NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
ARCHIVES

Day two, strike two

Yesterday, on day one, it was mist. On day two, it was a drizzle that teased the spectators -- not that there were too many of them at the ground -- all day.

The drizzle stopped midway through what should have been the second session of play, raising hopes that some amount would be possible. But just about when the super sopper managed to clear the covers of accumulated water, the drizzle came back, having grown up in the meantime into a young rain that showed no sign of let up.

So, for the second day on the trot, play was called off without a ball being bowled. And for the second time in two days, the meterologists were approached for possible silver linings.

If the weathermen have got it right, then the clouds over Dunedin are gradually dispersing, and warmer temperatures today should mean that tomorrow will dawn brighter and sunnier, and play should be possible.

Then again, that's what we said at the end of day one -- so what happens tomorrow remains anyone's guess.

Assume play does begin, what then? Without actually poking and prodding at the wicket, you can't really say what it will do (and often, you can't say even then). However, an educated guess based on the fact that in all that mist and rain, the wicket has remained under covers for 48 hours now, would be that there will be life early on, and lots of scope for seamers.

The team winning the toss will want to bowl first, partly to make optimum use of what should start out being a seamer's track and try and bowl out the opposition cheap, and equally because you wouldn't want to put your batsmen through such a trial by fire if you can help it.

But is a result on the cards? In these days of Test matches finishing well inside the distance, the oddsmakers would say it is possible -- but is it probable? 40 wickets inside of three days, and even that only if you assume the game will start on time tomorrow?

Seems very unlikely -- which means the Indians can use whatever play is possible here for some serious match practise, ahead of Tests two and three.

Meanwhile, there was that bit of ruckus in Kiwiland, with the likes of coach Steve Rixon calling the Indian team "spoilsports" for not agreeing to play under lights, and also to extend play by an additional hour per day for the next three days, as suggested by the Kiwi board.

As far as the lights go, there is sense in the Indian contention, that they are not used to playing with white clothing and the red ball under lights -- an argument similar to what England used recently.

However, there is a question in here, the answer to which I don't get. The norm that Test cricket play can be extended under lights is an ICC ruling/recommendation, right? Now here are two ICC member countries flat out refusing to do so. What is more, they are citing a very logical reason for their refusal -- after all, it is the 'red ball, white clothes' problem that first sparked the use of coloured clothes, and a white ball, in limited overs cricket.

So the question is, how are these new rules framed anyway? Do they test them out before actually recommending their use? Are the member countries consulted, are they asked for their opinions, is a consensus sought before a new rule is introduced?

If those were done, then obviously such controversies wouldn't arise. But here, what appears to have happened is that the boards of Australia and South Africa recommended the use of lights to extend play in Tests, and the ICC agreed -- which seems a bit of a haphazard way to run this man's army.

Again, the Indians are well within their rights to refuse to play the extra hour each day -- on the grounds that such an extension of playing time was not written into the playing conditions before the start of the series.

However, you could wish that the side was a shade more eager about their work or, failing that, a shade more public-relations savvy.

Typically, a hungry team would not only agree to the extra three hours, but also ask for the start of play to be advanced by half an hour each day, to get as much play as possible with the hope of forcing a result.

Assuming the Indians didn't want to do that, they could at the least have paid some thought to what reason they gave for their refusal.

What the tour management told the New Zealand media is that India has been playing a lot of cricket lately, and therefore didn't want to let itself in for more playing time than was actually specified at the outset.

Such statements, and the mindset behind them, make the side appear a bunch of lazy blokes, not really interested in going the extra mile for the sake of results, or in helping to inject some excitement into the truncated game for the benefit of the spectators.

It is true enough that India has been playing a heck of a lot of cricket of late, and there is even more scheduled between now and the end of the World Cup in England in June next year. But then, these five days have been earmarked for a Test match, the team has rested for two of those days (today, they did not even need to leave their hotel rooms and come to the ground), so a bit of extra effort over the last three days is surely not that much to ask?

If the entire Test is washed out, the players wouldn't refund their match fee to the board, would they?

In passing, a little snippet, from a conversation Martin Crowe had with Charu Sharma, for television. Crowe not only led the Kiwis with distinction in the 1992 World Cup, but also innovated brilliantly with the use of Mark Greatbatch to go over the top in the first 15 (in a sense paving the way for the Lankan success of 1996) but also opening the bowling with a spinner.

So Charu was asking him about that campaign, and among other things, Crowe said: "One thing we did during that tournament was to take it strictly one match at a time. And the other was to not thinking of the opposition as nations. We thought of them as the yellow team, for Australia, or the red team for Zimbabwe, or the blue team when we were playing England. The idea was to dehumanise the opposition -- you think 'Australia' and somehow, your mind is full of previous matches you have played against them, and probably lost, so we used this tactic to keep such negative thoughts away."

Interesting, that. And some insight, there, into the at times increasingly complex ways in which teams prepare for key competitions.