The First Test

(On the occasion of the 132^nd birthday of test cricket, I look back at the first test I watched live on television.)

It was the days when I had just got initiated into this game called cricket, the days when the names of Sunil Gavaskar and Kapil Dev (G R Vishwanath was my favourite though) were beginning to become familiar when we played street cricket.

I had listened to some radio commentary earlier with some friends, when Pakistan toured India, and to our delight, India won. But the concept of watching cricket on television (and live cricket at that), was still not even a thought in our minds. It was the days when television was not an assumed appliance in all households, at least not whereabouts I lived, this town called Tiruchirapalli, in the heartland of Tamil Nadu.

School closed for Christmas on Friday, 18 December, ‘81 and was scheduled to re-open on Monday, 4 January ‘82. The plan for the fortnight was the usual – play cricket on the streets until we get dirty and tired, come home to wash and eat, repeat process until the sun decides its time to stop. Then sit outside the house of one of us and talk about what we played until it was dinner time. Except that my dad had a surprise in store for me.

It was Sunday evening, and we had just had our dinner. Then my dad said to me, ‘I am going to Kumbakonam on Tuesday. Do you want to come with me?’ I was wondering why I should go to Kumbakonam of all places. Yes, a couple of my uncles lived there, but the children of one were much older than me and those of the other, mere tots. So what will I do there? ‘Raju uncle [the older uncle] has a television at home and you can watch the England-India test match there.’ Ah, now he was talking.

On the evening of Tuesday, 22^nd December, I was packed and all set to travel the 150 kilometres that separated me and a live test match on television. The uncomfortable bus journey barely registered as we reached Raju mama’s home at some nine in the night.

The third test match of the series was due to begin the next day. I remembered reading about India’s victory in the first test. I recalled how I felt Madan Lal was the better bowler in the England second innings because he conceded only 23 runs in 12 overs while Kapil Dev was profligate in giving away 70 runs in 13.2 overs, and they took five wickets each. The difference between dismissing David Gower and Graham Dilley had not sunk in yet. I also remembered the drawn second test for Krish Srikkanth’s first test half century (65 off 88 balls – a rapid-fire innings for those days, especially for that series) and Gavaskar’s monumental if dreadfully slow (even for those days, even for that series) 172.

I woke up on the morning of Wednesday 23 December 1981, bright and eager. My first test of live cricket on television, and I was justifiably excited. Morning coffee, bath, dressing up, brunch, all done by 9.30 am, well in time for the 10 o’clock start.

It didn’t strike me then, but later years made me reflect on it, it seemed like I was not the only one who was excited with the prospect of the test match. Raju uncle’s son, Ashok, much older to me, was also enjoying his Christmas vacation, so he was also all set to watch the game. Ashok’s grandfather also was a cricket freak and he was with us as well. So were a couple of uncle’s assistants (uncle was a lawyer), for whom, I suspect, it was a way to be at work but not work.

So, the clock slowly crawled to 10, and Doordarshan brought cricket to the drawing room. Keith Fletcher won the toss and, expectedly, chose to bat first. Graham Gooch and Geoffrey Boycott were the openers. The little cricket I knew then told me that Gooch was the more watchable of the two. But on that monumental day, there wasn’t much to separate the two. How I wish by that I meant Boycott played aggressively! But no, Gooch decided to emulate his senior partner and ground his way to 71 runs of 176 balls. But even then he outscored his partner, the score being 132 when he got out. Who should succeed him but the Boycott-clone Chris Tavaré, and between the two of them they batted the day out, England finishing on a rather pedestrian 190 for 1, Boycott having inched along to 86 with Tavaré on a relatively quick 25.

It wasn’t a great day of cricket in terms of the action, but for me it was still exciting. Of course, I had a sinking feeling that India won’t be able to win this test. But this was the 1980s, so a draw was still good enough, and I fancied our chances on that front.

