest whereas Australia were too shell shocked to respond to a highly game England and were very fatigued by the end of the tour

 

[Saksham]

I remember this series vividly. I was 9 years old and watched this series live. Australia played amazingly to win in India after 35 years. Indian team of 2004 was a very strong team despite Sachin Tendulkar missing the first 2 test matches, Sourav Ganguly missing the last 2 test matches and Harbhajan Singh missing the 3rd test match. Ricky Ponting was injured and played only the last match at Mumbai. Adam Gilchrist did a brilliant job as a Captain. Michael Clarke made an outstanding debut in Bangalore by scoring 151 against Harbhajan Singh, Anil Kumble and Zaheer Khan. Damien Martyn was the best batsman in the series from both sides. Clarke and Martyn were the only two batsmen to score more than 400 runs in the series. I think the Australian team were tactically outstanding. Australia always used to maintain aggressive fields which used to help Indian batsmen score boundaries but this team played defensively dried the scoring options and bowled wicket to wicket which made the life difficult for Indian Batsmen. Glenn McGrath and Jason Gillespie were absolutely sensational with the way they bowled in that series both with the new ball and the old ball. Shane Warne took 14 wickets @ 30.07 which was his best performance in Indian conditions. Harbhajan Singh and Anil Kumble were absolutely brilliant with the way they bowled against a strong battling unit of Hayden, Langer, Lehmann, Martyn, Clarke, Katich, Gilchrist and Ponting. I think the real failure for the Indian team in that series was the poor batting from the entire unit except Virender Sehwag who scored a brilliant hundred in Chennai. He was the only from Indian team to average more than 40 in this series. I think the Indian Team also faced bad luck because the last day in Chennai was washed which India should have won because Viru was in a great rhythm. The pitch in Nagpur was a complete shocker. BCCI and VCA were having some disputes before this series and this is the reason the curators produced a pitch that favoured Australia more than India and since it was the 3rd test it proved to be the deciding factor. India won the last test match in Mumbai which was a complete dustbowl but despite that India defended 104 in the 4th innings. In 2004 Australia won in Sri Lanka by winning 3 - 0 which was the 1st series for Ricky Ponting as a full time Captain.

 

[Savak]

Even though Australia won the series, they were bitter about losing the final match of the series where they got out for 90 in the last innings failing to chase 104 on a minefield and then they started complaining about the pitch, they badly wanted a convincing 3-0 series win but had to settle for 2-1 in the end

 

[Savak]

Australia tried the same tactics in 2008 but unfortunately the bowlers were not good enough to maintain McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz consistency, the Indian batsmen also learnt from the 2004 series and were very happy to run for 2's, 3's at the expense of boundaries as the Australians had tried to dry up the boundaries but the difference is without the McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz ruthless relentless accuracy the batsmen were finding these 2's, 3's very frequently and ultimately it resulted in no pressure at all on the Indian batting line up

 

[RickyG]

What stood out in that series was the peak of Damien Martyn, one of the most stylish batsmen of was his time. And the emergence of Australia’s golden boy, Michael Clarke. That was unprecedented hype for an Australian batsman. If not for his injury problems, would’ve had a much more prolific career.

 

[wrongun]

I've heard interviews about this- it was a well thought out tactic.

They want to "take the boundaries away from the batsman". They thought Indian batsmen fed off the confidence of being at home, crowds cheering so loudly for every boundary. So they just thought they could subtly make the batsman more uncomfortable by making boundaries less frequent with defensive fields. A quiet crowd might just be a bit different. That could slowly start to make the batsman search harder for boundaries & take risks- the ego wanting the adulation of the crowd or even just the subtle feeling they they weren't "on top" without the regular boundaries & loud crowds.

So they had a plan to bowl quite attacking (at the stumps & variety of deliveries) but with defensive fields. Sometimes though, if they were on top they would flip it & set attacking fields but bowl stock balls only. So either "attack with the ball", or "attack with the fields" but never both together to prevent a good hour/30 mins by India ever getting them feeling like they were on a roll & the game was getting away.

They recognised that the "Aussie way" of fast, bouncing balls around 4th/5th stump with most wickets caught in slips just didn't work in India. Time to be humble, change strategy, bowl at the stumps & not depend heavily on slips catches because many didn't even carry to slips. This would help them stop being frustrated that something was "wrong" with Indian pitches that didn't bounce. In humility, time to realise their plans for wickets was wrong, not the pitches.

It was part of a broad ranging attitude change to try to stop fighting all of India, and adapt to it instead.

 

[wrongun]

I remember this series vividly. I was 9 years old and watched this series live. Australia played amazingly to win in India after 35 years. Indian team of 2004 was a very strong team despite Sachin Tendulkar missing the first 2 test matches, Sourav Ganguly missing the last 2 test matches and Harbhajan Singh missing the 3rd test match. Ricky Ponting was injured and played only the last match at Mumbai. Adam Gilchrist did a brilliant job as a Captain. Michael Clarke made an outstanding debut in Bangalore by scoring 151 against Harbhajan Singh, Anil Kumble and Zaheer Khan. Damien Martyn was the best batsman in the series from both sides. Clarke and Martyn were the only two batsmen to score more than 400 runs in the series. I think the Australian team were tactically outstanding. Australia always used to maintain aggressive fields which used to help Indian batsmen score boundaries but this team played defensively dried the scoring options and bowled wicket to wicket which made the life difficult for Indian Batsmen. Glenn McGrath and Jason Gillespie were absolutely sensational with the way they bowled in that series both with the new ball and the old ball. Shane Warne took 14 wickets @ 30.07 which was his best performance in Indian conditions. Harbhajan Singh and Anil Kumble were absolutely brilliant with the way they bowled against a strong battling unit of Hayden, Langer, Lehmann, Martyn, Clarke, Katich, Gilchrist and Ponting. I think the real failure for the Indian team in that series was the poor batting from the entire unit except Virender Sehwag who scored a brilliant hundred in Chennai. He was the only from Indian team to average more than 40 in this series. I think the Indian Team also faced bad luck because the last day in Chennai was washed which India should have won because Viru was in a great rhythm. The pitch in Nagpur was a complete shocker. BCCI and VCA were having some disputes before this series and this is the reason the curators produced a pitch that favoured Australia more than India and since it was the 3rd test it proved to be the deciding factor. India won the last test match in Mumbai which was a complete dustbowl but despite that India defended 104 in the 4th innings. In 2004 Australia won in Sri Lanka by winning 3 - 0 which was the 1st series for Ricky Ponting as a full time Captain.

I was lucky enough to travel to India for this series. Attended the Chennai test (all set up brilliantly for a 5th day blockbuster but then it rained all day 5...) and travelled India during 2 of the other tests. It really captured the public imagination and was an unforgettable trip. India really welcomed us.

 

[volcyz]

Remember vividly Sourav Ganguly chickening out of the last test cos he didn’t get the pitch he wanted

 

[Romali_rotti]

Tendulkar was tennis elbowed before the series, he was forced to come back when he was not fit as there was panic when Australia went up 2-0. That's what did the Indians IN, if SRT was healthy at worst Indians go 2-2 or win 2-1...

Also there was a lot of internal politics going on in the Indian team as well, as Mcgrath for his 100th test match was given a green wicket full of grass which you never see in India. Ganguly felt the conspiracy was against him to get him out of the team so he did not play that match, which India also happen to lose.