NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
ARCHIVES

Kiwis take the honours on day three, Kumble snatches it right back

New Zealand 255 all out; India all out 330 in 148.1 overs, Ramesh 83, Gandhi 88, Dravid 48, Vettori 6/127; New Zealand 17/3 in 14 overs, Kumble 3/6

When the last Indian wicket fell, almost on the stroke of the first hour after tea, with the Indian score standing on 330, leading New Zealand by 74 runs, you had to say that the Kiwis had not only done brilliantly well with the ball and in the field but had, against all odds, actually brought themselves back into a position from where they could win this one given a bit of luck.

And that in itself was a remarkable turnaround, considering that at the end of day two, India looked to be in a position to force the result here.

The turnaround in fortunes makes you think of New Zealand's support team of coach complemented by various types of computer-aided analysts, makes you wonder just how much of a role they had to play in this change in fortunes. Because if one thing was clear on day two, it was that the Kiwi bowlers and skipper were pretty clueless and drifting with the tide -- but on day three, right from the start, everything fell into place with a smooth symmetry that suggested much thought and planning.

On day two, thus, the Kiwis just fell back on blind defence at both ends, spread the field, and sat back while the Indian batsmen capitalised on each lapse of line and length to get the board ticking over with alarming rapidity. And that meant that the Kiwis were falling further behind with each run scored by the Indians, without the prospect of offsetting it with wickets.

Here, on Sunday, a full house at the Green Park, which must have hoped for a continuation of tremendous batting by the Indians, found an entirely different ball game. Right from the get-go, the Kiwis concentrated on bottling up one end, mostly using Nathan Astle and, in shorter bursts, Dion Nash to do that job while they attacked hard at the other end.

That was the perfect formula for this track, and it paid off in spades for Fleming's men. The Indians must at the start of the day have been thinking in terms of continuing the run feast against an attack that remained clueless and posed few terrors. They came out there, however, and found a tight, focussed bowling side backed by a much improved fielding display, on a track where the cracks were crumbling further and making for turn and bounce that was positively alarming at times. Fleming, who yesterday had used his spinners mainly as defensive weapons, today gave them attacking fields right through the day, getting his field placing spot on.

Given this complete turnaround, the Indians found themselves suddenly plunged into a fight -- and were caught mentally unprepared. As the runs dried up and the pressure mounted without any sign of let up, batsman after batsman was lured into elementary error.

Like Gandhi on day two, Ramesh on the morning of day three lost out with a century well within sight. Against Astle bowling over the wicket, Ramesh drove rather too casually for comfort at a ball leaving him late, and edged for Parore behind the stumps and standing right up to take a great reflexive catch.

India were just 42 adrift at that stage, and it seemed the perfect time for Sachin to come in. The Indian skipper in fact started out with two flowing drives through the covers, leading you to suspect that the team's gameplan was to keep pushing the scoring with a view to taking a huge lead by close of play on the day.

If indeed that was the team thinking going into the day, then it contributed to the rather untenable position the Indians found themselves in at close. For the quick runs just weren't forthcoming, and the resulting frustration forced crucial errors in judgement.

The turning point, for me, came when Cairns paired up at the bowling crease with Daniel Vettori. Cairns, for once, forgot about chatting up the batsmen, kept his aggression in check, and focussed single-mindedly on landing the ball on a spot around off stump, to a tight, defensive field. The ploy fetched him four successive maidens while, at the other end, Vettori gave up his defensive, over the wicket outside leg stump line, switched back to around the wicket and, with a slip, silly point and either a gully or a short square up close, began tossing the ball right up to take advantage of the breaking pitch.

The Indian batsmen were handcuffed. Tight. And Tendulkar -- who had suffered the indignity of playing out 25 balls, several of them stroked hard but straight to fielders -- in a bid to break out of jail, went down the track, went through with a lofted shot without getting to the pitch of the ball, and Astle at a widish long off raced around and back to take a very well judged catch.

That was off the last ball of the Vettori over. Off the first ball of the left arm spinner's next over, Ganguly began the long walk back. The left-hander, so lethal against the Kiwi bowlers in the second innings at Mohali, appeared to have lost his concentration for a second there, as he tamely patted a nothing ball on his off stump back to the bowler for a simple and, judging by Vettori's expression, completely unexpected return catch.

