Back

|

Next

Shying away from success

Simon Hughes, also in the Telegraph, contrasts the play, and characters, of the two men who saved India's blushes on day four:

Their approaches in India's hour of need were in character. At 11 for three Dravid was adhesive, Ganguly purposeful. The current Indian captain took 80 minutes over his first three runs, treating every ball as if it was the type of missile aimed at Indian players' houses after disastrous performances. By then his predecessor had 37 in a blur of frisky defence and wristy squirts past point. It was an admirably positive performance given the rum deals he's had from umpires recently, but blocking does not come naturally. With felicitous handiwork he has an invaluable knack of missing the field. You could post a flock of gullies and he'd still get it through. When he was out slicing Paul Collingwood to slip he had scored 57 of a fourth-wicket partnership of 65. Dravid had five from 25 overs batting. It was meticulous if hardly mouth-watering.

I'm not sure I agree entirely with Hughes' description of Ganguly's batting, though. In the days of his pomp, Ganguly was unrivaled in playing through the off side -- so much so, opposition teams took to the three quarter length or less, bowling off stump or off-middle, to counter his ability to thread the ball through the eye of a needle if he was given any width at all on the off. For some reason, England's bowlers reversed that strategy and in this series, have been trying to get Ganguly out playing on his favorite side of the wicket. And they have succeeded -- but only after being made to pay; a ploy akin to bowling length to Mahendra Singh Dhoni on the theory that though he likes to hit off the front foot, he might get out at some point hitting one too many. Great when it works, not so great when he whacks 92 off 81 before that moment comes. The sole element of fun in yesterday's play was Sourav toying with the bowling on the off, repeatedly piercing the field with small adjustments of wrist and hands, despite Michael Vaughan putting everyone but the bowler and wicket-keeper on that side in an effort to block the holes the batsman kept opening up.

Christopher Martin-Jenkins in the Times produces a straight match report -- all the flourish is in his opening:

Cricket, Ramachandra Guha said, is a game made for Indians that happens to have been invented by the British.

If he has an eye on the popular vote, it is a safe bet that the Indian Prime Minister's speech at the celebration of the 60th anniversary of his nation's independence on Wednesday will contain a reference to India's third series win in England.

Whether it is 1-0 or 2-0 will not unduly bother his listeners, but that will be determined today. Only in the event of comfortably the largest fourth-innings run chase in Test history will Manmohan Singh feel the need to call for Rahul Dravid's resignation, or perhaps to announce his own.

In the Guardian, Mike Selvey's piece is headlined 'Place in history is safe, but Dravid may have cost India a historic finale'. A touch harsh, since a series win is a grand finale in and of itself, but Selvey is nowhere near as harsh as the headline suggests:

Should England draw the match there may be those in India who even in the euphoria of the series win will accuse Dravid of conservatism, apprehension even, in his decision not to enforce the follow-on after finishing off England's first innings for 345 within half an hour of the start, giving him a lead of 319.

His options were twofold. First, to recognise an opposition down on its uppers, lacking in confidence and on the verge of losing an enviable unbeaten home record that stretches back six years, and ask them to bat again. His own bowlers had managed the job of bowling England out inside 104 overs, so were not overworked, had just enjoyed a night's rest, and can look forward to a break after the game. It is, the home bowling consultant Allan Donald confessed, what England would have done in the same circumstances.

The alternative, though, to bat again despite the huge advantage already achieved, was attractive to Dravid . There was, he and his vastly experienced coterie of lieutenants would have reasoned, no imperative to force the issue simply for the sake of it as there might have been had the sides been level, or the advantage had been England's.

Two-nil would be nice and, he would have known last night, is still the probable outcome. But if not, 1-0 is not the shabbiest. Furthermore, in the back of his mind, would have been the slight tremor that was felt in the ranks as they lost wickets in chasing only 73 to win at Trent Bridge. Allow England to get their noses in front in a match that India have dominated since the start and there might be tensions - tensions he could simply eradicate now from the equation. So bat again he did.