NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
ARCHIVES

India take the upper hand on day four

India declares at 505/3; Kiwis set 374 to win; 80/1 at close, Spearman batting 30/117, Horne batting 26/126

Till the morning of the fourth day, the best batting performance in the first session had come on day two, when the Kiwis scored 88 off 31 overs before lunch, for the loss of 4 wickets. On day three, India off 31 overs managed a meagre 51.

Day four, however, was a different ball game. Ahead by 171, knowing that they need to declare at least by tea if not sooner, the attitude changed. And with it, the pace of scoring, as both Dravid and Tendulkar, right from the get-go, began going for their shots. The result -- 115 runs off 28 overs in the morning session, for the loss of Dravid. Of these, Dravid added 57 off 87 deliveries faced, Tendulkar 48 off 71 deliveries and Ganguly 6 off 13.

Rahul Dravid this morning came out looking positive, and started off with a series of crisp strokes that quickly brought him his first century on Indian soil after having failed to convert eight previous 50+ scores -- a hoodoo of sorts he must have been glad to break. The Kiwis, meanwhile, must be getting fed up of watching this bloke bat -- the last time these two teams met in a Test, he had a century in each innings, earlier this year, so this makes three in four tries against the Kiwi attack. The Dravid ton came off 254 balls with 12 fours, India at the time being 322/2.

The best way to describe Dravid's innings would be to show the wagonwheel when he had just crossed his century. Dravid, at that point, had scored 17 of his runs in the third man region, 18 to the fine leg area, 16 to the point-cover region, 21 in the square leg-midwicket arc, 17 in the mid off region and 18 to mid on -- as even a distribution of run-scoring shots as you want to see. All the shots were there -- the cut, the square drive, the on and off drives, the pulls when Cairns in particular pitched short, the glides and paddles and checked sweeps especially off Vettori bowling over the wicket outside leg stump.

That last shot proved his undoing, finally, as he played it once too often to a ball that was too full in length, missed, and saw the ball turning in to hit leg stump. Dravid gone for 144/327. India 410/3.

Statistics make interesting reading at times. Dravid's 6th Test century was his first on Indian soil. His career figures, home and away, read thus: At home, played 14 Tests, aggregate 992, highest score 93, average 43.13. Away, played 16 Tests, aggregate 1491, highest 190, average 67.77.

Tendulkar, remarkably subdued by his standards yesterday (I wonder, judging by the way Dravid and Tendulkar played last evening, if the team think tank decided ahead of time to play safe, and ensure that they had wickets in hand going in this morning?), came out looking far more aggressive -- and that showed both in the fact that he was hitting his shots with more power, and also in the increased aggression in his running between wickets. He brought up his 20th Test ton with a dance down the wicket and a power-packed straight drive off Vettori, playing a touch inside out to the line of over the wicket outside leg stump. The century came off 215 deliveries, 12 fours and India at the time were 405/2.

As with Dravid, so with Sachin, the career statistics make interesting reading. Where Dravid is considerably better on foreign pitches as opposed to home grounds, Sachin's stats appear a lot more balanced. Thus: At home, Sachin has played 28 Tests, for an aggregate of 2181, 179 as his highest and 55.92 as his average. Away, Sachin has 41 Tests, 3097 aggregate, 177 as his highest, and 54.33 as his average. 8 hundreds at home including this one, 12 away, reflect the imbalance in the number of Tests played home and away -- and interestingly, his highest scores away and at home are almost identical. And both his averages, home and away, are very close to his overall average of 54.97 -- which speaks of consistency in all conditions.

The story of the Indian second innings is also the story of partnerships -- which is what India lacked in the first innings. On day one, no two batsmen settled down to bat in tandem together for any appreciable length of time. Here, the partnerships have come for every wicket, and the difference is immediately visible on the scoreboard -- 137 for the first wicket, the partnership that really set the tone and erected the platform, 44 for the second during which Dravid settled in and Gandhi moved ahead, and then a partnership of 229 off 79 overs for the third wicket that finally took the game away from the Kiwis.

Ganguly, coming in very close to lunch, found himself in the trap of not being able to attack at once -- and the indecision found him, with the score on 413/3, pat an Astle full toss back to the bowler, a low but by no means difficult chance -- but down she went. And given Ganguly's penchant for playing big shots especially against spin, that is a lapse that could cost the Kiwis dearly in the second session, when India should be looking to really push the pedal to the floor in search of the unbeatable lead.

Fleming had little option but to set a defensive field, rotate his bowlers and hope for the best. Neither spin nor seam, however, worked for the Kiwi captain, who must have felt hamstrung on two counts. One, Chris Cairns was getting nothing out of the wicket, and Shayne O'Connor was positively pedestrian, which meant his only viable seam option was Dion Nash, with support from the steady Astle. And while Vettori did get turn and bounce when he hit the rough, he bowled a totally defensive line coming over the wicket and pitching outside leg stump, which pretty much negated his usefulness when it came to taking wickets -- and getting wickets was the only way Fleming could halt the Indian charge.

