Border - Cricket as I See It

IVE ALWAYS THOUGHT that Australians try to win games of cricket from the first ball. If they get into trouble, they try to save the game, whereas some teams start out trying not to lose, then go for the win if theyre in the right position. Thats a subtle difference in mindset, but its important. I believe the aggressive game fits our national character.

We play better when we play aggressively, Im absolutely convinced of that. Theres always a line you shouldnt cross, and we probably cross it more than other teams, but Id rather cop a black eye for that than play Mr Nice Guy.

On the Indian tour of 2013, when we lost badly, I felt sorry for the Australian players but there was an undercurrent in the way they went about the matches that bothered me. The pitches were very difficult for an Australian cricketer, turning and dry from the start, and we dont see that type of surface much. They lost 40 so they deserved some criticism, but there was a split in the team and they werent a happy camp. That can happen, too, but I felt we got away from the aggressive way we like to play. As to the pitches, we have to overcome that, because thats how teams will want to play against us now, particularly on the subcontinent.

You have to be thinking, How can we win this game? Every decision you make, from the toss to the side youve picked, is about winning the game. Its about being positive with your cricket. I know other nations would try to debunk this theory, but I get the feeling that their decision-making is: Make sure we dont lose, and if we get into a winning position we go from there.

I know that Australia can put up the shutters as well. Sometimes its necessary, but it must only ever be a last resort. Up to that point, you should be conjuring ways to win the game. If you cant win, then of course do everything to save the match. And always put the team first in any decision-making.

I was a bat-first captain. I like the idea of getting runs on the board and then exerting pressure on the opposition to force them into mistakes, even on good surfaces. If you bowl good linesgood corridors, as we sayand keep that pressure up, you can bowl teams out. With a decent score on the board, you can retain attacking fields and not worry so much about stemming the flow of runs from the opposition. When you start bowling with no slips and have sweepers and all these defensive field positions, saving the boundaries, invariably the batsmen will dink the ball around and get five runs an over easily. That tactic just never works.

Sending in the opposition just wasnt my style. I think Ian Chappell advised me once: Nine times out of ten you bat first if you win the toss. The tenth time, you think about bowling first, but you bat anyway. That thinking probably stems from the days of uncovered wickets, when you might be caught out on a sticky wicket and lose a game, so you needed to seize the advantage of batting first when possible. But these days youd look at the opposition and the conditions. If I was playing India in Perth, Id probably bowl first, but I didnt do that too often. In Brisbane and Perth, you can think about it because batting last isnt such an issuethe wickets tend not to break up there like they do elsewhere. But I imagine that the winning percentages over the history of Tests would be highly in favour of the team batting first.

If theres a declaration to be made to set up a match, you should set a big chase if possible. In days gone by, it was about dangling a carrot in front of the opposition, luring them into an unlikely run-chase that worked against them. But to my mind, you only do that if youre 10 or 20 down in a series and there might only be one or two Test matches to play, so you need them to go for it, and you need to give yourself more time than normal to get the 10 wickets. If youre 10 up in a series and youre batting in a strong position, why would you dangle a carrot?

What you do is bat to the point where history says theyre highly unlikely to reach that mark. You could set an opposing side 400 in four sessions and potentially they could still win, but history shows you its very unlikely. In the tied Test against India in 1986, I declared our second innings closed and set the Indians 348 to win on the last day, which was an example of the carrot approach. But it was the first Test of a series, 350 to win is tough to get on a last day, and the wickets were going to be hard to extract. We almost won a famous match, and India almost made me regret that decision, reaching 347. It does happen that teams will chase you down. People still talk about Australia chasing 404 at Leeds in 1948, and who could forget the West Indians making a world-record fourth-innings 418 to beat Australia at Antigua in 2003, or Brian Laras 153 not out steering the West Indies to a successful run-chase of 311 with a wicket to spare at Bridgetown in 1999? The point is, these are rarities.

When youre making a declaration, you have to put individual milestones aside. Its a team-first mentality every time. If a batsman is heading towards a milestonea century or a century on debutyou might send out a message: Were going to declare at four oclock. Thats your opportunity to make the hundred or not. If theyre really close to the landmark, the captain might delay his call for a few more minutes. Otherwise, declare and thats the way it is. Its a team game, first and foremost.

Follow-ons are interesting in this context, especially in the modern game. Once upon a time there was a rest day in Test matches, which was a big factor because the bowlers could put their feet up for a day. Nowadays theres no rest day, but in the past it was tempting to have a second crack at a team, given your bowlers would get a days rest. I think India gave captains around the world plenty to think about when they won a Test match against Steve Waughs Australian team at Kolkata in 2001 after following on.

That was an absolutely amazing game. Australia made 445 then bowled India out for 171, leaving Waugh to make a decision. With a lead of 274 he chose to enforce the follow-on, which can only be applied by a captain if his team is 200 runs ahead on the first innings. Then V.V.S. Laxman and Rahul Dravid came together at 4232, still 42 in arrears, and batted for an entire day! Australias bowlers ended up churning through more than 200 overs in a row without any break, Laxman and Dravid put on 376 runs for the fifth wicket, India set Australia 384 to win and then bowled Waughs team out for 212 on the final day.

It was a perfect storm that worked against an Australian team that had dominated the first part of the match, but it did make captains think about the follow-on a little more afterwards, Ive no doubt. It brought back memories, because of only three Test matches that have actually been won by teams that followed on, I played in onethe famous 1981 Leeds Test when Ian Botham and Bob Willis dug England out of a hole. The other match was in the 19th century. Believe me, its not a good feeling to be on the receiving end! That explains why captains tend to wave off the follow-on and have a second bat nowadays, to rest up their bowlers for a second assault on the opposition.

DARREN LEHMANN AS coach of Australia from 2013 brought back some old-fashioned values: play hard, enjoy the fruits of your labours, encourage the boys to stay in the rooms. If the boys dont want to have an alcoholic drinkand there are plenty of those guys todaythey should have water or something soft. Those edicts have worked in our cricket for 100 years.

Lehmann tried to lighten the mood, too: Were working hard, lets have some fun. Lets play cricket like Australians play cricket. I think it eased a lot of tension around the place. Guys had reached the point where they werent enjoying playing for Australia, which the results showed, with the 40 defeat in India in 2013. Despite Cricket Australia sacking Mickey Arthur as coach after the Indian disaster and hiring Lehmann, we still had a 30 defeat in the 2013 Ashes series in England.