Leg and Off: Should Australia have declared their first innings in BGT 2024-25 3rd Test?
As enthralling as the on-field action in the third India-Australia Test in Brisbane has been, the outcome could hinge on two off-field decisions - one by the weather gods and the other by Aussie skipper Pat Cummins. With the five-match series tied at 1-1, Australia seemingly enjoyed one of those 'good tosses to lose' when Indian captain Rohit Sharma elected to bowl first.
The hosts withstood India's new-ball bowlers and reached 28/0 in the 13.2 overs bowled on a rain-marred Day 1. Fortunately for Australia, the weather relented on the second day and their batters made merry by reaching 405/7 at stumps.
Yet, with bad weather forecast throughout the Test match, a few former Australian players and a section of the fans wondered if Cummins could have pulled the trigger and declared the innings on the second evening.
Matthew Hayden said on Channel 7:
"I sense that playing with the weather is like playing with fire. You've just got to focus on winning the Test match from an Australian point of view. India may be focusing at this point now on just trying to hold in this Test match. It begs the question, what would India want? I sense that this is maybe playing into their hands considering there is going to be some weather over the next few days."
"Less likely for Australia to get the ball and take 20 wickets, the better for them. But I'm not surprised, this side over the years has been relatively conservative and it has perhaps stung from the days of Steve Waugh where it just seemed like the follow-on was something you naturally didn't take," he added.
To compound matters, Day 3 saw Australia further assert their domination but only 33.1 overs were bowled due to inclement weather.
After batting 16.1 overs and adding only 40 runs, Australia were bowled out for 445 in their first essay in the first session of Day 3. However, their bowlers reduced the visitors to a dismal 51/4 but could bowl only 17 overs overall at them due to the poor weather.
While the game has now been largely reduced to a contest against the weather gods rather than against India, Australia's decision to not declare late on Day 2 or overnight has come under scrutiny. Yet, were they conservative or just practical in their approach?
We deep-dive into a few ifs and buts to figure out if Australia should have declared their first innings in the ongoing Brisbane Test.
Hypothetical scenarios with an Aussie declaration
![An Aussie declaration may have opened the door for a 2021-esque repeat [Credit: Getty]](https://statico.sportskeeda.com/editor/2024/12/72f32-17343433318220-1920.jpg?w=500)
Australia could have declared at two possible times - one at a score of around 370 to have a half-hour bowl at the Indian batters at the end of Day 2, the other overnight with the score of 405/7.
While assuming India's score to be similar on both the above occasions after 17 overs as it is currently, is dangerous, we must do it for the sake of this exercise. Had Australia declared for around 370, they would probably have had India around 51/4 (current score) at stumps on Day 2.
And it is highly possible based on the conditions we saw today that Australia would have bowled India out for around 150-200 in the 33 overs of action if we consider the best-case scenario. Even if they declared overnight, Australia would have likely had India on the ropes at around 100/7 (hypothetical) in around 35 overs.
This would have left Australia with more time remaining, which is a valuable asset considering the poor weather forecast over the next two days and only two results possible - an Australian win and a draw.
Yet, when it comes to the worst case, even assuming India struggling with the bat as they have in actuality, a middle-to-lower order resurgence could have got them to around 200 to 250.
This is where things get a bit tricky without knowing the exact numbers. Should the weather continue being iffy, Australia would have lessened their chances of enforcing a follow-on with a score of around 370 and maybe even with their overnight score of 405/7.
It also would have allowed India to have a sniff for an unlikely victory and we know they can pull off a miracle at Brisbane, don't we? If India cut the deficit to around 130-150, assuming Australia declared at 370-400 and India scored 220-250, a second-innings collapse by the hosts could have set India a target of around 350.
We have seen in the past Brisbane isn't a typical 'deteriorate as the game goes on' wicket, with India pulling off a run-chase of 328 in 2020/21 on the final day. Yes, batting does become difficult with time but not to the extent where surviving and scoring aren't possible.
Hence, while the chance of an Aussie victory would have increased with a declaration, hinging on whether they enforced the follow-on, India may have also had a glimmer of hope for an unlikely win if things went south for Australia in the final two days.
Good vs Bad as things stand
Now let's come to reality and analyze things as they stand - Australia lead by 394 runs after three days with six Indian wickets to go in their first innings. By scoring 445 and reducing India to 51/4 at the end of Day 3, Australia have almost certainly eliminated the possibility of an Indian victory.
Just that in and of itself is a massive bonus as they can attack relentlessly for the rest of the Test match with the ball. Also, India's follow-on target of 246 looks almost insurmountable now with them having to score another 195 runs.
The only bad that could rear its ugly head based on Australia batting till the end without declaring is an overdose of rain for the final two days.
In that case, there might be a situation where India could be following on and reeling at a low score for half their side down but time runs out. With India and Australia also fighting for the second finalist spot of the World Test Championship (WTC), it adds a whole new dimension to the 'declaration' equation.
Conclusion
We live in a sporting universe where aggression in decision-making is seen as nothing but a positive from the outside. That's often because those on the outside are in a win-win situation - if it turns out right, they are genius, otherwise, they still bear no consequences.
However, captains making such decisions have to look into the best and worst cases on the field of play and account for the unpredictable weather. By that logic, Cummins eliminating Australia's chances of losing the Test and increasing their chances of enforcing a follow-on at the risk of possibly running out of time seems sensible.
An early declaration may look tempting if things turn out ideal for the rest of the game. Yet, should India barely avoid the follow-on or improbably win the Test match, like an Eden Gardens 2001, the knife will have been out on Cummins and his team from those who make a living out of hindsight analysis without any of the consequences.
Final Verdict: Australia made the right decision by batting on and eliminating Indian victory hopes and enhancing their chances of enforcing the follow-on.