With India ahead by 286 and Tednulkar and Ganguly at the crease to be followed by Bharadwaj, the afternoon session will, in all probability, feature a leather hunt for the Kiwis as the Indians really step on it. If the side hasn't declared at tea time, it would be a bit of a pity -- four sessions at the least would be required to bowl the Kiwis out, and after coming back so well into this Test, it would be shoddy thinking if the Indians don't force home the result from having left themselves too little time.

An interesting statistical sidelight in passing -- the highest that any team has made on Indian soil to win a Test was 276. By the West Indies, in Delhi in 1987 -- a win powered by a brilliant century by Viv Richards. And that should give you an idea of what constitutes a winning total in these conditions, and what the Indians need to do in the afternoon session.

From the first over after lunch, there was little doubt about India's intentions -- which obviously was to push the scoring as much as it would go, irrespective of the Kiwi gameplan.

Thus, Daniel Vettori for the most part today bowled the same length and line -- outside of leg from over the wicket -- with the same packed onside field. The difference was that in Ganguly, he was faced by a batsman who loves to go down the track to the spinners; the southpaw's first scoring shot of the afternoon being in fact one of those little dances down the wicket, to pick Vettori up from outside his off stump and deposit him over the straight boundary for a six. Another waltz, later in the over, got him a four over long on, this time hitting with the turn, and the assault was on.

It ended 15 overs and one hour later. India had by then added 87 more runs to the lunch time total, to take its score to 505/3, piling up a lead of 373, with a possible 135 overs of play remaining in the Test -- time enough for the Kiwis to win, if they want to, since the ask is just 3 an over; time enough for the Indians to try and bowl the Kiwis out, too. So, in theory, all three results were possible at the declaration.

Post lunch, it was evident that Ganguly had been nominated to make the big push. When the situation demands, he can hit freely against spin and pace alike and here, he was at his murderous best, getting 58 runs in the afternoon session off just 62 balls faced, to go back undefeated on 64 off 75 with 11 fours and a six. Tendulkar, who for the most part seemed content to give the strike to Ganguly, added 24 runs off 28 balls faced in the same period, and ended up unbeaten on 126/248 with 14 fours.

A noticeable aspect of play, just before declaration, was Kapil Dev bustling around inside the pavilion. He was seen constantly exchanging signals with Tendulkar out in the middle -- his hand gestures indicating that he was checking with his captain how many overs were left before the declaration.

Srinath, at the time, was seen sitting in his shorts, reading a book. As soon as the declaration became imminent, Kapil was seen talking to him -- and moments later, Srinath was back, dressed in his whites. And an instant after Sachin and Ganguly walked into the dressing room after the declaration, Srinath and Prasad were on the ground, with Kapil monitoring as they warmed up.

This is something the Indians often neglect -- to warm up before they begin bowling, with the result that the first over or so are 'looseners'. Interesting, therefore, to see Kapil insisting on getting his bowlers nice and loose before the Kiwi innings began.

Both Srinath and Prasad hit a good line and length right from the outset. Mathew Horne looked positive, as he usually does, but Mathew Bell's confidence against the Indians has always looked a touch low. This innings was no exception, as the batsman played and missed outside off to both opening bowlers.

Srinath finally took out the opener, having him playing down the wrong line to a ball on a good length landing off, and hitting the pads on off and middle, Bell going for 7 off 29 balls faced.

The Kiwis had made 27/1 in 11 overs when tea was called, Horne batting 11/34, and Spearman batting 3/4.

The Indians had 34 overs after tea to try and break through. They didn't.

The bowlers didn't do too much wrong -- it was more a case of the little things. For instance, Kumble got it to fizz and occasionally turn away from the right hander -- but kept pitching that touch too short to find the edge. Joshi got it to jump and turn -- but bowled from just too wide of the stumps to force the batsman to play (it also meant that even if the arm ball hit the batsman on the pad, the chances were good that he wouldn't be given out LBW). Bharadwaj got it to turn dramatically in (on one occasion, almost going through Horne), but pitched a touch too short...

It was one of those days... of too little, too short, too wide...

Interestingly, the Kiwis dug a little hole for themselves and promptly crawled in. Fair enough, they probably, right at the outset, had set their minds on defending their way out of this Test, having given up hopes of a win (which, incidentally, puts them on the back foot for the rest of the series -- if you can't force a win after bowling the opposition out for 83 on the first morning, when will you think yourself able to do it then?). But does drawing a Test necessarily mean sticking your pad at every single ball that comes your way, while the bat remains a useless appendage tucked way behind the pad? So far, they've got away with that -- but all it takes is that one ball that does a bit extra, and given the kind of attacking field (for the spinners, slip, gully, silly point, short square) in place, this mode of survival is fraught with risk.

At close, New Zealand could take heart from surviving the post tea session with no further loss. There are, however, two alarming pointers to what they can expect tomorrow -- in the last ten minutes of play, one ball from Kumble kept so low that it went under Horne's defensive bat, missed the stumps by a whisker and took even the keeper by surprise, rolling right through him and to the fence for four byes. And another, this time from Srinath, kicked hugely off a length and had Spearman hastily gloving it away from his face.

Close of play stats: New Zealand 80/1 in 45 overs, having made in the post tea session 53 off 34 overs for no further loss. Horne batting 26 off 126 deliveries, Spearman batting 30/117. And ninety overs left to go in this match, on the final day.

There is turn, there is uncertain bounce, there are 90 overs to go tomorrow. India's bowlers will have under-performed badly if they let the Kiwis bat through three sessions tomorrow.

Meanwhile, we have been peppering this match report with all kinds of statistics -- here is one more. Kumble, in 27 Tests at home, has taken 144 wickets, with a best of 10-74, and an average of 22.04. In 27 Tests away, he has taken 96 wickets, with a best of 6/53, and an average of 36.83. Make of that what you may.

And just by way of further trivia, India going on to 505/3 in the second innings after being bowled out for 83 makes this the fourth, or fifth, best fightback in the history of cricket. Trivia buffs can have fun trawling through the scorebooks for the other instances.

While watching the game, I got a mail from Harsha Bhogle. The header said it all: 'What's with Martin Crowe?'

Good question -- I'd love to know the answer to that myself.

Crowe, in his column of yesterday, seemed very upset that Sachin Tendulkar had not been given out, LBW, to Dion Nash.

There were two appeals off successive balls. The first doesn't merit discussion -- it was short, it pitched middle and was clearly drifting to leg. The second ball was on line of off, reverse swinging late. Stop there a moment and think of what that means -- especially when taken in conjunction with the fact that when it struck the front pad, the off stump and middle stump were visible, the latter seen above the line of the pad. That would seem to indicate, would it not, that the ball, starting on line of off, had begun its drift to the on side? Taken with the fact that the strike was on the front foot, what is Crowe complaining about? An umpire who, seeing the ball reverse swinging from off to leg, didn't give a decision in Nash's favour?

I can understand the odd gripe about umpiring, though this was hardly as plumb a decision as Crowe made it out to be. In fact, quoting a second opinion, this is what Harsha says in his mail: "I saw the LBW. Looked marginal. Might have been missing leg. Fair decision."

I agree. As, funnily enough, did Danny Morrison, then in the television commentator's box.

But it is not the merit or demerit of the decision that bothers me, as much as the slur, immediately following, on sub-continental umpires. Crowe by innuendo suggests that during a tour of Pakistan, he had some of the Pak batsmen plumb, the decisions were not given, and then the "white coated gentlemen" took him aside and told him that such things were not done on the sub-continent.

I would love to know something -- if an international umpire actually told Crowe that he couldn't give a legit decision, did Crowe, as captain, mention that fact in his tour report? Did he name the umpire? Or is this merely damning by innuendo?

Another question I would love to get an answer to is this: Crowe is, I thought, doing a review of the play as it happened, wearing an expert's hat. As per what he wrote, one would think that the Kiwis were behind the eight ball because of that decision that went in favour of Tendulkar. Wouldn't it be mandatory for the expert to mention that the Kiwis would have been in a much better position if Stephen Fleming had held on to one of the two catches Ramesh offered in succession on the third day? If Astle had held the Devang Gandhi edge? If McMillan from within handshaking distance had hit the stumps with Ramesh about three feet out of his ground? (To continue that tale, Ganguly was dropped before he had scored -- look at the difference his blazing innings did to the fortunes of the game).

And one final point: Was Crowe watching today? Vettori, bowling over the wicket, pitches one outside leg. Dravid raises his bat overhead and pushes his pad at it. Silly point holds the richochet, then the keeper, slips, silly point, and bowler all go up, the catcher actually running down the track towards the umpire ball held high in his hand. What was that appeal about? (There were several LBW appeals, too, for the deliveries pitching outside leg, but why belabour the point?).

It's a bit sad that the Kiwis are going the way of all visiting teams -- airing their 'third world, subcontinent' paranoia for any and no reason.

One final thought -- the umpire is within his rights, and within the laws, to give a batsman out when the ball pitches outside and the batsman is deliberately playing no shot. Crowe was wondering if the LBW rules would be applied fairly when his team batted -- at close on day four, had the umpires really applied that rule, the Kiwis would have lost Spearman, LBW Prasad for two, and Horne, LBW Kumble for 9. And later, LBW Srinath with the score on 67/1.

Both batsmen merely pushed their pads at deliveries just around off, poking their front foot a long way out, taking their bat high and out of line -- on neither occasion did the Indians bother with more than a muted appeal.

Never mind -- Crowe can just look at one ball -- the second of the final over of the day, bowled by Srinath to Spearman, and tell us if the batsman was lucky not to be given out LBW, not offering a shot to one that hit on line of off.

Scorecard: