Kane Williamson troubled English batsman with some sharp turn which would have left Graeme Swann smiling

If the first day at Lord’s was a poor advert for Test cricket, then the third day was Test cricket at its best. If New Zealand began the day in the ascendency, then James Anderson, continuing his expert display from the second day, and Steven Finn, soon swung it England’s way. The visitors then took early wickets to regain some ground before Joe Root and Jonathan Trott crafted a 123-run partnership that threatened to wrest the game totally away from them; only for Tim Southee, Neil Wagner and Kane Williamson to strike back and leave the game intriguingly poised.

This kind of ebb and flow is the most compelling aspect of the game’s longest form. If T20 provides entertainment that is visceral and elicits celebration that is unbridled, Test cricket’s attraction are the many permutations that can develop over the duration of a game; the intellectual rigour that it demands of those who would study it closely; and the variety of skills and the endurance it engenders in its players.

Most batsmen can throw caution to the wind and swing hard enough and often enough to make 40 off 20 deliveries. But only the master practitioner can confront the most difficult conditions and the canniest bowling to bat for hours and score a hundred. That T20 requires skill is not in question. Chris Gayle, Sunil Narine, Shane Watson and Lasith Malinga are incredibly gifted players; it’s just that the game’s shortest form does not require that they employ their full repertoire.

James Anderson, on the second day and on the third morning, produced 24 overs of the highest class. His delivery to dismiss Bruce Martin is one he probably wished he could have saved for someone more troublesome in the top order and New Zealand were polished off for 207, twenty-five runs behind their opponents. They had therefore failed to fulfil what must have been their plan coming into the third day: to preserve wickets early on, especially that of captain Brendon McCullum, before pushing for a large lead.

Aware of the damage he can wreak, McCullum’s wicket is the one England would have wanted to knock over early and Stuart Broad obliged in the very first over of the day, luring the batsman into a drive outside off that he edged through to the wicketkeeper. It was a serious blow from which the tourists never recovered, though Kane Williamson made a solid 60.

When England’s turn came, New Zealand forced two early breakthroughs and could have possibly done more damage if luck had been on their side. Cook might have edged a delivery from Trent Boult to the wicketkeeper but the umpire turned down the appeal and the hot spot technology showed nothing to overturn the decision. Later on however, “snicko,” not used in DRS, seemed to suggest that the ball had indeed kissed the edge of Cook’s bat. The England captain didn’t capitalise much on his good fortune though, and by the time score reached 36, both openers were back in the pavilion.

Root and Trott then went to work on extinguishing whatever chances the visitors had of gaining a strong foothold. Unlike the first day when their batting was devoid of any positive intent, the batsmen capitalised on the scoring opportunities that were presented to them. Root in particular was very impressive and showed why he is held in such high regard by those who follow his career closely.

But just when the tourists seemed about to lose hope, Tim Southee snaked a delivery that Root might have been late on, between bat and pad and onto the batsman’s stumps. The Kiwis had finally broken through. And they didn’t stop there either: Root was out with the score on 159 and three more were knocked over for just 12 more runs.

By the time stumps were drawn, England were 180/6. New Zealand had forced their way back into the game. The hosts were now 205 runs ahead, already a challenging total considering they only made 207 in their first innings, but at least they were in with a real chance.

One thing that would have made the New Zealanders very concerned was the bowling of Kane Williamson. The part-time off-spinner bowled Trott through the gate with a delivery that turned sharply. He then continued troubling the other batsmen with the kind of turn that would have had Graeme Swann smiling from ear to ear.

The New Zealanders would be well aware then, that the task before them is gargantuan. At this point England should reasonably be the favourites to gain the lead in this series but nothing can be taken for granted. A game that has already undergone a number of twists and turns might still have a few more left. That is the glory of Test cricket.

The English batmen made the NZ bowlers look far better than they actually were

For those making the case that Test cricket is now in its final throes of life, the first day of the England-New Zealand Lord’s Test could be cited as convincing evidence of the same. When play was mercifully stopped after 80 overs the hosts had laboured to 160/4, spectators at the ground, at least those able to stay awake, must have been thankful that the rains which had been threatening for some time finally came down hard enough to stop the play.

In an age when scoring rates hover close to four runs per over, England limped along at less than two for much of the day. Only three boundaries were struck in the morning session – two by Alastair Cook and one by Jonathan Trott. By the time tea came, the count stood at ten, and 16 at day’s end. It would have been understandable if die-hard Test match fans, viewing the action – or inaction rather – on TV, chose to switch to the frenzied scoring of the IPL.

If the English batsmen were to mount a defence for their poor showing, they would probably offer, in mitigation, that the outfield was lush and therefore slow, and so they didn’t get full value for their strokes. There is some merit to that argument, but it still does not explain such pedestrian scoring.

They might further mention that the New Zealand bowling was disciplined and allowed them very few liberties. But while the visitor’s mostly kept a fairly full length and a demanding line, there was clearly a lack of enterprise on the part of the batsmen. Eleven of left-arm spinner Brian Martin’s 23 overs, to make the point, were maidens, despite the fact that a number of his deliveries were too short, or too full, or badly directed, and yet escaped punishment. His economy rate of 1.52 at the end of day one was exceedingly flattering.

Without a doubt, England’s top three batsmen are the dullest in world cricket. Alastair Cook, Nick Compton and Jonathan Trott are all good players, but if you only follow cricket to see attractive batting, you might want to await the arrival of Ian Bell at number four. Even he, however, was infected by the malady of strokelessness that afflicted his compatriots.

England’s inadequate batting on the first day left them vulnerable going into the second, and the visitors capitalized. Trent Boult, Tim Southee and Neil Wagner all found some swing to dismiss the hosts for what should turn out to be an insufficient 232. And though James Anderson tried his best to swing things England’s way, collecting his 300^th test wicket on the way to 3/32, New Zealand would feel that their 153/4 is a position from which they could go places and run up a substantial lead.

Discarded captain Ross Taylor showed the hosts that run-scoring on the Lord’s surface need not have been as painstaking as they made it seem. His rollicking 66 came off only 72 deliveries and he found the boundary 13 times – only three times fewer than England did on the entire first day as they crawled to 160.

Ross Taylor: The only bright spot of the day

Taylor played his favourite cut stroke well, for the most part, and wasn’t diffident in taking the aerial route. The England bowlers fed him enough short balls outside off for him to employ it regularly; but when they pitched it up, they found that his driving through off was even more sublime. Luckily for the hosts, the admirable Anderson was able to nail him LBW, because Taylor seemed intent on taking the game away in a hurry.

As the Test now stands, New Zealand will feel that they have a great opportunity of leaping considerably ahead on the third day. Kane Williams has been resolute for his unbeaten 44, and captain Brendan McCallum is there on one, though, uncharacteristically for him, he has faced all of 17 deliveries. It might be a sign that he intends to bat far into the third day.

If it turns out that New Zealand are able to surge well ahead then the hosts would only have themselves to blame for their woeful first day performance. Still, these are the uncertainties and permutations that make test match cricket the preferred choice of many.

Chris Gayle recently enraptured cricket followers with a record score of 175 in an IPL game against the Pune Warriors. His unbelievable display contained an unheard of 17 sixes and was made off only 66 deliveries. It was followed, not unexpectedly, by innumerable well-deserved accolades and it shows, in part, why the T20 game has attracted the enormous audience that it has.

Seventeen sixes translates to 102 runs and when his tally of 13 fours is added, it means that the big Jamaican scored 154 runs without having to venture from his crease. It was a staggering performance, and was really a case of the T20 game’s foremost exponent playing its most quintessential innings. Cricket’s briefest form is really about sixes: the batsmen try to hit as many as possible, and the bowlers do their best to prevent them from hitting any. That, in a nutshell, is what the T20 game is.

The Test game, on the other hand, allows time for all kinds of story lines to emerge and play out, and all kinds of strategies to be conceptualized, executed and followed to their end. Over the years, there have been many epic battles that could not have been waged on a T20 battlefield. Recall, if you will, VVS Laxman’s 281 at the Eden Gardens in 2001 that turned around his career, the Test match, the series and the trajectory of Indian cricket, heightening confidence and demanding a new level of respect from opponents.

Remember, also, the stirring contests between Allan Donald and Michael Atherton at Trent Bridge in 1998, and between Atherton and Courtney Walsh on a shiny Sabina Park surface in 1994. Or cast your mind back to January 2011 when Sachin Tendulkar withstood everything the rampaging Dale Steyn flung at him to emerge with a triumphant 146, or Michael Clarke’s clinic on the fleet-footed art of counteracting spin in the first Test of the recent India vs Australia series, or Shikhar Dhawan’s forceful and majestic effort in the third.

Tests provide the context for the colossal feats of skill and endurance that have defined the sport. And while there have been grand performances in T20 cricket as well, they have been rather one-dimensional, mostly involving instances of big hitting, which, along with electric fielding and the occasional incisive bowling performance, are largely all the undersized game has to offer.

But if big hitting becomes commonplace, then it is no longer thrilling. The relative rarity of sixes is the reason they exhilarate in the first place. If they now occur every over, will they have the same effect on the audience? On average, there are less than two home runs per game in Major League Baseball in the USA. What if that number were to increase to, say, twenty per game — would it still be the same? Or what if every boxing match was to end by knockout – would knockouts have the same dramatic effect they now do?

Cricket fans are now asked to subject themselves to a daily overdose of two IPL games for almost two months, and a concomitant daily overdose of big hitting and sixes. The crowds lap it up, much like many choose fast food over a balanced meal – it’s a more convenient and exciting option, even if the nutritional value is virtually non-existent. The instant game commands a large following in an instant generation, but the rudiments of the game are far removed from what cricket used to be.

It could be argued that the organizers are, in a way, undermining one of their chief drawing cards in making the competition so interminably protracted. Brevity was always one of the attractive aspects of the four-hour game, but who could blame the fans if they find their interest diminished well before the end of a very lengthy tournament? And is it not possible that the surfeit of games could have a cloying effect on fans?

So, it is that time of year again; the time for the colourful uniforms, the dancing girls, the hard hats, the endless games, the raining sixes, the razzmatazz. In other words, it is time for the IPL. Hard to believe that it has already been a year, but, as they say, time flies when you’re having fun. The longest seven weeks of the year is now upon me, and I will be celebrating on the day of the final game; not with whichever team wins the competition, but I will be celebrating that it is all over – at least until next year.

I know that expressed dislike for the IPL, and the T20 game in general, rankles many, and I know those holding such views are liable to be labeled anachronistic and snobbish. That’s fine. As long as those doing the name-calling don’t mind themselves being called shallow and superficial in return. Furthermore, it is not that I totally dislike the T20 game itself – I have enjoyed watching a few – but its overabundance, for me, is a turn-off.

Apart from the IPL, which seems to be interminably long, there is the Bangladesh Premier League, the Australian Big Bash, the England Premier League, and soon, the Caribbean Premier League. Where will it end? And how will the cricket calendar accommodate all these competitions while maintaining the integrity of international cricket? We sometimes hear calls for the ICC to grant the IPL a window. But how fair would that be to all the other T20 competitions?

Now, as much as I despise the IPL, I welcome the boon it provides for the players, especially those who would not have made an adequate living from cricket otherwise. Being able to make a good living at the IPL circus could also allow players the time and resources needed to improve their game, and might pave the way to international cricket and a more fulfilling career. David Warner, for example, first came to public notice as a T20 and IPL star before opening the batting for Australia in Tests; while West Indies bludgeoner, Kieron Pollard, long a star in the game’s shortest version, is now making serious strides towards a test place.

On the other hand, the T20 game can also be a hindrance to good batsmanship. It might now be an elitist view that Test cricket is the highest form of the game, but those who still think it is must be lamenting the effect of T20 cricket on Test match batting. More and more, we are seeing batsmen engaging in unnecessarily risky behavior. Batsmen no longer limit themselves to advancing down the track to slow bowling; they now do it to pacers as well. And whereas the reverse-sweep was very sparingly used in time gone by, it is now not uncommon to see it attempted in Test matches.

Shikhar Dhawan constructed a stupendous innings in the fourth Test against Australia, but on a few occasions, he came down the wicket to deliveries travelling in excess of 130 KPH. He was also not reluctant to top play the reverse-sweep, and even played strokes that defy description. Dhawan’s forthright method made for an unbelievable debut story, but on other occasions, such eagerness will undoubtedly lead to his downfall.

During the recent Sri Lanka/ Bangladesh Test in Galle, Mohammad Ashraful had a double hundred in sight when he attempted a reverse-sweep from the very first delivery of the day and just barely survived. Forgetting, perhaps, that he was in a Test match, he ran wildly down the pitch a few deliveries later and was stumped… needlessly.

Not that these methods have no place in Test cricket. Employed judiciously, they can be useful and can enliven proceedings. Patience, however, is normally a trait of the good Test match player, and is required during those tough patches of play when the bowling is demanding and the surface unfriendly.

Former Australian captains Ian Chappell and Ricky Ponting have expressed concern that their country’s developing batsmen are being thrust too early into the T20 arena where batting for long periods is a foreign concept. This practice, they fear, does not augur well for the future of Australian batting. The fruits of this practice might be in evidence even now, as shown by the inability to fill the gap left by the resignation of Michael Hussey and Ponting himself.

Yet, whatever the perceived and potential harm that the proliferation of T20 might inflict on the game’s longer forms, it is unlikely that Test cricket will be devoured. They will have to exist side by side. The challenge will be to avoid the traits of one diminishing those of the other. Those of us, however, who are not overly fond of the T20 game, have long realized that it is here to stay. That is fine. We just have to learn to tolerate and even enjoy some aspects of it.

In the days when former international umpire Mervyn Kitchen played for Somerset County, he and teammate Graham Burgess were in the habit of doing pretend commentary while they waited to bat. On one occasion, reports Vivian Richards, then a young batsman making his way, they were in particularly fine form as they described deliveries threatening and often crashing into the upper body of his teammates.

Those were the days when a youthful, quick and mean Andy Roberts roamed the shires under the banner of the Hampshire County Cricket Club, doling out discomfort and pain to helmetless batsmen. On this day he was sending them down like rockets. “Did you see that!” bellowed Kitchen, “it’s the quickest ball I have ever seen in my life. I am not going to get these smashed,” as he removed his false teeth and placed them in his pocket, “I paid too much for them.”

Brian Close, widely regarded as the toughest of characters, was struck a fearful blow under the armpits in that game. Falling “like a stone” according to Viv, he stopped breathing for a while and had to be resuscitated. Ian Botham, teenaged and not yet England’s greatest all-rounder, found himself bereft of a few teeth when one screaming bouncer from the brooding West Indian sent his glove, upheld in an attempt at self-preservation, cannoning onto his face. Unsteady but undaunted, Botham showed his mettle by spitting out the mixture of blood and enamel on the field before composing himself enough to guide his team to an unlikely victory. Next day, much of his time was spent reclined in a dentist’s chair, effecting extensive repairs to a ransacked mouth.

The wounded batsman had the temerity to hook the bustling pacer for six, unaware that the cunning Antiguan was lulling him into complacency before unleashing his quicker, more lethal bouncer. Botham admitted that he fell for the ploy “hook line and sinker,” and was lucky not to have paid a higher price.

Stephen Camacho was not so fortunate.

Roberts first set foot in England in 1972 to attend, along with Viv Richards, The Alf Gover coaching school in South London. Hampshire went to see him, liked what they saw, and signed him for the 1973 season. The West Indies came on tour in the summer of 1974 and during the tour match against Hampshire, Camacho, the bespectacled Guyanese who was expected to open the batting in the Tests, was felled by a Roberts bouncer which he tried to hook. According to the Reuters report, Camacho “was struck just below the eye and left the field with blood pouring from an ugly gash.” The batsman suffered a concussion and had to undergo an operation to repair a fractured cheekbone.

The incident meant that Camacho took no further part in the tour, and though he continued playing for Guyana for a few years he never regained the confidence he had prior to the blow. It also meant that Roberts had forced himself into the awareness of the West Indies selectors at a time when there was a dearth of high quality fast bowlers in the Caribbean. A year later, he was on the Test team.

The Antiguan seemed able to hit batsmen at will. The scorecard of a 2^nd XI game against Gloucestershire at Bristol in the early part of the 1973 season shows that two batsmen retired hurt – both hit by Roberts. At Basingstoke in 1974, England batting great Colin Cowdrey suffered what Viv Richards called a “sickening” blow when he became another victim of Roberts’ faster bouncer. With the batsman falling motionless on the ground, concerned fielders gathered around him. Roberts, it is reported, hardly batted an eye, standing away from the scene, awaiting the removal of one batsman and the arrival of another.

In his autobiography, Viv goes through a list of batsmen who were hurt from deliveries propelled by his countryman’s right arm:

The first time I saw it was when he hit David Hookes in a World Series cricket match and broke his jaw. The Australian Golden Boy was wired up for weeks and couldn’t eat anything solid for a while. I also saw him hit Peter Toohey in Trinidad and broke his nose, and then later he smashed his thumb in the same game; he broke Sadiq Mohammad’s jaw in a Test match in Georgetown and Majid Khan’s cheekbone in county cricket. (Sir Viv, pp. 82-83)

The list is long.

Yet it would be a grave error to think that the unsmiling Antiguan assassin was all about brutality. Fast bowling was his trade, and like it or not, intimidation was a useful tool of his profession. Dennis Lillee, remember, said that whenever he hit a batsman with a bouncer, he wanted it to hurt so bad as to make the batsman reluctant to face him again. The intent is not to maim, it is to urge the batsman towards surrender; to make him give up his wicket without putting up too much of a fight. Roberts valued the efficacy of the short, climbing delivery, but he was as likely to defeat a batsman with skill and smarts as he was with sweltering pace and hostility.

Michael Holding often speaks of the fast bowling lessons taught to him and those who came afterwards by Roberts. It was Roberts’ advice that led to the Jamaican’s first Test wicket in his second game, and he relied on his fast bowling colleague for advice throughout their time together. Those who played with and against Roberts regarded him as a master at plotting, and highly adept at executing the demise of opposing batsmen.

Roberts was the first in a long line of great fast bowlers that came out of the Caribbean in the seventies and eighties like cars off an assembly line. His Test career ended – prematurely in his view – in India in 1983, and if his pace was less extreme at the end, he remained the same uncompromising, unemotional pacer as when he started. “If you hit me for four,” he explained, “what am I going to smile about?”

So, the action now moves to the Feroz Shah Kotla in Delhi for the fourth and final Test of the Border-Gavaskar trophy. The hosts, up 3-0, will have visions of a 4-0 clean sweep in mind, if for no other reason than to avenge the 0-4 humiliation that was dished out to them the last time they grappled Down Under.

The visitors, on the other hand, will be sorely disappointed with their sorry performances. Outplayed in all departments, they never found themselves in a position from which victory seemed feasible in any of the three games. Additionally, the very public airing of their internal difficulties prior to the third Test attracted no end of second-guessing and ridicule, and would not have helped their cause either.

Mohali was supposed to have provided the Australians with their best chance of victory, and though their first innings total of 408 should have allowed them to avoid defeat at the very least, Michael Clarke and his men would not have contemplated the mayhem that was unleashed by debutant Shikhar Dhawan. Nobody could have thought that a man playing his first Test could have totally shredded the Australian bowling, blasting 187 off just 174 deliveries.

“Blasting” actually does him a disservice, for there was nothing belligerent about the way he played. The Australian attack was simply dismembered by a stunning succession of stately strokes. The upright left-hander was a revelation, and his 289-run opening stand with Murali Vijay – who himself stroked a big hundred – made in only 60 overs, catapulted India to a place from where they could press for victory. The Indian innings then fell away, to some degree, but Virat Kohli ensured that the eventual lead, that of 91 runs, was substantial.

But if Dhawan’s onslaught left the Australians limping, Bhuvneshwar Kumar crippled them with an incisive eight-over burst late on the fourth evening with the new ball. The Indian swing merchant quashed the threat of David Warner, Ed Cowan and Steve Smith to leave the visitors dangling at a precarious 75/3 – with the heart of their vulnerable batting exposed. The next day, Jadeja, Ashwin and Ojha pressed home the advantage, in turn further deflating the tourists.

The Delhi Test begins on Friday, and with Dhawan out injured, India will have to press opener Ajinkya Rahane into service.  Australia will also have changes thrust upon them. Mitchell Starc, who triggered something of a collapse in the first innings with two quick wickets with the second new ball, and compiled a very competent 99, will return to Australia for surgery to his ankle. Michael Clarke, with his bad back, is also in danger of missing the game.

But the news for the visitors is not all bad – Shane Watson, one of the disobedient four, having completed his punishment, will be available, while another, fast bowler James Pattinson, will also return. Pattinson was Australia’s best bowler in the first two Tests, and though it was unfortunate that he had to sit out the Mohali Test, he should be fully refreshed for the coming encounter.

The Feroz Shah Kotla has had a storied past. It is the second oldest international cricket venue in India, and the home team has seen more success there than at any other ground in the country. Yet, it has had its problems too. Most notably, the venue was prohibited from hosting international matches for a year when in December 2009 an ODI between India and Sri Lanka was curtailed due to the surface being deemed unfit for play.

There could be some runs to be scored in Delhi. The last two Ranji Trophy games at the venue in November 2012 saw three scores of over 500, with nine batsmen compiling hundreds. If that trend continues, then the Australians might at least have a chance to come away with a draw, which would prevent a 4-0 drubbing.

Fidel Edwards managed to find some reverse swing in Delhi, uprooting the stumps of Rahul Dravid.

Like most other grounds in India, spin has been the weapon of choice at Kotla. Still, the pitch has not been totally unkind to seam bowlers. Seamers have held their own in recent Ranji Trophy games, and though Ashwin and Ojha took 16 of 20 West Indies wickets in the last Test held there in November 2011, there was some reverse swing on offer. Using a ball 46 overs old, Fidel Edwards breached “The Wall” by wickedly snaking a delivery from outside off between bat and pad, uprooting two of his stumps. And though the Indian batsmen were able to withstand the West Indian pacers to successfully chase 275 while losing five wickets in the second innings, the deviation of the ball through the air would have triggered some concern. If the conditions similarly smile on the Australian pacers, then they could cause some jitters and make for a more even contest.

All things considered, however, Australia will have to substantially raise their game to if they are to leave the subcontinent with a victory. Aside from Michael Clarke, who might not make it to Delhi, their batsmen have not shown that they have what it takes to counteract good quality spin in helpful conditions.

The Australian pacers, for the most part, have striven manfully, but the subcontinent environment was unlikely to allow them a huge impact on the series. What the Australians needed to compete against India were high quality spinners, and unlike the recently triumphant England side, that is exactly what they lack. They will have to endure another long five days in Delhi.

Bangladesh’s Mohammad Ashraful raises his bat in celebration after scoring a century against Sri Lanka in Galle on March 10, 2013. (Getty Images)

One drawback with starting off at such lofty heights is that it engenders high expectations; and since consistently performing in such a manner is near impossible, disappointment is bound to come at some point. In Ashraful’s case disappointment came and soon led to frustration as the diminutive batsman often failed to approach the standards he had set in his first Test.

Only rarely did Ashraful again walk with kings. His hundred in an ODI against Australia during a triangular tournament in England in 2005 piloted his team to what was called the biggest ODI upset ever, and reminded fans of his capabilities. As quick on the pull shot as Ponting and as nimble on his feet to the spinners as Lara, his shot-making pedigree was never in doubt. It was his discretion in employing his wide range that was seen as his downfall

The little man plays many an innings that starts with him blooming like a fresh spring flower, with strokes all round the park, only to be cut down prematurely, perishing to some ill-advised attempt at a stirring shot. And while that happens to every batsman, especially one as forthright as Ashraful, it is too much a part of his story for him to be comfortable with.

For someone as talented as he to have amassed only five Test (Galle century not included) and three ODI centuries in his career, now running almost a dozen years, is a travesty. His average of 22.6 in 57 Tests and 22.49 in 171 ODIs is inadequate for a man of his gifts. Instead of being a mainstay in his country’s side, Ashraful’s infrequent success has seen him in and out of a line-up in which he should have easily held down a permanent spot. His has been a career that would satisfy neither the Bangladeshi cricket fan nor Ashraful himself.

But as recently in Galle, during the first Test against Sri Lanka, Ashraful played a mammoth innings of 190 that revived some of the early optimism in the hearts of many of his fans. It was an innings unlike most he had played before. All of the mesmerizing strokes were present, but so too were the focus, patience and discretion that his batting often lacked.

In his first Test in over a year, Ashraful added 267 with his captain, Mushfiqur Rahim, who became the first Bangladeshi batsman to score a double century, and guided Bangladesh to a mammoth 638. Yes, the surface was benign, and seven other batsmen collected hundreds; and no, one good innings does not a turnaround a career, but getting a hundred is never an easy feat, and how many times have we seen him squander such opportunities?

His innings was the longest ever played in his country’s colours. Cricket fans that abhor seeing exquisite talent wasted will grab this last effort and take it as an indication that Ashraful might have finally matured and is now ready to assume his rightful place among the game’s batting elite. He did nothing of note in the following Test, but he was run-out in the first innings and lost his wicket to an exceptional delivery in the second.

Still, before we get carried away let us dwell, for a bit, on how his marathon knock ended. After going to sleep on 189 and with a historical double century beckoning, Ashraful attempted a reverse sweep off the next morning’s very first delivery from Tillerkaratne Dilshan. The confident appeal for a catch to leg slip was rebuffed by the umpire.

But instead of being properly grateful for the close call that should have refocused his mind and tempered his belligerence, Ashraful wildly rushed down the track a few minutes later to Rangana Herath and was caught at slip off an attempt at a shot over cover. It was no way to end such a judicious innings. Hopefully, that kind of decision-making will now become the aberration rather than the norm.

File Photo of Shikhar Dhawan, who scored an impressive century on his Test debut against Australia (Getty Images).

We know, of course, that no one could have foretold or even expected the Delhi left-hander to have played the way he did. But his stroke-play was so divine that there must have been strong evidence of his capabilities long before he was finally selected. No debutant before him had scored a faster Test hundred and there can’t have been many that played with such complete command.

He had me from his first boundary – an exquisite drive through the covers with the follow through halted early, showing the full face of the blade, and with right elbow pointed skyward. He would return to the cover area countless times throughout this remarkable innings, and generally played through the offside in a manner that could scarcely have been bettered by Sourav Ganguly.

Dhawan was so dominant piercing the offside that one wondered if the Australians would not have done themselves a huge favour by trying to force him to score through the leg-side. But the debutant was so impressive; his authority so complete, that any attempt to restrain him might have been futile. He found the gaps with ease and regularity; his balance was outstanding; his footwork certain and graceful. The visitors must have been shocked that a man playing in his first Test could conceive of, much less execute such an outstanding innings. His 50 came at a run-a-ball; his hundred required 85; and his eventual 187 was made off 174 deliveries and contained a stunning 33 fours and two sixes.

It was as if Dhawan decided that he would not be contained under any circumstances. When Clarke removed himself from slip the opener unsheathed the reverse-sweep, going past the newly untenanted area for a boundary. Two consecutive hits down the leg-side, past the keeper with an almost vertical bat defied description, and two former great Test cricketers doing commentary delved deep to come up with an appropriate name for the stroke. They eventually settled on “reverse leg drive.” Or something like that.

Perhaps the most impressive thing about Dhawan’s innings was that he never lifted the ball off the ground until after he was past his century. All of his strokes hugged the turf; few went within the grasp of the fielders, and as he rattled along at a Sehwag-like rate of scoring he must have considered how easy this Test-match-batting-thing is.

Meanwhile, his opening partner Murali Vijay was racking up an impressive innings of his own. He was not as lordly and as assertive as Dhawan, and willingly ceded centre-stage to his junior partner. But the Hyderabad century-maker was untroubled and looked like he could stay in the middle for as long as he wanted. Their partnership was worth 289 before Dhawan fell to a tame catch at silly point off Lyon.

As his career advances, Dhawan will undoubtedly face much stiffer conditions and he will have to grapple with more incisive bowling attacks. If he finds himself not being able to rule the stage the way he on the third day of the Mohali Test against the Australians, he should realize that his batting on the day was close to being of the highest standard possible. If he manages to bat like that again – great. But if he does not, then he should be proud to know that he played one of the best innings that anyone could ever wish to see.

Michael Clarke will not have the services of his vice-captain, Shane Watson.

Captain Michael Clarke has explained that this was not the only infraction. Apparently the management has, for some time now, felt that the players were not living up the the standards, “an Australian cricket team needs to present itself to achieve what we are trying to achieve,” and they felt they had come to a “line-in-the-sand moment.”

But the coach also said that Watson, especially, but also Johnson, had been model professionals who prepared properly and never short-changed the team. He wished, he admitted, that neither man were involved as they were leaders within the team. But under the circumstances, they too had to be punished.

What this means is that two players who had upheld the team’s standards have been sidelined because it was decided that a stand would be taken on this occasion. Never mind the fact that others were more culpable of breaching team protocol, justice would also be visited upon two of the more innocent members of the squad.

Now I’m not saying that team rules should not be followed and assigned duties ignored, but for the management to cite this last incident — one almost everyone classifies as mundane — as the trigger for such drastic action exposes them to derision. Already we see former players and pundits likening the assignment to children doing homework. “It’s not the under 6s, this is Test cricket,” volunteered former Australian Test batsman Mark Waugh. “What’s wrong with Aussie cricket? Didn’t realize you had to do an essay to get selection these days!!!” was former England captain Michael Vaughn’s response. Michael Clarke and the rest of his management team made Australian cricket a laughing stock.

Come to think of it, much of this was totally unnecessary. The Australians’ poor performance on this tour is not difficult to decipher. Indeed, long before the series started, there were quite a number of analysts who predicted how the games would have come to pass.

The Australians are, as a team, ill equipped to compete against India on the dusty pitches of the subcontinent. Had this encounter occurred on Australian soil, then chances are they would have been the ones leading at this point. But the tourists are playing in conditions that diminish their strengths and exacerbate their weaknesses. Their seam attack, which would probably have been too much for India to handle in Perth, was hardly a discomfort in Hyderabad.

Australia has also been hampered by a lack of high quality spinners in their ranks. Whereas the hometown slow bowlers have scythed through their opponents’ batting line-up, their visiting counterparts have managed, in contrast, only a few wickets for a mountain of runs.

With the loss of Mitchell Johnson and James Pattinson, Australia’s pace attack seems bleak.

Save for Michael Clarke, who is a genius at counteracting the turning ball, and whose methods should be patented and preserved for the benefit of coming generations, the tourists are neophytes on such tough surfaces against top class bowlers. Moises Henriques and Matthew Wade have, on occasion, shown they may be up to the task, but the batting, as a whole has been short of what is required.

But to return to the matter at hand, the Australians have now not only removed their best bowler on the tour, they have also removed Mitchell Johnson, who might have thrived on the more seam-friendly Mohali track, and one of their best and most experienced batsmen from consideration for the third Test. Not that these factors should matter in disciplinary matters: punishment should be dispensed without any consideration for a player’s ability. But it should not be done in such a haphazard and puerile manner.

It is now difficult to see, with all the distractions swirling around, how Australia will report to Mohali in a satisfactory frame of mind. It will be difficult for them to get worse than they were in the first two Tests but it is not impossible. Nonetheless, adversity has a way of concentrating the mind and stiffening resolve. Mohali was supposed to provide Australia with the platform from which to launch a serious challenge to India’s dominance. Their fans will be trusting that despite all the problems, they may still be able to mount a strong challenge.

West Indian scholar and cricket historian CLR James had a very high regard for the audacity of Rohan Kanhai’s strokeplay, but he conceded that such audacity sometimes end in distress. If we are going to be thrilled when the star batsman dismembers the opposition’s attack, then we should be forgiving when he fails in the effort.

I recalled the above passage recently when I discovered that Indian opener Virender Sehwag was dropped, justifiably so, from the Test side. The adventurer has performed the job of opening batsman in a manner more belligerent than probably anyone in history. Few batsmen have battered the new ball like he has, and purists looking on saw his approach as heretical.

Virender Sehwag hits one his trademark shots to the boundary

Not that they thought he would last; that is not how Test match batting was done, especially from the top of the order. It was bad enough that he would dare to attempt this high-octane method; that he became so successful, averaging mostly over 50, was to rub salt in the wound.

After all, others before him had tried, with the best of them having only limited success, thus solidifying the view that the role of the opening batsman was to carefully see off the shine before seeking to take the ascendency. Turning common wisdom on its head, Sehwag attacked from the start and never slowed.  A hundred at less than a run-a-ball was commonplace for him, and in 2008 in Chennai, South Africa suffered at his hands to the tune of 319 runs off just 309 deliveries. There was also another rapid triple that rolled over Pakistan in Multan in 2004.

But batting in such a manner has its pitfalls. The daring shot is exhilarating when it comes off, reckless when it doesn’t. A shot is only “bad” when you get out playing it.

The scorching drive through the covers is a thing of beauty when it whistles to the boundary, but insipid when it when it peels off the edge into the grasp of the slip-fielder or miscued into the chest of the man at mid-off.

Somewhat understandably, falling to the big shot at inopportune times can have serious consequences. To cite just one example: Damian Martyn was trying to eke out a painstaking victory in a low-scoring game against South Africa in Sydney in January 1994. He was six from 59 balls, and Australia were 110/8, searching for 117, when he aimed a lavish drive over cover and was caught. Australia then plummeted to defeat by six runs and Martyn, a classically forthright batsman, was made a pariah after that season, never wearing his country’s colours again until he was recalled for ODIs in 1997 and Tests three years later.

Had the shot been successfully executed, sending the ball beyond the boundary, Australia would most likely have won (it would at least have been a tie). Martyn would have been engulfed into the ecstatic embrace of his comrades as he ran to the pavilion, and would have been hailed a hero instead of being ostracized as an outcast.

Followers of the great game should consider their reaction to the batsman who falls while playing forcefully. If you rapturously applaud the rousing shot, you should also be prepared to forgive the rousing attempt that goes awry. The shot that sends the ball into the stands is the same shot that gets the batsman caught on the boundary. Disappointment may be in order but castigation is unnecessary.

As Sehwag ponders how to make his way back into the Indian side, he, and perhaps his trusted advisors, will undoubtedly be dissecting his batting technique. It might be unwise, however, for them to seek to alter his aggressive approach. The fact that he became one of the most successful opening batsmen in history playing the way he does must mean something. Additionally, its value to his team and its entertainment value have been immense. Cricket fans owe him a debt of gratitude.

Australian captain Michael Clarke has a lot of thinking to do.

After fielding a bowling unit that was inadequate to the task in Chennai, they depleted it even further in Hyderabad. Mitchell Starc and Nathan Lyon were removed, and Xavier Doherty, widely reported as inferior to Lyon, and all-rounder Glenn Maxwell — who only the very optimistic expected to be troublesome to the opposition batsmen — were added.

Starc was ineffective in the first Test, but he is probably the best swing bowler in their ranks. And as Bhuvneshwar Kumar showed, a good swing bowler could make merry in such settings. It was reasonably believed that the spin of Doherty would be added to that of Lyon going into the second Test, thus it was surprising that the tourists excluded their principal slow bowler when the time came.

Lyon conceded far too many runs in Chennai, but there were moments, such as when he spun a delivery between Tendulkar’s bat and pad to strike his stumps, that caused the batsmen some worry. It was a mistake to have left him out. Maxwell, the all-rounder whose second vocation is off-spin, collected five wickets in the game, most likely because the Indian batsmen were hunting runs in a hurry.

Nobody should have then been surprised, except perhaps the Aussie tour selectors, that the visitors’ loss at Hyderabad was by a larger margin than it was at Chennai. Walloped by eight wickets while employing four specialist bowlers in the first Test, it was not wise to enter the second with one fewer. A lesson that should have dawned on them as early as the second day, when Cheteshwar Pujara and Murali Vijay bided their time early on and then took full toll as the bowling wilted. This inadequacy will have to be addressed if they are to fare better in the other games.

Yet, with two games to go, and hard-nosed as they are, the visitors would certainly be looking to be in with a chance to tie the series by the time the last Test rolls around. And the news coming out of Mohali might have given them some hope. Word coming from the Punjab Cricket Association Stadium is that the groundsmen have prepared a “competitive” pitch:

The wicket at the PCA ground here will not be of the same character (as it was in Chennai and Hyderabad). The pitch here will be good for both sides. It will not bring out a one-sided result as has happened in the first two matches. We would like to have real good cricket here. (PCA Secretary M P Pandove)

Last time both sides met at the same venue, in October 2010, India won by one wicket, but 25 of 39 wickets were knocked down by pace, and if it turns out that fast bowlers play a similarly influential role this time, then the visitors will definitely be in with a shot.

They might therefore return to where they started, with three pacers and Nathan Lyon, and it might be a good idea for Mitchell Johnson, who captured five wickets in the first innings in the 2010 Mohali Test, to play his first Test on tour.

Australia has only themselves to blame.

Also in Australia’s favour is the fact that captain Michael Clarke has scrapped his stubbornness (on this issue at least) and has decided to move up the order. Australia’s best batsman by some distance, coming in at four or three even, should give him more of a say in the direction of his side’s innings. Especially since he is so skilled in quelling spin; and spin has been India’s weapon of choice, sometimes even from the very start of the innings.

Virender Sehwag has been dropped for the last two Tests and long-standing opening partner Gautam Gambhir had already lost his spot, and so, India will brandish a totally new combination at the top of the order. But it should make little difference, as the opener has not done much with the bat and his slip catching has not been stellar. Also, Murali Vijay showed in Hyderabad that he is an accomplished and elegant player who is well up to the task. Still, India will be hoping this is not the last they see of Sehwag as a Test batsman, because there is probably nobody more capable of demoralizing bowlers than the swashbuckler from Delhi.

As both teams get ready for the third Test, India will try to keep the fire ablaze, while the Australians understand they will surrender the series if they don’t find a way to win. With the pitch promising more assistance to seamers, they will also understand that Mohali is the best chance they have of achieving victory.

The obvious way of resolving this predicament is to prioritize. Not all contests are equal. It’s generally easy, for example, to forego a match between bottom of the table Zimbabwe and Bangladesh in favour of one featuring number one ranked South Africa in combat against England or Australia. There is scarcely a fan who would rather watch Christopher Mpofo trundle down 70 mph half trackers when they could be held spellbound by the hot pace and late away swing of Dale Steyn; or be content with the limited stroke-play of Hamilton Masakadza when they could be entertained by the lordly majesty of Hashim Amla.

Even when there is national or parochial loyalty involved, many fans will still find the more purposeful contests to be more appealing. The ongoing Zimbabwe tour of the West Indies, for instance, appears to be stirring little interest outside of the two nations. A cursory inspection of a variety of cricket blogs reveals sparse coverage, especially when compared to the endless attention that the India-Australia series attracts. While every angle of every play in the Australian tour of India is dissected, you are lucky if you get anything more than the score for the WI-Zimbabwe games.

It is understandable that consumers of cricket news and analysis would be drawn to all the ramifications and plots involved in Australia’s battle in the subcontinent: the technique and tactics their batsmen utilize in trying to cope on dusty, turning tracks; the make-up and potency of their bowling attack; and the emergence of new players tried and tested in totally alien conditions. Now place that side-by-side with the West Indies easily brushing away a team containing quite a number of players who would struggle to make many club sides in Jamaica or Barbados, and it’s clear why the Border-Gavaskar trophy is the series of choice for most people, including myself.

Even a long-standing West Indies supporter such as myself found it difficult to get excited about the Zimbabwe visit. Whatever available time and energy I had to give to the game I felt was better expended on other more compelling contests. To me, the prospect of watching Michael Clarke tap out a deft routine to the turning ball is infinitely more alluring than the prospect of watching Chris Gayle repeatedly launching a second rate attack into the stratosphere. Observing James Pattinson manfully strive to make an impression despite being granted no favours by pace-sapping conditions is more fascinating to me than the prospect of Sunil Narine befuddling inept batsmen or Tino Best terrorizing them.

Despite captain Darren Sammy effusing that his team played like “world champions” and pronouncing how “clinical” their victory in the limited overs games were, I am not convinced that such victories actually mean much. And though cricket is a game that sometimes throws up unexpected and astonishing results or performances, I’d still rather direct my attention elsewhere.

Nevertheless, I have not ignored the games entirely; I actually did view some of the play. And it’s not that I think that the traditional teams should not engage the minnows; I think they should. How else will they improve? It’s just that I prefer to see my home team challenged, and I don’t think Zimbabwe does that.

Having said that, I have to now admit that the Australians – who recently watched their team administer a 4-0 thrashing of the West Indies – might have felt the way I do now, so it’s not that I think the Caribbean side are world-beaters who are too superior to be bothered with the likes of Zimbabwe. All I’m saying is that the encounter just doesn’t really interest me.

The sides will now move to the Test match phase of the tour, and the gulf between the sides should be even more gaping. Faults that can be hidden in the game’s shorter forms are frequently and brutally exposed in its longest and most unforgiving form. Though I will continue to concentrate on the contests I consider more compelling, I will still keep an eye on the others — just in case anything out of the ordinary occurs.

To the commentary team he added the empathetic perspective of someone only recently removed from the heat of battle. During the game batting great Sunil Gavaskar, who played his last Test in 1987, expressed outrage that the forward short leg and other close-in fielders were vigorously appealing for LBW when in no position to do so. Laxman chuckled, explaining that it was a matter of supporting the bowlers, and added, “when you play with someone like Anil Kumble…” The others in the box joined in the laughter. “Now that it has been explained like that,” Gavaskar responded, “I understand.” We all did.

In a way, it was fitting that the ‘very very special’ one made his commentary debut against Australia, because no team was made to suffer under his elegant blade as much. His 88 in his first youth Test against the pace of Brett Lee, Jason Gillespie and Matthew Nicholson in February 1994 gave a hint of what the future had in store. Having never experienced the ball coming at him at such velocity before, he practiced with wet tennis balls and plastic balls between games. In the second Test of the series he reeled off 151* and 77 before signing off with 84 in the last Test.

Making his Test debut in November 1996 the Hyderabad batsman never stepped into full stride until Sydney, 2000. His 167 in the second innings — the next highest score being Ganguly’s 25 — started a love affair with the ground that saw him collecting a further two hundreds there: 178 in 2004 and 109 in 2008 – all of them classics from the top drawer. Talking to Wisden India, he mentions being in the “zone,” that place where sportsmen experience everything in slow motion, for the first time in his career during his first Sydney century. And though he never said it, one imagines it is a place he returned to many times afterwards.

The very, very special one persecuted the Aussies when they visited India as well. In 2001 came the innings of his life at the Eden Gardens, made with his side following on 274 behind. Not only did the innings change the trajectory of his career, it changed the trajectory of Indian cricket, heightening confidence and demanding a new level of respect from opponents. This is how he put it in the aforementioned interview:

“It changed our mindset as a team. It instilled in us the belief that we must never give up. If 167 changed the way I viewed cricket, 281 altered the cricket world’s perception of India…During my career, the team was to be in such situations many times later, including in Adelaide 2003-04. We remembered what happened in Kolkata, and the rest, as they say, is history.”

VVS was such a tormentor to the Australians that former captain Steve Waugh offered that of all the great batsmen that staffed India’s famed line-up in his time, Laxman’s scalp was the most prized. At Mohali in 2010, batting with the tail and a bad back that ruled him out of the next game, he had his last pivotal performance against Australia, bringing his side back almost from oblivion to an unbelievable victory by one wicket.

Now that the great man has taken to the commentary box, those of us that venerated him as the game’s most lordly batsman welcome the opportunity to hear him opine on the game. If he brings even half of the skill and dignity to the commentary box that he did to the middle, then the cricket audience will be well served.

The twin-spin of Ashwin and Ojha could trouble the Aussies.

The Australians scored 380 in the first innings and were cut down for 240 in the second but they would have fared even worse had the Indian bowling attack been more consistent. Ravichandran Ashwin was almost the lone destroyer in the first innings, snaring seven wickets, and though Harbajhan Singh and Ravindra Jadeja were better in the second innings, one cannot help thinking that Pragyan Ojha would have given the Aussies an even more difficult time. And that’s exactly why he should play at Hyderabad.

The question then arises: whom should he replace?

The pacers chosen for India in the first test, Ishant Sharma and Bhuvneshwar Kumar, bowled 33 of the over 202 overs sent down by their side. During the tourists’ second innings the debutant paceman had no reason to even mark out his run and Ishant was required for only three overs.

It would seem reasonable then, to deduce that the hosts could omit one seamer in order to accommodate Ojha. It is clear that the captain regards Ishant as his primary fast bowler and so Bhuvneshwar, if it came to that, is the one who would have to make way. Yet recent history has shown that utilizing four spin bowlers can be tricky, and surely, there is nothing you can do with four spinners that cannot be accomplished with three.

Also, it would be a shame to see one so talented discarded after just one game. The Uttar Pradesh pacer is potentially a spectacular swing bowler who could prove very useful before this series is done. The track at Hyderabad, if you can go by its history, might not be as spiteful from the first day as it was in Chennai, and so fast bowling, while still not expected to dominate proceedings, should play a more important role than in the first Test. Bhuvneshwar should retain his place in the side.

The man who should be asked to stand down is Harbajhan Singh. If it were a case of the selectors wanting to bestow the high honour of 100 Test match appearances on the veteran then that is now done and they can now move on. One of India’s greatest slow bowlers, having marshaled over 400 wickets in his 100 Tests, the off-spinner was not at his best in the first Test and his bowling over the past few seasons indicates a bowler who has been sliding down his once very high perch.

Ojha, on the other hand, formed a telling partnership with Ashwin during visits by the West Indies and New Zealand and was India’s best bowler when they lost to England.

All three slow bowlers chosen ahead of Ojha, R. Ashwin, H. Singh and R. Jadeja, are superior batsmen, but that is not a good enough reason for omitting the bowler displaying the best form leading up to the game – your primary wicket-taker should always be included. One motive given for the preference of off-spin is the proliferation of left-handers in the Australian line-up. According to captain MS Dhoni, “they had lots of left-handers and we assumed the wicket will turn and often it is said the away-going spinner is quite difficult to play.”

This is no doubt true. But there is also another view: on the wearing, spin-friendly surface, probably with some rough outside the left-handers off-stump, the orthodox left-arm twirler, turning the ball in towards the stumps, will force the left-handed batsman to play more frequently than the off-spinner, who would be taking the ball away. And this is not just the view of some obscure opinion peddler; it has the support by none other than the man who is arguably the greatest spinner of all time – Shane Warne.

Yes, India won in Chennai. But in the first innings especially, Ashwin was almost a lone warrior, as Harbajhan and Jadeja were not as penetrative as they would have liked. And though it is impossible to tell whether Ojha would have been more demanding in the circumstances, it is quite legitimate to argue that of all the slow bowlers available to India, he was the most deserving of a bowling spot in the team. He ought to play in Hyderabad.

Australia can’t say they weren’t warned. Long before this 2013 Border/Gavaskar Test series commenced, pundits were pointing out that the visitors needed to be wary of the spin threat. “Trial by spin” was a common refrain. The plans of the hosts were never a secret; cricket strategy – except, perhaps, for the Bodyline series — never really are. Playing in India, opponents know they will be confronted by a battery of spinners on turning pitches and a line of gluttonous batsmen seasoned in such conditions.

Few teams have managed to overcome this searching and unfamiliar examination – you can prepare for a coming hardship but it can still be so unremitting as to overpower you. Of the 133 overs of the Australian first innings, only 30 were bowled by the seamers, and the visiting batsmen never faced an over of pace in their second innings, until Ishant Sharma came on to deliver the 76^th over.

For reasons best known to them, Australia chose to go into a Test match on a surface they knew would turn, against opponents staffed with three slow bowlers, with only one spinner in their eleven, despite having another in the squad. Xavier Doherty did not set the world on fire when he got the opportunity during the 2010/11 Ashes, but if he is good enough to tour, then he has to be good enough to play in some of the friendliest conditions he might encounter in his career. And as former United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld infamously said, “you go to war with the army you have.”

This is not to say that Australia would have won or done better had he played at Chennai. But Mitchell Starc and Peter Siddle took a single wicket between them for 141 runs in the first innings. Doherty could hardly have done any worse.

Last November, England made the egregious error of going into the first Test at Ahmedabad with Graham Swann as the only spinner, leaving Monty Panesar on the sidelines. Chastened by a nine-wicket defeat, they inserted him for the Test at Mumbai and won the game by ten wickets. It is a lesson Australia should make sure they learn. It doesn’t mean they will win the second Test in Hyderabad, but including the left-arm spinner might just improve their chances. It has to be worth a try.

Apart from captain Michael Clarke and all-rounder Moises Henriques, no Australian batsman suggested any kind of longevity at the crease. David Warner scratched out 59 in the first innings but could have fallen to a large number of the 93 balls he eventually faced. Only the very gifted are able to dance to spin bowling’s tune, like Clarke, and only the very confident would dare try, but the other batsmen need to work out a better approach, and Henriques’ less mobile but assertive method might be worth emulating.

The Australians should also consider whether it would not serve the team better for their captain and best batsman to move higher up the order. Clarke currently occupies the number five spot and might understandably be reluctant to move, in view of the mountain of runs he has gathered from that position. But operating from one slot higher, or maybe even from number three for the rest of this series could possibly allow him to have a bigger say in the direction of his side’s innings.

Of course, Australia could do everything suggested here and still lose the remaining three matches. And it will not necessarily be that India has the better team, only that it had the more effective weapons in the prevailing conditions; much like Australia did with their hotter pace on high bouncing surfaces when India last visited. And just like the hosts dished out a 4-0 drubbing then, India will be looking to administer a clean-sweep this time round.

Steve Harmison of England takes the wicket of Tino Best of the West Indies during the Cable and Wireless 1st Test match between West Indies and England at the Sabina Park Cricket Ground, on March 11 2004, in Kingston, Jamaica.

At his best, few fast bowlers could be as devastating as Stephen Harmison. His withering pace and the steep bounce he generated made him as likely as any bowler who ever played to overawe a line of good batsmen. But he was not always at his best. He frequently appeared listless and his radar was often awry; instead of being the match-winner that he could be, he was often the source of frustration for his team and captain.

Renowned as a troublesome traveller, he was the subject of endless conversations in cricket circles: would he overcome the fragility that plagued him and grow into one of the best fast bowlers of his time, or would he remain one of cricket’s great unfulfilled talents? By the time England’s 2003/04 tour of West Indies came round, he had showed his true capabilities only sporadically, with his most notable performance being his 4/33 upon returning for the last Test against South Africa in September 2003 at the AMP Oval, Kennington. Later, his nine wickets against Bangladesh in Dhaka earned him the Man of the Match award, before a back injury laid him low for the rest of that series and for the following encounter with Sri Lanka. Fortunately for England, he regained full fitness in time for the West Indies tour.

I first set eyes on the tall pacer when I watched a day – I don’t remember which – of the tour match against Jamaica. The track seemed lifeless. Hardly a delivery rose over stump height and I remember thinking that if the Test match pitch was similar in nature then the batsmen would not be overly troubled. But then Harmison came on and it seemed a totally different surface. Suddenly, batsmen who were playing deliveries just short of a good length comfortably around stump height, found that they now had to be protecting their ribcage. The 6’5” bowler never took a wicket in the game, but I came away thinking he would be the bowler to watch when the real battle began in a few days.

Only 28 runs separated the teams on first innings of the Test. Opener Devon Smith’s 108 had led the West Indies to 311, and England responded with 339. Chris Gayle and Smith then survived three overs to close the third day with the West Indies on eight and the match intriguingly poised entering Sunday’s fourth day.

For some reason that I don’t now recall – and quite unusual for me – I was a few minutes late getting to the Park that morning. The loud roar while I stood at the turnstiles meant that a batsman had fallen. It was Gayle. He was Harmison’s first victim, caught behind flashing at a delivery he could have ignored. The crowd was disappointed that their Jamaican favourite had gone so early and so needlessly, but did not seem overly perturbed, having some faith in those to follow. Before I was properly seated, however, another wicket fell, Sarwan this time, LBW to Harmison, and by the time Chanderpaul diverted the gangly pacer onto his stumps, the floodgates had truly been blasted open. The West Indies’ then stood at 15/3.

Next it was Lara’s turn, and it was then clear that total capitulation was a real possibility. Surely, one of the greatest batsmen the game had known could beat back the rampaging pacemen and prevent a complete overrun. He had done it before. His 213 on the same ground in 2001 stopped the advance of the marauding Australians and, in company with Jimmy Adams, erected a platform from which Courtney Walsh and Nehemiah Perry wrought an unlikely victory. The West Indian captain was accompanied to the middle by the riffs of Caribbean cricket anthem “Rally round the West Indies” and the stunned crowd was hopeful.

That hope crashed after exactly five deliveries. Matthew Hoggard ran one across the left-hander and had him caught behind.

Meanwhile, the vicissitudes of capitalism was on full display in the stands. Vendors who came amply stocked with supplies expecting – understandably since the game was just half way through – a full day, realized before long that the impending early end would leave them stuck with most of what they had brought, much of it perishable. The result was that prices were tumbling in sync with the West Indian wickets – each wicket had an accompanying price drop.

Spectators too had to make adjustments to accommodate the looming early finish. Many who had come armed with strong liquid refreshments to enliven the proceedings could be seen sharing with their fellow mourners, both as a means of treating dejection, and also to lighten the load they would need to take back home.

All this time, wickets were still going down. First innings centurion Devon Smith was caught and bowled by Matthew Hoggard, who himself was well into a challenging spell.

A snorter from Harmison took care of Ridley Jacobs. Leaping at him from just short of a length, he could do no more than glove it. Nasser Hussain, fielding at short leg, ran to his left and accepted the catch behind the wicket. In the circumstances, it could probably be said that the 15 he scored was a reasonably good innings, especially since it turned out to be top score.

Steve Harmison of England with his Man of the Match award during Day Four of the First Test between West Indies and England at Sabina Park on March 14, 2004

Another screamer would have separated Tino Best from his head had he not removed it from the delivery’s path. But his instinctive jab left his bat in the way for the ball to touch on its way to the keeper. Adam Sanford was then caught by Marcus Trescothick, the first of the six – yes six – slip fielders that were lined up alongside the wicketkeeper. Trescothick was the catcher again to end the massacre when Harmison took Fidel Edwards’ edge for his seventh wicket.

The West Indies innings had collapsed in a heap for 47 and Harmison’s 7 for 12 was the cheapest seven-wicket haul in history. Five batsmen failed to score; only two reached double figures, and all the doubters were convinced, for the moment at least, that Harmison was now the fast bowling force they all thought he could become.

And for a while he was. The New Zealanders tasted his fire soon afterwards with many batsmen feeling the agony of the ball smashing into ribcage or fingers pinned to bat handle. The gangly fast bowler was instrumental in England wresting the Ashes from Australia in 2005, and there was 6/19 and 5/57 against Pakistan at Old Trafford in 2006. But he was still unpredictable; sometimes he was downright horrid, and the match-winning performances became scarcer and scarcer.

His nadir was probably the first delivery of the 2006/07 Ashes series that was collected by Fred Flintoff standing at second slip. A delivery the English press dubbed the worst ball in test history, and a far cry from his incredible performance at Sabina Park, one his then captain called “one of the best spells by an England bowler.”

]]> http://www.sportskeeda.com/2013/02/24/the-day-sabina-was-silenced-steve-harmisons-712/feed/ 0 03597 http://www.sportskeeda.com/2013/02/23/the-balletic-michael-clarke/ http://www.sportskeeda.com/2013/02/23/the-balletic-michael-clarke/#comments Sat, 23 Feb 2013 03:38:50 +0000 Garfield Robinson http://www.sportskeeda.com/?p=1350261

Michael Clarke – playing a true captain’s knock

If there was anyone in the Australian team capable of disrupting India’s plans of suffocation by spin, it had to be Michael Clarke. He plays spin with a freedom and a sure-footedness that is a joy to behold. Brian Lara dominated spin bowling more than almost any other batsman in his time, but even he wasn’t as free on his feet as the Australian captain.

The right-hander from New South Wales was very fortunate to have survived a bat/pad catch when he was on 39. Umpire Dharmasena failed to see the involvement of the batsman’s glove and with no DRS (whose idea was that?) to turn to, Clarke survived to carry on his batting master class.

Alastair Cook came to India last November and led from the front by scoring three hundreds and averaging over 80 in four Tests. On the first day of the Border/Gavaskar series, Michael Clarke showed he could do that and more by the way he pushed back the Indian slow bowlers on a pitch turning from the first day. Cook patiently waited on the bad delivery, taking full toll when it came. He advanced down the pitch on occasion but mostly stayed back and scored from the short delivery. His Australian counterpart, on the other hand, never stayed rooted in one spot. He advanced often, but almost just as often he was back, deep in his crease, sometimes in defence, other times in attack.

This requires a great amount of skill. Batsmen looking on could learn a lot, to be sure, but such play requires a nimbleness of foot and a decisiveness that only a few have the aptitude to execute and the confidence to attempt. Ed Cowan ran down the pitch on about three occasions, once planting Harbhajan Singh straight down the ground for six. But shortly afterwards, he loped past a dipping delivery from Ravichandran Ashwin and was stumped.

At stumps, Clarke was unbeaten on 103, made off 169 balls with 11 fours and a six. He went to the wicket at 126/3 and wasted no time in imposing himself on the proceedings. Employing his breathtaking mobility from the start, the difference between him and the other batsmen were stark. David Warner was lucky to get to 59 before he was struck in front playing back to a full delivery once too often.

Phillip Hughes, Shane Watson and Matthew Wade all fell while playing back, as Ashwin continually challenged the batsmen with flight, dip, turn and variation of pace. At the other end, he had Ravindra Jadeja and Harbhajan Singh on duty. And while Jadeja, especially, was mostly steady, he were not as demanding as Ashwin.

Harbhajan Singh – undeserving of a place in the Indian squad?

India’s best bowler, by some distance, against the Englishmen was Pragyan Ojha, and it was surprising he wasn’t chosen here; a decision the selectors might have already regretted. Perhaps Harbhajan Singh was given the edge because of his previous successes against the Australians; or maybe it was the symbolism of the great off-spinner playing his 100^th Test; maybe it was just his capable batting. Whatever the reason, the decision to play him instead of Ojha is questionable. The off-spinner was not very impressive when he played in the second Test against England at the Wankhede Stadium and did nothing since to suggest he warranted a place. He did nothing on this first day to suggest that place was well deserved.

Australia will resume on the second day at 316/7, having already achieved a score that should make them competitive the rest of the way. Their position was almost totally due to Clarke’s exquisite batting and the support he received from Moises Henriques. The debutant added 151 with Clarke, and though not as fleet-footed as his captain, showed admirable patience, and would have benefitted from the way Clarke was able to upset the bowlers’ plans.

Australia will now try to motor towards 400 and hope for some swing, both conventional and reverse, to put the hosts under pressure. The possibility is that they could go even beyond that if their captain is able to continue his brilliant dance recital.

Will the Indian spinners be able to turn India’s fortunes against an inexperienced Australian side?

In recent days, two Australian fast bowlers were heard pronouncing that fast bowling will play a big part in shaping the result of the coming Australian tour of India. Peter Siddle, Australia’s most experienced pacer, had this to offer in a recent interview: “The way we’ve won Test matches for years now has been with our pace and I think that is going to play a big role.” (ESPN cricinfo)

A few days later, it was James Pattinson’s turn to venture his forecast. Rejoicing in the absence of Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman, the fast bowler nevertheless accepted that the current batting line-up was not bereft of “class.” He would go after them, he promised, with pace and bounce, and was hopeful he would also be able to employ reverse swing. Hopefully, he is aware that conditions in Australia and India are as different as night and day.

Of course, being fast bowlers, it is natural that both men would be resistant to the thought that they may not be hugely effective in a series likely to be contested on tracks not particularly friendly to their trade. Furthermore, since pace will necessarily be Australia’s chief weapon against India, accepting that it will not be central to the outcome of the tour is almost like surrendering before a ball is bowled. A lack of confidence when embarking on a mission means that failure is the much easier and more likely option.

Australia’s chances of success in India are inextricably linked to the efficacy of their fast bowling. Whatever combination is chosen from Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc, Mitchell Johnson, Jackson Bird and Robert Pattinson will need to consistently dismiss India cheaply if the tourists are to be in with a chance. Cheaply because it is very unlikely an inexperienced Australian batting line-up, not known for their expertise against the turning ball, will be able to rack up good scores with any regularity.

Will the Aussie spinners able to take advantage of Indian conditions?

Australia’s main weakness – which will surely prove debilitating – is that they will arrive ill-equipped to do the job required. To use an absurd example: it is much like digging a ditch with a spoon instead of a shovel. The spoon might get it done eventually, but the shovel is much better suited to the task and eats up a lot less time. Unlike England, who were staffed with two high quality slow bowlers, Australia has Nathan Lyon and Xavier Doherty as their main slow men – quite a few rungs below Graeme Swann and Monty Panesar. Ravichandran Ashwin and Pragyan Ojha were upstaged by their English counterparts in the last series. They should have things pretty much their own way this time.

Not that seam and swing will be totally redundant; fast bowling could well have some influence on the outcome of the series. It is possible that Starc and Johnson could be blessed by conditions that enable them to hoop it round corners and knock over the hosts for a low score enough times for the tourists to win. But it is unlikely, given recent history, that that proposition will be a threat throughout, and for all Jimmy Anderson’s skill as a swing bowler, he only made a telling impact at Kolkata during the England visit.

Of the 110 wickets that were collected by bowlers in the Tests against England, only 28 were uprooted by pacers. And while spin may not be as dominant this time round, it is still likely to grab the lion’s share of the wickets to tumble.

With the 4-0 drubbing they received on their last visit Down Under still fairly fresh in their minds, Dhoni and his men will naturally be seeking to repay the Aussies in kind. To expect the Tests to be contested on anything other than turning wickets, which would give a distinct advantage to the home team, would be to push the bounds of charity and sportsmanship a bit too far. Talk all you want about the long-term benefit to India of sporting surfaces – and there are good arguments to be made in support – they want to win now, and turners afford them the best opportunity.

Questions will be answered on and after February 22^nd when hostilities begin. England were able to beat India at their own game in their own home. Australia will have a much more difficult time.

Tough times ahead for the Windies?

Those of us who thought the West Indies would have kept this series close or even gotten the better of Australia, have been sorely disappointed. Not only did the visitors lose – they lost badly; 5-0 in fact, and the games, for the most part, weren’t even close. While it was mostly felt that Australia was the better team, many of us felt that the West Indies had the more incendiary players, capable of bringing the explosive, game-turning performance that would carry them to victory.

We hardly expected them to win by grit and teamwork. They are not really equipped for that; it is not their nature. It was the scintillating innings by power-hitters Chris Gayle, Kieron Pollard or Andre Russell that would do it; or the hat trick by the wily Sunil Narine or the pacy Kemar Roach. Improbable? Maybe. But it was something to hang our hats on.

We should have known better. Hope is not a strategy. Teams are good because they are consistent, not because they totally annihilate opponents one day and then surrender like lambs the next. To say the West Indies needs to get better is to say the West Indies needs to be more dependable. To repose faith in only a few players is to court disappointment time and again. The good team will be the one that cultivates efficient regular performers in every department while still embracing the mercurial talent.

To use an extreme example: it is not for nothing that a side like South Africa is the best in the world. Dale Steyn may be one of the greatest pacers the game has seen, but the fact that he has Vernon Philander and Morne Morkel at the other end, bowlers who are seldom off their game, makes his job a lot easier. And while Jacques Kallis and Hashim Amla are batsmen from the top drawer, Graham Smith, AB De Villiers and Alviro Peterson habitually make important contributions.

The problem with the Caribbean side is that there are hardly any players that can be regularly relied upon. As good as they are, players like Chris Gayle and Kemar Roach are only sporadic performers, and the supporting cast members are even more erratic. The injured Marlon Samuels has been our best batsman of late, and his absence was a huge blow, but the most reliable player available to the West Indies, however, is Shivnarine Chanderpaul, and it probably was a mistake for the selectors to have ignored him for this tour. Looking to the future is fine and understandable, but it is important to compete, and to prevent young players from developing a culture of mediocrity.

Perhaps as depressing as witnessing this clean-sweep for Caribbean fans is the fact that there was hardly anything redeeming coming out of the ODI games. One bright spot was Kieron Pollard’s skilfully constructed hundred in the fourth game. He went in at 17/3 during the eighth over, with the memory of the 70 all-out debacle of Perth still fresh in the mind. Staying till the end, he fashioned the best innings of his career, facing 136 deliveries for his 109*. More batting like that and the selectors will have a hard time denying him a Test spot.

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA – FEBRUARY 08: Kieron Pollard of West Indies celebrates scoring his century during game four of the Commonwealth Bank One Day International Series

Kieran Powell showed just enough to suggest he is still on the way to becoming a proficient opening batsman. Upright and elegant, he was troubled throughout by left arm swing, falling to Mitchell Starc and Mitchell Johnson four out of five times, but he appears to have a wonderful temperament and seems willing to work hard for his runs.

Sunil Narine continues to be an effective limited overs bowler. He has not been as effective in the Test arena, where batsmen are able to exercise more patience. And so, one of his goals going forward should be to rectify that situation.

One major disappointment was the return of Ramnaresh Sarwan. His re-entry was fraught with high expectations by fans who thought he was badly treated by the authorities. His accumulated time at the crease was much too brief for them to assess his true batting form, but it is clear that the swift left-arm swing of Starc was too much for him, and though he might not be scheduled to face anything of that sort in the near future, it is difficult to see him being retained.

One art perfected by the West Indies is that of flattering the opposition’s players by allowing them to look better than they actually are. Not that Australia is a bad team; their pace bowling is fantastic and they have reasonably good batting. But they recently had ODI tournaments against Pakistan, who they beat 2-1, England, who swept them 4-0, and Sri Lanka, who tied with them 2-2, and they didn’t look as unbeatable as they appeared to be against the West Indies. Zimbabwe will shortly arrive in the Caribbean for two Tests, two T20 games and three ODIs. Will they be extended the same benevolence?

Instead of facing champions like Viv Richards, Gordon Greenidge, Clive Lloyd, Michael Holding, Andy Roberts and Joel Garner, opponents could bask in the relative comfort of playing against emerging or aging or mediocre players like Alvin Greenidge, Basil Williams, Sylvester Clarke, Vanburn Holder, Raphick Jumadeen and a young Malcolm Marshall. This was the situation that framed the West Indies’ visit to India for six Tests in 1978-79.

The series itself was fairly pedestrian; five of the six Tests were drawn and India won the series by virtue of a three-wicket victory in the fourth Test at Chepauk, Madras. Gavaskar reveled in the absence of the four pronged pace attack — now up and running in all its malevolent brilliance – to churn out runs in the manner he did in 1971. He ended the series with 732 runs at an average of 91.5 including four hundreds. His 107 and 182* in the third Test was his third occasion scoring hundreds in both innings of a Test – a record. Throughout, he played with the freedom and authority that marked him as one of the best batsmen in the world.

The next time Gavaskar battled the West Indies was in 1982-83 when India toured the Caribbean. By this time the Packer experiment had ended, the differences settled, and the first string players long reinstated. The feared four-pronged was again at full throttle, carrying all before them and leaving trembling and traumatized batting units in their wake. And remembering the battering they received in Jamaica in 1976, Gavaskar and the rest of the batsmen must have been apprehensive coming into the tour.

The first Test in Jamaica ended with an exciting run chase that featured an unbelievable innings by Viv Richards that led to a West Indies victory in the very last over of the game in fading light. The West Indies also won the Barbados Test to take the series 2-0.

Gavaskar was not able to dominate the 1982-83 series like he did the one before. In nine innings he could only gather 240 runs at 30, with his 147 on the placid Bourda track in Guyana being his only hundred.

Gavaskar’s performance on this tour was far below those of his two previous visits. There was talk that his batting might have been affected by the fact that he was recently relieved of the captaincy; there were also disagreements with the new captain, Kapil Dev, who, it is reported, accused him of not directing enough effort to the task of scoring runs.

And then there were those, especially from the West Indies, who felt it was simply that the Little Master had not coped well with the full force of the West Indies pace attack, which he was really facing for the first time.

But there were lesser players, Ravi Shastri for example, who were much more successful, and Gavaskar was the batsman, apart from Amarnath perhaps, best suited to handling such fiery pace.  Maybe, on the other hand, it was nothing more sinister or more mysterious than the Indian run-machine going through a bad patch, like every other player.

The last Test in Antigua ended on May 3, 1983,but the two sides were at it again by late October that same year when the West Indies toured for six Tests. Sandwiched between the two encounters was the ICC World Cup in England, which India won by defeating the West Indies in the finals at Lords.

Unlike their last visit when the Packer affair robbed the team of its best players, this time the West Indies were at full strength. Intent on revenge for their World Cup loss, the West Indies won the series by a comfortable 3-0 margin. Gavaskar, however, was back in some kind of form.

He fell cheaply to a hostile Marshall (0 and 7) in both innings of the first Test in Kanpur, which the West Indies won by an innings and 83 runs. A few days later the teams journeyed to the Feroz Shah Kotla ground in Delhi for the second Test.

Encouraged by a trusted friend to be aggressive, he built a beautiful and belligerent hundred in the first innings. His 121 required only 128 balls, and was adorned with 15 fours and two sixes. It was the kind of carefree knock that few expected from the master technician, and it was especially appreciated by the large crowd because it placed Gavaskar on par with Bradman for the record of the highest number of Test centuries – 29.

His 90 in the next Test at Ahmedabad was also made with aggressive intent. Though the West Indies won this low-scoring encounter, only Jeffrey Dujon’s 98 exceeded Gavaskar’s score, and nobody played with the kind of freedom that he did.

Gavaskar failed again in both innings at the Wankhede Stadium in Bombay (Now Mumbai), and again it was Marshall who was the instigator.

The Eden Gardens, Calcutta was the venue for the fifth Test and a large crowd of about 90,000 raucous fans turned up, hoping to see their hero go past Bradman by his 30^th hundred. They were disappointed. Not only did he get out cheaply both times, but they felt he was overly reckless. Some even went as far as to suggest he was undermining captain Kapil Dev. Incensed, the crowd openly vented their anger, sparing not even his wife, Marshneil, who had missiles thrown in her direction. This was the first installment of Gavaskar’s troubles at Calcutta; troubles that would lead to him refusing to play at the venue a few years later.

The sixth Test in Madras turned out to be Gavaskar’s last Test against the West Indies. His performance in the previous two games probably caused his confidence to dwindle, and he requested to be put in at four instead of his normal opening position. When India’s turn came to bat, however, Marshall immediately sent back Anshuman Gaekwad and Dilip Vengsarkar, and so Gavaskar arrived at the crease without a run on the board. Man it doesn’t matter where you come in to bat, Viv smirked, the score is still zero.

Yet it was India’s great Test batsman who had the last laugh. He signed off from the series, and from battle with his Caribbean adversaries, with a masterful 236*, then the highest score by an Indian. There was controversy along the way. The West Indians failed to acknowledge Gavaskar’s milestones because they claimed that he was clearly out when he gloved a catch to third slip. The batsman insists it came off his arm guard.

But that hardly matters. He was now the sole holder of the record of Test centuries scored and his esteemed place in history was assured. His record against the West Indies was second to none. He saved his best for his Caribbean opponents. In 27 matches he scored 2749 runs with 13 hundreds at an average of 65.45. His overall average is 51.12.

Gavaskar was a master of his craft, possessing a technique and a temperament that allowed him to counter the most fearsome bowling of his time. The West Indies only got the better of him on India’s 1982-83 trip to the Caribbean, and even then there was the 147 he made in Guyana. More often, the dimunitive Indian was a thorn in the West Indies’ side, from their first meeting in 1971, to their last in 1983. As Lord Relator sang, just like a wall, the West Indies just couldn’t out Gavaskar at all.

You can read part of Sunil Gavaskar versus the West Indies here.