1-1: A review of the BGT madness so far

Download Hitwicket Cricket Game 2024 - Be the Owner, Coach and Captain of your own Cricket Team | The Ultimate Strategic Cricket-Manager Experience | Not a fad. No ads.

Before this Test match, we looked at different factors that allowed India to win the first Test and how they were going to go in the next match. We started off with form. I said there would be a regression for India, and Australia would come back into form. That's definitely what happened.

In terms of selection, we said that India could get a little better, while Australia got a lot worse because they did not have Josh Hazlewood. But that didn't matter all that much in the end.

The Adelaide day-night Test is such a unique match, and specifically, Australia are used to playing day-night Test matches. Of course, there's a player (whom we might talk about later on) who really likes this wicket. For India, I always thought this match was a bit of a free swing. There was always a big chance of them losing, because Australia have been so good in pink ball Tests.

I think Virat Kohli is still moving pretty well, though he only made 18 runs in two innings in Adelaide. But virtually no one made runs in this Test—only Travis Head and Marnus Labuschagne passed 50. So, I'm not too worried about that. A couple of deliveries with extra bounce have caused him some troubles, which is better for Australia than India at the moment. But I want to see when we get away from Perth and the pink ball.

The poor form of Australia's top three was a massive plus for India ahead of Adelaide. But Nathan McSweeney and Labuschagne set it up so that Head could help them win the Test match.

Obviously, Mitchell Starc had already done the work. But Jasprit Bumrah and Mohammed Siraj could have ripped through that top-order again. However, Usman Khawaja still doesn't look in form, and McSweeney still doesn't look like an opener to me. But credit where it's due, Marnus was among the runs in this Test.

After the first Test, I didn't think their top three could be worse in the rest of the series. But I also didn't feel optimistic about them, and I don't think I feel all that different.

Let's forget about why Siraj ended up becoming the pantomime villain of the last Test. If we look at his form so far, my big question was whether he would keep that rhythm. I think it's fair to say that he did, and that I was partially wrong. However, him playing well in this match didn't actually help India that much.

I don't think the issue with India going forward changes with Siraj, because he's now played in two good Tests—they've won one and lost one. Does that mean he's going to be able to maintain this rhythm or will there be a regression? I'm never quite sure what we're going to get from moment to moment with Siraj.

I expected a bit of a regression when it comes to Yashasvi Jaiswal, and I got that one right. A pink ball test match against the Australian bowlers, under lights was not going to be easy. I'm not too worried about the fact that he didn't make runs here.

I thought Pat Cummins would be better in this Test match, and he was. There were just enough signs at the end of the Perth Test where it looked like he's coming into some sort of rhythm. I don't know if he's going to be the great Cummins. But at the very least, he looks like an in-form and confident one.

I like the way he went after the top-order. He then brought his bouncer back out—his very accurate bouncer—and did very well against the tail as well. That's two different jobs Australia can give Pat Cummins at the moment. I think this could be bad news for India.

In the first Test, Starc bowled well but didn’t get a lot of wickets. Cummins didn’t bowl all that well. Mitch Marsh had to bowl more than Australia would have wanted, Nathan Lyon didn’t do very well, and then Hazlewood was injured. Just one variable there, with Cummins in good form, makes it really interesting. If he's in great form, that's even worse for India.

In Perth, Starc looked in good rhythm, but he didn’t get the wickets. He was about to get the pink ball in Adelaide. Him performing well was inevitable, right?

I’ve done a whole video, of course, that you can go and see about just how good Mitchell Starc is in Adelaide, specifically with the pink ball—some of the technical reasons why the pink ball works for him. I don’t think for the rest of the series this is as big a problem for India, because we might’ve already seen Mitchell Starc’s best two Test matches.

That doesn’t mean that he’s going to have a bad series from here. But there are a couple of players, like Shubman Gill, who seem to play him a little bit better with the red ball. He’s going to regress because he’s not as good with the red ball. He’s also been absolutely flying for about a month and a half now. He might start to get tired or maybe lose his rhythm.

One point I made was that India capitalized on the conditions in the first Test. They dominated, especially on that first day, but the real difference between the two sides came from India batting at the optimal time and making the most of it. They have not made runs at any other stage in the series.

I had mentioned that the conditions would eventually favour Australia again, and that’s largely what we saw here. You have to give credit to Marnus and McSweeney for holding their ground and not gifting back the advantage after Usman Khawaja’s dismissal.

But all things considered, it was a pink ball Test in Adelaide, so the conditions were already going to benefit Australia, and they did get a bit of luck. We got this one right, but it’s also a good sign for India because they have played on the two toughest venues already.

If we look at Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, I already consider those to be a slight advantage for India. Maybe it's more of a question mark, but if I was working for India right now, I’d say 1-1 after the two toughest Tests is pretty good.

Now, let’s examine some other factors in this series.