THE way the first Test went between Australia and West Indies, it was a clear reflection of the strength and the weakness of the two teams. While the latter has the ability to put up a fight, the former is too good to let anything convert into a threat to its supremacy in the international arena.
The West Indians were clearly crippled by quite a few factors. Carl Hooper was missing and there was controversy all around the matter to the extent that Brian Lara was jeered all the way to the wicket when he first came out to bat. Ramnaresh Sarwan was missing on account of injury, and Chris Gayle was out on another controversial note.
All of a sudden, the West Indians had a new-look side, and the three who were not part of the playing lineup were the ones who had helped take the team out of the rut it was in till a couple of years ago. To make matters worse, Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Ridley Jacobs hurt themselves on the field, and failed to contribute to their potential in the second innings. The partnership between the two in the first innings was the main reason why the match did not end inside three days. The heroics displayed by Lara and Darren Ganga in the second innings — which raised the slim hope of the match actually going into the last day had whatever significance it had only because of Chanderpaul and Jacobs.
In view of all this happening around them, the West Indians will be within their rights to feel they would have been a match for the Australians had they been able to field their full-strength side. They will have also taken much heart from the fact that they came back twice into the match when all seemed lost; first it was the 5-53 stage in the first innings, and, then, at the start of the second innings with a 252-run deficit. But will there be any meaningful change during the rest of the Test series in terms of the scoreline? There is only a slim chance.
As you can see, those sitting out of the first Test were all batsmen. In terms of bowling, the West Indians were at their full strength. With such meager resources and on such docile tracks, I dont see the West Indians bowling out Australia twice in the same match. And when you cant do this, you stand no chance of winning a Test. Its that simple.
Regardless of the Australian supremacy, no one can deny the fact that the match had its interesting moments, and was a good advertisement for Test cricket. And it was, indeed, fun to watch, which is not a statement you can make often in these times of constant cricket. Just see what is happening in Dhaka where India, Bangladesh and South Africa are involved in a triangular contest. By common yardstick, One-Day contests are considered more fun than the longer version of the game. But, frankly speaking, there will be hardly any cricketing soul who would have found the Dhaka triangular more worthy of their time than the Test in West Indies. I, for one, am certainly not such a soul.
Quite a few friends asked me why in my last weeks column I had not discussed Pakistans triumph in Sharjah. Some even hinted that I may have avoided it because perhaps I was in disagreement with the changes that have been brought about in the national outfit. Nothing of the sort, really. It was just that the final was being on a Thursday, and my deadline for this column happens to be Wednesday. So there was hardly any point talking about it. All I can say is that though a good start has been made, it will be foolhardy to draw any definite conclusions.
THE way the first Test went between Australia and West Indies, it was a clear reflection of the strength and the weakness of the two teams. While the latter has the ability to put up a fight, the former is too good to let anything convert into a threat to its supremacy in the international arena.
