Prem Panicker's take on day one: Good synopsis

[arkay]

Random thoughts on Day One at Adelaide Item: An LBW appeal against Rahul Dravid should have gone the way of the bowler. To say the batsman did not last long enough to capitalize is not the point. Similarly, Virender Sehwag was caught off a no ball – and to argue that the slash he played was stupid is equally beside the point. Sydney was a nadir, yes – but as has been pointed out in this forum and others, there were as many as eight clear umpiring goofs in Perth, and Adelaide hasn’t gotten off to the best of starts either, in this regard. ‘This is a terrible tragedy – it would be a shame to waste it’ – to my mind, that is true, very true, of Sydney. That Test put the focus squarely on umpiring incompetence; by heatedly debating it at the time, and since moving on to the next likely controversy, we – the media by not discussing it and doing enough to keep it in the spotlight, the ICC by conveniently ignoring the larger problem—are wasting an opportunity to use Sydney as the springboard for a revision of the quality of the elite panel, to institute systems of scrutiny that ensures the highest quality of officiating. Item: To see India go in with the extra bowler, by dropping Jaffar and upping Pathan to the number one slot, felt good. True, it is a bit unfair to Pathan, only into his second game on the comeback trail, to be asked to open against a team like Australia. But from the team point of view, the signal was eloquent, and without too many precedents: we are in this to win this, the selection says, even if it means putting on the truncated batting lineup an additional burden. That was a feel good moment right there. Too often, it is the bowlers – often, under-rated bowlers – who have kept us in Test matches and series, while all the talk is about the batting. And yet, when it comes time to picking a playing XI, too often the focus is on somehow cushioning the Fab Four or Famous Five or whatever, a process that has inevitably weakened the bowling and placed additional burdens on what, on paper, is the weaker link in the Indian armor. For once, the team goes in with adequate resources on the bowling front – five regulars with a balance between spin and seam, plus the likes of Sewhag and Tendulkar as wild cards; good, especially when you consider that on the evidence of the play thus far, this wicket will help seam over the first two, maybe even three, days and then provide increased assistance to spinners. Item: While on bowling, Aussie tactics in Perth and now here are perplexing. There is an exaggerated focus on bowling well outside off stump; Mitchell Johnson is the prime suspect but Stuart Clark has been almost as culpable. That has left only Brett Lee to consistently attack the batsman (and for obvious reasons, he has been the one bowler to consistently trouble the Indians, even when batting at their best, a case in point being the dismissal of Laxman today – the batsman judged the bounce wrong, true, but the wicket really owed to the fact that Lee was attacking the stumps and body, not bowling wide outside off and waiting for the fish to bite), while his fellow bowlers appear intent on damage control, on playing the patience game and, like an angler with time on his hands, throwing out the lure and waiting forever, if need be, for the fish to bite. You can’t say that is not good strategy, but you do wonder why Australia, which talks up its bowling attack and, before and during this series, has repeatedly suggested that its pace bowlers would blow India away, resort to it as Plan A. Could it be the bowlers are not as confident of going up against quality batting as the media seem to be? Item: I like Virender Sehwag at the top of the Test order. One of the most regular sights during the first session of play was Ricky Ponting, at second slip, going down on his haunches, head in hands, as another educated outer edge slid the ball past where third slip should have been, and down to third man for runs. Ponting had a third, and even fourth, slip for Dravid and earlier, for Pathan. Against Sehwag, though, the slips were sliced to two inside the first hour – the fielding captain’s forced response against a batsman who will actively look for runs anywhere on the field, thus opening up too many gaps to be blocked. You can block ad nauseum and argue that you are “keeping the bowlers at bayâ€, but if you really want to dominate early on in an innings, the only option is to proactively engage the opposing bowlers and fielding captain – and until we come upon another batsman capable of doing this with some degree of consistency, I’ll continue to root for him. Item: The Indian attitude has been positive throughout, but for me the real purple patch was that session after tea when Tendulkar and Laxman went nuts r’us, during a three over span that produced 31 runs. The period stood out not for the runs themselves, vital though they were, but for the planned response to a predictable situation. In that sense, this was almost a set piece: It was a given that Australia (though it did far better on the over rate front than at Perth) would lag towards evening. That in turn meant that at some point Ponting would need to turn to Brad Hogg, and to his part-time spinners, to rip through a few overs and, hopefully, even knock over a wicket or two. By going ballistic in the way Tendulkar in particular did, the Indians ensured that the pressure was transferred squarely to Ponting – the Aussie skipper couldn’t afford many overs of such mayhem, and was forced to ignore the clock and bring Lee back to try and limit the damage. Lee almost did just that – only for Gilchrist to floor the most obvious sitter and, in doing so, indicate that “pressure†is not something that knee caps only Australia’s opponents, while leaving that team immune. Another instance of that pressure came during the same time period, when a frustrated Hogg was reduced into making a keynote speech to VVS Laxman – Hogg’s fury was amusing, Laxman’s smiling and nodding his head throughout the harangue, even more so. Oh and in passing? I love when Tendulkar decides to bat with authority, as he did here – but I wish like heck he (a batsman with the proven ability to use his bat to good effect) wouldn’t use his pads quite as much as he does. There was one bit of pad play against Hogg, for instance, that was just plain unnecessary – and potentially suicidal, given he clearly was not playing a shot and the strike was only marginally outside off stump. Why a batsman who in the mood can handle the best bowling with contemptuous ease will, every now and again, set himself up for a “contentious†dismissal is a mystery. 309/5 at the end of day one looks good; the view would have been even better had India lost a wicket, or two, less. Put that down to the perennial wish for my team to do outstandingly well, though—on the ground, the situation is in a state of balance. If Dhoni, who seems to have decided in this innings, and for much of this series, to be more wall than sledgehammer, sticks it out tomorrow morning, and if Tendulkar continues in his current vein, topping the 400-mark should be a doddle. Do that, and India could have the upper hand in this Test; collapse in a heap, and the bowlers will have, yet again, to bail the team out of jail.

[arkay]

Similarly, Virender Sehwag was caught off a no ball – and to argue that the slash he played was stupid is equally beside the point.

Is it true that Virender Sehwag was caught off a no-ball? The replays from ABC does not show the clipping from bowler's run-up. But did anyone see anything differently in espn?

[Anakin]

It's in the video section

[arkay]

There is an exaggerated focus on bowling well outside off stump; Mitchell Johnson is the prime suspect but Stuart Clark has been almost as culpable. That has left only Brett Lee to consistently attack the batsman

I also felt the same. Dhoni had so many balls that he did not need to even play it. Ozzies have been doing this through out the series. Gone are the days where McGrath / Warne would force the batsmen to play at every delivery. Now these bowlers are waiting for batsmen to make a mistake rather than trigger a collapse. In one Johnson over, there were 6 delivers which were pitched outside the off and moving away.

[sm332]

I also felt the same. Dhoni had so many balls that he did not need to even play it. Ozzies have been doing this through out the series. Gone are the days where McGrath / Warne would force the batsmen to play at every delivery. Now these bowlers are waiting for batsmen to make a mistake rather than trigger a collapse. In one Johnson over' date=' there were 6 delivers which were pitched outside the off and moving away.[/quote'] yeah a lot of defensive bowling this entire series ... 1.5 ft outside off stump hoping to elicit a mistake. Doesnt make for great watching .... but it is one way to abt it I suppose