The script at start of play had called for Tendulkar and Ganguly to come in with India already ahead of the Kiwis, and push the pedal to the floor. The revised script, courtesy Fleming and his bowlers, had Ganguly walking back with India still 10 runs in arrears, and suddenly staring down the barrel of a high calibre gun.

In the circumstances Dravid, who when he got to 34 lifted his average against the Kiwis to the level 100, and Bharadwaj were reduced to a grim struggle for every single run, while the early successes (the pre-lunch session had produced 42 runs off 28 overs for three wickets) fired the Kiwi bowlers up and had them humming along quite nicely.

One factor that aided the Kiwi bowlers was Fleming's tactical decision to continue with the old ball. On a day of higher humidity than the last two days, the old ball not only afforded turn for the spinners, but plenty of reverse swing for the seamers, and this meant that the Indian batsmen couldn't relax at either end.

Dravid alone looked like he had both the technique, and the application, to bat India out of the hole. However, the pressures of defending against some probing, intelligent left arm spin (one wonders what the match state would have been had Vettori bowled this way on day two), forced the rare mistake when, to a tossed up ball on line of off, Dravid shaped to play forward, then changed his mind and leant back, found himself committed to a defensive push from that indefensible no-man's land and had the ball kick, take his glove and go through for Parore, staying perfectly low and still, to take another fine catch.

An aspect of Parore's keeping today, on a track posing all kinds of problems, was the way he stayed low and still all the time, and the perfectly soft touch he used to collect the ball -- fine technique on a difficult track against good attacking bowling. Dravid, meanwhile, fell just short of 50 -- maintaining his record of having three centuries, but no half centuries, against the Kiwis. And interestingly, India had lost all its front line batsmen at this point, with one run still required to top New Zealand on the first innings.

Bharadwaj and MSK Prasad played with a lot of application, but with an essentially defensive mindset which made it just a matter of time before the mistake came up. Fleming, to his credit, bowled the off spinner, Wiseman, with a slip but, more pertinently, a leg slip, leg gully and short square -- a field the Indians would do well to emulate, since with the ball coming in sharply from outside off, the chances are that the edges will go on the leg side. Bharadwaj flicked at one such delivery that kicked up at him and turned in quickly, and picked out leg slip for a simple catch -- and today, the Kiwis weren't dropping any.

MSK Prasad played with a lot of application, then gave it away by playing the wrong stroke to a harmless delivery. Vettori had drifted one to leg, pitching outside the leg stump, and those watching must have mentally been bracing themselves for the batsman to slam it through midwicket. Prasad, by then locked into a completely defensive mindset, pushed tentatively at it, the turn found the leading edge and silly point got into the act.

Joshi, without quite the same degree of success, played a very Cairns-like innings, refusing to be cowed down, and playing some fine lofted drives and hard-hit sweeps. The more you see this guy bat, the more you are struck by how much he has improved, both in terms of technique and temperament -- these days, he shows a distinct reluctance to give away his wicket without a fight, and India has been looking for that attitude from its bowlers for a while now. A Vettori delivery that pitched a touch shorter than expected foxed Joshi for loop, had the batsman pushing to find the pad onto glove for a catch to short square leg.

Srinath had the right idea when, hemmed in by three close catchers on the on side to the off spin of Wiseman, he tried to push them back a bit with a firm flick. The execution, though, wasn't on par, Srinath playing the shot just that touch too early and ending up guiding it in the air, with the spin, to square leg where Astle lunged forward to take a very low catch.

Anil Kumble attempted to put runs on the board, but found his shots going straight to the fielders. Frustration -- and the fact that last man in, Harbajan, isn't exactly up there in the list of top 20 batsmen -- brought the batsman down the track in a rather ungainly waltz, Vettori beating him easily both for flight and with turn away off the deck for Parore to end the Indian innings with a quick stumping.

India, at start today in a position to really pile on a big lead and probably avoid the need to bat last on this track, found itself ahead by just 74 runs at close of its innings.

The Kiwi performance in the field was commendable -- every bowler appeared to know exactly what he was supposed to be doing, they all bowled to a plan with Vettori in particular being outstanding, and a complete contrast to his bowling on day two (I found myself wondering, as the left arm spinner troubled Indian batsmen weaned on spin and reared on dirt tracks, why Vettori, both in Mohali and here on day two, preferred to bowl defensively when he looked so good the minute he began to attack -- a case of being overawed by the reputation of the Indian batsmen perhaps?), the fielders backed them up to the hilt and overall, the side looked very good, very impressive in the field.

