NEWS
STAT SHEET
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
DEAR REDIFF

Where do you reside? USA UK UAE Singapore Hong kong Australia Canada North America South America Europe Africa Bahrain Kuwait Qatar Philippines Indonesia Asia New Zealand

Spin rules at Chennai

Prem Panicker

180 overs into the first Test, 270 more to go and one thing is for certain sure -- there will be a result here.

207 runs scored in 91 overs, 12 wickets going down in the process, argues a beast of a wicket. Problem being, in this case, figures don't quite get there -- this wicket had turn, it had bounce, but it also had runs if you were prepared to stay in there and find them. Only, not too many batsmen, from either side, showed that willingness.

The day was hot -- 37 degrees in the shade -- and humid. The pitch looked harder, and browner, the cracks were pretty much the same as on day one, no signs of them widening. The only appreciable difference is the powdering of the pitch -- inevitable as the heat bakes it and takes all the moisture out of it. And this powdering, for now, is most evident at those spots where the bowlers' footmarks land, on the follow through.

Kumble and Dravid began well, working the singles and the former, in particular, coming up with the occasional firm drives through the covers. Taylor, for his part, opted to hold off on the new ball, relying on Robertson and Shane Warne to do the deed. And the spinners obliged -- and how!

Kumble was the first casualty, driving a shade too early at a floater from Robertson, getting it on the bottom of the bat and wafting a simple catch to Steve Waugh at mid off.

Srinath came in, and made the mistake of eschewing his usual slapdash methods in favour of the copybook. Trouble being, the copybook Srinath takes his defensive technique from is pretty antiquated -- three balls into his innings, he lunged forward in a parody of a forward defensive push, didn't get to where the ball was pitching, the Shane Warne leg break bounced, took the glove and Taylor got into the act, as he does so often at slip when Warne bowls.

Chauhan, ever since that famous six off Saqlain Mushtaq, has fancied himself against the off spinners and here, that mindset saw him fall to a huge -- and ill-judged -- sweep at a Robertson delivery outside off. What he did manage was to get the upper edge, to balloon the ball overhead to Healy.

Rahul Dravid, coming in on Friday afternoon at the fall of Mongia's wicket, had stood firm at one end while his colleagues went in procession, to and from the wicket. Now, seeing number ten walk in, he attempted to get some runs while the getting was good, pulled ferociously at a Warne leg break landing outside leg stump and turning into him, and hit it up from under, instead of rolling the wrists over the shot to keep it down. The result, an aerial essay Robertson, at long on, had no trouble running to his right to hold.

Raju has no pretensions as a batsman. In the fashion made famous by Chandrashekhar, thus, he knelt down, took a healthy swipe in the vague direction of a Robertson delivery, and walked off almost before the ball had curled in to hit off stump.

15 runs added, 5 wickets down, and India had given the opposing spinners eight of their ten wickets. Given, in fact, was pretty much the operative word, for barring Ganguly who got a dodgy LBW decision, the other wickets owed more to thoughtless batting than outstanding bowling.

In the event, India at 257 all out seemed a good 100 short of a winning total on this wicket.

Michael Slater -- unusually circumspect, I wonder if his silly dismissal, flashing at a very wide ball outside off during the one off Test at the Firozeshah Kotla in 1996 is preying on his mind -- seemed rather tentative while Taylor was his usual self, quietly defensive, getting his runs mostly through the trademark flick off the pads.

Harvinder Singh, on debut, bowled a lovely line and length while at the other end, Srinath oscillated between the very good and the very ordinary. The way it looked, Srinath got a shade carried away by the bounce in the wicket, and banged them in when he should have been pitching up and making the batsmen play more often.

Kumble was brought in as early as the 7th over -- a torrid one, to Taylor, the leggie hitting the spots outside the left hander's off stump and making the ball jump head high to the keeper. An over later, he struck, bringing in a flipper on leg and middle, Slater, neither forward nor back, pushed defensively at it and Dravid held a superb reflex catch at short square to have Australia down at 16/1, just before lunch.

Mark Waugh came in ahead of Greg Blewett, the latter having stopped a fierce Dravid pull with his shin earlier in the morning. And from ball one, Mark looked the only batsman who knew what to do with the spinners -- very decisive movements forward or back, playing the ball very late and concentrating on working the ball into the gaps, rather than running the risk of hitting too hard.

Taylor, meanwhile, survived an edge off the first ball of Chauhan's first over, the chance dropping just short of a diving Azhar at slip. And an over later, succumbed to his impatience. Having faced 73 balls for just 12 runs, the Aussie skipper was getting into a bit of a rut when Harvinder Singh was brought back on. Seeing what he thought was a chance to get some runs off the rookie, Taylor went for the cut to a ball too close to off for the shot, and managed only to feather the edge for Mongia to hold low down in front of him.

The very next ball should have produced another wicket -- Harvinder produced a vicious off cutter, short of a length and climbing as it came in. Steve Waugh, taking evasive action, got the ball on the glove for Azhar to take comfortably in slips -- only, umpire George Sharp, unsighted by the fact that the batsman had got his back turned to him while playing the shot, ruled not out.

Raises a rather interesting question -- now that the ICC has permitted umpires to consult the third umpire in cases of catches they are not sure about, I am not sure I understand this reluctance on their part to ask for a second opinion. Ego? A "I know best, I am the guy on the spot" kind of thing? If so, seems a pity -- you dont want a Test turned on its head just because an umpire figures it is infra dig to ask for help.

In the event, Steve Waugh didn't last long -- and the manner of his going was amusing, if anything. Kumble, as always, was bowling straight and fast, and the Oz batsmen appeared to have decided that the best way of handling him was to let it go if it was even fractionally outside off, which in turn would force the bowler to bowl off and middle, giving the batsman the chance of working singles down the leg side. This ball was no different -- straight, fast and on off stump. Only, Steve Waugh for the moment appeared to have lost track of where his stumps were -- he left the ball alone, and looked rather surprised when his off stump went out of kilter.

Ponting, with Mark Waugh, is rated the best player of spin in the Oz lineup. And he looked it too, getting his placements right with ease. With Mark Waugh playing easily, the two put on 38 in even time and looked good to haul the side out of jail, when Venkatapathy Raju produced a beauty, pitching on middle and off, drawing the batsman forward and turning enough to feather the edge to the keeper.

Blewett, coming in at number six, showed no sign of the bang his shin had taken. He does, however, tend to shuffle too far across his stumps, making him a bit of a setup for the LBW. Chauhan spun one in from just outside off, Blewett as per usual shuffled across, took it on the pad and George Sharp gave the decision against the batsman.

Which makes the second time in the game that Sharp has chosen to ignore the 'benefit of the doubt' dictum -- on day one, Saurav Ganguly was the victim, this time round, Blewett got the rough end. The ball struck the pad in front of the stumps, sure. It caught Blewett on the shuffle, certainly. And the batsman didnt offer a stroke, either. One element of doubt, though, was whether the ball was bouncing too high at the time. The Steve Randells of this world would have given the batsman the benefit, but not Sharp.

Mark Waugh had, in course of his innings, become the 11th Australian to cross the 5,000 run mark in Tests. And despite the odd problem with the turning ball, looked good for a century when Raju produced another dream ball, a floater on middle that turned the batsman inside out and took the leading edge, for Saurav Ganguly to hold at silly point. A superb knock, and yet another indication that Mark ranks among the very best in the game today.

Paul Reiffel is no rabbit with the bat -- in fact, it surprises me somewhat that his name is never mentioned when the discussion turns to all-rounders. On the day, he looked assured against the spinners, playing very late -- he obviously reads the turn off the track, rather than out of the bowler's hand. And with Healy for company, Reiffel put up the second best partnership of the Aussie innings before Kumble produced a flipper just short of good length, on middle and leg, Reiffel played it with bat in front of body and Dravid, diving to his left at square leg (the fielder had an outstanding day in that position) took another blinder.

Ian Healy, more perhaps than any other player in the lineup, flies the flag when he is out there playing. Australian sides always have one such -- David Boon, then Mervyn Hughes, now Healy. His methods wouldn't please the aesthete, but they are certainly effective -- the batsman tends to go across to off, and look for runs in his favourite part of the country, the acerage between square leg and mid on. Sweeps, pulls, and chips over the infield are his favourite batting weapons, and all of them were used to good effect in his unconquered innings of 31 -- the best, after Mark's 66.

With him at close was Shane Warne, whose robust, long handle methods have helped add valuable runs to the Oz total when most needed in the past. Two healthy pulls got Warne his two fours, and India's think tank needs to get cracking on prising him, and Healy, out in a hurry if they intend to tighten their grip on this game.

For India, all the bowlers did their bit. Chauhan looked surprisingly relaxed, despite the recent imbroglio centering on his throwing action. And if, after all the brouhaha, he has changed his delivery style one iota, I couldn't spot it -- which only confirms my feeling that the whole thing was just so much sound and fury, of no significance whatsoever. The ICC went overboard naming him and Dharmasena, the Lankans went ahead and played the latter, the Indians after some initial dilly-dallying indicated that one way or the other they wanted him cleared before the Aussie tour began, so a face saving formula appears to have been worked out by all parties concerned. Whether it is fair to the bowler in question to keep questioning his action every now and again, of course, is neither here nor there -- when have the administrators ever bothered about the feelings of players anyway?

One thing though is worth noting. Bobby Simpson said the three umpires who did duty during the series against Lanka had commented adversely on Chauhan's action. One of the trio was Venkatraghavan -- and he was standing at square leg today when Chauhan bowled from the Indian Oil end. Nary a murmur, so if this whole chucking thing comes up again, the bowler will be justified in calling for videos of today's performance and going what the hell!

Kumble, on his comeback, bowled as he usually does. The only noticeable difference is that he doesn't bend at the knee quite as much as he used to of late -- which in turn means he delivers from a greater height, and thus gets the bounce to his flippers that he was missing during the recent lean trot.

Raju was, well, Raju -- economical of action, aggressive in intent, using the floating delivery to keep the batsmen tentative, and varying the quantity of turn to pose all kinds of problems. I have never understood why he is not a permanent member of the side -- and today's display only reinforces that question.

Srinath was fast -- but a shade too prone to try and bounce the batsmen, which is rather silly against an Oz lineup used to handling quality pace bowling. Harvinder, by contrast, bowled intelligently, holding a much fuller line, bringing the ball in off the seam, getting lift off a length when he squared his shoulders and hit the deck, and posing problems to all the batsmen who faced him.

In the event, day three should be interesting. Australia's bid will be to approach, if possible surpass, the Indian total. As for the home side, the ideal would be to bowl out the remaining three wickets first thing in the morning, then bat with more sense than in the first essay to put up a winning second innings total.

So what qualifies as a winner on this track? Given that it is going to turn more as the game goes into days four and five, I would think 300, and you are absolutely safe. Any less, and some diligent batting from the Oz frontliners could see a reversal of the probable result here.

Scoreboard