When you are defending to save a game, a loose delivery comes along and you suddenly opt to play an attacking shot, you are unlikely to hit as well as if you were playing your naturally aggressive game all along.
First Pant, then Jaiswal, found that out the costly way, observes Prem Panicker.
MUST WATCH! PREM PANICKER ON THE STUMPS SHOW:
Morning session
After castling Nathan Lyon with his fourth ball of the morning, Jasprit Bumrah just stood there and stared down the length of the pitch with a thousand-yard stare. Washington Sundar was the first to run up and hug him, from behind, in recognition of the five-for, but Bumrah just held that pose, that stare.
Who knows? Maybe he was feeling the strain of every ball he bowled, across a total of 10 spells and 24.4 overs. That is almost one-third of the 83.4 overs bowled in the Australian second innings, and it begs the question: If one bowler is going to be asked to bowl 1/3rd the total number of overs, why do you pick five bowlers?
Bumrah's five-for in Melbourne (and nine for the Test) matches his effort of 5-30 at Perth in the first innings of the first Test. There, he used bowler-friendly conditions brilliantly in one of the all-time great opening spells; here, he defied batting-friendly conditions in a display of sustained brilliance.
Australia 234 all out. The target for India 340, in 92 overs, at around 3.7 runs per over.
Australia would have been the happier team at the change of innings -- thanks to their lower order (and Marnus Labuschagne), the home side had gone from the brink, at 91/6 after 36 overs, to 234 in 83.4. (Four overs later, Jaiswal had dropped Labuschagne at gully off Akash Deep, raising the what-if question in the mind).
The lower order added 143 invaluable runs, and absorbed 47.4 overs. 61 of those runs were scored, and 20 of those overs used up, in a phenomenal last wicket stand between Lyon and Scott Boland, to stave off the very real possibility of a certain India win, and reopen the possibility of all three results.
On a pitch that was still good to bat on -- no cracks, no problematic divots, no threatening roughs outside the off stump at either end -- India needed to set itself little goals, tick off little accomplishments.
I once got to chat with Proteas legend Barry Richards, who in his brief Test career and longer county cricket stint had showcased a phenomenal appetite for big runs, how he planned his way to monumental scores.
I don't think in terms of hundreds, Richards said. When I walk out to bat, I tell myself I am an international batsman, I am good enough to score 10 runs against any attack, in any conditions. Once I get those ten runs I wipe the slate clean, and set my sights on the next ten... and the next ten...
It is a template that India could have adopted here -- think of little sessions, little gains because thinking '340' can be daunting.
The normally free-stroking Yashaswi Jaiswal was pegged down by an incisive opening spell, with Cummins and Mitchell Starc testing both his edges and his pads.
The first 50 deliveries he faced produced a mere 10 runs; more to the point, particularly against Starc, he was beaten repeatedly outside off as he played at deliveries that swung away from him at pace. To his credit, though, he didn't get flustered -- beaten badly, he settled back into his stance and readied for the next one, sublimating his ego and being willing to look ugly in the interests of survival against a quality attack.
Rohit Sharma, who walked out to open alongside Jaiswal -- and how I wish better sense had prevailed and he had sent K L Rahul out instead -- curbed his instincts and concentrated for 39 deliveries.
Pat Cummins suckered him, offering a fuller length ball for the drive after relentless keeping the ball back of length. Rohit went for the head-in-air drive and paid the price. The edge flew to Mitch Marsh, who held a great reflex catch.
It was the shot of a batsman woefully out of form and desperate for runs. Sharma now has 112 runs in 14 of his last 15 Test innings -- surely, he no longer deserves a place in the playing XI even by right of captaincy?
Having started his 7th over with a wicket, Cummins ended it with another. Rahul must be seeing the Australian captain in his nightmares -- in the first innings, Cummins bowled him with an unplayable jaffa; here, the bowler went a bit wide on the crease, angled it in to draw the batsman forward, straightened it off the seam and found the edge to first slip. (India 25/2 in 17 overs).
While celebrating Bumrah, deservedly, spend a moment on Cummins. Badly undercooked in Perth, he has since then been the best bowler for his side in almost every innings. His analysis, when at the end of that double wicket over, was 8-3-8-2 -- as fine a sustained spell of new ball bowling as you want to see.
Starc, who in this Test has bowled superbly without a single wicket to show for it in the first innings, struck almost on the stroke of lunch when he took out Virat Kohli.
Starc angled one across on a fuller length; Kohli played an expansive drive at a ball that was already on fourth stump and swinging further away and nicked to first slip.
India 33 for 3 at lunch, still 307 shy of Australia's total. 65.5 overs left in the day, and the asking rate now close to five runs an over. Jaiswal still standing on a laboured 14 off 83.
A question occurs: Pant was universally slammed for his 'irresponsibility', for playing that falling over scoop in the first innings. Here, Kohli was facing the last over before lunch, with the match in balance and two big wickets already down -- and he chose to play a shot that even cartoonists have been calling out as his weakness.
Who will ask the obvious question, or raise the subject of 'irresponsibility'?
With two sessions left, it's fair to say India will no longer be looking at hunting the target down. That, coupled with the loss of three big wickets, means Australia can continue to set attacking fields in the second session, hunting the win they need to give themselves a chance to regain the Border Gavaskar Trophy.
Post-lunch session
A one line summary of the second session would read: India -- or rather, Jaiswal and Rishabh Pant -- stemmed the rot.
Having spent the morning seeing off the new ball with uncharacteristic patience (he was 14 off 83 at lunch), Jaiswal came out in the second session in a more relaxed frame of mind. Three rasping cuts -- two off Boland, the third off Starc, then a drive on the rise against the latter signaled that the youngster was feeling set, and increasingly comfortable off both front and back foot. The first 20 deliveries after lunch produced 22 runs for the southpaw.
More importantly, perhaps, his confidence was back. When Starc rearranged the bails at the bowler's end, Jaiswal promptly put them back in the original order, and engaged in some animated chatter with the bowler afterwards.
In the next over, Starc beat the bat with yet another beauty -- the 8th time in this innings that the bowler beat a Jaiswal push -- and immediately suggested that Jaiswal might want to change the bails around at his end. All in good spirit, part of the byplays that are so much a part of cricket at the highest level.
On a technical note, I wonder if Jaiswal's habit of walking out to the quicks needs a rethink, a coach's word in his ear, perhaps? Against a Starc bowling at 143k, those walks are reducing even further the time he has to read, and address, the ball; at least in conditions other than the subcontinental, the ploy seems weighted with more risk than reward.
Without in any way looking inhibited by the raging criticism of his first innings dismissal, Rishabh Pant settled down to play percentage cricket. He worked balls around that would have drawn defensive prods from more orthodox batsmen, called clear and loud on the short singles, and settled down to help Jaiswal keep the board ticking over with deceptive ease.
Jaiswal's increasingly fluent stroke play also played a part, helping Pant to take his time to settle in.
When Pant went back and punched Lyon for three to the midwicket boundary Sunil Gavaskar, who a couple of days earlier had suggested that Pant had no business going back to the Indian dressing room after that scoop and that he would be better off in the Australian dressing room, was heard saying, 'This is why Pant is such a good player in all conditions.' Also, immediately thereafter: 'Showing admirable understanding of the situation, Rishabh Pant.'
There was that about the commentary that suggested that Gavaskar had realised he was way over the top in his earlier criticism, and was making amends. Oh well.
From a bowling point of view, the standout feature of the first hour after lunch was Nathan Lyon sussing this pitch out. He slowed his pace down to the early to mid eighties, began tossing it up more, and immediately got bounce and turn, particularly when he landed on length on middle or middle and off, demanding and getting respect even from Pant.
Also noticeable was how the Aussie bowlers and fielders worked the ball, keeping one side shiny -- Akash Deep found reverse late in the day yesterday, and it appears the Aussies were paying attention.
Jaiswal got to his second half century of the Test with a remarkable forcing shot, all touch and timing, off the back foot against Lyon (128 deliveries, seven fours).
The first hour belonged to India, with the two southpaws adding 53 in 14.5 overs and noticeably, the field began to spread; the ball had softened and wasn't bouncing quite as much except when the bowlers banged it in.
In the second hour of the middle session, Australia worked to slow the scoring down and push the asking rate up, with tight lines and a field that blended defence with attack -- there were close-in fielders, but also outfielders blocking the logical scoring areas.
The 100 came up in the 49th over. 71 of those runs were the fruits of the ongoing fourth wicket stand between the two young southpaws.
Australia with an eye on the WTC teamed Travis Head with Nathan Lyon to try and get in some quick overs to compensate for being behind the over rate.
Australia closed out the session with a Marnus Labuschagne over of bumpers. The session closed with India on 112/3 in 29 overs, with Pant on 28 off 93 balls and Jaiswal 63 off 159. The session produced 79 runs in 27.5 overs without a wicket. India still needed 228 runs in a maximum of 32 overs at 6 runs an over.
At the end of 14 sessions of play the game, having swung this way and that across the first four days and 12 sessions, appears to have settled into equipoise. India will likely take this with greater happiness than Australia -- the tourists get to go to the SCG all square, and its grip on the BGT still intact.
Against that, Pat Cummins wanted to wrest the trophy back to, as he told it, seal his legacy -- and if he is to accomplish what he has termed the last box to tick as captain, Australia goes to Sydney in do-or-die mode.
In the final session, I'd expect India to keep batting the way it has in the second session and, probably, open up a bit, just to make a statement, once the game is safely parked.
Australia, for its part, will likely try one last burst with the second new ball, due 26 overs from now. The home side has a potential 12 overs with the new ball -- if no, or few, wickets fall, the two sides will shake hands before the scheduled close.
Post lunch, the crowd was estimated at 66,208 -- on a Monday, on the fifth day of a Test, pushing attendance across the five days to over 365,000. What Test cricket needs is not tweaks but a narrative.
The India-Australia narrative, headlined by standout performers on both sides and enough human frailties to accentuate the drama, is providing just that -- a longform narrative, an extended storyline with plot twists in plenty to pull in the crowds -- in this case, the biggest Test audience seen in Australia since the Bradman era.
Post-lunch session
If Nitish Reddy and Washington Sundar hadn't put together that partnership...
If Jaiswal had taken even one of the three catches that came his way...
If Rohit, Kohli, Pant and eventually, Jaiswal, had been a touch more circumspect...
If another third umpire was officiating -- one who believed technology trumps the evidence of the eyes...
We'll be debating the what-ifs for a long time, as a dramatic Test swung wildly through every session before finally settling in favour of Australia.
Memo to bowlers: If you can't get wickets with excellent deliveries, try a rank long hop.
In the fifth over after tea Travis Head -- in operation alongside Lyon to get through a few quick overs -- bowled just such a rank bad ball.
Rishabh Pant, patience personified until then, went after it and holed out to Mitch Marsh on the long on boundary. On any Indian ground, or even on most international grounds, that would have been six; at the vast MCG, that was the wicket India did not want to lose. (Pant 30 off 104, India 121; the fourth wicket partnership 88 off 197 balls).
Just when you thought the game had settled down into an inevitability, the mood -- and the outlook -- changed again.
Lyon, in his first over after tea, began getting the ball to turn and bounce off length. It's not that the pitch had changed character; just that the ball had gotten older and a touch rougher and began to grip more.
Ravindra Jadeja came out at six, and didn't last. Cummins switched Head out and brought back Boland; in his first over, the burly quick made one stand up off back of length around fourth stump and Jadeja fended it to Alex Carey behind the stumps. (India 127/5, Jadeja 2 off 14).
With half the side in the hut, Cummins had the freedom to go flat out in attack. Lyon bowled to Nitish Reddy with a slip, a gully, and a silly point. Lyon got the bounce he has been missing right through this Test -- and, it needs pointing out, a large part of the reason was that he had slowed his pace down, and begun giving the ball a lot more air -- and caught the edge of Reddy's defensive push on an off stump line. (India 132/6, Reddy 1 off 5 balls).
Three wickets had fallen, for a mere 18 runs, in the first ten overs of the third session and the game had, yet again, swung on its axis. You didn't need eyes to see it -- the constant chatter from the close in fielders surrounding both batsmen would have told you what the state of the game was.
The incessant chatter, the pressure of the situation, the sight of Sam Konstas standing almost on the pitch at silly point, all got to Jaiswal, who played two airy drives at Boland was incredibly lucky to survive. To his credit, he wandered off, gave himself a talking to, and put his head down again. And when Boland overpitched by a fraction in the next over, he eased onto the front foot and drove fluidly through mid off for a four to move into his eighties.
It's a feature of his batting -- for all the occasional lapses into youthful impatience, he steadies himself quickly and, at all times, is hyper alert for scoring opportunities, and clinical in the way he cashes in.
His vigilance ended in unfortunate circumstances that raised questions about the reliance you can place on technology.
Cummins bounced, Jaiswal's patience cracked (the 21 balls leading up to this had produced a mere two runs), he swung into a hook and managed to feather it through to Carey. The on field umpire turned it down; Australia reviewed, and then came the confusion.
The visual evidence was clear -- the ball grazed the maker's label and brushed the glove, but nothing registered on the snickometer. The third umpire, for once, got it right, much as the Indian fan in me wished otherwise -- he ignored faulty technology and went by the visual evidence to give Jaiswal out. (84/208 Jaiswal; India 142/7 and, most importantly, 21 overs still to negotiate by Sundar and the tail.)
It's a thing: When you are defending to save a game, a loose delivery comes along and you suddenly opt to play an attacking shot, you are unlikely to hit as well as if you were playing your naturally aggressive game all along.
First Pant, then Jaiswal, found that out the costly way.
Australia, smelling blood, went into flat out attack mode. Sundar and Akash Deep played out 31 deliveries, before Boland got Deep's inside edge onto pad for the ball to pop up to square leg. Appeal turned down on the ground, referred, and overturned by both visual evidence and snicko. (Deep 7 off 17, India 150/8, 15.5 overs still to go).
At the final drinks break, India's last two wickets were left to survive 15 overs, 12 of them with the second new ball. The light was already fading; the floodlights had been switched on. The course of the game resembled the work of a demented scriptwriter, constantly throwing one more element into the mix.
In the 80th over Steve Smith, the best slip catcher in the Aussie ranks, pulled off a blinder, diving forward to hold the edge a Boland lifter induced from Bumrah's defensive bat. (155/9 India, 13 overs to go, one wicket in hand).
It was a bit odd -- and ultimately, fatal -- that with 8 around the bat and only one fielder out, with acres of space, Sundar had in the previous over opted to defend Lyon's last ball, rather than tap it into the untenanted outfield and take the single that would have kept Bumrah off strike.
With the first ball of the last over with the old ball, Lyon pinned Siraj in front. The batsman referred, not with any great expectations -- Australia had sealed the deal, winning the Melbourne Test by 184 runs.
Over, now, to Sydney -- with Australia now ahead, and India having to fight to square the series and keep the trophy.
© 2025 Rediff.com -