Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Eclipse said:
I could understand if every pitch in the series was like it, but once every 120 years in test cricket is not that bad. Both teams had to play on it.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
**Official** Australia in India Thread
- Thread starter Craig
- Start date
I could understand if every pitch in the series was like it, but once every 120 years in test cricket is not that bad. Both teams had to play on it.
biased indian
International Coach
first thing the pitch was not of the best qualityEclipse said:
but another thing to lok into is a lot of batsmen was out playing bad shots also. in aussie second inngs hayden,gilchrist,katich,clarke all played bad shots
while gillespie and kaspa showed that u can stay their if played u r self in
unfortunetly they were not good enough to score runs as well
Eclipse
International Debutant
I was going to say I hope nobody take's my comment's as a case of soure grapes or what not..marc71178 said:
But I dont see what your point is.. why would we complain about the pitch when we are well ahead in the match ? It does not mean we did not know it was substanderd.
any way what ever the case the pitch was awful it's not even worth debating.
biased indian
International Coach
if i am correct i think some games in england have finished like this (Eng vs WI) only differenceis was that it was not a turnerMister Wright said:
Eclipse
International Debutant
yeah we screwed ourself we should have chased that total and I exept that our batsman played some poor shots..biased indian said:
anyway It was still an awful pitch and if Ponting is asked to comment on it then he can say what ever the hell he wants as far as I care.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
HAURITZ : AN OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENTmavric41 said:
Of the five spinners on view in this test Hauritz was the least impressive (and least effective if you consider the bowling figures). This is not to say that he is not a spinner who will do well in the future for Australia but too much should not be read into his bowling figures for the match on this wicket.
3 for 16 in the first innings with victims being Kumble Harbhajan and Kartik is not something to crow about. Then 2 for 87(43.5 runs each) on a day when the four other spinners on display took 14 for 75 (5.4 runs each !!) all put together should not make Hauritz performance such a 'pretty good effort on debut' as it is being proclaimed.
For me, what stood out even MORE than Clarke's amazing statistics is Hauritz ineffective bowling on a wicket, more helpful than any he is going get again in the near future.
On top of that, on a day when batsmen struggled throughout , he was the only one who was 'hammered'. An economy rate of 66/100 balls (I prefer this since it is on same lines as batsman's strike rate) against 35.5 by all the other spinners put together is amazing.
His bowling, and Laxman and Tendulkar hammering it, is probably the single most important factor yesterday that contributed to the final result. In the vital 91 runs that they put together in 158 balls, they hit hauritz for 58 in 56. Scoring only 33 of 102 balls off all the other bowlers put together.
Mr Wright said yesterday that maybe because of Hauritz shackling Tendulkar he threw away his wicket (sweeping in desperation). Now having seen the entire innings on TV in a repeat telecast, I would say, Hauritz not being able to shackle these two, which any spinner worth his salt should have done on this wicket gave India a whiff of a chance !!
This is not to decry his bowling, I have never seen him bowl before and maybe he is a much better bowler than this but I am just putting the facts and what I saw yesterday in perspective.
People are wondering what Clarke did which resulted in his amazing figures. Let me tell you what .
He bowled a stump line. There was no need to do much else. The wicket was doing the rest. Kumble in the first innings tended to stray quite a bit around the leg stump and thats why he was so expensive (relatively speaking) and thats why, I am sure, Dravid, in the second innings brought on Kartik much before he brought Kumble. He did not have too many runs to play and trusted Kartik to bowl more on the stumps or around off stump which is easier to place fields for and easier for keeper to prevent byes !!
PLUS Clarke bowled flatish which was smart (though it maybe the way he always bowls) and this prevented stepping out to him.
Another fact on this wicket was that with the ball turning square, off spinners became less effective bowling over the wicket. Harbhajan did the smart thing in his specond spel by going around the wicket to the right handed tail enders to pick up both when the match was sliping away.
Left armers bowling on the stumps and moving away were always going to be more difficult to play.
Finally, yesterday, we had a discussion on whether Hauritz got Sachin or Sachin got out himself by sweeping when there was no need, the situation did not warrant and the wicket was totally not the one for it. Last night Laxman got out. It was a very good catch but again the fact is it was a half voley and clearly Laxmans eyes lit up. It was a ball he could have stroked to the fence instead of trying to hit it as hard as he did.
Last edited:
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
HOW BAD ARE SUCH WICKETS
Clearly these are not wickets we need for test matches. No one should even pretend that these are good for the game. No one needs such manufactured excitement.
But having said that, I think it is not the first time such one sided (bowlers' side) wickets have been prepared. It has happened before, it has happened outside the subcontinent and it has hapened in the case of wickets that have favoured other kind of bowlers than spinners. India's last tour of NewZealand is a prime example where every match was played on horrendous wickets and India , since they lost the series, were deemed bad losers. These wickets are bad and should be decried irrespective of which country they are prepared in, who wins the series or even whether or not the match affect the out come of the series. Then, and then alone, will shouting ourselves hoarse on the 'outrageous' nature of the wicket will not be decried by 'the other side' as sour grapes !!
Clearly these are not wickets we need for test matches. No one should even pretend that these are good for the game. No one needs such manufactured excitement.
But having said that, I think it is not the first time such one sided (bowlers' side) wickets have been prepared. It has happened before, it has happened outside the subcontinent and it has hapened in the case of wickets that have favoured other kind of bowlers than spinners. India's last tour of NewZealand is a prime example where every match was played on horrendous wickets and India , since they lost the series, were deemed bad losers. These wickets are bad and should be decried irrespective of which country they are prepared in, who wins the series or even whether or not the match affect the out come of the series. Then, and then alone, will shouting ourselves hoarse on the 'outrageous' nature of the wicket will not be decried by 'the other side' as sour grapes !!
Ok. Let the whining and the hypocrisy begin. All the time when crucial umpiring decisions (the bumbling, biased Bucknor and the off-form Bowden) were going against India, when the Aussies were lucky to win the toss and when the raing rescued them from a sure loss - everyone said the Indians whine.
I suppose the ONLY FAIR wicket is a fast, bouncy wicket that suits Aussies (did you listen to Atherton jump down their throats for the hypocritical walking and appealing) - Did GOD ordain that the standard wicket must be bouncy. Maybe the standard wicket should be a turner and it's the Aussies who have been preparing fast wickets to suit their skills (Lillee's record outside Australia was miserable - look it up).
Oh, this is so much fun watching all the morally superior orators eat crow - starting with the Aussie team themselves. Come on - they were outplayed by a side that showed great heart, applied themselves much better and all those things (you know). Well this series would have ended 2-2 if it hadn't been for the rain.
This is so much fun - come on let's hear all you whiners...one more time !
I suppose the ONLY FAIR wicket is a fast, bouncy wicket that suits Aussies (did you listen to Atherton jump down their throats for the hypocritical walking and appealing) - Did GOD ordain that the standard wicket must be bouncy. Maybe the standard wicket should be a turner and it's the Aussies who have been preparing fast wickets to suit their skills (Lillee's record outside Australia was miserable - look it up).
Oh, this is so much fun watching all the morally superior orators eat crow - starting with the Aussie team themselves. Come on - they were outplayed by a side that showed great heart, applied themselves much better and all those things (you know). Well this series would have ended 2-2 if it hadn't been for the rain.
This is so much fun - come on let's hear all you whiners...one more time !
The famous Allan WHINER Border - couldn't end a pefectlt great article without a whine - well at least these guys have shown their true colors:
'Future of Indian spin in good hands'
By Allan Border
Saturday, 06 November , 2004, 01:29
The fact that 40 wickets fell in about two days of cricket seems to suggest that there was something seriously wrong with the pitch. It also suggests that the wicket posed problems to both sides, of which one came out on top by a narrow margin. I shudder to think of how the pitch would have behaved on the fourth and fifth days.
When Michael Clarke, who does not bowl regularly even in club cricket, leave alone first-class crickets, takes six wickets and concedes only nine runs, it has to be concluded that something was amiss with the strip of land on which the game was played. Without taking anything away from India's fine victory, I have to say that the players of both sides would prefer to play on wickets that would last for five days. I am sure even the spectators would prefer the same. | View Pics |
From the Australian point of view, it was a sad end to what has been a great series that they have deservedly won. Like most low-scoring affairs, the match ended on an interesting and entertaining note.
Laxman and Tendulkar turned the game India’s way with their partnership, the highest of the match. They too had problems with the pitch, but their rich experience of batting in similar conditions proved to be invaluable for their side. I thought both these batsmen played 'unnaturally' in the previous games, in that they seemed to be reluctant to play their strokes. In the second innings, they reverted to their natural, stroke-making ways, and prospered. Though they both fell to the debutant Hauritz, they handled him well and affected his line and length to a certain extent. Their timely return to form would have delighted their teammates. | Video Analysis |
Murali Karthik fully deserved the Man of the Match award. He is skilful, and backs his ability with a sound temperament. I have always been fond of left-arm spinners for obvious reasons, and I believe that we need some more guys like him in international cricket. There are not many left-arm spinners around, as we all know. The future of Indian spin is in good hands. Kumble, I know, will be around for a few more years, but his juniors Harbhajan and Karthik are quite competent. The three Indian spinners shared the wickets and brought their team back into the game after the batting failed yet again in the first innings. In the fourth innings, they exploited the conditions beautifully, bowling a lot quicker and letting the wicket do most of the hard work!
I know that there are some people who might say that the Australian batsmen made it a lot easier for the Indians with some rash shots on the fourth innings, but really, it was a case of having very few options. The batsmen knew that if they continued to push and prod, it was only a matter of time before an unplayable ball came along that sent them back to the pavilion. Hence, they went for the shots, but failed to get the runs. The Indians, who fielded and bowled very well, made things even more difficult for them.
It has been a memorable series for Australia, although they would have liked to finish it on a happier note. Full marks to India for snatching a win in the last Test. It's a pity that one can't say the same thing about the ground authorities though!
'Future of Indian spin in good hands'
By Allan Border
Saturday, 06 November , 2004, 01:29
The fact that 40 wickets fell in about two days of cricket seems to suggest that there was something seriously wrong with the pitch. It also suggests that the wicket posed problems to both sides, of which one came out on top by a narrow margin. I shudder to think of how the pitch would have behaved on the fourth and fifth days.
When Michael Clarke, who does not bowl regularly even in club cricket, leave alone first-class crickets, takes six wickets and concedes only nine runs, it has to be concluded that something was amiss with the strip of land on which the game was played. Without taking anything away from India's fine victory, I have to say that the players of both sides would prefer to play on wickets that would last for five days. I am sure even the spectators would prefer the same. | View Pics |
From the Australian point of view, it was a sad end to what has been a great series that they have deservedly won. Like most low-scoring affairs, the match ended on an interesting and entertaining note.
Laxman and Tendulkar turned the game India’s way with their partnership, the highest of the match. They too had problems with the pitch, but their rich experience of batting in similar conditions proved to be invaluable for their side. I thought both these batsmen played 'unnaturally' in the previous games, in that they seemed to be reluctant to play their strokes. In the second innings, they reverted to their natural, stroke-making ways, and prospered. Though they both fell to the debutant Hauritz, they handled him well and affected his line and length to a certain extent. Their timely return to form would have delighted their teammates. | Video Analysis |
Murali Karthik fully deserved the Man of the Match award. He is skilful, and backs his ability with a sound temperament. I have always been fond of left-arm spinners for obvious reasons, and I believe that we need some more guys like him in international cricket. There are not many left-arm spinners around, as we all know. The future of Indian spin is in good hands. Kumble, I know, will be around for a few more years, but his juniors Harbhajan and Karthik are quite competent. The three Indian spinners shared the wickets and brought their team back into the game after the batting failed yet again in the first innings. In the fourth innings, they exploited the conditions beautifully, bowling a lot quicker and letting the wicket do most of the hard work!
I know that there are some people who might say that the Australian batsmen made it a lot easier for the Indians with some rash shots on the fourth innings, but really, it was a case of having very few options. The batsmen knew that if they continued to push and prod, it was only a matter of time before an unplayable ball came along that sent them back to the pavilion. Hence, they went for the shots, but failed to get the runs. The Indians, who fielded and bowled very well, made things even more difficult for them.
It has been a memorable series for Australia, although they would have liked to finish it on a happier note. Full marks to India for snatching a win in the last Test. It's a pity that one can't say the same thing about the ground authorities though!
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
DID AUSTRALIA LOSE THE TEST ONLY BECAUSE THE WICKET WAS HORRENDOUS ?
I dont think so. Yes, the match ended in two days because it wasa terrible wicket but it might not have ended with Australia as the losing team if their batsmen had not 'assumed' that there was no way to play on this wicket .
Both the measured attack of Sachin and Laxman AND the excellent defense shown by both Dravid and Laxman in countering the sideways movement was a pleasure to watch.
Dravid repeatedly went on to the backfoot and played sharp in coming deliveries, almost good length really, with the middle of the bat towards the lurking shortleg fielders. Inspite of the fielders being so close, Dravid seemed to have no difficulty in still playing the ball so as to play it into the ground. Not drop dead mind you, but just gently stroked away with a bat at about 45 degrees to the ground. Normally this bat angle is commonly seen only when batsmen are playing forward in defense but Dravid employed it in backfoot play (where the bat is normally just marginally short of being perpendicular) and not in dropping the ball dead, which might have been more dangerous but in playing it away towards the shortleg area with the angle ensuring there was no catch. It was remarkable.
Equally fascinating was to see Laxman come forward, with a HUGE stride, not to defend but to stroke the ball away towards short midwicket. Again, he did it with a bat at almost 45 degrees to the ground on many occasions. You dont drive like that. It takes away the timing and the ball awkwardly 'spikes' into the ground. Not in this case, he wasnt driving. He was gently stroking the ball away, just gently pushing it , at times for a single at times for no score but always with no going in the air, not even for a couple of feet. The ball went to ground almost straight from the bat.
I am sure if both of them had tried to drop these balls dead of either feet they would have ben in greater trouble. Of course, they both finally perished but while they stayed , it was a master class and a delight to watch.
Of course, Indians are more used to playing spin but I think the Australians have played spinners enough and done well enough against them to have displayed more confidence than they did yesterday. When Martyn spat on the wicket and another ( I forget who) kicked at it, they were not just showing their unhappiness at the wicket but were also reinforcing, subconciously to themselves , that they could not do anything about it . They just thought they were doomed and a failure on this track really doesnt count since its the wicket to blame and not them.
Bad wickets should clearly not be the norm, nor should a wicket behave like this from the first ball, but one does encounter, and will encounter such a wicket at least in the fourth or fifth day of a test. Surely, world class batsmen are expected to try and master the technique for such exigencies. That is why Gavaskars 95 in his last innings is considered his best ever knock and that is why Hobbs , with his masterly batting on much worse wickets than Wankhede yesterday, was considered THE MASTER !
AUSTRALIA LOST BECAUSE THEY CONVINCED THEMSELVES THAT BATTING ON THIS WICKET WAS PURELY LOTTERY AND BATSMEN COULDNT DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT. HENCE IT WAS NOT WORTH TRYING . THERE IS SOMETHING THE AUSTRALIAN TOP ORDER CAN LEARN FROM GILESPIE !!
I dont think so. Yes, the match ended in two days because it wasa terrible wicket but it might not have ended with Australia as the losing team if their batsmen had not 'assumed' that there was no way to play on this wicket .
Both the measured attack of Sachin and Laxman AND the excellent defense shown by both Dravid and Laxman in countering the sideways movement was a pleasure to watch.
Dravid repeatedly went on to the backfoot and played sharp in coming deliveries, almost good length really, with the middle of the bat towards the lurking shortleg fielders. Inspite of the fielders being so close, Dravid seemed to have no difficulty in still playing the ball so as to play it into the ground. Not drop dead mind you, but just gently stroked away with a bat at about 45 degrees to the ground. Normally this bat angle is commonly seen only when batsmen are playing forward in defense but Dravid employed it in backfoot play (where the bat is normally just marginally short of being perpendicular) and not in dropping the ball dead, which might have been more dangerous but in playing it away towards the shortleg area with the angle ensuring there was no catch. It was remarkable.
Equally fascinating was to see Laxman come forward, with a HUGE stride, not to defend but to stroke the ball away towards short midwicket. Again, he did it with a bat at almost 45 degrees to the ground on many occasions. You dont drive like that. It takes away the timing and the ball awkwardly 'spikes' into the ground. Not in this case, he wasnt driving. He was gently stroking the ball away, just gently pushing it , at times for a single at times for no score but always with no going in the air, not even for a couple of feet. The ball went to ground almost straight from the bat.
I am sure if both of them had tried to drop these balls dead of either feet they would have ben in greater trouble. Of course, they both finally perished but while they stayed , it was a master class and a delight to watch.
Of course, Indians are more used to playing spin but I think the Australians have played spinners enough and done well enough against them to have displayed more confidence than they did yesterday. When Martyn spat on the wicket and another ( I forget who) kicked at it, they were not just showing their unhappiness at the wicket but were also reinforcing, subconciously to themselves , that they could not do anything about it . They just thought they were doomed and a failure on this track really doesnt count since its the wicket to blame and not them.
Bad wickets should clearly not be the norm, nor should a wicket behave like this from the first ball, but one does encounter, and will encounter such a wicket at least in the fourth or fifth day of a test. Surely, world class batsmen are expected to try and master the technique for such exigencies. That is why Gavaskars 95 in his last innings is considered his best ever knock and that is why Hobbs , with his masterly batting on much worse wickets than Wankhede yesterday, was considered THE MASTER !
AUSTRALIA LOST BECAUSE THEY CONVINCED THEMSELVES THAT BATTING ON THIS WICKET WAS PURELY LOTTERY AND BATSMEN COULDNT DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT. HENCE IT WAS NOT WORTH TRYING . THERE IS SOMETHING THE AUSTRALIAN TOP ORDER CAN LEARN FROM GILESPIE !!
Last edited:
Forget it. Let them whine. They are showing their true colors. Aussies were lucky to win because of the rain at Chennai, the toss and some horrible umpiring from Bucknor (the moron) and Bowden. Let's leave it at that and enjoy the, anger of the hypocrites, at the pitch ! They always whine about the pitch EXCEPt when Aussies win. They learnt it from Nasser Hussain, who learnt it from the EnglishMister Wright said:
More WHINING. Mr. Ricky 'I just can't bat in India unless they make a pitch for me' Ponting wants an ICC inquiry. I am sure if the Aussies had won they would have said something like:
"Look mate, we worked very very hard, can't blame upmires or pitch, we prepared for centuries to play spinners, look at Clarke, what a talent and more such self-serving, hypocritical gobbeldgook"...
BUT, the LOST. Let the whining and inquiries begin. Should we have an ICC inquiry into the wicket at Nagpur ? Rain in Chennai...Nah..Look mate, we just play and blah blah.
WELL DONE INDIA !!!!!!!