Tendulkar began on an aggressive note -- and quite right, too. With just 74 runs on the board, India's only option was to take out wickets in a hurry -- if the Kiwis can put a target of around 200 on the board, the Indians batting last here will have to contend with a minefield of a track and a bowling side that knows, from today's evidence, that the Indian batsmen are susceptible to pressure when intelligently applied.

Thus, while Srinath was allowed 5 overs -- bowled with a lot of vim, surprisingly so on a track that didn't promise the quick bowler any assistance -- Ganguly was taken off after just one over, and replaced by Kumble.

Joshi then came on to switch ends with Kumble, the two spinners began operating in tandem with four close fielders hemming the batsmen, and the change of ends worked superbly for the Indians. Kumble -- to whom the Indians will be looking to rediscover some of his sting on a track that is cracking an inch at a time -- struck, and hard. Mathew Bell has, in every innings thus far, been Srinath's victim. Here, he seemed so relieved to see the back of the quick bowler, that he swung into a vicious pull against a Kumble flipper -- something his best friends would advise him against on a track where the odd ball keeps low. The predictable happened -- the ball stayed low, the bat flailed wildly way above the line of the ball, the pad was perfectly in line with off and middle and the Kiwis had lost one.

A ball later, they had lost two. Nash, coming out as night watchman, got an absolute horror first up. Kumble tossed one up, the googly, Nash misread it entirely and played for the one to leave him, bat raised high to find the ball curling back in, going past the pad and taking out the leg stump.

That put Kumble on a hat-trick, Joshi bowled a tight, probing maiden, and with seven round the bat, Kumble in the next over got Spearman on the pad first ball but just outside line of off, and the umpire did well to shrug off the pressure of the predictable appeal.

He then got to the other end with a single, but Mathew Horne promptly messed up, big time, in a manner reminiscent of Mathew Bell shouldering arms to Srinath in the first innings at Mohali. Kumble bowled the flipper -- how much of a reader of spin do you have to be to predict that? -- pitching it on a full length on line of off which, on this track, is all he really has to do. Mathew Horne, in a shocking parody of defense, thrust his pad forward, and raised his bat high overhead at the full stretch of his arms. That must rank as the easiest LBW decision an umpire has had to make in recent times. And that lapse in judgement -- was Horne playing for it to turn away from him? -- has not only put the Kiwis into one heck of a hole, it has done exactly what the Indians would have been hoping for -- given Kumble just the boost he needed, and when Kumble gets two, three out early in his bowling spell, he catches fire. India's bowlers have been accused, with good reason, of letting out of form opposing batsmen bat themselves back into prime form -- here, it is the Kiwis who are doing it, with Kumble the happy beneficiary.

At the end of the day, whatever good the Kiwis have done with the ball has been well and truly negated by the batsmen -- and India, much to its own delighted surprise, finds itself right back in the driving seat.

Tailpiece: Today, we are back to my mailbox, and for the edification of our readers, I offer this one -- verbatim, exactly as written:

Dear Mr. Panicker,

I am writing in response to the email from "Narayanan" that you chose to publish at the end of your column after day 2 of the Kanpur test. I am sure that ever since you rebutted Martin Crowe's attack on subcontinental umpires, you must have been quite bothered that by default you had to defend Pakistani umpires as well. So of course, short of taking a dive in the Ganges, the one sure way for you to absolve yourself of this 'unpatriotic sin' and unburden your conscience was to immediately issue a clarification of your stance on this issue through "Narayanan's" email.

