The champion and his cubs

Let's put things into perspective first. Australia haven't lost at the WACA to non-West Indian opposition since Richard Hadlee was in his prime in 1985-86. They've not lost a home Test since Adelaide 2003, or a match anywhere since the narrow defeat at Trent Bridge that cost them the Ashes in 2005. India have only ever won four Tests in Australia, two of them against full-strength opposition. To say that they were long shots before this WACA Test would be an understatement, but as they did at the Wanderers in December 2006, they've saved their best performance for when they were apparently down and out.

That Test started with Mickey Arthur's talk about pace and bounce. But with Sreesanth bowling perfect outswing, it was South Africa that were crushed by 122 runs. Here, the pre-match chat centred around Shaun Tait and a pace attack that might blow India away. They made 330. In response, against three young seamers with fewer Test caps than Brett Lee alone, Australia lasted all of 50 overs, done in by superb swing bowling.

Adam Gilchrist admitted later that the experience and solidity of Matthew Hayden [and Justin Langer] was probably missed, but even the great shape that Irfan Pathan got against both left-handed openers couldn't have prepared Australia for what followed. This is Ishant Sharma's fifth Test, and the game in Sydney had been his first outside the subcontinent. Yet, the way he outsmarted both Ponting and Clarke was sensational. Extra bounce did for one, and late movement for the other, and it needed tremendous counterattacking innings from Gilchrist and Andrew Symonds to save Australia from abject humiliation.

Gilchrist was impressed by the way that bowlers who had no experience of Perth [Pathan did play a one-dayer in 2003-04] utilised the breeze. Their success was in marked contrast to Tait, whose struggle in the final over of the day was painful to watch. The Wild Thing hasn't bowled much of late, and the rust was evident as he failed to make any hearts sing.

The cubs may have stolen the bowling plaudits, but this was a day that Anil Kumble will remember for a very long time. When he last came to Australia, he was India's second-choice spinner. Harbhajan Singh's problems with his spinning finger before the Adelaide game gave him an opportunity, and he hasn't looked back since. Gilchrist said that he'd become a more clever bowler in recent seasons, and he's right. He uses the googly more and bowls it better, and the variations in flight and pace are also much more apparent. He also uses the crease more.

It was fitting too that Symonds was caught by Rahul Dravid, whose presence at slip has been such a feature of Kumble's second coming. It might not have the resonance of c Marsh, b Lillee, or c M Waugh, b Warne, but it has a special place in Indian cricket lore. And having retired from one-day cricket, there's no reason why Kumble can't grace the Test stage a while longer. He's certainly handled the pressures of captaincy well, and after the ruckus that followed the Sydney game, it's great that we're talking about cricket again.

It's been a while since Australia were under the pump in a Test match, and they've got such quality in the batting that it's impossible to predict what might be a safe target for India to set. As always, Kumble kept it simple. "Play good cricket tomorrow, and then we'll see," he said. We certainly shall. A series that was thought to have died in Sydney has been resurrected, and another Sweet-Sixteen streak is in danger of ending. It's hard to put a finger on what it is with India, Australia and great Test matches, but long may it continue.

Comments

[Brett Read]

Perhaps Indians can learn how to lose with dignity, by taking a leaf out of Australia's book, or get a lifetime supply of nappies which they should have received after Sydney. Do Australians riot after they lose, NO, we move on, thats Life.

[Abhishek]

I apologize then.

[smale25]

India Australia Third Test Match, Perth, Australia, January 16 - 20, 2008

First Day Report:
=============

Part II. On the Batting
-------------------------------
As in Part I, Sunil Gavaskar's success with facing the quartet of West Indian pace attack remains the defining characteristic for the senior batsmen in the current Indian side -- Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Saurav Ganguly and VVS Laxman. It was Gavaskar's mastery of his batsmanship, along with his talent for good prose writing which he employed to write books about cricket that were the most important learning experience for a generation of aspiring school children growing up before today's ubiquity of television sets in Indian middle class homes. To really understand the current Indian batting line-up, one must keep in mind a very deep and fertile observation that Sir VS Naipaul, the 2001 Nobel laureate in Literature, had made about the former colonies of the British empire. Naipaul's thesis is that the countries that evolved out of the British colonies are half-made societies, societies that are constantly trying to adapt to their colonial legacy from the past, but never really achieving a true sense of their own identity in the modern world. This is precisely the case with how each of the four senior batsmen came to be shaped by Gavaskar's legacy. Sachin Tendulkar was the first whiz-kid out of the block, getting to play test cricket for India at a young age of 16 in 1989. He is also the most accomplished, with 38 test centuries, career test runs exceeding 11500 runs and a batting average above 55 runs per innings. Among the four, he has the sharpest cricketing brain and the most athletic body. Rahul Dravid, through sheer will and persistence, trained himself to reach Gavaskar's level of concentration and patience, and his ability to play marathon innings. VVS Laxman inherited Gavaskar's mastery of technique, his knowledge of facing fast bowling of the highest class and his appetite for big scores. Saurav Ganguly picked up Gavaskar's competitiveness and his quick temper, along with playing certain shots on the off-side well.

For all their promise, none of these four would go onto make major advances beyond Gavaskar, purely from the perspective of developing expertise as test batsmen. Ganguly and Tendulkar would soon establish themselves as indispendible members of the one-day team early on, and after some struggle Dravid followed them to fame on this new arena of one-day cricket, which was becoming more and more popular in the nineties. Laxman would be a late addition to this journey, and an early exit from one-day cricket. Having spent large parts of their attention on the quick-scoring demands of the one-day game, they could hardly expect to better Gavaskar's achievements as a test batsman. This can be clearly seen by the paucity of triple centuries from the Indian side. Their frame of mind is simply not meant for such prolonged demands on their concentration. Multi-tasking between test cricket, one-day cricket and appearing in media endorsements did them in. Laxman would display significant promise once, during his epic innings of 281 in the Kolkatta test against Australia in 2001, but he would never get the recognition and encouragement from the selectors and the team to establish himself as a successful batsman. If he was lucky enough to be selected, he would still have to bat at the sixth position, salvaging what he could with the batting abilities of India's tail. As a result, today, whereas he has the technique for it, he simply lacks the will and motivation to play another massive innings.

I must also mention another important phenomenon here which turned out to be a severe blow to the collective will of the Indian team to perform at high standards of professionalism. This was the match fixing scandals they were hit with from the mid-to-late 90s. It took enough character and sincerity from the Indian team to put those nightmare days behind them, that they could hardly be expected to focus solely on winning test series against the then powerhouse test playing countries. On another note, these four senior batsmen were, of course, also influenced by other batsmen of earlier times from India. Gundappa Vishwanath, Dilip Vengsarkar, Dilip Sardesai, Vijay Manjrekar, Sandip Patil and Mohammad Azharuddin have left their marks on these players purely in test cricket. In addition, Krishnamachari Srikanth, Mohinder Amarnath and Kapil Dev were also major influences on their one-day careers. Moreover, the junior batsmen in the current Indian side -- Virender Sehwag, Irfan Pathan, Mahendra Dhoni, Wassim Jaffer -- have grown up idolizing these four senior batsmen, in particular Sachin Tendulkar. Virender Sehwag, who scored India's first triple century in 2004, has fashioned himself after Tendulkar, with an attacking instinct and quick hand-eye coordination. But, his technique lacks footwork, and his temperament lacks patience. With this test, he is making his comeback to test cricket after being sidelined for over a year. To his credit, he has worked hard on his fitness level, and from watching his interview with Harsha Bhogle on TV, I would say that he seems genuinely motivated to make his mark. This, then is the historical background of the famed Indian batting line-up, before the start of the third test between Australia and India played at Perth, during January 16 - 20, 2008.

As I explained in Part I, the much hyped Australian pace bowling failed to live up to the propaganda. The first over from Brett Lee cost them 9 runs. If one saw the ball-by-ball commentary on Cricinfo, one could ascertain that Sehwag was showing virtually no footwork, but was simply utilizing his quick hand-eye coordination. Whenever the bowler gave him enough width, and he managed to connect, the hit was clean and the ball didn't fail to get to the boundary. At the end of the tenth over, Sehwag had made 23 runs off 37 balls with 5 boundaries. Wassim Jaffer, batting from the other end, had made 15 runs off 26 balls with 2 fours. Extras accounted for 12 runs (5 wides, 3 noballs, 4 legbyes). The score stood exactly at 50. In the first five overs, both Brett Lee and Mitchell Johnson hit the 150 kmph consistenly, nearly 10 kmph above the speeds that the Indian bowler can bowl. It was when the much slower, but accurate Stuart Clark (135 - 140 kmph range) came in to bowl the sixth over, that the Australian bowling strategy gained a semblance of order. Sehwag departed in the 17th over for 29, caught behind by Gilchrist off Johnson. Dravid came in to join Jaffer. But, Jaffer had been simply taking his cue from the non-striking batsman through out his innings. If Sehwag attacked, he attacked. If Sehwag remained quiet, he did the same. When he got out, driving away from his body, in the 20th over off Lee, he had played out 25 consecutive dot balls! Next, Tendulkar came in to join Dravid, and they managed to play out the few overs remaining before lunch. Notably, Shaun Tait was introduced in the 21st over, and he bowled a maiden first over to Dravid. However, in the 23rd over, he gave up 8 runs, a 2, a noball, a boundary and a single. He did manage to hit speeds upwards of 154 kmph, but Tendulkar had had the measure of him by the end of the over. At lunch, India were 74/2 in 24 overs.

After lunch, Lee and Tait continued to bowl. However, this time, their speeds were much lower (140 - 145 kmph). Tendulkar and Dravid managed to bat the entire post-lunch session without losing a wicket. Dravid was dropped off Lee in the 28th over by Michael Clarke, but otherwise the session belonged to the Indians. At the end of the 32nd over, Johnson and Clark replaced Lee and Tait. Symonds replaced Clark with his medium pace in the 42nd over, and Tait replaced Johnson in the 45th over. Symonds made a loud appeal for lbw against Tendulkar in the 45th over. The 51st over was bowled by Michael Clarke. But, none of these changes stopped the steady scoring. At tea, 51 overs had been bowled (nine over behind schedule) and India had made 177 runs for the loss of 2 wickets, with Dravid on 52 off 99 balls and 8 fours, and Tendulkar on 59 off 102 balls and 8 fours. India had made 103 runs in the 27 overs after lunch, and Dravid had batted himself out of his poor form.

If the post-lunch session exposed the weakness of Australia's bowling attack, as I had explained in detail in Part I, the post-tea session exposed the weakness of India's batting line-up. They simply lack staying power to produce a massive innings, as I have explained above. One after another, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid and Laxman got out by the end of the day. Some credit must be given here to the bowlers. First, Brett Lee plugged the run leaks with more accurate bowling right after tea, and he got Tendular lbw in the 58th over. Tendulkar had made 71 runs off 128 balls with 9 fours. Clark from the other end had been steadily leaking runs. When he was replaced with Johnson in the 61st over, he got Ganguly within four balls, caught by Hussey, trying to hit a wide delivery. But Tait replaced Lee in the 62nd over, Dravid and Laxman regained control of the game, and they managed to make Johnson ineffective as well. In the 8 overs between 61 and 69, they took the score from 215/4 to 253/4. Symonds and Clarke came on to bowl spin from the 70th over. They managed to contain the boundaries for 5 overs. But, Dravid forced himself onto them by hitting two more boundaries, and got out to Symonds in the 78th over to a poor shot. Ponting, the captain, brought Lee right back in the 80th over, and the second new ball available in the 81 over. Rather than handle the situation carefully, Laxman also got out to a poor shot. Pathan and Dhoni got together to hit two more boundaries, before the day's session closed out after 84 overs.

