Tag Archives: Brett Lee

India Vs Australia :: Test 3 :: Delhi :: Day-5

At the end of my abridged day-4 report, I wrote: “I was disappointed by Australia’s approach. Australia batted on till it got to 39 runs behind India’s tour.With just 13 overs left in the days’ play, there was no way India was going to make the running on a pitch that was offering nothing much to the bowlers even on day-4. I thought Australia should have declared at least 100 behind. This would have forced India to make the running in this match. Remember, India does not need to win this match, although India would like to. Australia has to win this match although, by drawing this match, it keeps its hopes alive in the series. So the attacking ploy for Australia would have been to declare about 100 runs behind India’s total. Unfortunately, that was not to be. What we saw was the initiation of a defensive ploy from Australia and a continuation of this ploy by India.

I gave the 2nd session as well as the 3rd session of day-4 to Australia and so, the SBS Score reads: India 5.5, Australia 6.5!”

Overnight, Gautam Gambhir was called a “serial pest” by Chloe Saltau!

India played badly on day-4. But Australia too, I thought missed a trick on day-4. Unless India play horribly to collapse in a manner reminiscent of India teams from 10 years ago (or English teams that play in Adelaide), the 5th day isn’t going to have much fun for either teams I believe.

India could probably use the day to get Rahul Dravid, their only out-of-runs batsmen in this series, into a good score ahead of the Nagpur Test. Although Dravid has been batting well, he hasn’t been making the big scores and here was his opportunity. India may also look to keep the Australians in the field for a long time ahead of Nagpur.

There was nothing in the Kotla pitch unless one pitches it in the ‘rough’ — and provided the fielders take the catches, of course! The curator had promised a “present for Kumble”! His pitch was akin to ordering a bouquet of roses for Valentines Day only to be delivered a wreath by the florist!

The Australian bowlers have nothing to lose really. They can go all out and attack relentlessly without the need for a gun license! If the Indians collapse, the Australian bowlers would come out on top. If the Indians bat through a grinding innings, the bowlers will have no reason for shame. So the match is really set up well for the Australians.

Session-1:

The game started along predictable lines. Balls outside off stump — and there were plenty of those — were left alone by the Indian batsmen, who played with much discipline and alacrity. Gambhir even had the temerity to advance once to Stuart Clark! There were no dangers in this pitch.

I have received a few emails saying that I was wrong to criticise Australia for not forcing the pace in this match.

There is another reason for me saying this. Australia would have known that without Harbhajan Singh and without Anil Kumble being 100% fit, the bowling attack was somewhat weakened. So, batting in the 4th innings on day-5 would not hold too many fears on this pitch! With this in mind, I am quite convinced that Australia should have declared way behind to force the pace in this game. They didn’t. India do not have to make the pace. The result is an inexorable march towards a draw!

But the breakthrough that Australia (and the game) needed, came with India on 53-2. A fuller ball from Brett Lee found the inside-edge of Rahul Dravid’s off-drive and crashed into the base of the stumps. Rahul Dravid’s misery continued. He continues to bat well, but gets out to inside-edges and silly shots.

Australia was playing an attractive brand of cricket. It was an attacking brand of cricket too; one that I have grown to like and enjoy over the years (one that was also absent in Bengaluru and Mohali). Stuart Clark kept things very tight at one end bowling wide of off stump. Brett Lee bowled an attacking line at the other end. I would imagine that the roles would be much the same with the Watson-Mitchell bowling partnership — with the former bowling tight lines and the latter, attacking. This was good stuff from the Australians. As a result of this approach, India was reigned in and not allowed to get away with the scoring; not that there was much danger of India running away, given the defensive ‘mindset’ that the Indians had appeared to adopt!

At the drinks’ break, India had reached 71-3. Australia had bowled 13 overs! This from a team that was trying to win the game? The lead for India was 107.

Michael Clarke was into the attack after the drinks’ break. Not a bad move, if he can eschew the “flat and fired-in” stuff and seek turn off the ‘rough’.

The pitch was so easy to play on even on day-5 that Gambhir and Tendulkar were able to play easily off the back foot and off he pitch! The turn was slow, if there was any at all! The odd ball was kicking up from the ‘rough’. Other than that, there wasn’t much in the pitch. The only way anything would happen would be if the batsmen played a needlessly aggressive shot — like Dravid attempted to do.

Which is why I feel more and more that Australia screwed up by not declaring 100 runs behind. If they had, the Indian batsmen may have forced the pace and maybe, in the process, got out. They would have had no option but to force the pace from about 100-120 ahead.

Anyway, that’s spilt milk.

Against the run of play, just when everything was looking steady and solid, Mitchell Johnson got a ball to swing way down leg-side. The resulting appeal for LBW — I am presuming that the appeal was for LBW and not for relief from boredom — was upheld. The only conclusion I could reach was that Aleem Dar was bored and wanted some action out there in the middle, especially since it appeared that he started raising his hand even before the appeal was made! That was a shocking decision and Gautam Gambhir was given a spanking and set off to the dressing room.

This was certainly Aleem Dar’s present to Mitchell Johnson on the bowlers’ 27th birthday.

At this stage, India was 93-4 and India lead by 129 runs.

Mitchell Johnson was bowling with his tail up on his birthday after having lapped up Aleem Dar’s present! He proceeded to get stuck into V. V. S. Laxman, the new batsman and one didn’t need a course in lip-reading to know that, several times, the ‘F’ word was used by Mitchell Johnson. Laxman smiled at this the first time and then replied back the second and the third times. The umpires got into the game at this stage and had a word with Ricky Ponting.

I am surprised that the Match Referees and Umpires only get into the game when the one who is provoked takes an extreme retaliatory action to the abuse that is copped on the field. Gavaskar wants the abuser to be nipped in the bud. I agree wholeheartedly.

Despite Chloe Saltau’s (potentially) and Mark Waugh’s attempts to describe Mitchell Johnson as the genial and gentle pace bowler who just used the verbal stoushes to pump himself up, there is a serious point here to be made. The man at the other end who got pumped up enough to respond to Mitchell Johnsons’ foul mouthed spray is the gentlest of gentle giants? Is Chloe Saltau now going to embarrass herself in public yet again and term Laxman an “aggressive lout and a spoilt brat for having the temerity to talk back at Mitchell Johnson”?

Predictably, instead of responding to Sunil Gavaskar’s point about the “instigator being docked before the provoked is” and “what’s the need for a string of ‘F’ words on the cricket pitch”, Mark Waugh said, “Yes, this was the man who wanted to walk off the pitch at the MCG”. To which Nick McCardle whipped out the exact date on which Gavaskar attempted to walk out of the MCG.

What this had to do with the price of fish only Nick McCardle and Mark Waugh will know.

But since we are delving into the realm of utter irrationality, wasn’t Mark Waugh the guy that took money from a certain John for a pitch report? Would this not mean that we discard anything that this goose says?

At lunch, India was 99-4 (135 runs ahead with 63 overs left in the days’ play). The session belonged to Australia. No doubt about that. The SBS Score reads: India 5.5, Australia 7.5.

Session-2:

I had little doubt in my mind that the Australian attitude and mindset, which was absent for much of the series up until now, had Australia in the position that she was in. Similarly, it was the Indian “defensive mindset” that had the team in the position it was in.

To me, however, it was nice to see Australia attack the way the team has. Australia played with self-belief and aggression. It had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Australia had fought back from the brink and that was great to see.

If the team could only stamp out the on-field nonsense, it would be even better for me.

I suspect, however, that the team plays to a different audience and to different standards. For example, at the drinks’ break, Mark Waugh, talking in the Foxtel studios, chided V. V. S. Laxman for talking back to Mitchell Johnson and thereby, making a “big deal out of it”. Someone tell me Mark Waugh didn’t see the theatrics of Matthew Hayden (Mohali) and Shane Watson (Kotla)!

My gripe with Indian players is that they haven’t reacted like sorry soccer players each time a string of expletives is thrown at them! If they did, more Australians would be reported too more often, would they not?

Australia started after the break with Michael Clarke and Mitchell Johnson. Clarke was bowling from around the stumps and to a good line. It was surprising to me that we didn’t see Simon Katich yet!

India was 109-4, a few overs after lunch, with 59 overs left in the days’ play. India only had a very ordinary, low-intensity day in the field on day-4 to blame for this situation.

But I was comfortable with this grit-situation that India was presented with, for two reasons:

  • After the heady success of Mohali and a huge 1st Innings lead, India had relaxed completely. Complacency had set in a manner that only Indians seem to muster. There is nothing better than a situation like this to shake the team out of its collective sluggish contentment.
  • India has a terrible win-one-lose-one-immediately record in Test matches. This backs-to-the-wall effort could not have come at a better time, especially after the mammoth score that India had put up in the 1st Innings!

Both of the above points mean that a backs-to-the-wall effort here would do this team good — the equivalent of a kick-up-the-backside wake-up-call.

Although Michael Clarke was flighting the odd ball, most of his balls were fired in at between 86 and 90 kmph from around the wickets. As a result, he wasn’t getting much bite and purchase from the pitch. It was time to get Katich in, I’d have thought! Indeed, I’d have got Katich in ahead of Michael Clarke. A finger spinner would be a better option, I’d have thought.

But it was Cameron White that came onto bowl and he immediately proceeded to leak runs and ease the pressure. I wasn’t sure about this decision. I’d have liked to see Katich on this pitch. I’d be willing to bet that he would get some purchase here. At the other end, though, we had Shane Watson come in for a bowl. His first ball want for 4! Suddenly, it appeared as if the pressure valve had been lifted.

This was strange captaincy by Ricky Ponting! With a fit and fighting set of alternatives like Stuart Clark, Brett Lee and Simon Katich, I just could not understand this Watson-White strategy!

In the 2nd over from Watson, Aleem Dar perhaps ought to have given Tendulkar out LBW! I could not believe that Aleem Dar would not give this out when he gave Gautam Gambhir out for one that was clearly sliding down leg! Perhaps he had decided that Shane Watson did not deserve a birthday gift when it wasn’t his birthday! At this stage, India was 140-4 (176 ahead with about 45 overs to play). The decision won’t have made a difference, as India was taking this match into a draw situation. But the inconsistency of decision making seemed a bit strange!

I was proved wrong a few overs later when Sachin Tendulkar poked at a Cameron White delivery to be caught by Matthew Hayden at slips for 47! But in all seriousness, this was a nothing shot to a nothing delivery; a soft dismissal. India had reached 145-5, 181 runs ahead with about 43 overs for Australia to get it if India was all out in the over that was being bowled. It was already becoming a hard ask.

It may not be a bad ploy, I’d have thought for Ganguly and Dhoni to indulge in a flurry of strokes in a bid to set Australia target of about 210 off 37 or so overs.

Michael Clarke replaced Cameron White. This was a reasonable move. Ganguly had a recent history of outs to left armers. Having said that, these were more to left arm Chinamen bowlers (Brad Hogg and Simon Katich). So again, Katich’s absence from bowling duties was a bit strange — unless of course, he was injured.

The match was drifting towards a draw. It would be good if India — 207 runs ahead with 37 overs to make it in — would declare. If nothing, to regain psychological ascendancy. Australia would need to make these runs at 5.6 rpo. Almost impossible, I’d have thought. It would be good, nevertheless, for India to throw the gauntlet at the Australians and have a crack at the visitors!

India went to Tea on 193-5 from 69 overs. At this stage India led by 229 runs. If India declared at Tea, Australia would need to score 230 runs from 31 overs (at 7.4 rpo).

I give this session to India and this makes the SBS Score India 6.5, Australia 7.5.

Session-3:

The only interest from here on in was how and when the captains would call the game off. Was there enough time for Laxman to get a century? Sidelights like this dominated thoughts at the Tea Break. This match, which had promised so much, was tailing off into a draw.

After Tea, Australia started with Brett Lee and Michael Clarke; still no sign of Simon Katich!

About 20 minutes after the Tea break, news filtered through that Anil Kumble had decided to retire from Test cricket after the current Test match.

After 18 years of terrific contributions (I hate the word ‘service’) to Indian cricket, this great cricketer, and wonderful competitor had decided to retire… He was a thorough gentleman of the game when several of the competitors that he played against were anything but! He retired from the game with not a blot or a blemish against his name. He played cricket within the rules and always gave 120% to everything that he did in the game. World cricket was losing a warrior and a gentleman.

It would make more sense, therefore, for India to declare and for Anil Kumble to retire “on the field”, perhaps with an additional, last wicket too!

And on 208-5 with a lead of 244 and with 23 overs left in the days’ play, India declared. This was a sentimental move; one that took Australia by surprise too.

It will be interesting to see how Australia take this. Australia would have to score at 10.5 rpo. Would Australia go hell for leather and make a game of it?

Anil Kumble even took the new ball for India! This was now a Twenty20 game! What an exciting end to a game that looked like it was petering towards a draw! But instead of sending out Shane Watson and Matthew Hayden, for example, to open the Australian innings, Australia went down the normal Test match route and opened with Matthew Hayden and Simon Katich!

At the other end, India opened with Virender Sehwag! Off the very first ball, he got sharp turn! Katich got off strike with a false stroke.

After just 2 overs, Amit Mishra — Kumble’s heir apparent — replaced Virender Sehwag. However, there wasn’t much happening though.

Anil Kumble bowled his last over for India — the 16th of the innings — and brought to an end a glorious chapter in Indian cricket. The next over was bowled by Amit Mishra and at the end of that, the curtains came down on a Test match and a career.

To complete the SBS scoring, I give this session to India for having ensured that the game ended in a draw without much by way of panic. This makes the SBS Score India 7.5, Australia 7.5.

Not surprisingly, the match ended in a draw!

— Mohan

India Vs Australia :: Test 3 :: Delhi :: Day-1

After the Australian debacle of Mohali, it was a long wait before this Test commenced! There was a lot of talk in the intervening period from both teams and also a well-timed release of explosive excerpts from an autobiography which Tendulkar termed as “loose”! The marketing guys got great value from all of that drama! We had a crack here at i3j3Cricket too at writing Sachin Tendulkar’s yet-to-be-written biography! A lot of fun was had by all, including debates on whether or not Sachin Tendulkar lied at Sydney.

In my view, there is an obsessive interest in the pitch by the Australians when they tour India! If they went in with the attitude that they are hardly likely to get a spinners’ paradise in Perth, the Australians may actually grow to love the conditions in places like Delhi and Mohali. These places, especially with the early starts, afford early seam movement and late Irish movement, particularly given the dry and abrasive pitches.

The Australians also love to over-focus on the toss! Again, the focus shouldn’t be on the toss.

For example, at the Kotla in Delhi, of the toss wins, the bat-first choice has resulted in only 5 wins from 29 games! The bat-first decision resulted in 11 losses at the Kotla! So, the toss should be removed from the minds of the Australians.

In my preview of this game, I said that pace will do as well on the Kotla as spin would. Given that Stuart Clark comes into the side, I give Australia a slight edge in this game!

One other factor that I did not mention in my preview is that India rarely strings a consistent run of wins in any major series involving big teams. A huge win is almost immediately followed up with a poor loss. While Team India has lately begun to show signs of being good overseas travellers, the team will have to work hard to wipe that bad “win one match well but lose the next one immediately” record off its books. And the opportunity to commence this journey would be here at Delhi against the best team in the world at the moment.

Given that I had a migraine today — which, I can assure you wasn’t pre-arranged or pre-ordered — I was lucky to get home early. After a quick sleep, even though the migraine continued unabated, I managed to watch the game through one eye closed (and I realise I leave myself wide open saying this)!

Session-1:

India won the toss and elected to bat. It was quite unusual for Kumble to win the toss, given his general bad toss-luck. But he did win the toss this time! Harbhajan Singh sat out the game with a bruised toe and this enabled Amit Mishra to get his second Test game! As expected Stuart Clark came into the Australian side. This wasn’t a bad move for Australia I thought. With the morning haze and the greenish top, Clark and a fired-up Lee would be able to get a fair bit of seam, I’d have thought.

Indeed, Brett Lee struck very early. In his very second over, Lee got one to nip back in sharply and got Sehwag plumb in front of the wicket. India was 5-1 before the Australians had broken into a sweat.

What I liked about the Australian approach was aggressive intent. Of course, it helped that Australia got the early wicket of Virender Sehwag. But we did see more attacking slips in place and we did see catching positions. This caused doubts to creep into the minds of the batsmen. The going was tough on a pitch that was already showing signs of offering low bounce.

Brett Lee was bowling it at 148 kmph and yet Brad Haddin was collecting it around his knees! An excellent bouncer from Brett Lee struck Rahul Dravid on his chest as he ducked. This was certainly going to be an interesting deck as the match progresses. From that point of view, India would be disappointed at losing local-man Virender Sehwag early. Another local-man, Gautam Gambhir, however, was batting well against two opening bowlers who were bowling well.

The good thing for India, however, was that despite the accurate in-the-corridor bowling by Stuart Clark and Brett Lee, the two batsmen — Gambhir and Dravid — were batting well. Brett Lee, in particular, was bowling more accurately and with more fire than he did at Bangalore or Mohali. The break appeared to have done the Australians a whole lot of good. Early signs were that the scars of Mohali were behind the Australians!

At the end of 10 overs, the India score was 22-1. It did appear as though this would be one of those typical grind-it-out type Tests; one that mimicked last years India Vs Pakistan Test match in which the scoring rate was around the 3 rpo mark for much of the game. At this stage, Stuart Clark had figures of 5-2-4-0! Mitchell Johson was brought in for Brett Lee.

Dravid was actually playing quite well at this stage and had all but pitched his tent on the pitch for a long stay there when, against the run of play, he drove at a Mitchell Johnson ball that was travelling straight to Matthew Hayden at slips. A thick edge meant that the ball travelled to birthday boy, Matthew Hayden, just a bit earlier than Hayden may have expected it! The resulting catch was snapped up and India was 27-2! Dravid had no reason to play at that ball other than the fact, perhaps, that he wasn’t getting any free runs at the other end from Stuart Clark!

At the drinks break, India was 37-2 off 13 overs!

After bowling 7 overs for 5 runs (7-3-5-0), Stuart Clark was replaced by Shane Watson. I didn’t quite understand this move because Clark was bowling very well. His line was immaculate and his length was superb. Another over or two Stuart Clark overs may have been good, I thought.

Gambhir was batting sensibly and Tendulkar was looking quite solid. Mitchell Johnson was bowling to a 7-2 off-side field and one of the 2 leg-side man was a short gully. Mitchell Johnson was sliding it wide off the off stump. After an early play-and-miss, these offers from Johnson weren’t being accepted by Tendulkar. This was good cat-and-mouse stuff from both teams.

I particularly liked the way Gambhir was playing balls outside the off stump. He was leaving it all alone and was comfortable playing the patience game.

It looked as if the Australians had studied Gambhir’s game really well in the break between Tests. He was being presented with several balls outside his off-stump. And he was having none of that! It was also interesting to see the number of Australians that wanted to wish him “good morning” and enquire about his “dinner plans”! If I were Gambhir, I’d feel quite proud of the fact that the Australians had studied his game intensely and the fact that they were all suddenly interested in his dinner plans! This is, to me, a sure sign of respect!

Brett Lee came in for a last burst before the lunch break. Right from word go, Lee was bowling well. The intensity and the speed were back, it seemed. But he was bowling to a Sachin Tendulkar and a Gauram Gambhir that were both playing sensibly.

Shane Watson had, at this stage, bowled 4-2-7-0. It seemed that Shane Watson and Stuart Clark were bowling in a containing role, while Brett Lee and Mitchell Johnson attacked.

The last Brett Lee over before lunch saw the bowler bowl to a very innovative field. Just 1 slip oversaw proceedings. However, there was a ring of fielders on the leg-side. Ponting was constantly attacking with inventive fields. It didn’t achieve anything, but it showed to me that this was a team that wanted to make the running in this Test match. The captain wasn’t prepared to wait for the batsman to make a mistake. These were good signs for an Australian fan.

At lunch, India had moved to 67-2 off 26 overs, with Gautam Gambhir on 25 off 80 balls and Sachin Tendulkar on 26 off 45 balls. Shane Watson had figures of 6-3-8-0 although, to be honest, about 30 of the 36 balls were bowled wide off the off-stump and left alone!

The first session, in my books, was Australia’s with the Session-by-Session (SBS) score reading India-0, Australia-1.

Session-2:

The post-lunch session started with Brett Lee bowl to Sachin Tendulkar with just the one slip and a ring of fielders on the leg-side. The over produced a sensational up-and-under cut over the slips cordon to the 3rd-man fence! This was an awesome shot that was manufactured after a late adjustment to an off-stump bouncer. I have only seen Tendulkar and Sehwag play this shot with any semblance of authority and control. I also feel that this shot is also a good indicator that Tendulkar is on top of his game.

Stuart Clark shared the post-lunch attack with Brett Lee. The Australians continued their positive intent after the lunch break. The fields were attacking and, more importantly, there was no deep-point and leg-side sweeper either. When the Australians set fields like this, it is a sure sign that they are playing attacking cricket. The mindset is more important to me than anything else.

Hopefully, the Australian new-age-cricket strategy as well as its author have been thrown out of the Australian dressing room!

At this stage, Tendulkar started to open out and play his shots. Even then, it was good to see the Australians bowl attacking lines to the Little Master. Although the field did spread out a bit, thanks to a flurry of boundaries from Tendulkar’s blade, the Australian intensity wasn’t diminished. Stuart Clark, in particular, continued to bowl superbly to Tendulkar. He was giving nothing away and even bowled a maiden over to a man who appeared to be in superb nick. Tendulkar had moved to 44 off 68 balls at this stage.

The bowling plan was beginning to emerge. Ricky Ponting was going to use Brett Lee and Mitchell Johnson in short attacking bursts with Stuart Clark and Shane Watson bowling a defensive, chocking lines. This was not a particularly bad ploy. Mitchell Johnson was offering either enticing sliding slingers outside off stump or cross-seam slower-balls outside off stump. Johnson replaced Brett Lee whose first post-lunch spell was somewhat ordinary. India moved to 102-2 off 35 overs.

Soon after,Tendulkar played a delectable late-cut off Stuart Clark to bring up his 50 off 79 balls. His half-century was vintage Tendulkar and contained 8 boundary hits. He seemed to have a measure of the pitch as well as the bowling. While his 88 at Mohali was made against a somewhat ordinary bowling attack bowling to somewhat defensive fields and on a batting pitch, this half century was against a strong Australian attack that was bowling to intelligent fields.

In this mode, I felt that the only way Tendulkar would get out would be if he got either bored or over-confident. The Australian plan of attack to Tendulkar was somewhat obvious. Stuart Clark was bowling outside off-stump to a 7-2 off-side loaded field. The Australians wanted to choke Tendulkar’s run-scoring opportunities. They nearly had Tendulkar when the batsman tried a paddle sweep off Stuart Clark that rapped him on the pads. Containment was the name of the game!

At the Drinks break, India was on 108-2 off 40 overs at 2.7 rpo. This was tight bowling from Australia and there weren’t too many runs for the taking. The batsmen had dug in for the long haul. Gambhir had moved to 40 off 117 balls and Tendulkar was on 50 off 92. The wicket had flattened out a bit by now. The interesting piece of data at this point was that the partnership had reached 81 runs off 29.2 overs at a run rate of 2.76. In this, Tendulkar had made 50 while Gambhir had made only 25! His role was to keep one end up; an unusual role for him!

Just after the drinks’ break, Cameron White bowled the first bad over of the day; the expensive of the game thus far. The Indians milked him for 11 runs and, in the process, Gautam Gambhir brought up his half century off 120 balls. Soon the century partnership was brought up. The partnership came off 201 balls with Gautam Gambhir scoring 39 of these and Tendulkar making 56 of the runs. The Indians were batting brilliantly at this stage and one sensed a momentum shift in the game. I felt that the foot had come off the pedal the moment Cameron White was brought on. The pressure valve had been irrevocably released.

Not surprisingly, Stuart Clark was rested after a 9-over spell. His figures read 16-5-26-0. Sensational and tight stuff from the big man. Mitchell Johnson came on and I wouldn’t have been surprised if Cameron White would be changed at the other end too. But no, White continued after giving away 25 runs in 3 overs! A wide ball resulted in 3 byes too as Brad Haddin’s horror tour (with the gloves) continued.

Not surprisingly, Shane Watson came back into the attack, perhaps an over or two too late. One would think that he would continue the holding job that Stuart Clark had carried out.

Unfortunately for the Australians, there was nothing in the pitch in this session. So a defensive ploy, achieved through bowling tight lines to a defensive field, was perhaps appropriate at this stage with the hope that the ball will reverse swing in the last session.

The 51st over of the day say an interesting exchange between Gambhir and Watson. All morning, Watson had been repeatedly asking Gambhir about his “post-match dinner plans”. It was all getting a bit tiring, really. Then, when going for the first run of a brace, Watson appeared to show his elbow at Gambhir. On the return journey Gambhir expressed a keen interest to show Watson “I have an elbow too” (in the words of Ravi Shastri, the commentator at the time).

Then just on the stroke of Tea, Sachin Tendulkar nicked one to Brad Haddin to take a good catch low to his right. Tendulkar was gone for 68 and India was 157-3. Again, after putting in the hard work, Tendulkar had departed. On this occasion, admittedly, it was to a very good ball from Mitchell Johnson. Maybe the ball might have been left alone? The partnership was worth 130 runs from 41.1 overs at a run rate of 3.15 — Tendulkar had made 68 off 125 balls with 11 boundary hits (Gambhir had made 52 runs in that partnership). I feel Tendulkar was playing for the Tea break, just as he was perhaps looking for the close of play at Mohali! The fact that he was choked a bit may have contributed to his hang-the-bat-out shot to a good ball from Mitchell Johnson.

A ball later, which enabled V. V. S. Laxman to get off the mark, Tea was called. There was an irony there! India went to Tea at 158-3 with Gambhir on 67 off 155 balls. In that session, 91 runs had come off 26 overs at 3.5 rpo. At this stage, Australia had bowled just 52 overs in the day — and that means they are 8 overs (some 35 minutes short of where they ought to be). I personally believe the viewing public is being short-changed by this sheer incompetence and negligence on Australia’s part. I am hoping that Chris Broad, the Match Referee is going to do something about this pathetically deplorable over rate.

Because of that Sachin Tendulkar wicket on the stroke of Tea, what would have been, undeniably, an India session became a somewhat even session. I would not score this completely even and am forced to go into two decimal places! The SBS score reads: India 0.75, Australia 1.25!

Session-3:

The India batsmen started off positively after Tea against Mitchell Johnson and Shane Watson. In particular, Gautam Gambhir was batting splendidly with some wonderfully times strokes on both sides of the wicket. Without too much effort and with somewhat consummate ease, the partnership between Gambhir and Laxman yielded 32 runs from 6.1 overs at a run rate of 5.18!

From nowhere, it seemed, Shane Watson produced a bouncer on off-stump. It had Gambhir fending in an ugly manner. Off his gloves and shoulder the ball flew between the ‘keeper and a really wide 1st slip for a boundary. A regular 1st slip would have caught that comfortably! Gambhir moved to 91 with that stroke but not before reconfirming his post-match dinner plans with Shane Watson!

It seemed that everyone in the Australian team wanted to have dinner with the local Delhi-lad, Gautam Gambhir! In the very next over, perhaps in fear of feeling somewhat lonely at the end of the 1st days’ play and the post-match dinner party plans, Mitchell Johnson bowled a bouncer and enquired in a rather agitated manner about Gambhir’s post-match dinner plans!

The 50 partnership between Gambhir and Laxman came from an elegant front foot cover drive on the up by Laxman. The 50 came off just 51 balls with Laxman having made 17 of these off just 19 balls.

In the same over, Gambhir danced down the wicket to a Shane Watson delivery and smashed the ball for a towering 6! This was a terrific manner to bring up his century! Perhaps he was totally upset and worried at having to spend his entire match fee, shouting dinner for the Australians who all seemed keen join him for dinner that night!

Now while the century at Mohali against the Australians was an excellent one, I feel that this one at Delhi was even better! There wasn’t much pressure on the Indian batsmen in the 2nd Innings at Mohali. Here, there was. India had made a rather ordinary start here at Kotla and the Australians were bowling with a lot of fire initially, at Tendulkar and Gambhir. He weathered the storm in the first session, played steadily in the second session and then, opened out really smartly in the post-Tea session. He had paced his innings beautifully and hit some glorious strokes along the way. The real question for me was one of whether Gautam Gambhir would be able to step it beyond the low 100s and make a really big century. For me, this ability marks out a great player from a good player. Gambhir, by scoring consecutive centuries against a world-class team, has shown that he ought to be considered in the books as a good player. He had to now step up a notch and get a big innings in, especially since he had already worked very hard to “get his eye in”!

Michael Clarke was brought in — perhaps in a bid to repair the over rate, which was going somewhat pear-shaped for Ricky Ponting. One could see that the pitch was offering slow turn for Clarke. Both batsmen were batting well and Ponting was forced to bowl Michael Clarke. If only the Australians had bowled with greater urgency and discipline in the earlier part of the day, Ponting needn’t have gone for the Michael Clarke option in a bid to give the over-rate a hurry along. The Australian sloppiness and tardiness early in the day made for this unprofessional situation. These are the small things that make me feel that this Australian team has a lot of work to do yet on this tour!

As I been saying since the 2007 summer here in Australia, I do hope the Match Referee does something about the appalling over rates of the Australians, in particular.

India’s 250 soon came up from 70 overs at 3.57 rpo. The partnership between Gambhir and Laxman reached 100 runs from 19.2 overs (116 balls) at a rate of 5.17 rpo, of which, Laxman had made 36 and Gambhir 63! This was an impressive partnership, mainly because of the impressive near-Australia-like scoring rate it had been made in. Gambhir was playing majestically at this stage and Laxman was steady — his 36 had come off just 45 balls with minimal fuss!

With a half hour to go to the official close of days’ play, Australia still had 18 overs to bowl. Australia’s over-rate graph was beyond pear-shaped at this stage. In a bid to ensure that his backside wasn’t whipped by the Match Referee even before the end of the days’ play, Ponting brought Simon Katich in to bowl. Now, most Indian fans will remember Simon Katich getting Virender Sehwag out for 194 at the MCG towards the end of the 1st days’ play in 2003! Here at the Kotla, Simon Katich was getting some bite from the pitch and some slow turn. These were good signs for the Indian spinners! And when Gambhir danced down the pitch to hit him for a boundary, Katich also booked himself into Gambhirs’ post-match dinner-party! Gambhir’s party was the place to be it seemed and, with this pleading request from Katich, it appeared as though all XI Australians were booked in on the Gambhir post-days’-play dinner party! Gambhir must have thought to himself, “Such a nice and friendly bunch, this Australian lot, but don’t they have their own things to do?”

In Katich’s next over, he seemed to indicate to Gambhir that he wanted the post-match dinner party to commence even before the days’ play was concluded! It all emanated from Gambhir being blocked from going for a run by the bowler, Katich. In fact, as a result, he had to send Laxman back. He seemed to enquire what the problem was with Katich and this upset the bowler! Katich was perhaps upset that Gambhir did not take the run for, perhaps if he had taken that run, Katich may have scored a choice Diwali sweet off the dinner menu as a present! It was clear to me that this Australian team was run ragged at this stage!

In the next over, Laxman brought up his half century off 70 balls. This was a steady half-century from Laxman; one that contained 3 4s.

Right on the dot at 4.30pm in Delhi (10pm AEST), India had reached 285-3 off 81 overs. This implied that Australia was 9 overs short of its bowling quota at the scheduled close of play — on a day when just 3 wickets had fallen and on a day when there was precious little by way of interruptions! This was an absolute travesty by Australia and needs serious looking-into! Australia was thumbing its nose at the establishment through its bowling-rate recalcitrance.

With 20 minutes to go to the end of days’ play, it appeared as though India was attempting to pull down the shutters. The batsmen started to play cautiously for time. It is at this time, when dusk sets in, that things can happen in India — especially if the batsmen are tired at the end of (an extended) days’ play.

Soon, we had Brett Lee and Stuart Clark bowling in tandem in light that wasn’t quite improving. In the 86th over, the new ball was taken. Brett Lee took the new ball with 5 overs to go to the end of play. There was a little seam movement for Brett Lee and this was encouraging. The Australian bowlers were straining at the leash to get that breakthrough which would bring them back into the session. If things stood this way, this would be India’s session.

When the end of days’ play was called, India had reached 296-3 off 89 overs a a run rate of 3.32. After extending play by half hour, Australia was still an over short of the days’ bowling quota. Gambhir was not out on 149 and Laxman was 54 not out. The partnership between Gambhir and Laxman was already worth 139 runs off 37.1 overs at a rate of 3.73!

The last session belonged to India and the SBS score was: India 1.75, Australia 1.25!

This was Gautam Gambhir’s day though! And the fact that he had the entire Australian team crashing in on his post-match dinner party meant that he had earned the respect of this Australian team; one that doesn’t bother asking after an opposition players’ health or dinner-plans unless they see that player as a ‘danger’! It was great to see Sachin Tendulkar bat brilliantly and it was wonderful to see Laxman play the way he did — poetry in motion. But this was Gambhir’s day and he has some unfinished business to complete tomorrow.

— Mohan

India Vs Australia :: 2nd Test :: Mohali :: Day-3

Epilogue as Prologue:

Unlike other days, I don’t think the first session of day-4 should matter too much! Even if India lose a few quick wickets, there are enough runs in the bag now and India will not be forced to go into a shell. It will need a bagful of wickets by the Australians for India’s intent to dramatically change. India are in front and will look to press home the advantage in the first session of play on day-4. If Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir are still together at the end of the first hour, I will not be surprised to see M. S. Dhoni walk in at the fall of the 1st wicket! I think India will look to play steady cricket for the first hour before putting their foot on the accelerator.

Declaration target:

To me, it is the middle session of day-4 (and not the 1st session) that will be important. I believe that that is the session when declaration calculations will come into play.

Without getting too far ahead of myself, I feel India should set Australia a target of about 500-520 runs in 125 overs. In other words, I think India should bat about 50 overs on day-4 to score about 200-220 additional runs. If Australia makes the 520 runs (at somewhere between 4 rpo and 4.15 rpo) in the 4th innings here, they absolutely deserve the victory and more!

Defensive mindset:

I have been maintaining since the start of this series that Australia’s defensive mindset, more than anything else, could prove its downfall in this competitive series against India. Nothing proved this more than day-2 of the 2nd Test at Mohali. Australia adopted a defensive mentality right through the day and ended up in a somewhat ordinary position. Yet, despite Michael Clarke’s departure off the last ball of the day, the situation was still recoverable. After all, India had recovered from 163-4 to make 469, thanks to a positive mindset! Australia had ended the day at 102-4 and still had Michael Hussey and a batting order that ran deep.

Session-1:

However, Australia started somewhat tentatively and paid the price for it. It didn’t help matters that Ishant Sharma and Zaheer Khan bowled brilliantly. Sharma, in particular, was making the ball “talk” on a placid pitch!

Soon after Michael Hussey compiled his half-century he got a terrific delivery that moved just a bit after pitching outside off-stump. Hussey poked at it and the resulting edge sped past Rahul Dravid to the 3rd man fence. Ishant Sharma has developed this habit of making new opportunities immediately after he has had a catch dropped or a plumb LBW denied — as he demonstrated in the Ponting dismissal the previous evening! After being denied a plumb LBW by Rudi Koertzen, he produced a slightly better delivery to remove the Australian captain just 2 balls later! This is probably why Ishant Sharma is referred to as “Instant Karma“! This time, after an edge had gone for a boundary, Sharma bowled the next ball just slightly back of a length and just inches outside off stump. Hussey had to play/poke at it and the resulting edge was gleefully accepted by M. S. Dhoni.

Once again, reverse swing was the main “weapon” that Ishant Sharma and Zaheer Khan were harnessing. Right from the 10th over of the innings, the ball had been “reversing” and here, Ishant Sharma and Zaheer Khan were giving nothing away.

This wasn’t the start that Australia wanted on day-3! India were suddenly looking at lead margins, especially after Harbhajan Singh bowled an absolute ripper to have Brad Haddin clean bowled! That was a stunning ball from the turbaned finger spinner. It spun a proverbial mile, had terrific loop and crashed into the stumps.

We soon had a double spin-attack when Amit Mishra was brought on. Mishra was getting a fair bit of purchase from the pitch. This was understandable. He is a wrist spinner, in the Shane Warne mode. Unlike Harbhajan Singh, the finger spinner bowling at the other end, Mishra does give the ball a fair tweak. His lack of height also helps in him being able to lob the ball way above his eye-line. He bowled several balls at 78 kmph mark and allowed the pitch to do the rest.

Cameron White was in a shell. He made 5 runs off 23 balls when he was deceived by flight, loop and the googly from Mishra, his opposite number in the Indian team. White, a fellow leg spinner, did not pick the wrong ‘un, which sneaked past between bat and outstretched pad, to clang into the leg stump. This was an absolutely beautiful piece of bowling by the young leg spinner.

Australia went to lunch on 174-7 in 66 overs with Watson on 32 and Brett Lee on 5. This was clearly India’s session and the SBS score read [India 5.25, Australia 1.75]. India was way in front at this stage and it would need something special from the Australians to get back into the game.

Session-2:

Indeed, Australia did put on something quite special after lunch. Shane Watson has been a bridesmaid in Australian cricket for long. In all the time that his prowess has been trumpeted, he hasn’t actually delivered much at all. It didn’t help that he kept breaking down every time the wind speed picked up!

But here, he played a terrific hand and in Brett Lee, he had a willing and able ally. The thing, however, that was most in their favour, was the positive intent. Unlike their more illustrious batting colleagues, Watson and Lee played their shots and did not allow the situation to get on top of them. So much so that, at one stage, one thought that they could pull off a Harbhajan-Zaheer type miracle for Australia! They played with terrific ease and nothing seemed to rattle them.

During the afternoon, Zaheer Khan indulged in a bit of banter with Brett Lee. Soon after, Brett Lee exchanged air-kisses with Ishant Sharma after taking an excellent Sharma bouncer on his back. It was all pretty competitive and good-natured.

Of course, our friend Malcolm Conn at “The Australian” saw it through a radically different lens and wrote this piece of prose about that passage in play:

…the pair brought up their 50 partnership, Zaheer Khan failed to gather a defensive shot from Lee at the first attempt and went to throw before having words with the Australian.

Lee smiled broadly and both batsmen laughed when Zaheer, who was storming about the pitch, turned his attention to Watson.

Then Singh aimed up at Watson for a concerted conversation as the mid-afternoon drinks break arrived.

Immediately after drinks Lee continued to smile broadly when the first delivery with the second new ball, from Ishant Sharma, was short and struck Lee in the back as he turned away.

By the end of the over it appeared that umpires Rudi Koertzen and Asad Rauf had heard enough. They stood mid-pitch with the batsmen and waited for Dhoni to run past.

As he did Koertzen pointed to the stand-in skipper and spoke to him before Dhoni and Watson had another chat as the keeper took his position behind the stumps.

Zaheer was at the centre of a spat while batting in the first Test, twice confronting wicket-keeper Brad Haddin and then complaining to captain Ricky Ponting after the gloveman disagreed with Zaheer about the drizzly, murky weather.

Shane Watson, one of the players that shared the “spat” stage with Zaheer Khan and Ishant Sharma hosed down any suggestions of a violent spat between the teams and said,

“There was actually a lot of extremely friendly banter I thought. Obviously it was challenging but me and Brett were having a great time out there. The quicks were having a good crack and the umpires just came together and said ‘we don’t want this getting out of hand.’ It was never going to get out of hand. It was friendly banter and there should always be that in any sport, especially Test cricket when everyone is challenging each other. It makes things pretty enjoyable. You don’t want to be out there and it’s really dull and boring and no one says anything. You want a bit going on to keep everything going.”

So much for Malcolm Conn’s wild theories about World War III about to break out!

When Shane Watson was on 44, I thought the umpire Rudi Koertzen made the worst mistake I have seen any umpire make — and I mean, even grade cricket umpires!

Ishant Sharma bowled a beauty off the first ball of a new spell to Shane Watson. The ball jagged back from a good length spot and hit Watson on the pad, about half way between knee-roll and shoe. When ball hit pad, Watson was bang in front of middle-and-off-stump. The ball was certainly going to hit one of the stumps about half-way. Unfortunately, this stump that the ball would have hit was neither off stump or leg stump! In other words, I have not seen an LBW shout that was more convincing than this one! Yet Rudi Koertzen pursed his lips, almost chided Ishant Sharma for appealing, and said, “Not out”!

Unfortunately, though not surprisingly — given the hate-filled and bitterness-colured lens that he possibly watches his cricket through — this incident did not make Malcolm Conn’s report on the days’ play!

The new ball did not make much of a dent in Australia’s progress. Slowly, yet steadily, Shane Watson and Brett Lee ate into the lead. This was impressive batting, to say the least.

Just before the Tea break though, Harbhajan Singh bowled a beauty – a doosra — to have Brett Lee caught by Rahul Dravid in the slips.

Australia went to Tea on 249-8 off 93.0 overs with Watson on 66 and Mitchell Johnson on 2. This was Australia’s session, thanks to the positive mindset displayed by Watson and Lee. Perhaps the other Australian batsmen can take a leaf out of the books of these two?

The SBS score read [India 5.25, Australia 2.75].

Session-3:

The moment Brett Lee went, one could sense that the end of the Australian innings was near. And indeed, the end came swiftly. Exactly 7 overs after Tea, Amit Mishra took the last two wickets (Shane Watson was out LBW and Peter Siddle was stumped by M. S. Dhoni) to secure a 5-fer on debut. This was an impressive performance by the young lad on a pitch that didn’t really afford too much assistance to the spinners. I’d like to believe that he could be quite a handful on a turning pitch.

Australia was all out for 268 (India had a lead of 201) off 101.4 overs in 454 minutes of batting. Australia made its runs at 2.63 rpo. The Indians bowled their overs at about 13.5 overs per hour (Note that the Australians had bowled at 13 overs per hour).

India came out swinging. There were no second-innings shackles to hold down Virender Sehwag who came out in a belligerent mood. He played sensibly in the company of the company of the aggressive Gautam Gambhir to get India off to a rollicking start.

The two India batsmen were ably assisted by a overly defensive Ricky Ponting! Ponting should have tried to get Sehwag out! Instead he spread the field from the very first over and that allowed the Indians to pick up singles almost at will. The bad ball was spanked to the boundary. The defensive tactic did not actually pay off! By the end of the days’ play, India were travelling at about 4.34 runs per over! So the sense of that ploy wasn’t actually clear to me!

India finished the day on 100 off 23 overs (at 4.34 rpo). The SBS Score reads [India 6.25, Australia 2.75]

End points:

It was a pleasure to watch Harbhajan Singh and Amit Mishra bowl yesterday on a placid pitch. The deliveries that got Cameron White and Brad Haddin bowled were particularly pleasing. Amit Mishra may cherish the wicket of Michael Clarke as perhaps his best ever, but I liked the way he teased Cameron White out with a ball that had flight, dip and zip off the pitch. Similarly, the ball that Harbhajan Singh bowled to Brad Haddin was a corker. Not many batsmen would have been able to keep that away from the stumps. The pitch was not conducive to spin bowling — particularly finger spin. There wasn’t much bounce and although there was some turn, it was quite slow. Yet, the two Indian spinners bowled well in tandem. But one thing worked in favour of the Indian spinners. They bowled attackingly. They asked questions constantly and continually. They pressed for wickets. They played with a positive mindset.