Flintoff gives England the upper hand

I first heard this "analysis" of how captaincy effects batting form during the tenure of Mohammad Azharuddin. And again, ad infinitum, during the time of Sachin Tendulkar.

Frankly, I never saw the sense in that theory -- when you go out to bat, it is as a batsman, not as captain, and it is as batsman that you respond to the ball being bowled at you. Against that, I thought then, and I find myself thinking now, that the converse could be true -- batting form or lack thereof can effect your captaincy. Thus, when you are scoring runs, it could lend an aggressive edge to your captaincy. (I know, I know, Steve Waugh hasn't scored runs in a while so what's defensive about him, right? The Waugh example is frankly as irrelevant as talking of Clive Lloyd's team would be -- when you have a half dozen match-winners in your side, you can take a beating on personal form and still remain hard-edged in the field, as Mark Taylor for instance and Mike Brearley as another example so superbly showed).

Day 1 Vaughan hands India the advantage Statistical Highlights Images ------------------------------- Previous matches at Bangalore: For India, it's hat-trick time South Africa complete 2-0 sweep India pull off a thriller against Australia

It is that aggressive edge that is missing, these days, from the Indian captain and his team -- and nowhere was it as evident as on the second morning. Consider the situation -- dewy deck, second new ball due and duly taken, and yet, barring two slips, we were treated to a spread out field despite the fact that numbers 7 and 8 were at the crease. It was as if a captain who has found runs hard to come by in recent times was more worried about giving away runs than about taking out the wickets.

The result of the defensive field setting was that runs did come -- mostly through singles, it is true, but for England every run counted, and quite a few on offer this morning, as in fact through most of the first day, had red gift ribbons tied to them. Consider a statistic -- when England was facing its 101's over, the score -- 283/7 -- contained 91 singles, and that is almost a single an over.

Besides the fact that a touch over 1/3^rd of the runs were coming off gentle pushes into the outfield while fielders stayed back to protect the fours, there is the further fact that bowlers could never really concentrate on any one batsman, thanks to the constant strike rotation. And it is this sort of thing that takes the edge away from the bowling. The batsmen for their part are under no pressure -- they know that they can keep collecting runs through singles and maximise the odd bad ball.

The only wicket of the morning came through a brilliant spell of bowling by Javagal Srinath. He set it up with a superb over, in course of which he time and again pushed White back with perfectly directed short deliveries, then followed up with a very well disguised slower ball on full length, White escaping the LBW decision only because of the faintest of inner edges.

In the next over, Srinath went round the wicket, and produced yet another superb bouncer, seaming in at White's head and forcing the batsman to fend at it. Das at short square dived headlong to take at full stretch in front of him, ending an innings of 39 off 93 balls before the centurion of the previous Test could get his bearings.

The spinners came on quickly enough. And right from the outset, Harbhajan Singh began getting the ball to bounce and turn -- indicating that this new Chinnaswamy pitch is likely to go the way of its predecessor and, incidentally, making things very interesting for when the Indians come out to bat. And yet, for the most part, the Indians were content to have just two up close, while edges produced singles past the slip, and through where leg slip should have been.

At the other end, Anil Kumble continued -- under the watchful eyes of his parents -- to look for his 300^th Test wicket. Unfortunately, as on day one, the Indian leggie seemed to be desperate to get to a landmark that he should have known would be his anyway -- with the result that he bowls faster and faster, and increasingly to leg, as the overs go by and the wicket remains elusive.

Kumble also had a bit of bad luck when bad luck as well. A quick flipper saw Ashley Giles defend, the ball hitting the toe of his boot en route to Das at short square. The umpire turned down the appeal, apparently figuring that the ball had bounced off the ground, and Giles had a reprieve.

With the Indians content to sit on the splice in terms of field setting, and not attack at full tilt, Giles and Foster settled down to play percentage cricket, gritting it out and shrugging off the umpteen times they were beaten, ignoring the edges that went into no-fielder territory, and keeping an eye out for every chance to push and run. It was gritty stuff, and just what England needed as it sought to put runs on the board for its bowlers to bowl at.

England went in to lunch on 325/7 (119 overs), Giles was unbeaten 22/74, Foster 45/135. The extended session saw 70 runs added to the overnight score, off 33 overs, for the loss of White. The unbeaten 8^th wicket partnership was worth an invaluable 54. And there were, significantly, 21 singles in that partnership. Remember all those times when analysts talk of how Indian batsmen were denied runs, choked by good field placing and tight fielding and forced to play risky shots that led to their dismissal? This is the flip side of that story -- and an object lesson on how to relieve pressure on the opposition. Obviously, despite being on the receiving end time and again (even, ironically, against England in the second Test), the Indians still haven't learnt to do unto others as is done unto them.

Mercifully for the home team, England folded after lunch -- and yet again, it was Srinath who produced the initial strike, with a delivery similar to the one that did for Hussain on day one. The ball was bowled at an inward angle, hitting line of off just back of good length, bringing Foster forward and seaming away for the edge through to Dasgupta. The England keeper, who has rapidly improved as a batsman on this tour, fell shy of 50 for the second time in two Tests, the wicket also ending a dogged 63-run association for the 8^th wicket (England 334/8).

That was off the last ball of Srinath's over. The first ball of the next over, from Sarandeep (incidentally, this is not, as many readers have written to point out, Sarandeep's first Test -- sorry for the error in the day one match report, all, and thanks for writing in) took out Ashley Giles. The left-arm spinner predetermined a legside hoik, the ball curled in and hit back pad, the only question being whether the strike occured marginally outside line of off. Foster's innings of 28 was invaluable, both for the runs themselves and the 80 deliveries he consumed while supporting Foster (334/9 England).

Kumble finally got his 300th wicket -- and one suspects that skipper Saurav Ganguly ended Srinath's post-lunch spell early (the next over after he had taken out Foster, in fact) so that his legspinner could try for the landmark, get that particular monkey off his back, and relax going in to the second innings.

The standard flipper had Hoggard pushing down the wrong line to be hit bang in line, and Anil Kumble had -- to the jubiliation of the team and the spectators -- become the 18^th bowler, and second Indian, to the landmark. You are reminded of Shane Warne's line when Kumble got his 10 in an innings against Pakistan: "It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy" -- to nicer, add quiet, unassuming, and tireless.

Srinath, yet again, was the best bowler on view -- consistent, incisive, intelligent and constantly probing. Sarandeep and Harbhajan both bowled well despite lack of real assistance on day one, with the former edging the latter on the luck factor.

England lost its last three wickets for two runs to put India back in the game -- as against which, the batting side did superbly to recover from 219/6, thanks as much to India's pussilanimity as to the gutsy display of the lower order.

The Indian innings began with a Dasgupta failure -- Flintoff doing to the keeper-opener what Srinath had done to Hussain and Foster. As with those dismissals, this ball was sent in at an inward angle, drew the batsman forward, and seamed away just enough to take the edge through to Trescothick at slip (India 8/1).

There is a school of thought which holds that Laxman should, in India, always bat at three -- and that mindset won out here, with the batsman getting back the slot he had won against Australia in an ongoing game of musical number threes with Dravid. The first ball he faced was eased off the pads for four, and when Flintoff set the field out and invited Laxman to hook, he did just that -- this guy is nothing if not an exhibitionist.

So too is Flintoff, judging by the way he stepped his game up a notch. The bowling, to Laxman, was incisive, aggressive, and bang on target. And along came the beauty that did for the batsman -- the ball hit off, Laxman shaped to drive off the back foot, and the ball darted in like a very fast, vicious off break at speed, from outside off to go right through the batsman's defences and hit middle stump. (India 22/2 and Laxman gone for a quick 12). For once, though, you couldn't blame Laxman for giving it away -- the ball that did him was as good as they come.

The 17th over produced a let off, when Giles got one to kick up and Das got the faintest of inner edges onto his pad. Foster dived to hold a very good one, but Umpire de Silva missed the edge and ruled not out.

Tea was taken with India 42/2, off 18 overs.

A slow over-rate meant that England had to bowl 36 overs in the final session -- which began with Giles going over the wicket and aiming the ball a foot or more outside off. Tendulkar seemed in one of his moods -- to the second ball of the session, he danced a long way down, covered the angle and punched the four through midwicket. Followed a picture-perfect extra cover drive off White, then a flicked four to long leg, then a lofted pull off Giles in his next over and, when Flintoff was brought back to replace White, a superb extra cover drive off a perfectly good delivery.

England went fully on the defensive, both in terms of the line Ashley Giles bowled, and in terms of its field setting. At the other end, Shiv Sundar Das decided to shut shop and play spectator to his partner's batting display.

Tempers frayed when Giles bowled an entire over well outside the leg stump, reducing Tendulkar to showing his butt to the ball. In the process, the bowler had some suggestions to make to SS Das -- it was all unclear, the only definite being that tempers were fraying out in the middle.

The umpires got the players together and cooled them down -- but then Tendulkar reacted to the negative line, waving his bat at the England captain, and his stumps, in that order -- obviously indicating where the stumps were, for the benefit of bowlers who had apparently lost sight of those objects. Nasser Hussain strode up and let fly till the umpire cooled him down.

The incidents appeared to disrupt Das's concentration. A Flintoff delivery immediately thereafter had the opener, till then a model of patience, playing a vague horizontal bat shot at a delivery outside off seaming in fractionally, only to drag the ball back onto his stumps to end a 105 ball vigil that had produced 28 runs (India 88/2). Flintoff celebrated by telling Das to get some rest in the pavilion -- the message being conveyed through two words, the first beginning with F and the second ending in the same alphabet. Sportsmanship, much the subject of debate in the papers this morning, was taking a beating out there.

Flintoff then took a cue from Giles, went round the wicket and began aiming the ball at around the spot a third leg stump would normally be, and landing the ball in his half of the pitch by way of added insurance. There is a word for a series of short pitched deliveries bowled to a right-handed batsman from around the wicket -- 'leg theory', if you go by Douglas Jardine, Bodyline if you ask the Aussies. England's intent was obvious -- keep the ball out of Tendulkar's reach and hope that frustration would do what bowling seemingly could not. What underlined this tactic was the fact that against Dravid, Flintoff immediately switched back to over the wicket and an off-stump line.

A spell of seven successive maidens was broken when Tendulkar, with another waltz down the track, hit a Giles delivery on line outside leg stump, inside out through extra cover, to bring up his half-century (99 balls, after being 40 off 62 deliveries at one point).

While off the field the match referee, Dennis Lindsay, summoned the coaches of the two teams for consultations on the on-field fracas, on the field the attritive bowling continued, 25 overs after tea producing 57 runs for the loss of Das before the umpires decided to offer light to the batsmen, with 11 overs left for scheduled close of play.

India had made 99/3 in 43 overs -- and significantly, Richard Dawson who, by the nature of his craft, can't really bowl outside leg stump, is yet to get a single over.

Reading the papers this morning left a sour taste in the mouth -- thanks to Michael Vaughan.

The England number four batted superbly. No doubt about that. He was batting India out of the game when he was dismissed. No doubt about that too. But he handled the ball, within not merely the letter, but also the spirit, of that mode of dismissal -- and there can be absolutely no doubt about that, either.

Look back at what happened -- as the ball bounced around, from bat onto pad into the air and back onto the body and onto the ground and Dasgupta dived forward and scrabbled away trying to make a catch of it, Vaughan grabbed the ball and flung it away, when it was still very much in play.

End of story. Would the ball have rolled onto the stumps? No, but also, not an issue -- the counter-question is, if it were all that clear that the ball would go nowhere near the stumps, why was Vaughan in such a hurry to grab it?

You tend to feel sorry for Vaughan -- it was an instinctive reaction, albeit the wrong one, in a moment of perceived danger. Or rather, you tended to feel sorry -- but not after all the crock that's been spoken about Ganguly not having the sportsmanship to call the batsman back.

And Nasser Hussain made it worse by echoing his batsman's thoughts, instead of telling him to shut the hell up. Vaughan testifies that Hussain told him that in a similar situation, he would have immediately recalled the batsman. Right, Nasser -- we saw you do that when in Sri Lanka, Sanath Jayasuriya whacked one into the ground, Thorpe at gully took a "catch" and appealed, the umpire gave it out and you joined your mates in celebrating the wicket. To now profess ideals of sportsmanship leaves a bad taste in the mouth, frankly.

This was an issue that was over the minute the umpire raised his finger. By whining about it, it has been elevated into a needless controversy -- and in the process, Vaughan loses any claim he might otherwise have had for sympathy.

For a while, I'd thought that this England outfit wouldn't mimic the whiny attitude of its predecessors. Unfortunately, that thought was way off base -- this bunch has just proved that it is no better, when push comes to shove.

Full scoreboard | Statistics

England's tour of India : Complete coverage