The gift of time: by Prem Panicker

[arkay]

The gift of time Former cricket journos Amit Varma and Rahul Bhatia were home for dinner last weekend, and in course of a wide-ranging conversation, we were discussing whether it is fair, right, for a critic/analyst to impute thoughts, attitudes, motives. The subject was film-making, and the point was that at times, critics say a particular film-maker did whatever it was with this, that or the other motive. Amit, who was most vigorous in pursuing this argument, suggested that it was okay for a critic to analyze what was in front of him, but not okay to delve into the mind of some other person, and to suggest this is how that person was thinking. Fair point, so perhaps it wouldn’t be fair to suggest that Australia, after having survived some rough weather at the outset and powered away to a century-stand for the first wicket, decided to dominate proceedings and take an early psychological edge over India by pulverizing what appeared an under-strength bowling attack. Examine the events as it unfolded, though, and the only conclusion you can draw is that a star-studded batting lineup didn’t respect the opposition as much as it should have. There were wickets prized out by intelligent bowling, certainly—but at least four of the top order batsmen, five if you include Jacques’ ill-judged shimmy, fell to strokes fueled by adrenalin, and devoid of cricketing sense and, in this, Symonds and Gilchrist were the most culpable. In squandering a 135-run opening partnership the way it did in the second and third sessions, Australia has not only negated the advantage of batting first on a wicket that is not exactly conducive to swing and seam, it has also given India the precious gift of time. Batting second is in itself an advantage in the first Test of what will be a very tough tour—the batsmen, who know much depends on how they perform, have the luxury of easing themselves into the game with time in the field. By squandering wickets, Australia has added to that advantage—India does not face the sort of total the home side would have wanted on the board in the first innings of the first Test, and it has the added luxury of knowing that it can take its time with the bat, building an innings with care and caution. Among the wickets that fell, the real gem was Zaheer Khan’s dismissal of Ricky Ponting—it showed cricketing intelligence to change the angle, and to bowl the line most calculated to put a batsman prone to falling over on the front foot push in trouble. Actually, the stand out feature for me of the first day’s play was the intelligent aggression shown in the field placings (even when Mathew Hayden seemed set for a big score, for instance, he had fielders in his face) and the thoughtfulness shown by bowlers who, for the most part, bowled the line, and the side of the wicket, the captain wanted them to. The captain’s 5-for (should have been six, but for the bat-pad going the batsman’s way in the dying moments) was pure icing—and if you are looking for omens, consider that the last time we toured Oz, at this same ground a captain stood up when the home team seemed in danger of blasting a way through, and with a fighting century put wind beneath his team’s sails. This time, it is a bowling captain doing the job, just when the attack seemed devoid of overt threat—and if taking two successive sessions of the opening day against a team like Australia doesn’t give the Indians a buzz, it is hard to imagine what will. Or to sum up all of this into two words: Game on—which is not what you would have thought at lunch. I’m not for a moment suggesting it is going to be all joy—a stung Australia can be expected to take the field with some purpose and considerable aggression. That said, though, India with an extensive, experienced batting line-up is now nicely in the box seat, on a wicket that, the way it is playing currently, should be at its best for batting on day two, especially after the first hour. Sufficient unto the day, though—it is not often visiting teams take two sessions out of three on the first day of an Australian home series; the fact that India has done just that, and that too with the bowling, which is deemed the weaker aspect, should suffice for a night’s peaceful sleep.

[suraj]

Its so refreshing for me to see that the name Prem Panicker does not lead to 10000 venomous posts abusing him-

[jf1gp_1]

When Clarke fell aus were ~230 for 5, i think it was mark taylor in commentary who said the biggest question this summer was will India be competitive the answer is yes

[arkay]

Ozzies over confidence and in the need to be aggressive threw away wickets. The shots by Symonds and Gilchrist were atrocious.

[sm332]

Ozzies over confidence and in the need to be aggressive threw away wickets. The shots by Symonds and Gilchrist were atrocious.

true however it is far from the first time that Gilly and Roy have played piss poor shots ... the point is India was able to apply some pressure necessitating those shots ... prey on your opponents weaknesses at all times

[Guest Hiten.]

Ozzies over confidence and in the need to be aggressive threw away wickets. The shots by Symonds and Gilchrist were atrocious.

That is their natural game. They have hardly failed with this kind of approach, but this time luck was with India and we got them out cheaply.

[gator]

a rather inept article.... this writer obviously can write well, but does not know how to analyze and study the game well.... He nearly touch the peak of ineptitude when he described Jacques dismissal.... He was trying to get to the pitch of the ball and drive towards offside and was beaten by a lovely wrong'un... Paaniker put it down in his simplistic diary as a rush of adrenaline..... I think, he should try covering Kabbadi...

[Guest dada_rocks]

Precisely to attribute dismissla of Jacwues to adrenalin is plain stupid. Anyone who knows kumble would call it a well thought-out dismissal.

[fineleg]

Its so refreshing for me to see that the name Prem Panicker does not lead to 10000 venomous posts abusing him-

Eggjacktly suraj

[suraj]

a rather inept article.... this writer obviously can write well, but does not know how to analyze and study the game well.... He nearly touch the peak of ineptitude when he described Jacques dismissal.... He was trying to get to the pitch of the ball and drive towards offside and was beaten by a lovely wrong'un... Paaniker put it down in his simplistic diary as a rush of adrenaline..... I think, he should try covering Kabbadi...

Looks like you got some from sexy dexy last night or was it the ***** with a fever who blew you?