Day 2 was relatively breath-taking. Boycott got out soon after reaching his century, and I guess even the English must have felt relieved to see him go, making as he did 105 in 285 balls. But what followed next was even more exciting for me. That stylist, David Gower made his way to the crease, and I was looking forward to some exciting stroke-play from him. But he lasting only three deliveries, falling leg before to Madan Lal. If it was a dodgy decision, Doordarshan didn’t explain overmuch. But two wickets on the same score had me salivating. And I knew Fletcher, who walked in next, was on a second wind, and hence should not be difficult to dislodge. However, it was the featherbed called the Kotla, and Fletcher stayed. Tavaré played perhaps the most aggressive innings of his life as he ended the day with 133 (his maiden test century), having made 108 runs on this day alone – he must’ve gone to confessional that night. With Fletcher making 51 off 107 and then Ian Botham coming in and taking the bowlers on with a frightening innings of 47 not out, England finished the day on a comfortable 428 for 4.

The next day was December 25 and was thus the rest day. It was the longest day of my life until then. Sure the cricket was not riveting, but when there is no cricket, what do you do? I was in a new city, I had no friends, I had no books. It was worse than watching Boycott bat. But, like with all things good or bad, the day got over.

The third day made for good viewing because England kind of collapsed, losing five wickets for 17 runs, Tavaré ending on 149, a career-best as it turned out in the ultimate analysis. To protect Bob Willis from the frightening pace of Madan Lal, Fletcher very kindly declared at 476 for 9. Time for India to bat. Srikkanth started with a boundary, but flattered to deceive, falling for 6 off just four deliveries. Dilip Vengsarkar struggled to 8 off 43 before perishing to Derek Underwood. Gavaskar was marching serenely albeit slowly at the other end when his brother-in-law Vishwanath joined him at 41 for 2. And Vishy was class itself. He lost Gavaskar at 89, but that didn’t deter him as Sandeep Patil joined him. The two were comfortably established as India closed the day on 172 for 3, Vishy on 67 and Patil on 30. Draw was already loudly written on top of this test match.

Day 4 did not start very comfortably for India. Patil perished after adding just a single to his tally, Kirti Azad made a quick 16 and departed, Vishy reached a classy hundred and decided enough’s enough, and Kapil Dev went for 16, out to his all-rounder opponent Botham. At 254 for 7, India was even in danger of being asked to follow on. This was when Syed Kirmani joined a young Ravi Shastri. Neither of them were mugs with the bat, but they weren’t great batsmen either. Shastri was in his early days, and his batting skills hadn’t come to the fore just yet, and Kirmani was but a useful scrapper lower down the order. But today was their day. It wasn’t pretty cricket, but they hung on and took India to 376 for 7 at close, behind England by 100, but close enough to ensure a draw. Shastri not out 48 and Kirmani on a more belligerent 67.

Kirmani fell early on day 5 when that perennial bits-and-pieces man of Indian cricket, Madan Lal joined Shastri with India still 94 runs adrift of England. But the two carried on from where Kirmani left off, and took the score past England’s, before, at 486, Shastri fell to the gentle medium pace of Gooch, seven agonising runs short of what would have been his maiden test century. Immediately afterwards, Madan Lal also fell to Gooch and India ended at 487, a first innings lead of 11. Gooch finished with flattering figures of two for 12 off 8.1 overs. There was just about 90 minutes of play left in the test match, and Gooch and Boycott indulged in some batting practice, stroking 72 off 19 overs (with Gavaskar and Srikkanth turning their arms over as well) before the umpires decided to pull the stumps.

Thus it was, my first test match. Utterly unforgettable, utterly forgettable. Poignantly summed up by who the man of the match was: Christopher James Tavaré. After such a debut, why do I still follow test cricket, you may ask. Well… ask yourself that question too.

The scorecard

Autobiography of an Unknown Cricketer: Sujit Mukherjee

Eleven reasons why Autobiography of an Unknown Cricketer can lay claim to being one of the best cricket books ever written, probably the best by an Indian.

1. For not trying to explain India through cricket or to glorify cricket as a unifying force, as the opium for the masses. Sujit Mukherjee sees cricket as, wait for this, cricket.
2. For keeping the focus on the game, and the references to politics and power plays to the minimum, helped, no doubt by the fact that Bihar was not quite (and doesn’t look likely to ever be) a cricketing hotspot like Mumbai or Chennai.
3. For not trying to build or defend the author’s cricketing image. This was perhaps easy because while Sujit went on to represent Bihar in the Ranji Trophy, he was not a star cricketer.
4. For not name dropping. Notwithstanding point 3 above, Sujit has rubbed shoulders with the odd well-known name in Indian cricket. He writes about these in a wonderfully matter-of-fact manner, even the fact that he managed to tonk CS Nayudu for a few in an unofficial game in Kolkata in 1952 gets only a matter-of-fact coverage.
5. For the kind of insight he offers, almost by the side. Like when he conjectures on why Patna University fails repeatedly.
   

   One reason I thought was that our cricketers were so used to playing against one another that they got utterly out of depth when facing unknown opposition.

   Is it to overcome this problem that the English County Board allowed overseas cricketers in the county circuit? And then took it to the next level with the Kolpaks?
6. For faithfully reporting on local cricket from the U.S. – it turns out to be more interesting than the oft-repeated stories of Americans trying to understand the game.
7. For enabling you to read without having to refer to poetry books or lengthy literary classics. With no disrespect to those who adopt that style of writing, there is a certain sincerity that emerges from simple writing – Unknown Cricketer is a good example of this. This is all the more creditable considering Sujit was an English professor – surely he would have read some classics.
8. For, despite his fairly successful writing life, referring to it so unselfconsciously.
   

   An occasional writer of articles (like me) can never get over the fact that he is read. As for the rare writer of books (again like me), he can scarcely believe that he is purchased.

9. For the illuminating way in which he describes the selection trials for the Bihar state team. In three sparse and succinct pages, he reveals how the game is run in the country. I don’t think things have changed much even now, sixty-three years on.
10. For this passage, comparing watching a game at the ground and watching a game on television.
    

    Unavoidably, a sense of loss persists. The telecast shows me only what the cameraman wants to show; the telecommentary tells me only what the commentator is capable of telling, much of it pointless. Large chunks of the match, and not only of play, are left out completely; small chips of play are shown magnified beyond proportion of their significance.

11. For being only 168 pages long. And yet not sounding hurried.

A good loss...

While a series loss is not a thing to celebrate, it was good that India lost the test and the series today. Imagine if India had contrived to win at the SSC today (in a reprise of Melbourne 1981, as a colleague fervently hoped). The gaping holes in the middle order would have been covered up with the inevitable explanations that accompany a heady victorious feeling: ‘They’re just one good knock away from success’, ‘It was just a one-off failure’, ‘They are great players, they will bounce back’… The spin twins would have been forgiven, why, even feted for their game efforts. And the general feeling would’ve been that all is well with Indian cricket.

Thankfully (no, I am not being cynical or defeatist here), India lost. Which means, hopefully, questions will be asked. And more hopefully, answers will be found. Sweeping changes are generally seen as over-reactions but may be it’s time to bring the broom out.

I believe there are possibly six slots open in the Indian test team. And that’s not counting the wicket-keeper’s slot into which MS Dhoni will surely walk in when he wants. (Is Dhoni indulging in his privileges a bit too much, one wonders, but that’s not the point of this post.)

Rahul Dravid has not been the same player ever since he resigned from the captaincy – even that tour of England, his last as captain, was forgettable for Dravid the batsman. He has managed just one hundred in some 12 test matches after that English tour, and even that was on the Chennai featherbed against South Africa. More than the loss of form (to counter those ‘form is temporary…’ arguments), Dravid looks positively agonised at the crease (and on the field – remember the catches he has dropped) – surely things we don’t know are going on in the man’s mind. It’s tempting to conjecture, but let’s move on.

It is sacrilege to talk of dropping Sachin Tendulkar, you might as well ask for God to be deemed human. But Sachin, his fans (remember to include me in that gang) and the selectors will have to face the hard facts. The wizard’s performance in Australia is certainly something to savour but one cannot forget that he is aging and the injuries have become more frequent. The scores in this series – 27, 12, 5, 31, 6 and 14 – surely don’t present a pretty picture, but more than the runs, the manner of the dismissals make for some really depressing viewing. Not reading Muthiah Muralitharan off the hand in the first innings of the first test, chasing a wide Chaminda Vaas delivery in the second innings of the second and twice padding up to incoming deliveries in third – fairly village, to be honest.

Sourav Ganguly may feel that he is the most under the scanner every time India under-performs. But then, considering he has the lowest batting average among the fab four should mean something. Moreover, after that dream series against Pakistan, barring a couple of fighting fifties at Sydney, a fifty in a losing cause against South Africa at Ahmedabad and another match-winning one against the same team at Kanpur, Sourav has done little to help his cause. The predictability of his dismissals – poking to slip seems to be his stock shot nowadays – makes him a sitting duck nowadays.

VVS Laxman may statistically have been the best of the four in the series, with scores of 56, 21, 39, 13, 25 and 61 not out, but those numbers are hardly Bradmanesque. Moreover, Laxman’s inability (it seemed as much unwillingness to me) to marshal the tail came to the fore again. This time it suggested a clear focus on playing for his place in the team rather than for the team, and that alone is reason enough to go the distance with the man. A round 6000 runs in test cricket is perhaps appropriate for this stylist, and ending tantalisingly short of 100 tests (he has 96 now) is also fitting for the man who, with a test average of 43.79, remains perhaps one of the bigger underachievers in Indian cricket.

It’s also worth looking closely at the performance of our spin twins, Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh. In a series in which Ajantha Mendis and Muthiah Muralitharan decisively grabbed 47 of the 60 Indian wickets to fall, Kumble and Harbhajan managed 24 out of the 38 Sri Lankan wickets to fall, 15 of which came in the second test. But while the M & M gang took wickets in a manner that was aggressive and confident, the same can’t be said of the Indian duo. There is a certain defensiveness about both of them, a certain lack of faith in their own abilities, evidenced by how they let Mahela Jayawardene manipulate them at will in Kandy and Kumar Sangakkara likewise at the SSC.

Time to go, gentlemen.

Absolem, Absolem!

A little-known man called Alfred Absolem playing for a little-known team called the Hyderabad Heroes against another little-known team called the Ahmedabad Rockets in a little-known (well. . .) tournament called the Indian Cricket League has picked up a scarcely credible seven wickets in a Twenty20 game. After starting off with two wickets in his first over, Absolem underwent the mortification of a wicketless over, before picking two more in his next, rounding off with three wickets in his last over to finish with 7 for 15 off four overs. Local players aside, Absolem’s wickets included Wavell Hinds, Murray Goodwin, Damien Martyn and Heath Streak. A pity then, that all these worthies are long retired and the matches are part of a rebel tournament, so Absolem is unlikely to be in contention for a slot in the national team. But 7 for 15, he’ll take that I reckon. Here’s the match card.

It’s an ill wind . . .

It wasn’t quite easy watching the proceedings at the ‘Gabba, and it was really a relief that the weather interfered rather more decisively than it tends to in England. It was a pointless game in a pointless one-day series. (It is a relief to remember that this is to be the last tri-series tournament in the annual Australian cricket calendar, at least until the BCCI realises how to make money off it). No, I’m not saying this because I’m an Indian and the Indians didn’t quite cover themselves with glory with their batting performance. Yes, I did watch Brett Lee bowl give yet another great exhibition of fast bowling. No, it’s not because the game ended resultless. But… you know what I mean.

Yet, and trust a die-hard cricket follower (especially on an otherwise eventless Sunday) to find something to talk about even in a game like this…

It was the third over of the Australian innings. Irfan Pathan was bowling to James Hopes. He starts with a dot ball; then bowls a real wide down the leg side, follows up with another good dot ball; and then disappears to the fence for the next three. Then he comes up to bowl the last ball of the over. It was another delivery on the leg stump, and brushed past the batsman’s pads. Hopes attempted to tickle it to fine-leg but missed. The umpire spread his arms wide. Groan. Pathan had to bowl that one again.

But the batsman’s reaction was instructive. Hopes was practising the shot again and berating himself for missing out on what could have been a certain boundary. If the ball was that close to being hit for a boundary, is it fair that it be declared a wide just because the batsman missed it?

I know it’s a tight call with these leg stump wides, but may be they should be treated like lbws? That is, the umpires have to decide whether the ball was really un-hittable rather than just going by the mechanical definition of a ball just going down the leg side? I know the current trend is to take away as much decision-making as possible from the on-field umpires but surely there are some things they can decide on? And only they can decide on?

Uncomfortable times for India?

It’s interesting to see India not being able to dislodge Australia’s new Sir Don, Mitchell Johnson (career average 108 as I write) and Brad Hogg at the Adelaide Oval today. May be they’re not complaining about it. After all, if India get Australia all out soon, they will have a difficult hour and a bit to negotiate. What with Australia’s bowlers fresh after a two-day rest, with a new ball and in fading light; and an Irfan Pathan coming in after two tiring days on the field. Did anyone say that the lack of a specialist opener will not affect India? Oh oh, as I am about to upload this, Johnson falls and leaves Sir Don alone at the top again.

A lot to play for at Adelaide

Australia may have retained the Border-Gavaskar trophy, but there still seem to be too many things at stake in the Adelaide test starting tomorrow. India has a chance to end with a 2-2 scoreline and thus enable this series to lay claim as one of the tightest contests ever. Australia, on the other hand, will go all out to prove that they can be nice and win. That’s as far as the cricket on the field is concerned. There’s as much, if not more, off the field as well.

The “monkey-calling” hearing comes up a day after the test, and the response to it could well be governed by the Adelaide, and hence the series, result. It will be a matter of eternal debate, but the correlation between the series result and the hearing verdict is bound to be discussed at least until the next big controversy.

The big five of Indian cricket – Anil Kumble, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman – are surely playing their last test match in the country they have thrilled and tormented in equal measure over the years. And considering only Tendulkar is staying back for the one-dayers, the others will be stepping on to an Australian ground for the final time. And the likes of Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist may be facing off against India in the test arena for the last time as well.

Well, the match is just a few hours away, but the game is already on. Ricky Ponting is trying his best to hide his grin when he claims that Australia has not ruled out Shaun Tait from the playing eleven. So the Australian eleven is clear then – Brad Hogg for Tait and Matthew Hayden back in for Chris Rogers.

The Indians, on the other hand, don’t necessarily possess Ponting’s media savviness and sense of humour, so when they make noises about playing five bowlers, you tend to take them a bit more seriously and worry. I hope sanity prevails come match day morning and they get back to their 6 + Dhoni + 4 composition.

The old adage says that if you can’t win with six batsmen, you can’t do so with seven either. I think the same applies to the bowling as well – if four bowlers are not good enough, a fifth isn’t going to turn the tables for you. One of them is likely to be under-bowled any way.

Moreover, look at the imbalance that a five bowler line-up creates for India. If Wasim Jaffer is dropped for Harbhajan, India starts with one opener short. Revert to Dravid as opener? That, I reckon, was one of the key factors that cost India the first two tests. And Dravid at No. 3 was also a key player in the WACA win. What about Irfan Pathan as opener? Pathan’s decline before the recent comeback can be attributed quite a bit to his ever-changing position in the batting order in the Greg Chappell regime. Does India want to re-live that all over again?

Hype and tripe aside, India will have to focus on the game to the exclusion of the previous one as far as selection goes. And there really is only one change India needs to make. Draft Harbhajan Singh in for Ishant Sharma (their job expectations are similar, aren’t they – just get Ponting out?). I know Jaffer hasn’t quite been a success on this tour, but getting a low-on-big-match-practice Dinesh Karthik into such a pressure cooker atmosphere isn’t a great idea either.

There is another, more daring option if India dares to think unconventional. Drop Jaffer for Harbhajan, and bring in Karthik for MS Dhoni. Did I hear gasps of shock, awe and horror? Look at it objectively. Karthik is as good a wicket-keeper as Dhoni, and though he was not an opener by choice, he has moulded himself into an adhesive one over the last few seasons, and an adhesive partner to the slippery Virender Sehwag could be just what the doctor ordered for India. And it might just be the spur required to get a glorious swansong century from Sourav Ganguly.

Anil Kumble is known to be a cool-headed man. Tomorrow morning, when he exchanges team lists with Ricky Ponting, we will know whether the heat of the occasion has got to him.

So how will the next five days pan out? As the good lord quite often decides, the more the hype, the less the real excitement. So we could well be in for a damp squib of a game, in the form of a high-scoring draw, more likely a rain-affected draw or, most likely a ruthless one-sided victory for Australia, as they lay the marker for the next 16-test winning streak.

Changing colours

The Indian team for the upcoming one-day tri-series in Australia is due to be announced today. Fresh from the WACA euphoria, here are some mis-steps the selectors may make.

First up is the case of Virender Sehwag. Dropping him from the test squad was a mistake the selectors made in the past; picking him for the limited overs team was a second, perhaps larger mistake. Think of Sehwag as India’s Michael Slater (plus the bowling and the tactical nous). An unpredictable, game-changing opener best saved for test matches.

VVS Laxman could perhaps come up for discussion as well. His Sydney 167 of many moons ago got him to stay back for the one-day series down under. Great as he is in whites, putting him in coloured clothing again may not be a good idea, not least because it will be a step back for the successful youth selections of late.

Rahul Dravid is a tricky selection. He was discarded half-way through the home one-day series against Pakistan. Should he come back now, on the back of what looks like a return to test match form? I wouldn’t vote for it.

Ishant Sharma is a temptation the selectors would do well to resist. One good spell doesn’t a wizard make. Let Ishant take his time and settle down in the test team, and then we can think of him in the other forms of the game.

Seven players from the test squad pick themselves for the one-dayers – Sachin Tendulkar, Saurav Ganguly, Yuvraj Singh, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Harbhajan Singh, Rudra Pratap Singh and Irfan Pathan. Of the others, I reckon Shantakumaran Sreeshanth, Gautam Gambhir and Robin Uthappa would be shoo-ins. The other six should be interesting selections. Murali Kartik or Piyush Chawla? Praveen Kumar? Rohit Sharma or Mohammed Kaif or Suresh Raina or Subramaniam Badrinath? Yusuf Pathan? Some total newcomers like Cheteshwar Pujara? An interesting day ahead.

Lasting the distance

As I write this, India is slowly giving the WACA game back to Australia. Why am I not surprised? One thing India does not seem to be able to master is the fact that test cricket is a game played over five games and fifteen sessions. And you need to dominate more than half those sessions, especially towards the latter half of the game, if you are to make a serious fist at winning.

The Melbourne test was a harbinger of things to come. After a bad first session, India swung back and won the next two sessions, thus ending the first day with their nose ahead. That was as good as it got, as Australia swung back and won all the nine sessions that followed, to wrap up the game rather convincingly with a day and most of a session to spare.

At Sydney, India looked like they were getting better, dominating the first two sessions and having Australia in a spot of bother at 95 for 2, in more than a spot of bother half the way into tea at 134 for 6. However, the Aussies battled back to dominate the rest of the day, and the first session of the next day, recovering to a more-than-respectable 462. India did come back strongly over the next session, going into tea at 101 for 1. The next session also belonged to India, as they motored on to 215 for 3 at stumps, though they did lose two quick wickets towards the close to keep the Aussies interested. So on day 2, India had won about the half the exchanges.

Day 3 also belonged mostly to India, as they dominated all three sessions and closed in on 532, and a handy lead of 69. That was as good as it got. The next six sessions belonged to Australia, umps, chumps and all, as Michael Clarke’s scarcely believable 3-card trick towards the very end put paid to India’s hopes of escaping with a draw. In essence, India got the better of the exchanges in 7 out of the 15 sessions, just one less than Australia. But the difference was 122 runs, and it was a defeat grabbed from the jaws of a draw, even from a distant dream of victory.

Perth looks similar. India won sessions 1 and 2, wobbled in 3, galloped through all the three sessions of day 2 (barring the Symonds-Gilchrist counter attack either side of tea), had a bad first session today and what is turning out to be a slightly better second session. That means they have (more or less) dominated five of the eight sessions so far. Can they maintain this and have three more good sessions? History suggests otherwise.

Is it the excess of limited-overs cricket? Is it not having sufficient firepower to deliver twice in a row? Or is it just that Australia is too good a team to fail back-to-back? Think back to the Ashes last season, and the story was quite similar in some test matches. Yes, this Australian team just seems a touch invincible. And Ponting doesn’t even need his Sydney antics to get there. This Perth test can prove that Australia can win while still behaving themselves.

Bhajji the batsman and other tales

Having been a solid test match opener, Gary Kirsten knows the virtues of a good, steady start as opposed to a chancy, attractive one. So when he landed in Australia to begin his stint in one of the two toughest coaching assignments in international cricket, one expected him to open as he did on day one of a test match. So he started, with polite noises about the importance of “specialists” when talking of a specialised opener, and a long overdue No. 3 slot for Rahul Dravid.

But very soon, Kirsten nibbled at one outside the off-stump when he said this about Harbhajan Singh: “…the thing I enjoyed was his batting performance in Sydney. We’ve identified that it’s very important that members of the lower order make a contribution with the bat and he did that in the Test.”

After all the events following the Sydney test, one was wondering how the Indian team was going to justify either decision on Harbhajan. Now the answer is clear: Bhajji is the missing link, er, all-rounder in the Indian line-up.

So much has happened over the last few days it’ll be a shame not to read deeper than necessary into some of those.

The Australian cricket team apparently had a team meeting to discuss their Spirit of Cricket pledge. Without references to bolted horses and broken fences, it’s interesting to wonder why the Aussies did it. Apart, of course, for the noble intentions which they surely had. Is it to lead the administrators to believe that they are a chastened lot now? And thus set themselves up for a repeat in future tests? Is it to come across as a more “spirited” lot than the Indians and thus put India on the defensive? Or is there a more mundane, practical explanation? That they have achieved their ambition of retaining the Border-Gavaskar trophy (and 16-on-the-trot) and so can afford to play cricket the way others want them to?

The Indian team is no slouch when it comes to such done-for-this-but-intended-for-that gestures. How else would you explain their dropping charges against Brad Hogg? Surely they’ve put Australia in a fix? How can Australia not play Hogg on the raging turner that is the WACA?

Peter Roebuck’s suggestion that Australia replace Ricky Ponting with Simon Katich as national captain is as original as any. Having played in England for all his career, Roebuck is perhaps still an Englishman at heart. So his suggestion comes probably with an eye on the next Ashes.

The game is indeed being taken beyond its traditional confines – it is much more interesting and closely fought outside the 22-yard strip nowadays. I look forward to the days after the WACA test.