Today was the first day of the third and deciding test match between India and England. Rahul Dravid (India's captain) having won the toss decided to bat on a seemingly good batting track. As it happened the pitch had something for the seam bowlers, particularly with the new ball. The Indian batsmen, all six of them (India are 316 for the loss of 4 wickets at close of play) batted well, putting their heads down, getting a measure of the pitch, defending solidly and putting away the bad balls. A few indiscretions were there to be sure (some of which cost them wickets) but all in all India are in a comfortable position. But, it is still day 1 of course.
Interestingly though, you would not get that impression reading cricinfo's coverage of the day. Of course they report on the facts but their editorials on what happened today is interesting to say the least. One by Dileep Premachandran reporting from the Indian perspective: "Will India step up?" and "Time to drive well and sleep carefully." The other by Andrew Miller reporting from the English perspective: "Win still within England's ken" and "Adjusting the sight." The respective titles say it all: the Indian perspective is tentative, cynical and defensive whereas the English perspective is positive and full of hope.
Mr. Premachandran goes on to list some of the famous wins that India have had in the past (mostly from this century) and how they were all based on "defining innings" and also lists all the opportunities that India lost. His main point of course is that India need to post a big total for the first inning. With two specialist batsmen at the crease and only one more to go before the tail starts to bat, it will be up to these three batsmen to do the job. In this context, he does not talk about the third batsman at all (in this case Dhoni) and he summarily dismisses Laxman being up to the task at hand. He then rests the whole task on Sachin Tendulkars' shoulders.
After this he regales us with all the times England had come back from behind even after the opposition had posted an imposing first innings total and how India had too often stumbled after laying a solid foundation.
If this could be construed as reporting and not psychological warfare then words have no meaning and epistemology can be studied by birds. I have these questions of Mr. Premachandran:
1. Why don't you mention the positive attitude that was displayed by the Indian batsmen (one and all) at the beginning of the article instead of mentioning it as an afterthought at the end and that too restricting it to Karthik and Dravid? Jaffer played a positive game until in the heat of the moment he played a bad shot. Ganguly was also very positive until he was wrongly given out by another bad umpiring decision (at least four and counting in the last three matches). In fact, I submit to you that this should have been the title of your article: "Positive batsmen put India on top" or "Batsmen gain the edge for India."
2. Why is it a pre-condition that one of the batsmen has to play a massive innings? Is the previous test not an example of how India could achieve a good total without anyone getting a century or a massive inning?
3. Why express so much doubt and cynicism about India's players when they are doing their best and the results are there to show for it? Is this some sort of convoluted tough love syndrome?
4. Why do you write off Laxman so easily. He has been called one of the greatest batsmen of his time by none other than Australia. Admittedly, he has not been in form lately but he has also been mistreated by the selection committees. It is quite possible, nay probable that he will play a "defining" inning.
5. Oh! Did you forget Dhoni? Need I say more here.
Needless to say I am not predicting what will happen tomorrow but Mr. Premachandran is discussing the preconditions for an Indian victory and thus playing the predictions game with much cynicism and trepidation.
On the other hand, read Andrew Miller's article. He starts off with a positive attitude about how England still have a chance to win. Then he goes on to recollect the events of 2003 where England pulled off a miracle win against South Africa, mentions that the toss was crucial to win (implying that India is doing well not because of ability but chance) and how England bowled really well to restrict India to 316 for 4. He then mentions that India bowled well in the second test (particularly their left arm seamers) and uses that to point out that the English bowlers will have to emulate the Indian ones -- all this in a day where India batted.
Of course, one could read into Mr. Miller's article and take heart in the subtle compliments that he is paying to Indian team's performance but that would require too much of "reading-between-the-lines" as it were. A casual reader would recount that England played brilliant cricket (except for the occasional dropped catch) but were unlucky and India were lucky to win the toss.
If one were to play mind games (cricket and other sports are all about mind games as much as they are about talent, physical ability and skill), one would conclude that India are on the back foot and England not when the contrary is the case.
No one knows what is going to happen tomorrow. All that can be said is that, with some measure of luck, the team that holds it together (in the emotional, mental and physical compartments) and comes out to play good cricket will win. I believe India has everything it needs to win this historic series and make it a memorable one. It certainly demonstrated it in the second test and has done it so far in the third. GO INDIA.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment