India’s much-questioned history-defying decision to field first bought them time in the Brisbane Test match.
It is not wise for touring sides to win the toss and field first at the Gabba. Until India’s ongoing tour, only 15 times have touring teams done that. Of these, they have lost nine and drawn four, and the two wins came against an Australian side in transition, in the mid-1980s.
Yet, Rohit Sharma did exactly that. “It’s overcast,” he explained at the toss. “A little bit of grass and it looks a little soft as well and try and see what we can do with the ball upfront.”
The point is logical. In seam-friendly conditions, India’s best bet to seize early advantage was to use Jasprit Bumrah and Mohammed Siraj, their key fast bowlers against Nathan McSweeney, a middle-order bat batting out of position; Usman Khawaja, struggling for form; and Marnus Labuschagne, back to some runs but nowhere close to his pomp. The more the rain breaks, the more the fast bowlers could rest, the longer they could bowl.
The alternative – an inconsistent Indian top order facing Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood, and Pat Cummins – was not a comparably lucrative option.
But day one was not the only day when rain was predicted. The forecast looked bleak for all five days, which bring us to the advantage teams batting second usually have in drastically shortened Test matches (at 192 overs across four days, the Brisbane Test does qualify as one).
Despite batting into the third morning, Australia could not close their first innings and had to back themselves to make India follow on. Despite falling behind, India knew that if they could avoid the follow-on margin, they would as good as save the Test match. And even if Australia take the final wicket with the first ball on day five, they would find it very difficult to declare. If they do, India can choose – or switch – between going for the chase and playing for a draw.
What if India had batted first?
Let us assume (all of this is hypothetical, of course) that the two first innings would have panned out the way they did.
India are 252-9 in 74.5 overs at stumps on day four. Let us assume they would have made 270 in 80 overs. That would have meant they would have been bowled out just after tea on day two (there were 13.2 overs of cricket on day one, 87.4 overs on day two).
Australia’s 445 took them 117.1 overs. Only 33.1 overs were possible on day three. Australia would, thus, have batted for about 55 overs by stumps on day three. Australia were 153-3 after 55 overs in their first innings. Thus, after three days, the scores would have stood at India 270, Australia 153-3.
As we know, the fourth wicket did not fall until the end of the 83rd over. At that point, Australia had reached 316. They could have declared at that point. Or at 350. Or around 400. And allowed fresh, rested Starc and Cummins to have another shot at the Indian top order.
It would not have guaranteed an Australian win, but Australia would have been closer to a win in that case.
India’s decision to field, thus – inadvertently or otherwise – played its part in helping them inch closer to a draw at Brisbane in a year when there has been only one drawn Test match.
Follow Wisden for all cricket updates, including live scoresmatch stats, quizzes and more. Stay up to date with the latest cricket newsplayer updates, team standings, match highlights, video analysis and live match odds.
Cover StoriesCover Stories IndiaSeries Cover Stories
