One man against the mob.

[Mamu]

http://content.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/397410.html

What do you remember of the lead-up to that innings? We played Australia in Two tests, one in Australia in Perth, in November, then another one back in new Zealand, in Wellington, in February. Wasn't really a series, just two matches. We didn't have much preparation, and [Richard] Hadlee was out injured. John Bracewell and Andrew Jones were in. We were well under strength, and I remember Australia batting first on a really good wicket. David Boon got 200 and Dean Jones got 99. They got 520. I got 76, Martin Crowe 50-odd, but we were still 290 behind. They enforced the follow-on, and they had [Terry] Alderman, [Geoff] Lawson, [Carl] Rackemann, and Merv Hughes who bowled very well. And they didn't play a spinner, [Allan] Border was the only spinner. How do you approach such an innings? There was a bit of a long haul, over two days, six sessions. You bat nearly 12 hours. It's a long time, and I was very slow, I averaged about 12 runs an hour, but it was the situation of the game, really. Probably for those two days I played the best I have played at that level, in the context of having to save the game and trying to bat time and being focused every ball. I remember getting up early every morning, going for a swim, having a shower, having breakfast, and going down to the nets early. Brendon Bracewell was my room-mate, and he would bowl to me every morning for an hour. There were routines I followed during that game. I used to go and have two pints of Guinness at the pub across the road from the Sheraton, where we stayed. Religiously. No more than two. You need to bat the next day. Did you believe then you had it in you to play such an innings? I had started my Test career quite well. I hadn't batted that long before, but I had scored a hundred in my first Test. The year before I went to Perth, we went to India in 1988. I got caught bat-pad off Arshad Ayub in the first Test and thought, "How I am I going to survive out here?" But in the next Test I got my bat out in front of the pad and started to hit the spinners - not aggressively, but just hit them as opposed to bat-pad. In Hyderabad, we were 220-odd for 6 at the end of the first day's play, and I was 60 or 70 not out, and the next day we lost four wickets for 30 runs and I was left on 90 not out. But going into Perth I had had a little bit of success in Test cricket. How difficult is to not get bogged down? I never really had a worry about not scoring runs. If you are playing well on a good pitch, the runs come. Yeah, they come slower than you like. I actually remember not playing the cut shot through the innings, 11 hours, until the last half-hour, when the game was saved. Why the cut? Well, just cutting out that there [plays a cut with his hands] is a risky shot, than this [plays straight down the ground]. Mentally I was like, "I have to play straight as I can, as long as I can." I didn't say, "Don't play the cut," I just said, "I have to play straight, I have to play straight." I got into a rhythm when I was leaving stuff I could have probably hit, but I could have also got out, with a couple of gullies in. What keeps you going in such a long innings where there are no milestones? I had a really long time in the 90s, and I'd be lying if I said I never thought about the century. But the slowness helped: if you are scoring at 13 an hour, it means the century will take some time coming. There was also the context of the game. You are following on, 290 behind, and it was about batting time, you know - little targets. An over meant four minutes, four overs 15 minutes. Eight overs meant half an hour. Fifteen overs an hour. "I was going around asking guys for a pair of trousers, and most of them didn't fit. John Bracewell gave me his, but they were quite tight. And I actually went out there with them on. I felt really conscious, which worried me quite a lot. We're batting on the last day and we have a chance to save it and I'm worried about trousers" The only focus was to blunt the four-pronged attack. Merv Hughes bowled bloody quick in that match, and then Rackemann, who kept hitting the deck, and Alderman and Lawson, who were swing bowlers. You look at Test cricket today, it is pretty entertaining, scoring at four an over. Back in those days, you were two and a half. You might have a day here and there where you might score three and a half. There was a different mentality back then. Once you have batted a considerable amount of time, you actually start believing you can do it, as opposed to just starting out in hope. Is it more difficult to keep your concentration then? When you are trying to save a game like that, if you start thinking about the end you are history. So, little targets. I used to get off - slowly you got to an hour, the drinks break, and then two hours, lunch break or tea break. Get off, get a shower, get a cup of tea, new gear on and start again. Just restart each time. Yeah, you have done great for a couple of hours, but you have got to go back and do it again. The Aussies must have sledged the life out of you? They were pretty grumpy. If you bat for two days, they got grumpier and grumpier. Border, they called him Captain Grumpy not for nothing. Steve Waugh and Border. Boonie was pretty quiet. He was a non-Aussie, really, when it came to sledging, but Steve Waugh made up for it. And, you know, Rackemann. I didn't react, I just listened to it. Steve Waugh called me a name about - I played 435 balls - 435 times. Plus the over change. It wasn't a very nice name. There were subtle variations to that name where the word "fat" was used too. At the end of the game I said "Thanks [followed by the same name, Kiwi replaced by Aussie]." I enjoyed that. But isn't it satisfying to give it back to them with a clever one-liner when you are doing well? You have got to be careful when you are batting. If you get involved too much, you lose your focus to bat. I think Hughes spat at me once in Auckland. He just came down the wicket - and he used to swear all the time - but this time he decided to spit at me, and he got me in the pad. And he got into s*** because he was on TV. He got reprimanded for that. I went to their dressing room and had a beer. He had ice on his ankles, his knees and his hips. Sitting down on the floor. I had a beer with him for half an hour, giving him some s*** about spitting at me. Did you drink with them during the Perth Test too? In the dressing rooms we used to drink. After the game, good guys. Border was a tough competitor on the park, but off the park he would have a beer with you and chew the fat, and you learned from those guys. How was it to bat in someone else's trousers? You wouldn't believe it. I think it was the last morning. Must have forgotten my pair of trousers. I had my shirts, my socks… and I got there and I thought, "F***, I haven't got my trousers." Don't know how I forgot them. Because I had batted for so long, they might have been dirty, or might not have been washed. And I'm one of the bigger guys around. I was going around asking guys for a pair of trousers, and most of them didn't fit. John Bracewell gave me his, but they were quite tight. And I actually went out there with them on. I felt really conscious, which worried me quite a lot. We're batting on the last day and we have a chance to save it and I'm worried about trousers. I think someone went to the hotel and got my trousers. I was able to swap Brace's trousers for mine at lunch. I felt really comfortable.

Look at how dirty the Australians were those days? Steve 'The Saint' Waugh. On the flip side -- how come there has not been a single incident of sledging between India and NZ so far?

[EnterTheVoid]

Though the circumstances are different, a lot of parallels can be drawn between how the Australian team and Indian team are being treated Sucess breeds jealousy -> Jealousy breeds insecurity -> Insecurity leads people to use any excuse to diminish and undermine ones achievements as opposed to giving credit where its due In the past and to some extent, still prevelant today, it is all "Australia this / Sledging that" With India, its "BCCI this / money that"

[cochise]

Sree...please...there is a big difference between the two...Aussies have been known as huge sledgers by ALL teams from the Lillie-Thomson era to the present...this is not some cooked up conspiracy theory to justify excuses and caused by an underlying jealousy. It is recounted fact from many a cricketers memoirs. No one begrudges them their victories or has used their sledging as an excuse to justify their victories. It is just that no one liked their sledging...it was rather foul and not very sporting.

[EnterTheVoid]

The advantage of sledging, or "mental disintegration" as Waugh termed it, cannot be ignored Australia won in all countries under all conditions. Why? Sledging. They were the biggest sledgers. They did it better than anyone else. The disintegrated the opposition before a ball was bowled, hence conditions were renderred irrelevant. That is how they won Now compare that to the present Indian team who are achieving wins at a remarkable consistency How are India able to win? Because they're rich. They use the money to bully the other boards, get their way and hence get the pitches they want Sledging was used to describe Australia's dominance; BCCI's clout is used to explain Indias dominance

[cochise]

The advantage of sledging, or "mental disintegration" as Waugh termed it, cannot be ignored Australia won in all countries under all conditions. Why? Sledging. They were the biggest sledgers. They did it better than anyone else. The disintegrated the opposition before a ball was bowled, hence conditions were renderred irrelevant. That is how they won

In other words, you are using it as an excuse for justifying their victories. I don't see the other teams saying this though. Do you? "Australia won beacuse we were mentally disintegrated by them..."...that would be laughable...

Now compare that to the present Indian team who are achieving wins at a remarkable consistency How are India able to win? Because they're rich. They use the money to bully the other boards, get their way and hence get the pitches they want

I see. India is bribing other countries in order to create the conditions for India to win. You think their cricketers and cricket fans are stupid? You think they will all subscribe to this great conspiracy theory that BCCI is the root of all evil. Listen, after a while, even the most biased of fans will have to admit to the obvious reality. These are lame excuses used as an escape clause for failing and thats all. And given time, they will also get used to the idea of India being powerful, both as a cricketing side as well as a cricketing nation...it takes time to change mindsets that are used to an inverted power structure compared to the one today. They will exhibit suspicion of India and the BCCI because it's apparent power makes them feel insecure...hence the carping and potshots from the sidelines. After a while when their fears are ameliorated and they get used to the new powerhouse on the block, all these teething issues will be seen for the naive crap that it is.

[Mamu]

Why are people talking about BCCI being rich now ?? BCCI has been the richest board since 1996. Ever since Dalmiya took over and revolutinised cricket in India -- BCCI was not bad before -- India was ranked 8th. We were still making money. Yeah understand BCCI is using its new found power a little more that what it should, but the hatred towards BCCI is a lot more now than before.

[EnterTheVoid]

In other words, you are using it as an excuse for justifying their victories. I don't see the other teams saying this though. Do you? "Australia won beacuse we were mentally disintegrated by them..."...that would be laughable... As ridiculous as it sounds, there is some truth to it Under Waugh, the whole concept of "Mental Disintegration" was a backbone of their strategy. That was passed on to his sucessor who utilized it to great sucess. In the preview interviews to the S.A - Australia series, a lot of commentators were emphasizing how Shane Warne sledged the opposition batsman, with Daryl Cullinan being the recipient of some of the most hostile abuse. Warne won the battle of the mind -> The match was over before it even begun and S.A. collapsed like a deck of cards Yes, the Australians did sledge and sledge they did more than anyone else. It was sledging coupled with their excellent performance in all other facets of the game that made them so sucessful But if you ask a fan what they remember of the Australian team of yesteryears, the "Dominators" they were called, all they harp on about is how they sledged and won games They couldn't sledge in Perth, so they lost the match. Thats the impression I got from reading the newspapers the day after the test I see. India is bribing other countries in order to create the conditions for India to win. You think their cricketers and cricket fans are stupid? You think they will all subscribe to this great conspiracy theory that BCCI is the root of all evil. Listen, after a while, even the most biased of fans will have to admit to the obvious reality. These are lame excuses used as an escape clause for failing and thats all. And given time, they will also get used to the idea of India being powerful, both as a cricketing side as well as a cricketing nation...it takes time to change mindsets that are used to an inverted power structure compared to the one today. They will exhibit suspicion of India and the BCCI because it's apparent power makes them feel insecure...hence the carping and potshots from the sidelines. After a while when their fears are ameliorated and they get used to the new powerhouse on the block, all these teething issues will be seen for the naive crap that it is.

It really irritates me when people use the BCCI's financial muscle to explain India's resurgence as opposed to giving credit to the all round performance. For the dinosaurs of the cricketing establishment, India's resurgence is viewed as a threat. They want India to fail and when they don't, they come out with ludicrious conspiracy theories to explain the good showing Forgetting for a second the nonsense being discussed anywhere else, have a read of some of the responses in this thread on this very own board. http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=111583 Obviously, this guy found the result a little too difficult to swallow

[Mr. Wicket]

Australia won in all countries under all conditions. Why? Sledging. They were the biggest sledgers. They did it better than anyone else. The disintegrated the opposition before a ball was bowled' date=' hence conditions were renderred irrelevant. That is how they won [/quote'] Ronnnng. Obviously you're completely unfamiliar with the old Australian sides, or just incapable of understanding facts. Australia won tests because they had some world class bowlers who could step up as workhorses and strike bowlers at the same time, guys like Merv Hughes and McDermott. They got followed by other quality bowlers like McGrath, Fleming and later Gillespie. They had a world class keeper in Healy as backup, and an outstanding batting lineup with the likes of Boon, Waugh, Border and Dean Jones. And they were the most professional side at the time by far. Bob Simpson drilled into them the value of fitness - someone FAR ahead of his time as coach - and played a huge part in making them a brilliant unit that excelled in all areas of the game. Sledging has nothing to do with it. By your logic the team with the biggest mouths would then do well, and England would be beating WI right now based on Pietersen making comments trying to 'disintegrate' WI. Try playing the game sometime, learn something about it and you'll realize how irrelevant sledging is to success.

[EnterTheVoid]

Sledging was used to describe Australia's dominance; BCCI's clout is used to explain Indias dominance I still stand by this

[Mr. Wicket]

India's dominant because of a core of very experienced and highly talented batsman, an excellent keeper-captain and some very good young bowlers capable of taking wickets home and abroad. Both the arguments are very, very wrong. So are you.

[EnterTheVoid]

Ronnnng. Obviously you're completely unfamiliar with the old Australian sides, or just incapable of understanding facts.

Its not a fact Its an impression I am disputing the wrongful impression

[Show_stopper]

C'mon Sree quit being gullible!!

[EnterTheVoid]

India's dominant because of a core of very experienced and highly talented batsman' date= an excellent keeper-captain and some very good young bowlers capable of taking wickets home and abroad. .

I dont dispute that at all I dispute the fact that whats highlighted in bold is wrongfully overlooked. I dispute the fact that whats highlighted in bold is not given the credit its due. Instead other excuses are used to explain why India won

[cochise]

As ridiculous as it sounds, there is some truth to it Under Waugh, the whole concept of "Mental Disintegration" was a backbone of their strategy. That was passed on to his sucessor who utilized it to great sucess. In the preview interviews to the S.A - Australia series, a lot of commentators were emphasizing how Shane Warne sledged the opposition batsman, with Daryl Cullinan being the recipient of some of the most hostile abuse. Warne won the battle of the mind -> The match was over before it even begun and S.A. collapsed like a deck of cards Yes, the Australians did sledge and sledge they did more than anyone else. It was sledging coupled with their excellent performance in all other facets of the game that made them so sucessful But if you ask a fan what they remember of the Australian team of yesteryears, the "Dominators" they were called, all they harp on about is how they sledged and won games They couldn't sledge in Perth, so they lost the match. Thats the impression I got from reading the newspapers the day after the test

The point being...other teams never used it as an excuse for their loss...as for the fans using it as an excuse for not winning when they couldn't sledge...well what do you expect from one-eyed fans? Lame excuses when they lose... and macho posturing when they win...this is nothing unexpected. But facts eventually will have to be digested...however reluctantly. And not everyone is so biased...the more intelligent amongst cricket watchers and players never look for excuses. At the end of the day, the results speak for themselves...the rest is fluff, unless there was a major infraction or transgression of the rules or spirit of the game. And the commentators...well, if you talking about aussie commentators, they revel in this rubbish because they used to do it...that being said however, one on one witty repartee and verbal aggression has always been part of the game...I am not against that...but bad spirited insulting and constant baying and barking is just a totally unsportsmanlike way of playing...it's mob-mentality, when you are out there in numbers and you gang up on the batsmen and basically give him a barrage from all corners...that's just pathetic. "Mental disintegration" indeed...they prey on any psychological vulnerability you exhibit like a rabid pack and take you right off your game...while there is an argument that this is part of the game and an examination of mental toughness, I find that there is nothing elevating to the spirit in this kind of behaviour...it is degrading to both sides. And what kind of mental toughness does it examine? Your ability to just have a "thick skin" and just let words bounce off you...in one ear and out the other? To have quick comeback one-liners? To close your mind? To not listen? To not be shocked or revolted? To be schizophrenic, so one minute you are cursing each other and the next you are having a beer together and holding each others d*ick? To be crass and vulgar and to play like that yourself so that you are used to it and such behaviour is nothing out of the ordinary? The whole thing degrades the spirit and ethos of the game. The game is about fighting the clean fight not pretending to fight the clean fight while finding every underhanded way to win. Victory under such circumstances to any real sportsman is pyrrhic. As for the BCCI thing...just ignore it...it's just lame assed excuses that are for losers...they want to do that, they end up showing themselves up for being the losers they are.

[EnterTheVoid]

Cochise, what you've said is correct Salil, what you've said in the following is also correct: India's dominant because of a core of very experienced and highly talented batsman, an excellent keeper-captain and some very good young bowlers capable of taking wickets home and abroad. I am just saying that instead of rightfully acknowledging the above, teams who cannot take the loss wrongfully accuse India of using their financial might to influence games It is the wrongful impression thats being perpetrated in the media by the fans / commentators that I have a problem with.

[cochise]

It is the wrongful impression thats being perpetrated in the media by the fans / commentators that I have a problem with.

It will pass...this is a phase of transition and these excuses will be made before the reality is finally accepted. It's called denial. What I am trying to say to you is...don't let it disturb you. The people making these excuses know deep down inside that it is just that...excuses...and given time, their will have to release their bias and accept facts. Not all of them will of course, as there are some die-hard dumbos out there. But the majority of the ones that matter will. So just chill...relax and learn to live with all manner of stupidity around you...understand it and it won't disturb you...you will require a quiet patience though.

[EnterTheVoid]

Yes Such excuses are tiresome but its best to avoid such articles, I guess

[Macj]

At University one of the league teams that played for the Plate completely consisted of Australians and the rest of the teams about 10 or so were Indians/ Pakistanis. Unlike international cricket where most Indian/Pakistani players are from the hinterland and rarely understand the sledges our teams were somewhat aware of the lingo. Ive got to say, even at the very basic level you needed a stiff stomach, a VERY calm temper to wade through their sledges. What amazes me is their ability to just walk up and joke about the whole thing at the end of the day.