The words of WG Grace, the legendary cricketer, continue to echo in the world of cricket today: “When you win the toss, bat. If you are in doubt, think about it, then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague, then bat.” Grace himself embodied this principle, opting to bat first every time he won the toss as England captain. This timeless advice particularly holds true in Indian conditions, where the pitches generally offer minimal assistance to fast bowlers at the beginning of a match. As Test matches progress, whether the pitches are flat or favorable to spinners initially, batting becomes increasingly challenging. In fact, out of the 285 times toss-winning teams have made a choice in India, a staggering 263 teams elected to bat first, and only 22 decided to bowl. The wisdom of this adage is evidently not lost on contemporary captains, reinforcing its enduring relevance in the captivating art of cricket.
Over the years, Test matches in India have witnessed an interesting shift in advantage for teams batting first. While batting first had previously tipped the scales in favor of the team, recent statistics paint a different picture, with such teams winning only 36 out of 82 matches since the 21st century began. This phenomenon can be better understood through the insightful work of Ben Jones and Nathan Leamon in their book, Hitting Against The Spin: How Cricket Really Works. The authors suggest that flat pitches, which typically start deteriorating towards the end of day three, often catch both teams off-guard after having batted once. Consequently, inserting their opponent on flat pitches early on becomes a strategic move that hampers the success of teams batting first in India’s Test matches. This fascinating change in dynamics truly emphasizes the constantly evolving nature of cricket that keeps fans and players on their toes.
The book presents a fascinating argument that teams batting second have a notable advantage when it comes to converting a first-innings lead into a victory, compared to those batting first. This stems from the fact that, unless a follow-on comes into play, the team batting second only needs to focus on chasing the target they’ve been set. On the other hand, the team batting first faces the challenge of determining the optimal timing for their declaration, which involves estimating the size of the lead they need to establish. This advantage is evident in the first 93 Tests played in India this century, where teams batting first secured a win in only half of the matches where they had a lead. In contrast, teams batting second turned 70% of their first innings leads into victories, ultimately resulting in a higher overall win rate, despite having slightly fewer leads. This striking statistic further bolsters the book’s assertion that batting second comes with a strategic edge that can make all the difference in the outcome of a match.
The era of flat Indian pitches seems to have come to an end, at least temporarily. In recent years, Indian cricket pitches have exhibited sharp turns from the very beginning of a match, leading to early finishes. This new pitch behavior invites the question: should the team winning the toss choose to bowl first? An intriguing trend has emerged in the ongoing Border-Gavaskar Trophy, where the team losing the toss and batting second has emerged victorious in the first three Tests. Although this is a minuscule sample size, it piques interest and prompts further inquiry. Indian cricketer Rohit Sharma was questioned about this phenomenon during his pre-match press conference in Ahmedabad, shedding light on the potential strategic shifts influenced by these notable pitch changes.
The art of batting in Test cricket poses a unique challenge, one that demands adaptability and perseverance from batters as they navigate the shifting dynamics of a match. Interestingly, a closer examination of recent Test games reveals that batting may be slightly more challenging during the first and third innings, where control percentages hover around 79 and 78 respectively, compared to the 82 and 81 percent in the second and fourth innings. It is worth noting that the fourth-inning figure can be considered somewhat skewed, as the sample size comprises of two relatively low-target run chases, likely accompanied by reduced bowling intensity. Nevertheless, could there be a deeper underlying factor at play to explain the three-percent disparity between the first and second innings? Perhaps external conditions, such as pitch deterioration or ball behavior, contribute to this subtle variation, leaving both seasoned and emerging players continually striving to decipher and adapt to the intricacies of batting across a dynamic Test match landscape.
During the captivating cricket match in Indore, a striking observation was made concerning the performance of Australia’s spinners compared to their Indian counterparts. On the first morning, the Australian spinners seemingly managed to manipulate the ball with greater precision and speed, taking advantage of the residual moisture on the otherwise parched pitch. Although usually associated with aiding seam movement, moisture presents benefits for spinners as well; the additional grip the seam has on the pitch and the heightened skidding of the leather significantly enhance their techniques. In fact, cricket enthusiasts often claim that the most precarious batting conditions arise not on a fully wet pitch, but rather during the “drying” phase, as the concealed layer of moisture below the dry topsoil can generate unexpected challenges for players.
The moisture theory is an intriguing angle to consider when examining the rising control percentages from first to second innings in all three Tests. While Delhi’s weather could have indeed played an evening-out role, subsequently providing opportunities for both bowling attacks to capitalize on the three morning sessions, it may be wise not to delve too deep into this hypothesis. Instead, it could be more accurate to reverse our perspective and surmise that the control statistics are indicative of the team that is currently dominating the game. This alternative approach suggests that the advantage lies not in the environmental conditions, but rather in the innate skill and momentum of the competing teams.
In an evenly matched hypothetical scenario where both competing teams experience identical pitch and weather conditions, it becomes quite evident that the superior bowling performance can lead to a more challenging game for the opponents. This can result in a decreased control percentage as was evident in the cases of Australia in Nagpur and India in Indore, where both teams were dismissed for meager day-one totals. In such situations, bowling teams often feel the pressure to perform to make up for the low scores, leading to an overemphasis on attempting to take wickets. Consequently, by straying from their usual strategy of adhering to favourable lines and lengths, bowlers like Pat Cummins and the duo of R Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja end up delivering erratic spells. This wayward approach often backfires on the bowling team, as in their pursuit for wickets, they undermine the importance of consistency and maintaining pressure on the batting side.
The unique dynamics of cricket, with constantly fluctuating strategies and external conditions, have once again been highlighted in this riveting series, making it a delight for fans and analysts alike. This debate on whether batting second has offered any real advantage, adds yet another layer of complexity to the game. Teams defending low first-innings totals often find themselves compelled to shift to defensive fields prematurely, resulting in frequent strike rotations, and necessitating bowlers to adapt to new batters at a quicker pace. The impact of such strategic adjustments on the game, and whether teams batting second have been favored by comparatively less challenging conditions, continues to spark thoughtful conversations, making this series an enthralling exploration of the nuances in cricket.
