India fights back to save second Test

It's a sign of the times that all the drama, on day five of the second Test, was outside the field of play.

At close on day four, Shaun Pollock said that his bowlers required only two sessions to take out the Indians in the second innings. At start of play, though, it didn't look like Pollock believed his own boast -- the mandatory two slips were there as, intermittently, was a bat-pad fielder. But that was hardly the kind of aggression you would have expected from a side already one win up in a three-Test series, and intent here on stretching that lead.

The spotlight, though, was on Deep Dasgupta. A young man in his second Test. Doing a job the stars -- Rahul Dravid, VVS Laxman, and Saurav Ganguly himself -- had backed out of. And doing it to such good effect that he forced you to sit up and take notice.

What was noticeable about the young lad's effort was the fact that he was never caught half-cock -- he was either fully forward, or back, as the length warranted. Again, he was behind the line to the short stuff, his technique on the leave was impeccable, and throughout his innings, he played like to the opening manner born, rather than as a stopgap. It was in the first over after lunch that a flicked four off Nantie Hayward got him to his first 50 in Test cricket -- and the remarkable statistic for me, in that innings, was that of the 193 deliveries he had faced at that point, 58 were bowled by that destroyer of Indian batting, Shaun Pollock. And never once did Pollock get within appeal's length of the keeper-batsman's wicket.

At the other end, Dravid finally batted with a semblance of his old form -- compact, with decisive footwork and the concentration that is his trademark.

The extended morning session, stretching two and a half hours and comprising 38 overs, produced 91 runs (Score: 119/1 at lunch off 56 overs) -- and significantly, did not produce a single wicket. Significantly, the South Africans didn't appeal much through the session -- one reason could be that the Indian batsmen didn't give them too many reasons to, the other could be the shadow of a certain Mike Denness.

Post-lunch session:

Just about the only point worth noting in this session was that gradually, the breeze came back refreshed, the clouds came racing back, and the sunshine of the morning was a distant memory.

Otherwise, it was an action replay of the morning -- Dasgupta and Dravid batted with aplomb against all that the Proteas threw against them. There was a period, shortly after Dasgupta completed his 50, when he seemed to lose concentration and pushed at the ball away from his body. Two played-and-missed deliveries later, he was walking off to square leg, talking to himself, taking fresh guard -- and the concentration, and compact play, were back.

The new ball was taken at the end of 80 overs (165/1) -- with 42 overs still to go in play. Three slips and a gully came back into play -- as did Pollock with his length, line and movement. But it was a short, lifting delivery from Hayward that did Dravid, attempting to force off the back foot, getting an edge, and walking back for a solid, patient, gritty knock of 87 that gains in stature from the three successive failures he was fighting his way back from. There is a point worth noting here -- yet again, an Indian batsman was conquered by his own error outside off -- and not by all that the bowlers had thrown at him till then.

Shortly after Tendulkar replaced Dravid at the wicket, the umpires offered light to the batsmen, who accepted -- and walked out with the board reading 172/2 in 85 overs. Dasgupta walked off the field unconquered for the third successive time -- if you remember that his innings began on the fourth evening -- with 61 against his name. 38 overs remained to be bowled -- and shortly after the batsmen had reached the hut, the rain came down.

Final session

Play did resume, once the rain took a break, with South Africa getting another 22 overs to try and do something.

Pollock and Hayward put in one final titanic effort with the new ball. The only casualty was Deep Dasgupta -- the first blemish in his innings, and he succumbed when he pushed at a Hayward lifter outside off and gave a catch to Kallis at second slip. But by then, the stepney opener had in a display of guts, determination and unsuspected skill not only taken his team to safety, but given the first glimmer of an indication that India might yet find the batting keeper it has been looking for, for the number seven slot.

Interestingly, Saurav Ganguly decided to come in at the number five slot, rather than leave the tidying up operation to one of his mates. It was a good sign, that on a pitch juiced up a bit by rain, he didn't duck the responsibility, as he so easily could have. With four slips and three gullies, Ganguly faced a bouncer war from Pollock and Hayward, and gutsed it out.

At the other end, Tendulkar came in for his share of the short stuff -- and a bit of lip from Hayward. Both batsmen survived the barrage without seeming in much discomfort, and play finally came to an end with India on 206/3.

A comfortable draw -- and the team can thank Mike Denness for helping them forget their differences of opinion, for bringing them back together as a unit, and for getting them to focus once more on their cricket. That togetherness was on view both in the dressing room and out in the middle, as Dravid and Dasgupta blunted the best that South Africa could throw at them in a display of gritty, controlled cricket.

Optimism is always the fault of the cricket fan -- but here, speaking as a fan, and discounting that natural optimism, I believe that Centurion Park, where the third Test begins on Friday, could bring the results of this new-found togetherness. India, invariably, gets its act together at the fag end of an away tour. Generally, by that point the series is lost anyway, because India has lost the first two Tests. This time, India go in to the third Test just one behind -- setting up an interesting scenario.

Bottomline: This morning, while analysing the decisions taken by match referee Mike Denness against Sachin Tendulkar, Virendra Sehwag and others, we had raised a few questions that, we felt, needed answering.

At the time of writing that, I did not know that a press conference was scheduled for 15 minutes before start of play.

That press conference was held -- if, that is, what was held could be called a press conference. A South African cricket board official distributed leaflets containing the details of the various sentences. He then read them out -- presumably for those illiterates in the media who could not read the sheets of paper handed over to them. And then he said that Mike Denness -- sitting glum-faced next to him -- would not elaborate, would not explain the reasoning behind his decisions, would not talk of the evidence. In other words, he would not answer questions, period.

Gerald Majola, the UCBSA official who accompanied Denness, said that the match referee's silence owed to the fact that as per ICC regulations, he was not allowed to comment, to explain his decisions.

If that is the reason Denness gave Majola, then there is only one word to describe the match referee -- he is a liar. Pure and simple.

This is not the first series for which Mike Denness has been appointed match referee. Nor the first decision he has handed out that has created controversy. In the past, on every single occasion, he has gone before the media to explain the decisions he has taken.

In the one day series that preceeded this Test series, Justice Ibrahim was the match referee -- and in the case of Andrew Nel (when, immediately on seeing the fast bowler mouth abuse at Saurav Ganguly, he intervened to tell the South African management that they had to rein in their bowler or else) , and on other occasions, the jurist was quick to explain in detail to the media the reasons behind his statements.

So, when Denness says he was not permitted to talk as per ICC regulations, he was lying. Pure and simple.

So why wouldn't he talk? The answer is obvious -- because he realised he had no answer to the dozens of questions the media were sure to ask. And so -- in the prime ministerial style of P V Narasimha Rao -- he did what he wanted to do, than sat through the ensuing storm, his lips pursed in a pout.

If anyone needed any indication that Denness was way off base in his actions, his silence was admission enough.

In case you need more, refer back to the wisdom of Sherlock Holmes -- who, in a famous story, asked why the dog did not bark at night.

Translated to this context: Let us assume that Sehwag and others were intimidatory in their appealing, that they charged the umpires, that they brought disrepute to the game. Let us further assume that Mike Denness was doing only what the ICC has recently asked match referees to do -- namely, get tough. Let us, for now, leave aside the question of why Denness then didn't get tough on the Proteas.

Assuming all this -- why did not the umpires signal five extra runs to the Protean score, when the incidents happened? Remember the ICC rules, as spelt out recently? Any infringement of the code of conduct would be met with an immediate five-run award to the opposing team -- to be followed up by action by the match referee.

So, the question is -- if the umpires felt intimidated, if they felt the appealing was excessive, why did they not award five runs to the Proteas when the incident happened?

Does the fact that they did not, clearly indicate that the umpires saw nothing untoward in the appealing? You judge for yourself.

Meanwhile, among the hundreds of mails that have come in through the day, several ask one question: How can we ensure that Indian cricketers do not perennially find themselves getting the short end of the stick?

Here's how: Firstly, the BCCI needs to protest -- loudly, and through every single avenue available -- any action that is patently unfair. The BCCI needs to show that it is four square behind the players it sends out in its name. Often, people talk of how combative Arjuna Ranatunga was as captain -- it pays to remember that Ranatunga was backed by his board, all the way, to the point that when he was summoned for a disciplinary hearing, he walked in with a board-appointed lawyer.

And secondly, the players and manager (especially the manager) have got to start getting tough. The next time an opposition bowler bad mouths them, the batsmen in the middle need, immediately, to summon the manager out, and the three of them need, right then and there, to lodge a formal protest with the umpire.

The manager then needs to go back into the pavilion, write out the written complaint, and hand it over to the match referee. If action is not taken within 24 hours, the manager needs to demand the reason. And if that reason is not satisfactory, he needs to take the matter to the media and to the public.

Start doing that on a regular basis, and you ensure two things -- one, that the opposition stops treating you like dirt and abusing your mother if you so much as sneak a single. And two, you force the match referee to look at both sides of the coin -- and also signal to him that one-sided rulings will not be taken lying down.

If Indian cricketers are victimised, then part at least of the fault lies with them, and with the various team managers, and most importantly, with the Board.

If you don't stand up for yourself, then who will?

And finally, one thought -- for the first time, I find myself wishing Sachin Tendulkar were not the quiet, restrained gentleman he is. I wish that he was a scrapper, a street-fighter. If he had been, he could have ended this ICC nonsense once for all. By going to court, and filing a case against Denness and the ICC for slander and defamation of character.

Tendulkar argues in court that because of who he is, he earns 100s of millions through endorsements. That being "found guilty" of ball tampering has damaged his reputation. That the allegations are unfounded, given that even the umpires had said that they saw nothing wrong with the ball. He demands that proofs are produced -- including the formal written complaint which is one of the things Denness is mum about. And he demands reparation -- for the loss of face, and reputation.

Sting the ICC for more money than it has in its treasury, and you will teach it not to take things for granted ever again.

Scorecard: Indian 2nd innings

Also read:
Mike Denness, put up or shut up!

India's tour of South Africa: Complete coverage