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

Aussie tail takes a bow

Prem Panicker

As early as day three of the first Test in a three-Test series, cricket fans in India must have got clued in about what it is that makes Australia such a champion side.

Put very simply, Australia wins more than it loses because right down the line, the players don't seem to know when to give up.

When a star-studded batting side loses its first six wickets for 137 -- that too on a wicket that turns and bounces, with three spinners of differing styles at you all the time -- you expect the tail to fold without much of a fuss.

Here, however, the last four wickets end up adding 191 runs and, in the process, not only putting the tourists ahead by 71 runs, but totally negating the early edge the home side got by winning the toss and batting first.

The temptation would be to go, yeah, right, India is always generous that way, lets the tail wag after the head has been lopped off. But to argue that here would be to take away, from the Australian lower order, due credit for enormous fighting abilities. It is also to forget the number of times, in recent memory, that Ian Healy in company of the bowlers has led gritty fightbacks against top quality bowling attacks.

The day looked like going as per the script when Shane Warne left after adding just four to his overnight score of 13, Kumble doing the damage with a delivery that bounced and turned just enough, from off, to take the outer edge of the bat for Tendulkar at slip to tumble to his right and hold well.

And that was the last joy India was to have, till well after lunch, as Ian Healy and debutant Gavin Robertson took the game away from the bowling side with as gritty a display as you want to see on a cricket field.

There were times when the ball beat the bat, there were times when aerial shots fell in no man's land, times when edges fell wide of the sole slip fielder (who alternated between standing too wide or too square -- wide for Chauhan, when logic dictates that outer edges off the offie will be fine, and square for Kumble, when precedent dictates that edges off a leggie tend to take the ball wider). But that is precisely when grit shows clearest, and it showed in the 96 run partnership, a record for the ninth wicket for Australia against India, between the two players.

Healy (90 off 194 deliveries) was magnificient, in line to pace and spin, playing within his limitations and getting runs at every opportunity with strokes at times crude, but always effective. But his true contribution lay in the way he nursed his rookie partner along initially, shepherding Robertson till the latter got his confidence going. Takes a team man to do it, and "team man" is the best descriptor you will ever find for Healy.

Healy figured as the lead player in three vital partnerships -- 37 for the 7th wicket with Reiffel, 28 with Warne for the 8th, and 96 for the 9th with Robertson. Besides the intrinsic value of the runs scored, those partnerships had a psychological impact that will probably be felt in the Australian second innings. Till he got into the act, the Indian spinners had it all their own way -- but thanks to these partnerships, Healy showed that the spinners could be handled, and in the process, helped dampen the spirits of the Indian spin troika, rampant till that stage.

Healy finally fell playing his pet sweep shot at a Raju delivery bowled from over the wicket into the rough outside the right hander's leg stump. The shot selection was none of the best, a short fine leg having been posted just an over ago for just that error -- but it was a brilliant effort by the keeper-batsman, and fully deserved the standing ovation he got from the packed crowd at the M A Chidambaram stadium.

Robertson (57 off 152), whose only other visit to these parts was way back in 1985 as an under-19, did his bit in support, for as long as Healy was around. And once his senior partner left, Robertson took over, guiding Kaprowicz (11 off 53) through a frustrating 31 run last wicket partnership that ended just before tea, when Srinath produced a good awayswinger on off, to feather the edge into Mongia's gloves.

As so often happens to India when the opposing tail wags, there seemed to be a fatalistic edge to the way they played. A sense of just sitting back, waiting for something to happen, for wickets to fall, rather than doing anything to make it happen. Thus, the bowling changes were by rote, the fielders placed deep enough to concede the single, without at the same time being far enough back to at least cut off the odd boundaries.

Most indicative of this lack of imagination was the use -- or lack thereof -- of Harvinder Singh. The rookie bowled well -- overall, even better than his much faster, more experienced partner Srinath -- and deserved more of a bowl than the 11 overs he finally ended up sending down.

It is tempting to dub Kumble's 4 for 103 off 45 as the positive note in the bowling performance -- but to my mind Venkatapathy Raju (32/8/54/3) deserves the palm. Very controlled performance, and his presence lent that variety the Indian bowling has lacked in recent times -- all of which makes his long absence from the eleven even more inexplicable.

The overall stats of the Aussie innings has a couple of points of interest. The Indian total of 257 included 29 fours and two sixes. The Australian effort, 71 runs more than the Indians managed, had only 30 fours and one six. Clearly, much of the Australian success owes to a willingness to look actively for the placements that fetch singles and keep the board ticking over.

The other points relate to partnerships and, through it, to attitude. The various partnerships, from the first wicket to the last, run as follows: 16, 28, 13, 38, 24, 18 (for the first six wickets, featuring the top batsmen) and 37 (Reiffel-Healy), 28 (Healy-Warne), 96 (Healy-Robertson) and 31 (Robertson-Kaprowicz).

Obviously, the Aussie lower order believes in contributing with the bat. Contrast that with the attitude shown by their Indian counterparts -- an airy swing, a miss, a shrug of the shoulders and a smiling walk back to the pavilion. The difference, right there, between a side that wins more than it loses, and one that loses where it should win.

The Indians who, in the morning, must have been looking at building on a first innings lead, ended up coming out for the second knock 71 behind -- mentally, an entirely different ball game. And Mongia and Sidhu, batting well, had wiped out 43 of them when George Sharp struck.

Mark Taylor, finding neither his quicks nor his spinners -- including Warne, who Sidhu clipped for two fours in succession -- particularly effective, brought in Greg Blewett for some gentle medium pacers. (By way of aside, makes you wonder why, in a similar situation, when India needed something to happen, Saurav Ganguly remained on boundary patrol.) Blewett, who is deceptively nippy off the wicket, produced one on middle stump that seamed to leg and jumped at Mongia. The batsman was up on his toes trying to flick it away behind square when the ball clipped the pad above the knee roll, and up went George Sharp's finger.

That was, without mincing matters, a lousy decision. Though the batsman was on the back foot, the ball struck the pad high, the batsman was already on the hop which increases the height, and further, it was seaming away and sure to miss the leg stump.

Sharp's performance in this game is rather difficult to understand. Some, like Steve Randell and the now retired Dicky Bird, are "not out" umpires -- they see a doubt worth giving the batsman the benefit of even when the strike is bang in line with all three stumps, low down on the pad, and on the back foot. But Sharp turns down some good looking shouts, then upholds others that would, by any other umpire, have not merited any reaction.

A consistent policy by an umpire, either in favour of or against LBW appeals, is understandable. But such individualistic idiosyncracy, frankly, leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The gentleman in question first hit the limelight with a series of LBW decisions that took a won game out of New Zealand's hands, against Pakistan, at Sharjah -- and the kind of decision he made today only makes you wonder if cricketing considerations alone motivate his decisions.

Two fours in succession by Sidhu off Warne wiped out the deficit (the batsmen having, earlier, greeted Warne's introduction with two fluent fours on the trot). And further underlined that no matter what the blurb writers may say, this series cannot be defined on the simplistic 'Warne versus Tendulkar' lines. Rather, it is a battle between a master spinner whose record has just the one blot -- that out of his 300-odd victims, less than 30 are of sub-continental batsmen -- and a batting lineup that is not scared to tackle the ace leg spinner. And said lineup, as Sidhu reminded the packed house, has others beside Tendulkar who can bat a bit.

It is already turning into a fascinating contest. One example suffices. With the score on 63, Warne began a fresh over. Ball five was flighted on middle, the bowler getting rather frustrated by Sidhu's pad play whenever he pitched outside leg. Sidhu promptly met the altered line by dancing down and smashing the bowler, with the turn, through cover for four. That prompted the classic Shane Warne drama -- lots of headshaking, a conference with his captain, a wave at keeper Healy. And the next ball was pitched wide of off and short. The ploy was obvious -- Sidhu, it was presumed, would dance down again, miss thanks to the wide line, and Healy would do the rest. Sidhu however second guessed the bowler, stayed put, rocked back and hammered it, this time off the back foot, taking advantage of the shorter length, through the identical gap in the covers. At the start of the next over, when Warne pitched leg, Sidhu rocked back yet again, and pulled for four. Next ball, the flipper, read to perfection and pulled with precision, four more. Next ball, flighted, Sidhu down the wicket, easily up and over, straight back over the bowler's head for a huge six and Sidhu onto 50 for the second time in the game with nine fours and a six.

25 runs in two Warne overs.

And the reason why this phase is described in detail is because it underlines the analysis that Warne is not the threat, here, that he is to batsmen from say England and South Africa to name just two countries against whom he has had much success in recent times. For the first time in a long time, he is up against batsmen who read him not off the wicket, but out of the hand. This earlier reading means that they have more time to for shot selection -- and this negates the impact of the huge turn Warne admittedly gets.

The other danger is that again, the Indian batsmen get runs off him on the leg side. That goes against the traditional mindset of not hitting against the turn, which the batsmen from the countries mentioned above follow. For the bowler, what it means is that he cannot pack one side of the field and choke the run flow, causing frustration which in turn breeds error. Here, Warne is being hit to both off, when he pitches short, and leg when he alters his line to leg or outside, and suddenly, the ace leggie is on the defensive (he was in fact immediately taken off after the Sidhu blitz, and Mark Waugh brought on in his place).

How well he thinks his way through this challenge will hold the key to the course of this series.

At the close Sidhu (55 off 97 with nine fours and a six), at his blistering best particularly against the spinners, and Dravid (18 off 53 with three fours), the cool, composed counterpoint to his partner's belligerence, had taken India to 100/1, 29 ahead in the second essay.

It all holds immense promise for tomorrow. For Australia, the key -- if they want to win, rather than settle for a draw -- lies in bowling India out for a small enough score which they can chase on this track, batting last. Which poses a problem given the way star spinner Warne is being treated on a turning, bouncy wicket. The touring side, of course, can opt to shut the game down, set a defensive field and keep the run flow in check, which automatically ensures a draw.

For India, the options are equally well defined -- either bat steady and let the game meander into a draw, or get positive, go for the runs and put up a lead around the 280, 300 mark by say an hour before close on day four, challenging the visitors to make a go of it on a track that will, by then, be even more spin-friendly than it is now.

And toss into the equation this -- as we speculated on day one, the pitch is taking increasing turn. Again, as pointed out, the pitch is also slowing down a shade, which means the batsmen are finding that fraction more time to adjust to the turn and bounce.

What this means is that the pitch is not going to be a raging turner -- but, rather, a spin-friendly track that, however, gives a chance to a good, technically adept batsman to meet the challenge.

PS: For technical reasons, it is not possible to include the full scoreboard here, do bear with us, it will be updated tomorrow.