The lesson of the last session of play was that India simply lack the will to become a major contender to be the best test playing nation in the world. Right now, the Indian team is banking on its considerable experience, given that there are five senior players. Subconsciously, they are trying to get through the series by cruising along, without the will or the vision, at the fag end of their careers. A word on Laxman's performance. Perhaps he may be forgiven for a lapse of concentration in his batting that cost him his wicket, when one considers the rude manner in which he was shoved down the batting order from his favorite position at Number 3 to Number 6. He had made an elegant 109 in the Sydney test just ten days ago. For the first time, an Indian batsman had played convincingly against the Australian pace attack, and the other top order batsman didn't even have the forthrightness to accomodate him higher up in the top order. This shows the level of insecurity that actually lies behind the aura of invincibility that the Indian public has come to associate with Tendulkar, Dravid and Ganguly. It is clear that Laxman would not get any recognition or encouragement to play another grand innings like his 281. The only option for him is to forget his team's performance, and to challenge himself to meet personal goals. If he takes this approach, he could, for example, open the batting with Virender Sehwag. Finally, the captain Anil Kumble must be commended for a number of bold decisions he has taken during this series. He is working relentlessly to eliminate weakness from the team. Yuvraj Singh and Harbhajan Singh were dropped, giving place to Virender Sehwag and Irfan Pathan. Kumble has wisely decided against going in with two spinners on the Perth pitch which was supposed to favor pace bowling. In any case, Harbhajan Singh has been shown to be ineffective in India - Pakistan series in 2005 on pitches that did not offer any help to spinners. In the next match, Wassim Jaffer should also be dropped, and Laxman asked to open the batting. This might provide a personal challenge to Laxman, which might interest him enough to go for a big score, knowing that he could forge partnerships with the others in the top order.

Finally, the readers from Australia, may be wondering about the approach of the Indian batting during the Melbourne test, when Dravid and Jaffer simply played out maiden over after maiden over, scoring just 6 runs and losing a one wicket in the first ten overs. Tendulkar and Ganguly were supposed to have played fighting innings, but they only made 62 and 43 respectively. India's batting strategy would have seemed bizarre and self-defeating. That is why it is important to realize the role of Gavaskar on the Indian batsmanship. All these strategies were forged at the time Gavaskar had faced the truly fearsome West Indies pace attack. The current batch of senior batsmen in the Indian side were behaving like Naipaul's 'Mimic Men' when they simply copied the strategy pioneered by Gavaskar two decades ago, and they failed to adapt it intelligently to the fact that Brett Lee's pace quartet was bowling many loose balls.

[Dileep]

Who said anything about McGrath and Warne? The two wins in 1977-78 came against Australia B/C. With the exception of Thommo, all the leading players were in World Series Cricket.

[Harry]

What a fantastic platform for the rest of the game. Aussie fans are on the ede of the seat as we are put under the hammer again.

Of course I would love to see it turn round and have the visitors lose by a hair's breadth again but as long there aren't any dummy spits from either side I'll be a happy cricket fan again.

Cheers Dileep and thanks for the column.

[Abhishek]

Why qualify India's wins in Australia as not being "against full-strength opposition", thus demeaning their value? After all, if you're talking about Warne and McGrath, India had Harbhajan and Zaheer missing too. Anyway, Warne was never very effective against India...

[Presh]

Whats needed a solid batting by even the tail enders, and we can win this one.

[Tarun Y]

Hi Dileep,

Regardless of what happens here-
should India stick with Wasim Jaffer?
(I think he is a good player - sometimes a very good player, but unfortunately never a great player).

Give a Karthik a go? Or, let Pathan open(?!) so as to accommodate Bhajji and play 5 in Adelaide? (especially as it becomes a 'must win' game)