Indian series triumph good for subcontinent
I have been covering cricket for more than half a century, a labour of love but which is also my livelihood
Omar Kureishi
28-Mar-2001
I have been covering cricket for more than half a century, a labour of
love but which is also my livelihood. But I would have paid to be
present at Chennai or the Queen's Park Oval in Trinidad to watch what
must surely rank as two of the greatest Test matches ever and both at
about the same time.
Test cricket does not provide the instant gratification that one-day
cricket does. Yet there was about these two Test matches an excitement
and a tension that sent the heart pulsating and the pulse racing of
those who watched it, either on the ground or on television and left
them nervous wrecks. Both the Test matches could have gone either way
though the one at Trinidad did not have the same tight finish as the
one at Chennai.
I thought that West Indies were distinctly unlucky with some umpiring
decisions, by their own home umpire, the one against Brian Lara
proving fatal. He was clearly not out, the ball pitching several
inches outside the leg-stump and, therefore, he could not have been
leg-before. But in this Test match, Courtney Walsh reached what had
seemed unreachable 500 Test wickets, a tally that is likely to stay on
the record books for a long time to come, if not permanently.
South Africa beat the West Indies because they were a mentally tougher
team but under Carl Hooper and before their won crowd, the West Indies
showed signs of resurgence, the batting has more purpose but still
retains the joyfulness that is a West Indian trademark. There is still
a lot of life in the series.
But the Chennai Test match was something else. Each day was a new day
and each session of play like a Somerset Maugham or an O'Hara short
story with a surprise twist. In the end, both teams were like boxers
slugging it out, trading punches wildly.
Neither willing to give up as exemplified by India going to tea
needing 23 runs to win with five wickets in hand, all over bar the
shouting, and Australia striking back with three quick wickets. In the
end it was left to Sameer Dighe and Harbhajan Singh to see India
through but only just.
Steve Waugh gave a model-lesson of a captain keeping his cool and the
body-language of the Australians suggested that they planned to fight
it out till the last ball. Glenn McGrath did resort to some negative
bowling but the idea was to test the patience of the Indian batsman.
But Steve Waugh attacked relentlessly. He knew the only way the match
could be won was by taking wickets. TV shots of Saurav Ganguly in the
dressing room showed him on the edge of his seat, a bundle of nerves,
not exactly a source of inspiration to his team members.
But, at least he was showing honest emotions. But the manner in which
Harbhajan Singh strode to the wicket, as if to say, what's all the
panic about, was a supreme show of confidence in himself. Indeed that
has been the reason for his phenomenal success, self-belief. It was
this self-belief rather than cockiness that cast a spell on the
Australian batsmen. He didn't get them out, he psyched them out.
As off-spinners go, he's a different kind of bowler to Saqlain Mushtaq
and Muttiah Muralitharan and it will be interesting to see how he will
bowl on wickets other than those in India. But 32 wickets is a lot of
wickets in a three-Test series.
It was taken for granted that Sachin Tendulkar would get at least one
Test hundred in the series and he duly got it at Chennai, almost on
order. He now has 25 Test centuries and many years of cricket left in
him which means many more Test hundreds.
I was delighted to see India win the series because it is good for
subcontinent cricket. That India won on its home wickets does not take
away from their splendid win. When teams from the subcontinent play in
Australia or South Africa or England, they too are playing in
conditions that are alien to them. The difference is that we don't
bitch about it.
I have written about this before but to no avail. Something must be
done about excessive appealing. One can understand the fielding side
getting excited but some of the appealing is so ridiculous, it amounts
to cheating. A wicket-keeper will go up fully well knowing that there
has been no nick. I suggested a penalty of one run for every
unsuccessful appeal. A bowler is penalised for a no-ball or a wide.
A fielder too must be penalised for frivolous appealing, for in a way,
it amounts to bringing the game into disrepute. It is a blatant
attempt to bring the umpire under pressure. And also think that
something must be done about sledging. One doesn't have to be a lipreader to know what is being said and since a lot of budding
cricketers imitate the mannerisms of the players they see on
television, we are sending a wrong message to them.
I am surprised that the match referee has been so lenient. I don't
think that abusing your opponent constitutes playing tough and
competitive cricket, the justification sometimes given for sledging. I
think television should raise the volume of the stump mike so that the
viewers can clearly hear what is being said. It may be a good idea if
the umpire sent for soap and water from the pavilion and get a bowler
to wash his mouth out in public. It may work even on someone like
McGrath.