Opportunism pays off
Daniel Laidlaw
How does an apparently competitive Test match finish as a one-sided result inside of three days? If the match is examined by the scores at the end of
each day's play, one has to conclude that Australia dominated. Yet, within
each day there were moments when the momentum, of not the ascendancy, had
unquestionably shifted. But at the end of it all, Australia, which often
seemed to be playing as if on fast-forward, was able to charge to the finish
and produce an emphatic margin of victory.
A 10-wicket win on the third afternoon gives the illusion of a total
thrashing on an under-prepared pitch, which was certainly not the case. In
fact, curator Nadeem Memon deserves credit for producing a wicket that
allowed all types of players to display their skills. It only finished so
early due to the way it was played.
Australia's victory number sweet sixteen was not a triumph of steamrolling
an opponent from start to finish, although it did contain elements of that,
but rather another testimony to its unshakeable self-belief and confidence
born of knowledge that if it plays the way it sets out to do, victory is
assured.
It's a self-propelling situation because as the wins mount up, so
the belief intensifies. Much of this determination and sense of comradeship
can be traced to the captain, who has moulded the team into a representation
of everything he stands for as a leader.
The confidence attained by having repeatedly come back to triumph over
adversity gives a side greater faith when it next finds itself in trouble.
This assured manner and untroubled attitude in the face of disaster is no
better personified than in Adam Gilchrist, who is the main reason The Streak
has reached the proportions it has. A score of 99/5 chasing 176 and having
to bat last seems a long time ago now and would have proved daunting for
most No. 7s, but Gilchrist's talent for striking the ball with uncomplicated timing all around the ground while under pressure has not yet reached its
limit. Maybe, it's as simple as not knowing how difficult that is supposed to
be.
The difference between India and Australia in the first Test was the ability
to maximise the opportunities presented. Australia made the most of deciding
to bowl first by capturing four wickets in the first session to ensure it
began an important series on the front foot. India, with the opportunity to
take command of the match on the second morning, let it slip fractionally
and in little more than half an hour had the initiative stolen away. But the
ability to find an opening and maximise it was best highlighted on the third
day, when Ricky Ponting capitalised on a minute piece of luck and the day’s
events swung around completely. Having prised open a gap in the Indian wall,
the Aussies charged right through.
With a blossoming Tendulkar leading a revival, India had made it through
two-and-a-half hours unscathed and the second session was beginning to
inherit the same feeling of the previous day when Gilchrist and Hayden went
on the rampage. With Tendulkar and Dravid at the crease and a deficit of
only 19, can you honestly say Australia was dominating? Tendulkar appeared
destined for the hundred he missed in the first innings and India, having
shown some application, was gradually clawing back to a competitive footing.
One spectacular catch and a dreadful run out changed the face of proceedings
and Australia, having found its opening, never looked back. The fact that
the slide was triggered by Tendulkar's dismissal also emphasised India's
over-reliance on one player, whereas Australia tends to find a more even
spread of contributors.
Although Tendulkar was unfortunate in the sense that the ball rebounded from
the shoulder of Langer at short leg, it was unquestionably a brilliant catch
by Ponting. Even the run out of Ganguly demonstrated a difference in
commitment, as Slater sprinted after the ball and executed an accurate throw
off-balance while Ganguly, once he realised the danger, showed a lack of
desperation in attempting to gain his ground by not diving or even unduly
extending his bat.
Rahul Dravid played a role similar to that of Jimmy Adams in support of Lara's epic knocks in the Caribbean two years ago. It was effective and certainly important with a partner able to score freely, but once the union was broken Dravid was unable to take over as the batsman in charge and
remained anchored while the boat floated away.
Mark Waugh made an unexpected contribution to the match as he performed the
function that should have been Colin Miller's. Australia missed Miller in that first session when another spin option would have been perfectly suited
against batsmen playing cautiously. Miller's accurate, flat off-spinners
could have been put to good use but instead Steve Waugh turned to Fleming,
who was used to bowl quick off-spinners in an obvious admission that
Australia had erred by overlooking 'Funky'. Why pick a swing bowler in
Fleming if he's just going to do Miller’s job?
Ultimately, it didn't matter as Mark Waugh surprised Laxman with one that
bounced and accounted for the unfortunate Ajit Agarkar, who extended his
amazing record to seven consecutive ducks against the Aussies. But that wasn't the most bizarre part of the last rites of India's innings. The approach of India's two injured players, Mongia and Srinath, was interesting. Mongia's attitude was the antithesis of that shown in the first innings, throwing
the bat around and backing away to protect his injured thumb, before walking
when the Aussies had not even convincingly appealed for a caught behind.
Srinath then appeared at the crease in body but not in spirit, perhaps under
orders to be out there when he would have preferred not to bat.
Australia apparently views its second innings as a recourse saved for
emergency use only, swiftly wiping out the meagre target to triple the team's number of scheduled days off. The first battle in the conquest of the last
frontier has been won.
Mail Daniel Laidlaw
