THE Australian victory over India in the first Test was as emphatic as they come. Though the Indian tail did wag in both the innings, it was a clear case of doing too little, too late. Apart from the first couple of sessions in which both sides appeared to be equally guarded in their approach, Australia was clearly the better side, and deserved to have a convincing victory under the belt.
In the runup, the series was billed as a titanic clash. Naturally there were commercial reasons behind such a buildup, cricket in India being an industry in itself, and a huge one at that. But there surely were cricketing reasons as well. Australia has ruled the international stage for a considerably long time, while India has been one of the two most promising sides over the last year or so, England being the other one.
However, considering the form of the two teams in the last three or four months, there were justified apprehensions that the series may not be able to live upto its billing. The absence of Ricky Ponting and Sachin Tendulkar from rival camps also dampened the spirits. But once it got under way, the Australians yet again underlined the reason why they happen to be the best in business.
Take, for instance, Glen McGrath. He had been out of cricket for some time, nursing an injury. His return to the fold was not that auspicious, and there was much talk of his days being over. Proving everyone wrong,however, he bowled like the champion bowler that he is. It was grit, determination, commitment to the cause, and a professional sense of pride that made it happen for McGrath and his team.
But the victory was surely based on the Australia’s bating in the first innings to which major contributions were made by the two rookies, Simon Katich and Michael Clarke. The two performances were true indicators of famous Australian bench strength. And, what can one say about the innings played by Adam Gilchrist except churning out one adjective after the other. He is a superb cricketer who can, and often does, take the game away from the rivals within no time.
Adding to his batting exploits, Gilchrist made a major decision not enforcing the follow-on when the option became available to him after a dismal Indian first innings. The Australians have surely learn their lessons from what went on during the previous series in India. It looks like they would do everything within their command to avoid chasing even a small target in the fourth innings, which means batting first after winning the toss and not enforcing the follow-on even when they can, and prolonging their own first innings for as long as they can in case of losing the toss and having to field first. Midway through the first day of the second Test, however, they seemed to be struggling with the execution of this plan.
As for the Indians, all they can do is to take heart from history, ad believe that they can still turn it around, and take the fight to the Australians even though it will take something exceptional to do that. For the last few years, it has often been said, and justifiably so, that India is no more a one-wonder unit, and has star performers other than Tendulkar. But it is reflective of the lack of confidence in the Indian camp that after just one loss in the series, everyone is talking about when Tendulkar might actually join the team. This, in turn, is reflective of how demoralizing the defeat has been.
THE Australian victory over India in the first Test was as emphatic as they come. Though the Indian tail did wag in both the innings, it was a clear case of doing too little, too late. Apart from the first couple of sessions in which both sides appeared to be equally guarded in their approach, Australia was clearly the better side, and deserved to have a convincing victory under the belt.