Before we get to you Mr. Panicker, lets get to Narayanan's email first as there are some points worth discussing. First of all, let me point out that I am not defending Pakistani umpires for not giving LBWs against Miandad for 10 years in Pakistan because I'm quite convinced that there were more than a handful of occasions when he was well and truly out. However, from this point forward the rest of the 'facts' that "Narayanan" dishes out are bull-shit pure and simple. While the 'half-cock' stance on the face of it may seem a technical drawback, one can also argue that it not only allows the batsman to view the bowler and the delivery better but also restricts the batsman's ability to play across the line, thereby lessening the chance for an LBW. As far as the neutral umpires bit is concerned, Pakistan only had neutral umpires in 2 series (v. WI in 86 and Ind in 89). What's also interesting is that in the 9 innings that he played under neutral umpires in Pakistan, Miandad scored over 400 runs and was out LBW just once. Now I wonder if Narayanan finds that stat about the 'batsman with a half-cock stance' a joke as well. Or even the fact that of his 25 LBWs abroad only one, yes one in all of 24 innings and 979 runs (ave. 46+), occurred on the seaming wickets of England under the eyes of the world's best umpires. Of course, to Narayanan it will be no joking matter that Miandad got 6 LBWs in 11 innings on the 1979 tour to India or even 3 LBWs in 4 innings in Sri Lanka in 1986. After all, on these world-class pitches the demon bowlers of these 2 countries would sort out any half-cock batsman in a jiffy. But no wait, it's only the Pakistani umpires we're allowed to bash and it's only because of them that Indian umpires or anything else Indian would ever get a bad name.

Coming back to you Mr. Panicker, don't you ever feel that as a widely-read journalist you have a certain social responsibility to not increase the tensions that exist between people in these two countries. And you're not even a political journalist for crying out loud. You bash Pakistan at every given opportunity and play upon the emotions of the large proportion of your readers who are more than willing to gobble up any and all gutteral anti-Pakistan tripe that you dish out to them. In your recent column, in what was supposed to be a report on the Ind-NZ test, you absolutely had to go out of your way to make sure you tarnish Pakistan's victory and not even in passing bring up the magnificent bowling efforts of the Pakistan bowlers in not just the final but throughout the tournament. As if that were not enough, I'm sure you must have felt that it was your patriotic duty to make-up for the cardinal sin that you committed a few days ago by defending Pak umpires, and chose to dignify "Narayanan's" hate-filled drivel by endorsing his bullshit as your 'pick of the day' email. I'm sure one of these days you'll get your Bharat-Ratna and whatever it is you scribes compete for, for among other things displaying your mis-placed patriotism by doing your bit to make sure that the anti-Pakistan flame burns in the hearts of your readers forever. But as a sports-journalist, and more importantly as a human-being Mr. Panicker, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. And please, stick to match-reporting in the future because you're way out of your league when you start with your political views.

Wondering if something along these lines ever makes it as Mr. Panicker's 'Pick of the Day',

Mohsin Ansari Yes, Mr Ansari (do note I am addressing you by the name you give, without those rather pointed quote marks you choose to use in Narayanan's case) -- "something like this" does make it to Pick of the Day. Why wouldn't it? If you are not worried about navigating through email waters with foot firmly in mouth, why pray would I be worried about publishing it?

In passing, I wonder -- at the end of the first day's play, I had printed a mail accusing me of every single bias under the sun, both pro and against. Yesterday, it was Narayanan, vide Kumble. Today, there is this.

I can understand extreme reactions from readers -- nothing, not the national debt, not Sonia Gandhi's Italian origins, not even Kargil -- appears to stir passions as easily as cricket does. However, does the printing of these mails indicate that I endorse the views therein? Could it possibly be that readers, tuned in to the high-tech world of the Net, are so abysmally unaware of media policy when it comes to letters to the editor?

If that is the case, then I can sum up the past three days by putting the stamp of my imprimatur on this assessment: I am pro-Tamil, anti-Bengal, venomously anti-Maharashtra, responsible for the birth and popularity of the Shiv Sena (never mind that it has been voted out of office despite facing the opposition of a divided Congress in the state) and, worse, incapable of being a good cricket journalist, a good journalist of any kind in fact, not to mention a lousy, irresponsible human being.

Now then, I wonder if any reader out there can add anything at all to what seems a pretty complete indictment? Or would we need to discontinue this practise, simply because there seems nothing further to do but consign me to the trash-heap without further discussion?

You are, of course, entitled to your own "views" -- oh yes, the use of quotes there is deliberate. I do however join issue with you, Mr Ansari, on just one point -- and that is where you says "I am not even a political journalist for crying out loud". Wouldn't you say that you are kind of infringing on the territory of my Editor -- or even of myself, as Executive Editor of Rediff -- when you decide what I can cover and what I can not? Just wondering, is all...

Scoreboard: