NEWS
GROUNDS
COLUMNS
MATCH REPORTS
INTERVIEWS
ENEMY CAMP
GALLERY
SCHEDULE
FORUM

Wayward Indian ways

Rain bucketed down in a torrent at the MCG yesterday afternoon and India had better pray it continues for another couple of days. In the time that play was possible today – just 45 overs were bowled, in comparison with yesterday’s 48 – India had what Australians colloquially call a "shocker" – they played terribly.

Fortunately, rain intervened as the situation was in the middle of turning from bad to worse, but even with three more days of clear skies and bright light the tourists will be hard pressed to turn this one around.

Nothing went right for the Indians, and apart from one spell by Prasad during which he dismissed Slater and Steve Waugh, India generally gave the impression of a side that did not want to be out there.

Play commenced half an hour early in a doomed effort to make up for time lost on Sunday and the bowling on show was barely a shadow of that which was on display the previous day. Australia comprehensively won the first hour when Slater and Waugh added 54 runs between them before Prasad broke through with the wickets of both those batsmen in the space of 10 minutes.

India’s position had improved markedly with Australia back on level pegging at 5/197 and the innings, theoretically, could have gone either way at that point. But Australia, uncompromising and determined team that they are, rarely allows the bowling side to wrest away the initiative and India doesn’t appear to possess the weapons to decimate a quality batting side when an opening presents itself.

On the evidence of what had gone before, one never seriously entertained the thought of Australia being rolled for less than 300, not with an in-form Ponting, who is quickly ascending to the ranks of the world’s elite batsmen, and the rapid-scoring Gilchrist on deck. India, true to form, went back to its wayward ways as Prasad tired and Srinath and Agarkar disappointed with their inability to keep the batsmen honest on a wicket most seamers would have enjoyed.

Anil Kumble, with no wickets, was comfortably the most impressive bowler and could have had the wicket of Gilchrist when the dashing keeper, who is good enough to be a specialist batsman, was on 7. But this was not India’s day and the low return catch which Gilchrist hit, and Kumble claimed, had to be referred to the third umpire who rightly ruled in Gilchrist’s favour when the best available camera angle wasn’t completely conclusive.

It is fine for this technology to be utilised, but people who think more of it would improve the game should take a closer at this incident, and others like it. Too often the cameras cannot capture exactly what happened with absolute clarity and the third umpire, like those on the field, has to rule in the batsman’s favour when he isn’t certain. When once an on-field umpire would have made his own decision with confidence – although that wouldn’t have happened today, since Steve Davis’ view was obscured by the back of Kumble – they now know they can resort to the official in the stands and pass the buck, to put it unkindly. And why shouldn’t they, when wrong decisions generate increasingly more strident outcries?

What would improve the game, rather than more responsibility given the third umpire, is increased honesty by the players. Once upon a time a fielder claiming a catch would be taken at his word, but with the possibility of being given not out by third umpire, a batsman won’t walk and knowing this, fielders are more likely to appeal when a catch is doubtful.

That incident, which probably was a catch, was the only authentic example of Indian misfortune. The rest of the time it was their own doing. Several demanding appeals (which weren’t actually appeals, but rather players prematurely celebrating what they thought was a wicket) were correctly turned down on each occasion, a pleasant change from a few of the questionable verdicts in Adelaide. Prasad, who had a miserable time of it after his two wickets, even ran into trouble with umpire Shepherd after the dismissal of Slater, in what may inappropriately be played up as a "controversy", an unnecessary word used too frequently in describing interesting cricketing incidents.

Slater, who was out for the eighth time in the nineties when he fell for 91, hooked an ordinary leg-side delivery from Prasad in the air directly to Srinath at deep fine leg. Prasad, releasing his frustration after capturing a wicket, pumped his fists and let out a cry in an elongated sort of victory dance in close proximity to Slater, without actually looking at the batsmen. Slater, still crestfallen at surrendering his wicket, looked on bemused without speaking to the bowler or making any physical contact.

It was a gratuitous and undesirable celebration by Prasad, something to be discouraged but still fairly innocuous. It is unwise to stand in front of a batsman gesticulating immediately after dismissing him. So veteran English umpire David Shepherd took Prasad aside for a friendly discussion, with skipper Tendulkar in attendance. The situation was handled with aplomb by the agreeable umpire, his words engendering a smile from all parties as he layed a hand on Prasad’s shoulder and made the point in amiable fashion. This, presumably, is not the method Darrell Hair adopted in Sydney when he so raised the ire of the Indian camp. Or it could be that this kind of chat is unwelcome from Hair. Whatever, this was clearly a shining example of how an umpire should gently caution a player.

After the caught and bowled decision that went in favour of Gilchrist, the Indian pacers did not bowl nearly as well to him. They had kept him quiet in the early part of his innings, but soon the frustration grew, short balls arrived, and Gilchrist made merry by eagerly pulling them away. Quality teams put these setbacks aside and maintain their game plan, but the collective concentration of India’s seam attack drifted and against the dangerously free-scoring Gilchrist, that quickly becomes costly. Such was Gilchrist’s hitting display – seizing upon anything short with pull shots, skilfully gliding to third man and powerfully driving anything over-pitched – that former Aussie keeper Ian Healy joked on air about how much Australia has missed him and what a hole his retirement has left in the side.

By lunch Australia had all the momentum, having scored 139 runs in the extended first session. Amazingly, Ricky Ponting was scoring at a run a ball and yet in the initial stages of the partnership one hardly noticed him, as he rotated the strike rather than hit boundaries on the voluminous ground. His half-century, brought up after a rain break of 90 minutes, came from just 49 balls and yet he never appeared to hurry, testimony to an innings of great fluidity which contained some cracking pull shots (testimony to how Agarkar, Prasad and Srinath bowled too short) and square cuts.

At 4:07 local time the batsmen were offered the light and, strangely, accepted. Unlike the evening before when the match was in the balance, at 5/332 and with a burgeoning partnership worth 135 Australia’s position was secure and it is puzzling whey they opted not to continue. As it turned out, a torrential downpour soon arrived and the decision to go off mattered little anyway.

With only 93 overs having been bowled in the innings, almost a full day has in effect been washed out. As much as possible of that will be made up, but India may hope the rain continues as their prospects at this juncture are almost as bleak as the weather.

Daniel Laidlaw