Australia didn’t lose the Adelaide Test because of their ‘second-string’ bowling. They lost because of their batting. And because their opponents batted better than them. Simple as that.First, let’s get over the ‘second-string’ bowling bit. If Australia were without Glenn McGrath, Brett Lee and Shane Warne, India went into the Test without two first-choice bowlers: Zaheer Khan and Harbhajan Singh. That Kumble could fill in for Bhajji was balanced out by the inclusion of rookie Pathan.So all square, then.Back to the batting. Batting first, Australia scored 556; India replied with 523. Not much between them there. The difference was in the second innings, when the Australians batted — on an acclaimed batting track — as though winning the match was a formality. They lacked application and commitment and, as some talking head pointed out, everyone played as if expecting the next person to actually score a big innings.By contrast, the Indians were up against it, losing four early wickets in the first innings and then having to bat last. But they got through by keeping their heads down and never taking anything for granted.Australia’s approach exposed cruelly their complete lack of a Plan B. Plan A is famous and usually successful — hit your way out of trouble. What to do if that doesn’t work has apparently never been given serious thought.Consider this: If Australia had scored another 50 runs or so in their second innings, who’d bet against them going all the way? Not that anyone bets against them anyway.So this was the Australian batting here and now. What does the future hold? ‘Tugga’ Waugh is through with the game. Matthew Hayden, Justin Langer and Adam Gilchrist are in their 30s (though dismiss Hayden at your own peril). So is Darren Lehmann. Ricky Ponting and Damien Martyn are younger, as is Simon Katich. Michael Clarke and Martin Love wait in the wings.The case rests.
