An Aussie view of the Bangalore test

By Lee Grant
October 12 2004

Indians fans will be miffed about some of the umpiring decisions especially those against Irfan in the first innings and Sehwag and Patel in the second. I wouldn’t have wanted Oz to get those verdicts.

However, if one can say a team deserved to win whilst getting favourable treatment, then Australia deserved to win. They were the better team.

Some thoughts on the test

Australia have won many games in recent years by being aggressive but they sometimes over-amped and lost games - tests at Kolkata and Adelaide come to mind. In this match it looks like there has been a rethink. Waugh’s team might have thrown the bat around in the second innings, scored 100 runs fewer and opened up a realistic opportunity for India, but this team used up time against better 2nd innings bowling to keep their wickets and let the pitch deteriorate. Smart that.

• If Oz performances in this test are any guide for this series, next season in Oz and the Ashes tour - and they might not be - consequences of the ageing of the Australian team may be deferred for another 12 months.

• Any toss is good to win but I don’t think the toss had a large influence on the game - nor its twin, the pitch, which played fairer than we thought at first viewing. It played just as well, or almost so, for the Indians in their first innings as it did for Oz, yet they had a deficit of 200 plus, about the same margin as the loss. The game was lost then: the Oz batsmen were better in the first innings and as a group the Oz bowlers were better too. In hindsight, the second innings of both teams were irrelevant.

• Australia depreciated the effect of their dominance for most of the match by their inept performance on the 5th day. They seemed more interested in getting the world record for Warne than winning the match. India took advantage of this arrogance and the dressing room will be encouraged that Australia had trouble in both innings getting rid of the tail.

• Harbhajan Singh got 5-for in the first innings though it was not an outstanding performance, but his 6-for effort in the second innings was reminiscent of 2001 as the ball dipped and fizzed. India may have lost the match but their main strike weapon of 3 years ago is back from his operation and has his confidence up. Add to his bowling his sterling second knock and he was unlucky not to be man-of-the match. By contrast, the great Kumble was less of a danger on his home ground.

• Because HS hogged all the wickets, the haul and stats of teenager Irfan Pathan looks less impressive but he performed well in his first test at home. His contribution with the bat in both innings marks him as potential test all-rounder. I wish we had him in the Oz team.

• It’s early days yet but the India specialist bats are not scaring Oz like they did in 2001 at home and in 2003-4 in Oz. Yes, they scared us - thus the conservatism mentioned before. Forget umpiring decisions for a moment - India batted poorly. Sometimes fellows like Chopra and Yuvraj did not look as though they belonged in the test arena; Ganguly batted well in the first dig but shouldn’t have run for a tight single in the second - sure there was one, but it should never have been tried in that situation. The call surprised Dravid, who was watching the ball, and was thus his fault, but Ganguly’s running is so poor that his partners always watch the ball to second-guess him and this makes matters worse.

• In the first innings Patel and bowler Irfan showed their more illustrious teammates how to bat: watch the ball and judge which balls to hit - hardly rocket science. It took a phantom nick to dismiss Irfan but very little to get rid of others. Full marks to Dravid in his second dig. ‘The Wall’ does not have the natural ability of some teammates but his mental application is an inspiration to everyone who bats, or wants to bat, in test cricket.

• The old bloke McGrath is bowling as well as ever. He didn’t bowl that well against SL in our winter coming back after ankle surgery, although his stats were good. He was belted in the ICC semi as batsmen showed no respect for his scrapbook and we thought the hook would be out for him should he fail in India. But we saw the old regularity in the corridor of uncertainty, the best reverse swing from him I can remember and a steely reminder to never write off a champion. He looks stronger too. Gillespie looked better in the second innings than in the first and made the new ball jump and Kasprowicz was good enough in both. The Oz seamers bowled well on a deck that didn’t help them but it may have been their most favourable pitch of the series.

• Warne bowled poorly in the second innings and looked a little sad when one compares his effort to that of Harbhajan in the second. Perhaps when he has broken Murali’s record he will relax and start bowling well. We don’t expect his old greatness because he will never be as prominent as he was before his first operation in 1997. Bowling as well as he did against SL this year will suffice.

• Gilchrist is a world-class all-rounder of any era but we take him for granted. When he, Warne and McGrath retire, the barbarians will be at the gate and we will have to brace it up soon. He handled the triple challenge of specialist batsman, captain and wicket-keeper pretty well, but some of his tactics were questionable and defensive.

  We all knew in Oz that he wouldn’t enforce the follow-on. As captain in England when Waugh had hurt his leg, he gave England 300 plus to win in the 4th innings and Butcher played an innings for the ages and we were thrashed. Kolkata also weighs heavily on the Australia mind. As Gilchrist said on Friday night: “The word ‘follow-on’ no longer has any relevance to Aussies in India.”

• With his debut 151 young Michael Clarke was man-of-the-match and with no first-class form to speak of it was a dream, and in front of his family, to boot. His second innings when the pitch fizzed and spat for Harbhajan brought him back to reality. I hope he is given time to make the mistakes a young player in every sport must make.

• Martyn redeemed his first innings failure but Lehmann didn’t. If he doesn’t make runs in Chennai, Boof might have to make room for Clarke when Ponting returns for the third test. If so, his test career could be over. Katich should stay in any event. He does not have the shots of other Oz players but he has good feet and was born with a Dravid temperament.

• The Oz ground fielding was more capable than their opponents’ but not their catching. The pouching of the ball by Chopra and Yuvraj was superb. Yuvraj’s catch to dismiss Warne was one of the best of the year.

Conclusion

Australia dealt with the absence of Ponting better than the Indians did with the absence of Tendulkar. India will take some good things out of the Bangalore test but their specialist batsmen will have to return to form, and luck, in Chennai and their bowlers will have to support Harbhajan better.