"Look mate, we worked very very hard, can't blame upmires or pitch, we prepared for centuries to play spinners, look at Clarke, what a talent and more such self-serving, hypocritical gobbeldgook"...
BUT, the LOST. Let the whining and inquiries begin. Should we have an ICC inquiry into the wicket at Nagpur ? Rain in Chennai...Nah..Look mate, we just play and blah blah.
WELL DONE INDIA !!!!!!!
mavric41
State Vice-Captain
I was one of the first to congratulate the Indians on their victory but I'd much rather see 5 days of cricket than 2.JustTool said:Forget it. Let them whine. They are showing their true colors. Aussies were lucky to win because of the rain at Chennai, the toss and some horrible umpiring from Bucknor (the moron) and Bowden. Let's leave it at that and enjoy the, anger of the hypocrites, at the pitch ! They always whine about the pitch EXCEPt when Aussies win. They learnt it from Nasser Hussain, who learnt it from the English
tooextracool
International Coach
small but not impossiblemarc71178 said:
Slow Love™
International Captain
You nailed this completely, and I couldn't agree more.SJS said:
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
RAHUL DRAVID AS CAPTAIN
The best assesment of a captain can be made from how he handles adversity. Secondly, a captain's on field role is mainly, repeat mainly not only, seen in the context of the performance when his side is fieldin. Finally, many successful captains have been , sometimes. under rated since they have been said to be blessed with world class sides. This though debatable at times, does hold good at others.
Rahul has to be seen in the light of all three.
He has led in this series a side which had, as its main strength, a strong batting lineup. This failed in this series , and how. If India were not overwhelmed even more than they have been in this series, it is because India and its bowlers did a helluva good job against the world's best batting side. I have not done a statistical analysis but I am sure that the Australians must rate this as one of their less prolific batting shows in many years which includes previous tours to India. Surely the Indian captain and his handling of his bowlers and fielders must get a lot of credit for that. On top of that, one of the star bowlers of the last year or so, Pathan was sidelined for much of the series. Although I must admit, Zaheer bowled pretty well.
I would also like to believe that the stand in captain had something to do with the decision to play three spinners. For those who may not recall, before Ganguly became captain (and many years after our famed quartet had retired) India did play three spinners in tests. In 15 tests to be exact and won 10 of these 15 tests. The spinners were, Rajesh Chauhan, Venkitpathy Raju and Kumble. The problems with Chauhan's action and the advent of the Ganguly/Wright combination stopped this so-called 'imbalanced' selection policy. As if selecting new ball bowlers who do more for opponents than for their own teams lends balance to the attack !!
Dispensing with all foolish ideas of Tendulkar helping take the shine off the ball (inspite of the hype around how his medium pace made Dravid's batting in the nets 'difficult' on the day before the test) was the first contribution he made as soon as the Australian innings started. Then the use of Murali Karthik in this test and bringing him on in the fourth innings instead of the seasoned (and in form) Kumble was a master stroke. A profligate Kumble would have been too much of a risk with a target of just around a 100 runs.
The attacking fields he maintained and yet had the fielders in the right places to take the lofted catches was a treat to watch.
When the 9th wicket got stuck and the runs required went to 20 (or under) and the tailenders semed to be defending the spinners reasonably confidently, there m,ust have been a temptation to try Zaheer and york the tailenders out. He not just resisted that but also pursuaded Harbhajan to bowl round the wicket ( I am convinced it was his idea since Harbhajan hates bowling round the wicket) which was superb.
During India's batting, he himself batted with masterly confidence but I thought the decision to ask a struggling Laxman to come in at number 3 was tremendous. Normally it is the other way round. Rahul himself was pushed from number 3 to 6 when he was struggling and he and Laxman then created history. This time history was created again but the tactics were reverse !
Clearly a struggling stroke player like Laxman was being further hampered by coming in at next-to-nothing for 3 ! By asking him to come in at 3, Dravid gave him the freedom to play his strokes without worrying about the right hand side column on the scoreboard.
I think, while this win, on this track, maybe underplayed for obvious reasons, India has lots of positives to take away from this game.
Sachin's getting back into a gayly stoking mode, Laxman's confidence building knock, Murali Kartik's excellent bowling under pressure, Dinesh Karthik's superb (and largely un commented upon) keeping on a wicket-keeper's-nightmare of a wicket are all good signs. BUT for me it is Rahul's outstanding captaincy that may have more long term implications than anything else.
I hope the selectors were watching.
The best assesment of a captain can be made from how he handles adversity. Secondly, a captain's on field role is mainly, repeat mainly not only, seen in the context of the performance when his side is fieldin. Finally, many successful captains have been , sometimes. under rated since they have been said to be blessed with world class sides. This though debatable at times, does hold good at others.
Rahul has to be seen in the light of all three.
He has led in this series a side which had, as its main strength, a strong batting lineup. This failed in this series , and how. If India were not overwhelmed even more than they have been in this series, it is because India and its bowlers did a helluva good job against the world's best batting side. I have not done a statistical analysis but I am sure that the Australians must rate this as one of their less prolific batting shows in many years which includes previous tours to India. Surely the Indian captain and his handling of his bowlers and fielders must get a lot of credit for that. On top of that, one of the star bowlers of the last year or so, Pathan was sidelined for much of the series. Although I must admit, Zaheer bowled pretty well.
I would also like to believe that the stand in captain had something to do with the decision to play three spinners. For those who may not recall, before Ganguly became captain (and many years after our famed quartet had retired) India did play three spinners in tests. In 15 tests to be exact and won 10 of these 15 tests. The spinners were, Rajesh Chauhan, Venkitpathy Raju and Kumble. The problems with Chauhan's action and the advent of the Ganguly/Wright combination stopped this so-called 'imbalanced' selection policy. As if selecting new ball bowlers who do more for opponents than for their own teams lends balance to the attack !!
Dispensing with all foolish ideas of Tendulkar helping take the shine off the ball (inspite of the hype around how his medium pace made Dravid's batting in the nets 'difficult' on the day before the test) was the first contribution he made as soon as the Australian innings started. Then the use of Murali Karthik in this test and bringing him on in the fourth innings instead of the seasoned (and in form) Kumble was a master stroke. A profligate Kumble would have been too much of a risk with a target of just around a 100 runs.
The attacking fields he maintained and yet had the fielders in the right places to take the lofted catches was a treat to watch.
When the 9th wicket got stuck and the runs required went to 20 (or under) and the tailenders semed to be defending the spinners reasonably confidently, there m,ust have been a temptation to try Zaheer and york the tailenders out. He not just resisted that but also pursuaded Harbhajan to bowl round the wicket ( I am convinced it was his idea since Harbhajan hates bowling round the wicket) which was superb.
During India's batting, he himself batted with masterly confidence but I thought the decision to ask a struggling Laxman to come in at number 3 was tremendous. Normally it is the other way round. Rahul himself was pushed from number 3 to 6 when he was struggling and he and Laxman then created history. This time history was created again but the tactics were reverse !
Clearly a struggling stroke player like Laxman was being further hampered by coming in at next-to-nothing for 3 ! By asking him to come in at 3, Dravid gave him the freedom to play his strokes without worrying about the right hand side column on the scoreboard.
I think, while this win, on this track, maybe underplayed for obvious reasons, India has lots of positives to take away from this game.
Sachin's getting back into a gayly stoking mode, Laxman's confidence building knock, Murali Kartik's excellent bowling under pressure, Dinesh Karthik's superb (and largely un commented upon) keeping on a wicket-keeper's-nightmare of a wicket are all good signs. BUT for me it is Rahul's outstanding captaincy that may have more long term implications than anything else.
I hope the selectors were watching.
Last edited: