The Indian tail crumbled yet again at The Gabba, while they let the Australian tail flourish. How bad are they when it comes to the tail? Abhishek Mukherjee tries to find out.
It happened again at The Gabba. The Indian Nos. 9, 10, and 11 — Umesh Yadav, Varun Aaron, and Ishant Sharma — scored nine, four, and an unbeaten one. Their Australian counterparts — Mitchell Starc, Nathan Lyon, and Josh Hazlewood — piled up 52, 23, and 32 not out. If there had been a score-line, it would have read Australia: 107, India: 14. The difference is too stark (no pun intended) to ignore.
India have been doubly poor when it has come to the tail: their tail have not been able to score substantially; and they have been unable to take wickets on a consistent basis. But how bad are they? What do numbers suggest? On the other hand, how good have Australia been? Let us find out.
Tail-enders (Nos. 9 to 11) in Test cricket; past five years (updated to third day’s play at The Gabba and Centurion)
Â
R
Ave
Runs / team innings
Australia
2,972
19.42
58
New Zealand
2,086
16.17
49
South Africa
1,637
15.59
47
England
2,495
15.03
45
West Indies
1,623
12.48
37
Sri Lanka
1,462
12.39
37
Bangladesh
1,171
12.07
36
India
1,775
10.63
32
Pakistan
1,318
10.3
31
Zimbabwe
526
8.77
26
Australia is substantially ahead of any other team (their tail scores 58 runs per innings), whereas India is eighth on the list (32 per innings), marginally ahead of any other team. In fact, Australia’s numbers are not very far away from double of India’s and Pakistan’s (31). Indeed, while the Australian tail has managed to impose them significantly on the opposition, the Indians have failed.
But what about bowling? How have the teams fared against the tail over the past five years? Is the difference between Australia and India as substantial?
Bowling sides against tail-enders (Nos. 9 to 11) in Test cricket; past five years (updated to third day’s play at The Gabba and Centurion)
R
Ave
Runs / team innings
Australia
2,044
11.17
34
New Zealand
1,334
11.81
35
Bangladesh
691
11.91
36
South Africa
1,673
11.95
36
Sri Lanka
1,404
12.88
39
England
2,914
14.08
42
Zimbabwe
552
14.15
42
West Indies
1,550
15.35
46
Pakistan
2,325
15.71
47
India
2,578
16.63
50
To cut things short, India (having conceded 50 runs per innings) have been the worst side over the past three years. Australia have been the best. Bangladesh (36) have been the surprise: they rank only below Australia (34) and New Zealand (35) when it comes to cleaning up the tail.
Let us, then, combine the tables and check the performances.
Ave
Runs / team innings
Ave
Runs / team innings
Difference (ave)
Difference (runs/team innings)
Australia
19.42
58
11.17
34
8.26
25
New Zealand
16.17
49
11.81
35
4.37
13
South Africa
15.59
47
11.95
36
3.64
11
England
15.03
45
14.08
42
0.95
3
Bangladesh
12.07
36
11.91
36
0.16
0
Sri Lanka
12.39
37
12.88
39
-0.49
-1
West Indies
12.48
37
15.35
46
-2.86
-9
Zimbabwe
8.77
26
14.15
42
-5.39
-16
Pakistan
10.3
31
15.71
47
-5.41
-16
India
10.63
32
16.63
50
-6
-18
The difference tells the story. While Australia has an advantage of 25 runs over its oppositions, India has a disadvantage of 18. So, when Australia plays India, the difference should be expected to be substantial. The Gabba was not an exception. Indian fans should ideally have more to worry as the series unfolds, and in future.
(Abhishek Mukherjee is the Chief Editor and Cricket Historian at CricketCountry. He blogs here and can be followed on Twitter here.)
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.