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

That over

Twenty-eight years ago this day...

Running amok

Am reading the autobiography of a cricketing great and was planning to come back to blogging here with a review of that book but events on a few cricket fields prompted me to rush my comeback. Not that any one was waiting with bated breath, but hey, this is my blog and I am entitled to my delusions of grandeur. But I digress.

At the AMI Stadium in Christchurch, India serenely marched to 392 for 4 in 50 overs. With a score like this, you’d expect the bowlers to just turn up and sew up the match. No, not in today’s times. New Zealand roared off the starting blocks, Brendon McCullum was outscored in a rumbustious opening stand, and the Kiwis lost not because of the formidable total they were up against; they lost because they had an inexperienced middle order. They still managed to score 334, in just a ball over 45 overs.

Over at Kingsmead, Durban, Mitchell Johnson treated us to a rare frightful spell of hostile fast bowling on Saturday. (No malice intended, but the sight of blood spilling from the jaw of Jacques Kallis must have been heartening to bowlers the world over.) But normal service resumed today as a rookie playing in just his second test managed a century in each innings.

The anodyne series between England and West Indies continues at the Queen’s Park Oval in Port of Spain, and while England might just win this game and square the series, it does not take away from the batsman-friendliness of the series barring the one session of shame for England. Paul Collingwood averaged a shade under 46 before the test started and Matt Prior was at 40.42. Graham Gooch ended his career with an average of 42.58, Allan Lamb finished with a Himalayan 36.09 and that epitome of grace, David Gower managed 44.25. You decide the pecking order of English cricketing greatness.

To borrow a phrase I heard Ian Chappell use long ago, is run inflation well and truly on? Do we need to recalibrate cricket the way we knew it? Or is the game on its last legs? Only the likes of Johnson and Dale Steyn can help preserve the balance. But how long can they fight the elements?

A lot to play for

For England, there is a lot to play for at Edgbaston on Saturday, as they usher the weekend in with a handy lead of 214 runs with four wickets in hand.

All is forgotten as Paul Collingwood cements (why does that verb seem most appropriate for the man?) his place in the test team again with a handy hundred. (He got there with a six, didn’t he? Well, well, what’s the world coming to? Now they’ll expect Michael Vaughan to score runs as well, those unreasonable media men.) The captain of the one-day team not finding a place in the test team? That’s a sure way to get the selectors into recalling Graeme Hick.

Ryan Sidebottom gets a chance to do another Bob Willis (as a colleague said, it’s more than the bobbing hair, right?) as he steams in to bowl with a not-so-heavy target to back him. That may put paid to the hopes of Darren Pattinson’s comeback, but who cares for Aussies in England any way?

Andrew Flintoff completes a dream return to the test fold. Was he match fit? Did Michael Vaughan over-bowl him in the first innings? Is he good enough to bat at No. 6? All such questions will be forgotten. Until the big man injures himself again. (Can anyone please lead me to an online video clipping of his two overs to Jacques Kallis in the first innings?)

Andrew Strauss will get one more opportunity to prove that he is worthy of the sparkling whites after back-to-back twin failures following a relatively massive 44 in the first test. With Michael Vaughan preferring to give the opposition two quick wickets at the top of the order, the selectors will find it tough to look beyond a reluctant Marcus Trescothick (remember the man?) to partner Alastair Cook. And if Marcus jumps the ship again… well, let the selectors do their job, I’m not paid to do so.

Ian Bell’s not doing too badly, notwithstanding the twin failures in the second test (and that horror of a shot today), but all it takes is one more loss for the wise men to start looking at Ramps and other assorted veterans for the middle order.

Finally for the skipper. Notwithstanding my cruel jibes at him earlier in this piece, Michael Vaughan redeemed himself somewhat by making a whole fistful of runs today (it constitutes 42.5 percentage of his aggregate for the series so far). But no, Vaughan’s not there in the team to make those runs – that’s for Jimmy Anderson and Monty Panesar to take care of. A win this weekend and Vaughan will be English captain for life, even after he retires. He will also be unquestionably named the best English captain of all time. Mike Brearley, who’s that? And all those whispers about knighthood will be happily amplified.

There is a lot to play for tomorrow.

The men are back

As the soap opera called the IPL meanders towards a conclusion not too many people care for, a couple of interesting test series seem to be unfolding. Well, interesting because there is at least some test cricket happening. And interesting because of the way the tests seem to be panning out. Two contrasting match-ups, one evenly matched no-contest and the other turning out to be a surprisingly matched slug fest.

I suppose it takes an IPL to make an England-New Zealand series seem exciting. A journey man team against a workmanlike team (take your pick on which team is which). A contest (such as it is) between two teams more likely to hope against defeat than bet on winning. And if the weather came to the rescue of both the teams at Lord’s, there was no such respite at Old Trafford, as the match ended in England’s favour on the last day. But thanks to the general ineptness of both teams as collective entities, it turned out to be a fairly even battle. The match card suggests England won, so it must be so. Does that mean they have turned the corner? Are they ready for the next season’s Ashes? Well, Andrew McGlashan hits the nail in the head when he suggests that England mustn’t hide behind victory.

A similar sentiment is not unlikely to prevail in Australia. They embarked on the Caribbean tour thinking all they need to do was to land up at the appointed time to wrap up the series in a clean sweep. Well, how else would you explain the selection of Simon Katich and Stuart McGill? Any way, an overnight Aussie card of 18 for 4 was as chilling as it was delicious to savour. Unfortunately, Andrew Symonds bludgeoned his way to a bit, and with a fairly healthy first innings lead to build on, the Aussies have almost (as I write this) got to the finish line first. Are the cracks beginning to show? Is the opening pair (even after Mathew Hayden’s return) suspect? Notwithstanding the presence of such he-men as Ricky Ponting, Michael Hussey and Symonds, is their middle order just a touch soft? Do opposition teams just need to see off Brett Lee and Stuart Clark and feast on the rest of the Aussie bowling? Or is this just a glitch in the Aussie juggernaut? Will they wipe England out again next year?

Ah, test cricket. Where were you all these days?

The future cricket 3 (Limited over tests)

With the current trend of test matches producing results (and in well under five days, as Ahmedabad and Kanpur proved), this change may not quite be required, but to prevent recurrences of the Chennai Test of last month and the featherbed sleepathons of the 1980s, why not limit the number of overs a team faces in a test match?

I remember this being tried out in some unofficial games, so the idea is not particularly new or original, but to the extent that it has not been implemented in official games yet, let me give it a shot.

Test cricket is about strategising, planning, taking your time in implementation and countering the vagaries of the deteriorating pitch and a tiring opposition. So it is key we don’t lose these elements in the proposed format. And while the toss brings in an element of luck, it tends to play a role in determining who initiates the strategy process. We make the toss a more important factor now.

In this version of the game, both teams get to play two innings, both restricted in terms of overs. The team that wins the toss decides (a) whether to bat first or second and (b) what the composition of their two innings is to be. The opposing team will also have to adopt the same composition.

For simplicity of calculation, a test match will be considered to be worth 400 overs, net of innings changes, slow over rates and other inevitable delays. Each team is allowed 200 overs. And the toss-winning captain decides how to split the overs. For ease of calculation and a semblance of balance, we give a minimum of 50 overs per innings and allow splits in lots of 25. So if the captain fancies a wearing pitch, he can choose 150 overs for the first innings and 50 for the second. Except that the opposition will also get the same break-up. If a team gets bowled out earlier, the remaining overs lapse. On the other hand, if the captain fancies early juice on day 1 and a featherbed from day 2, he can opt for a 50-over first innings and a long stint the second time round.

Sounds insane? Surely we want more masterpieces like this Don classic?

Part 1 – 50Fifty

Part 2 – More new balls

Beau who?

If there’s one aspect of the game the Englishmen have bettered the Aussies in over the last few years (no, seriously, there is something), it is left-arm spin. Monty Panesar may not have had a very successful Ashes series the last time over, but if you consider him and Phil Tufnell and Derek Underwood long before that, they surely have had better international success than the Aussies have had, notwithstanding the odd turns of Allan Border, Michael Bevan and Michael Clarke. And in the anodyne tradition of Ray Bright, Murray Bennett and Tom Hogan (Am I missing someone? That tells its own story, doesn't it?) comes Beau Casson, a left-arm finger spinner from that Mecca of spin bowling, Perth.

Beau has been named as the second spinner to that fitness fanatic, Stuart McGill, so it is fair to imagine he won’t be in the starting line-up for the first test at Kingston, Jamaica on May 22. But what are the odds that he may be in the fray for the second test? Well, McGill can injure his wrist again; or he can miss practice and upset the team management; or he can show dissent on the field for being given out 48 short of a well deserved maiden test half century. And hey presto, test player number 401, Beau Casson. The only thing about it is that the opponents are the West Indies, and so before Beau comes on to bowl, the tail will be in. A few days ago and one could have bet on Shivnarine Chanderpaul holding one end strong, but now he may well have gone off to attend an awards ceremony in one of the other islands.

Speaking of Chanderpaul, Australia have included their version of the West Indian (in terms of batting elegance), Simon Katich in the squad. Surely this is a serious message to Ricky Ponting, considering Peter Roebuck’s suggestions not so long ago that Katich should take over as captain of the Australian team? Considering Ponting has not been in the best of batting form of late, this added pressure will surely be a test to his character and leadership skills. Oh, what an exciting series this is going to be!

Vaughan on Dunedin

“I know a lot will be said and written about our defeat to New Zealand at Seddon Park over the weekend. Different opinions are being offered for our defeat, but as the man at the helm, only Michael knows the real reasons.

“Yes, our bowling was one of the reasons for our defeat. But not in the way the media thinks. Yes, Harmy didn’t quite fire. But don’t tell me you expected it. We don’t come into a game thinking Harmy’s going to win it for us. It’s a team game, isn’t it, so we expect the ten others to cover for Harmy. To be honest, Harmy exceeded our (and his own, I think) wildest expectations: he bowled just the one wide in the entire game, didn’t he. Remember his first test in the Southern hemisphere last season? Our bowling disappointment has really been Ryan. The test would have meandered into a draw if Ryan had just followed the script: the hat-trick hastened the game and created a result. Monty’s three wickets didn’t help either. It was a dead wicket otherwise.

“Some insightful statisticians might point out that we played 228.1 overs in the test to score 458 runs, at a rate of just over two runs per over, and that if we had scored just one run more per over, we would have won comfortably. Well, it’s all well for critics to say that, but we have a responsibility to the test game. If we start treating test matches like one-dayers and play our strokes, we’d become responsible for killing the test game. No, Michael can’t take that to his grave. And don’t forget, it was a dead wicket – for batsmen as well. Sure, New Zealand scored at more than three runs per over in both their innings, I think Twenty20 is getting to them.

“I think we need to calibrate the media’s expectation with the English cricket team. Michael won the Ashes for them in 2005, in what is England’s greatest sporting achievement forever. But look at what England has achieved after that in the test arena. Thanks to Darrell and those inconsistent Pakistanis, England has managed to win against them. But they lost to Australia (lost? more like lambasted) away, to India at home, to Sri Lanka away. And I’m sure I’m forgetting some other lost series. With all that background, you expect us to win now? Come on, you might as well ask Harbhajan to keep quiet. Or Harmy to win matches, come to that.

“As with most disasters, there are some positives we can take out of the game. Vaughan scored a fifty in the first innings, so no one can say he’s in the team only because of his captaincy. Colly’s second innings stonewall shows that just because he is England’s one-day captain doesn’t mean he cannot defend. Monty’s heroic effort with the bat in the second innings means we have a spinning all-rounder for the first time after Ashley. And most importantly, considering where England is now, there is only one way ahead.”

(Michael Vaughan didn’t give this interview to the media after the Dunedin disaster as he was busy discussing James Whitaker’s travel plans.)

The buck does not stop

Steve Bucknor is nothing if not neutral – bat and pad are the same to him. You just had to see the first-ball dismissal of Mohammed Rafique off Morne Morkel (yes, Bangladesh and South Africa are playing out a test series, in case you care) to convince yourself of that. I’ve seen batsmen being given out lbw off a bat-pad, I’ve seen batsmen being given out lbw when the ball was either going too high or was missing the stumps, I’ve even seen batsmen being given lbw for being hit on other parts of the body, but Mohammed Rafique was perhaps the first to be given lbw for playing the ball with the bat – there was barely any pad in that defensive push of his. Well, ole’ Buck is just proving that those Sydney decisions were not malice-driven. Sigh!

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.

Australia happy with 2–1?

Matthew Hayden speaking to the media after the third day’s play at Adelaide (emphasis mine).

They wanted us to be attacking. It was indicated by the way they didn’t take the new ball. It was perfect for us to bat time in the game. The way they’ve bowled has been perfect for us not to lose. If it’s wide outside off, we don't have to play. Australia are 2-1 up in the series and that’s the way we definitely want it to stay.

It seems to suggest the Australians are playing for a draw, but more than that, does it hint at a certain unheard-of defensiveness in the Aussies? When was the last time they played for a draw?

It is the same Australia (well, almost; if you disagree, that makes its own point) that chased down a target of 168 in 36 overs (they knocked it off in a ball shy of 33) against England in the last season at the same Adelaide Oval, a game they didn’t really need to win, having won the first test and this being just the second of five. It is the same Australia that pummelled South Africa at the Sydney Cricket Ground, chasing 287 in about 70 overs (they breezed through half way down the 61^st over), a game they just needed to draw to take the series.

Is this Hayden statement a tribute to India? Or am I just reading too much into it?

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.

The 15 overs that cost Australia No. 17?

Many theories will be offered for Australia stumbling on No. 17 again, this time at the WACA. Yes, the Indians, particularly the bowlers played out of their skin (Why does the press always use this phrase when India wins against serious opposition abroad?); yes, Hayden’s absence affected Australia (Would he have made up for the margin of 72 runs and the 19 runs that Chris Rogers managed between the two innings?); yes, Shaun Tait proved to be as effective as Rawl Lewis; yes, there are many more reasons like these. A certain passage of play could have played a key part as well.

Roll your memory back to overs 46 to 61 of the Indian second innings. India finished the 45^th over at 182 for 6. For the next 15 overs, Andrew Symonds and Michael Clarke rolled their arms over, one bowling hopeful seam-up, the other, hopeless donkey drops. And by the time Brett Lee returned for over 62, India had moved on to 234 for 6, which, added to the healthy first innings lead of 118, took India’s overall lead to 352. (As if on cue, Lee softened the Indians and Symonds took two wickets in his next over.)

Were those 15 overs crucial? MS Dhoni, who was having quite a wretched time with the bat in the series, was allowed to settle down; he ended up with a useful 38, and added 75 priceless runs with VVS Laxman. The period also allowed Laxman to contribute, helping him to shepherd the tail around to add a further 56 runs after the Symonds double-strike. Considering the final margin was 72 runs, you can work out the mathematics and the probabilities.

Ricky Ponting’s reason for the Clarke-Symonds duet is perhaps that Australia were lagging behind on the over-rate, and risked incurring the wrath of the match referee even to the extent of a match ban for the skipper. (Eventually, they were only two overs short, and so escaped with just a monetary fine, 20 per cent for the skip and 10 per cent for the rest of the team.)

The imperative of having to bowl 90 overs in 390 minutes (6 hours of normal play plus the half-hour extension) proved to be a bit beyond Australia, more so because of their four-pronged pace attack.

Should this little aside force a re-think on the minimum overs requirement? Is 4 minutes too tight for an over of fast bowling? Is it fair that the requirement be decided based on a certain notional number of overs of slow bowling in an innings? Are teams constrained to choose their line-up based on this requirement rather than the nature of the pitch and the opposition?

In test match cricket, with its five day spread and its acceptance of a draw as an acceptable result (at least officially, if not for the spectators), is this kind of time constraint required at all? Remember the West Indies teams of the 1980s. Do you imagine Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner, et al squeezing in anything approaching 90 overs in a day’s play? On the contrary, did they not produce results in test matches?

Of course, there is the other side of this argument as well, where teams delay things to prevent the opposition fro winning. Dilip Doshi, under instructions from Sunil Gavaskar, taking ten minutes (or was it twelve minutes?) to complete an over of slow left-arm comes to mind. So does Desmond Haynes’ (in one of those rare games he captained the West Indies) delaying tactics in the test match against England at Port of Spain in the 1989-90 season.

So yes, we do need some kind of control over time. But whether 90 overs is too harsh is the question. Inasmuch as you don’t want a team to lose because of poor umpiring, you don’t want them to struggle because of regulations that have perhaps been overtaken by reality and pragmatism.