Shocking pitch or shocking batting?

The pitch at the Wankhede Stadium was the focus of attention in the newspapers after India's 13-run win against Australia in a Test which lasted just a shade over two days of actual playing time. While most writers agreed that the pitch was a shocker, many believed that it still could not explain Australia's capitulation for 93 in the face of a meagre fourth-innings target of 107.

"There were demons in the pitch, but Australia batted like they were in a horror movie; as if gooey green monsters were snapping at them every ball," wrote Harsha Bhogle in The Indian Express. "It was a shocking pitch but the best batting line-up in the world cannot be decimated in under 15 overs. Nothing can be that bad; not even this horror at the Wankhede Stadium."

"Australia's fourth-innings collapse was lamentable," Peter Roebuck commented in the Sydney Morning Herald. "Bad habits returned with foolish shots played and the hard graft ignored." Writing in Sydney's Daily Telegraph, Robert Craddock was more scathing: It was the worst botched chase in Australian cricket history."

The Indians rejoiced in their face-saving win, but there were words of caution about the means taken to reach the ends. Not surprisingly, they came from a seamer. Writing for The Hindu, Javagal Srinath said: "India's desperation for such a result is understandable. But while winning in India, one should start working on the strengths that are required to play abroad on bouncy tracks. Indian cricket should not get carried away with the success on the home soil."

Australia sorely missed Shane Warne on this pitch, and the fact that Nathan Hauritz was the second-best spin option in the squad came in for some harsh comment as well. "By selecting only one tried and trusted tweaker for a tour of India, Trevor Hohns and his colleagues took a fearful risk," observed Roebuck. "Hauritz took 2 for 87 on this turning track ... but they [his two wickets] were also the result of outfield catches as opposed to deadly deliveries."

The man most under scrutiny was Polly Umrigar, the curator, and he maintained that the pitch wasn't to blame for the bizarre game. "I can't understand why [Ricky] Ponting chose to use the heavy roller before both innings ... It's common knowledge something heavy will ensure the wicket breaks quickly," Umrigar told the Kolkata-based Telegraph newspaper. "I accept the wicket helped the spinners, but I don't agree it ever was dangerous ... Moreover, the turn wasn't there from the first ball, was it? Our spinners did better simply because of their class."

The final word, though, went to Sourav Ganguly. Out of the Test with a groin injury, he nevertheless took a parting shot at Ponting, who had missed the first three Tests himself with a broken finger. Writing in Mid Day, a Mumbai-based tabloid, Ganguly asked: "Did Ponting's thumb injury take more time than normal to heal or did his record against Harbhajan and Kumble have something to do with it? We should not be jumping to conclusions, but his record in India is indeed pretty ordinary."

He followed that salvo with another, referring obviously to the Indian team's complaint about the Nagpur wicket: "Will Ponting and co. be criticised for the big fuss they made about the wicket which spun and cost them the match? Or do we have to start learning to live with the idea that rules will be different for touring sides to India and for the home team captain?"