India emerge with honours

Daniel Laidlaw

The turnaround fashioned by India in the drawn fourth Test proved something of a microcosm of the series in which, ultimately, India emerged with the honours.

At 336/2, a quickly-compiled England total in excess of 600, with resulting pressure on India's batsmen to save the match and series, appeared close to inevitable. But as the destiny of the series was turned around commencing with the rearguard second innings at Trent Bridge, so too were the fortunes of the fourth Test after the opening day.

It is unfortunate that the toss played such a crucial part in shaping the decisive match. Given the placid nature of the pitch, the side batting first was always favoured to virtually close the other out of the game, dulling the edge of the contest. It could just as easily have been the tourists in an identical position by the end of day one, and with the potential of Harbhajan and Kumble to make the most demands on the batsmen, that would probably have been the best chance of a result either way. Barring an egregious calamity or something truly inspired, though, the balance of the teams wasn't conducive to achieving a result within the scheduled time.

That shouldn't have meant being resigned to fate upon the fall of the coin, but there was an air of inevitability in the manner in which the immensely confident Vaughan and company eased away. Frankly, it was surprising as many as two wickets fell on the first day, such was the untroubled skill and sang-froid with which Vaughan batted.

India's hope lay in emulating Sri Lanka's Oval win in 1998, when an England total of 445 was quickly surmounted and Muralitharan wreaked havoc. To create even a remote chance of that, England first had to be limited, and the catalyst was the utilitarian Sanjay Bangar.

Bangar appears an unassuming cricketer, a stonewaller as an opener and a useful if modest medium pacer. He might be one of those Test players who is selected for a handful of matches, performs respectably, then fades away into obscurity. It seems unlikely he represents a long-term answer for India as an all-rounder. But in the third and fourth Tests, at least, Bangar was the embodiment of the principles required to succeed in England. From this vantage point, Bangar was everything that Ajit Agarkar should have been but was not. It may be telling that Ganguly elected to give him the new ball in the second innings. Based on performance, it was certainly deserved.

Bangar, on day two, gave India a control over the tempo of the game that had been previously lacking, the accuracy and discipline of his away swing making a difference not just by itself but in the way it supported the bowlers at the other end and made them, in turn, seem more dangerous. Ian Botham may have mocked his lack of pace, but it was completely irrelevant. In fact, it may even have been of benefit in that it caused him to suffer no illusions regarding his role. In purposefully adhering to a consistent line, Bangar instigated the recovery, trapping Crawley with one that seamed back and having Hussain caught in the slips driving extravagantly. The benefits of accuracy combined with patience amply demonstrated, Bangar opened the way for Harbhajan to collect a five-wicket haul.

Replying to England's total, India's objective seemed clear-cut: aim to lead by near 200 by the end of day four, leaving two-and-a-half sessions to bowl England out on the last day and chase any extra runs. A distant possibility, but one that could not have been considered beyond India's formidable batsmen.

Rahul Dravid's comments indicated India envisioned scenario of this type. "There is still a lot of work to be done and any of the three results are still possible," Dravid was quoted as saying on CricInfo after day three. "We will have to see how it goes, the first session tomorrow will be crucial - if we don't lose wickets early on we can press on from there."

It seems unlikely that declaring behind England in the hope of forcing a result was seriously considered. Despite the conjecture, it would have been unrealistic and, moreover, unwarranted. Given how readily Nasser Hussain had resorted to the defensive, India were unlikely to be set anything approximating a generous target. Their best chance of winning lay in gaining a lead and applying pressure to England's batsmen on a turning last-day pitch.

Unfortunately, a potentially intriguing finish was ruled out when Laxman and Dravid were not prepared to risk making a more concerted effort to press on. After the early wickets were preserved, the pair was prepared to play some shots, but only up to a point. Laxman at one stage had a surprisingly sedate 30 of 120 balls and considering the onslaught carried out in the Headingley gloom, it was slightly disappointing he did not show more initiative. Hussain's short-pitched tactics on day three, and Caddick's remark that England had done everything they could, showed that England had already virtually resigned themselves to a draw. Ultimately, rain ensured none of it would have mattered anyway.

Rahul Dravid and Michael Vaughan were the outstanding players of a batsman-dominated series. Dravid grew in stature and presence as the series progressed and his innings' became increasingly compelling. Rarely receiving the encomiums of others, Dravid, like his team, started the series diffidently before flourishing.

Dravid's understated, almost humble, and yet indomitably resolute efforts saw him not so much dominate as endure, a fixture which India's innings were built around in each of the last three Tests. His influence is reflected in the fact he was involved in 7 of India's nine century partnerships in the series. In short, he displayed tremendous character, and after threatening to make a huge score several times did just that in the last Test, for once standing out by himself.

Notwithstanding continued changes at the top of the order, India's batting came to impose itself on the series. By the time of the second innings at Trent Bridge, Dravid, Tendulkar and Ganguly rose to the level required of them and England's attack, after realising India could not be thwarted through discipline alone, lacked the venom to make inroads. The return of Caddick did not improve it and without Simon Jones or, bewilderingly, the unselected Steve Harmison, India increasingly had their way, never more so than in the epic first innings at Headingley.

With Dravid, Tendulkar and Ganguly more than matching England's output, India's attack, specifically Harbhajan and Kumble, became more threatening. At the beginning of the series, the lack of experience (and quality) of India's main seamers appeared likely to undermine the tourists, and so it proved. Once the bowling emphasis shifted to Harbhajan and Kumble, though, India's attack had a dimension to it that, certainly if bowling second, bettered England's.

Too closely matched to produce a winner, by series end India had the firmer grip on the contest. The tour may not have brought the watershed away series victory, but more of the pieces came together to make it very close to being realised. Drawing 1-1, in England, against a team that rates itself a chance to wrest back the Ashes, must be seen as an encouraging, and deserved, outcome of an auspicious tour.

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw