WELL PLAYED, RAHUL DRAVID!

Rahul Dravid. The Wall. With a counting ticker of runs that will tick no more.

I have a very weird association with Rahul Sharad Dravid. I was a child when he made his debut in 1996. Over that period in late-1990s, a lot of girls became instantaneous fan of this new chocolate boy in the Indian cricket team. My sister was one of them, and she even bought a couple of posters of him to put up on the walls of our shared room. As an irksome brother, it was my moral duty to counter any action of my sister!

So I responded by cutting a large newspaper print poster of Sourav Ganguly and sticking it in my cupboard. Had my sister not been almost six years older than I was, I might well have stuck the Ganguly cut-out over the Dravid poster. For the record, I was a bigger fan of Sachin Tendulkar (back then and now), but Ganguly was the more immediate contemporary of Dravid then.

For a period of about a year during 1998-99, my sister went to the USA and allowed me the chance of watching Rahul Dravid’s cricket with a more objective eye. It also helped that it was about the time when I had started understanding cricket better and started following it more passionately. And most importantly, in that span of time, Dravid played some glorious knocks. I watched some of them live, followed some of them over print media, and gradually came to the opinion that this man is a promising cricketer – a great one in the making.

I remember that century in each innings performance at Hamilton early in 1999 against New Zealand that I had followed in the newspaper and over 7 pm Doordarshan news, when the news was about half-a-day old. It was the first time an Indian had managed such a feat since Sunil Gavaskar had done it (for the third time) late in 1978. And then I also remember that incredible run in the World Cup 1999 in England where he ended up as the highest run-scorer of all. Those two back-to-back centuries against Kenya (Bristol) and Sri Lanka (Taunton) are also remembered, despite the fact that he was not the highest run-scorer for the team in either of those two innings! He scored his top-4 ODI scores in the year 1999, and 6 of his 12 career ODI tons.

Late in 1999, he scored his only 150+ score in an ODI, only to be outscored by a teammate yet again. Some would say ‘the story of his career’! I disagree… I say it was a storyline that threatened to become his tale before he changed the script completely. He may have been outscored yet again by teammates during his 2001 knocks against Australia of 180 (Kolkata second innings) and 81 (Chennai first innings), but those contributions were recognised very well for they well worth their weight in gold. I remember listening to Hindi radio commentary about the emotional gestures that he made on reaching that hundred at Eden Gardens, and thinking that the commentator must have gone nuts!

The next time after that innings that I remember Dravid showing any emotions on the cricket field was flashing a simple smile after pulling Waqar Younis for a four to seal an Indian win over Pakistan in the World Cup 2003. But before that comes that 2002 tour of England – a tour that elevated Dravid as a member-elect of the pantheon of Indian batting legends – a membership that he confirmed with that knock of 233 (and another 72* for good measure) at Adelaide a year and a half later. During this time, he even kept wickets for India in the ODI squad and was the rock on which Ganguly built the church called Team India.

He has scored many brilliant knocks since then, including his highest Test score of 270 against Pakistan at Rawalpindi in 2004 in the Third Test of the three-Test series locked at 1-1. But for me, like many others, nothing would ever beat Leeds 2002 and Adelaide 2003.

He won the ICC Cricketer of the Year Award in its inaugural year with great performances that continued up to 2006. He even acquired the captaincy of the Indian cricket team in that period. And that was my biggest problem with the career of Rahul Dravid. He led India to Test series wins in the West Indies (2006) and England (2007), and even led over a streak of 18 consecutive ODI wins while batting second... but I never thought him to be as good a successor to Sourav Ganguly's captaincy as would have been ideal. For some explicable as well as inexplicable reasons that I don't want to venture into at the moment, I did not believe he was a very good 'captaincy material'. That is purely my opinion, and quite possibly, it is in someway influenced by India's performance in the World Cup 2007.

In respect of his captaincy alone, the words of Mark Antony said at Julius Caesar's funeral in the great Shakespearean play seem quite apt: "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." So let it be with Dravid!

When his form dipped through 2007 and later years, and when his runs came only against Bangladesh, New Zealand and Sri Lanka (at home), I did feel that he should have retired back then. Arguably, he managed to keep his place only due to the fact that the rest of the team was able to perform well and dare I say it, 'carry' him. It allowed him a chance for one final resurgence that began in the West Indies and continued to England in 2011. Though it was not a good time for the team, Rahul Dravid batted like the Rahul Dravid of yesteryears.

The failures of the Indian team over 2011 and 2012, as well as Dravid's own failures from 2007 to 2010, will take nothing away from the fact that he is indeed amongst the best Indian batsmen that have ever played the game - and it is quite a list! As he bid farewell today and my Twitter timeline went dewy-eyed with the announcement, it was time to sit back and reflect on what has been a wonderful era for Indian cricket. Now, only two cogs remain from the giant wheel that helped roll Indian cricket forward over the last decade... and this latest cog to call it a day has well and truly deserved his name to be spoken with respect and dignity!

Thank you Rahul Dravid for your contribution to Indian cricket, and wish you the very best for all your future ventures!

PLANNING OF A CHASE - 2

What a chase we had today! India, needing a bonus point win, chased down Sri Lanka's score of 320 in just 36.4 overs, to win by 7 wickets with 80 balls to spare. This win has kept India alive in this tri-series for at least 3 more days, and increased the interest in the last round robin match between Australia and Sri Lanka.

India knew right from the beginning that the target, whatever it may be, had to be chased down in 40 overs or less. So when the first half ended and the target of 321 became clear, the hopes of an average Indian fan were not too high. But the Indian batting unit, which has not enjoyed a fruitful tour of Australia, clicked well and - riding on a magnificent ton by Virat Kohli - chased down the target in a more than convincing style!

The chase was a brilliantly constructed one. Since the required rate for a 40-over win was above 8 runs per over, it was clear that a fast start would be of utmost importance. Sehwag and Tendulkar provided that with some audacious batting. When the mandatory powerplay ended, India had scored 97 runs for the loss of the two openers.

When Tendulkar got out lbw to Malinga in the 10th over, there were a lot of tweets on my timeline suggesting that Dhoni should come out to bat. Their logic must have been that he takes his time to settle in, and if there is time to be used up, it better be between 10 - 15 overs rather than later in the innings. That is fine, but I was happier to see Kohli come in to bat at No. 4, and happier still that he stayed till the end to guide the chase in a manner contrasting of how Dhoni would have done it.

My last post on this blog (about 2.5 weeks ago) was about Dhoni's planning of chases. This one is about how Virat Kohli planned this one, and comparing it with what Dhoni would have done (the latter part would obviously be presumption based on the pattern of his innings in the successful run chase against Australia and the tied match against Sri Lanka).

On of my biggest problem with Dhoni when he comes out to bat with overs in hand in a run chase is that he plays far too many dot balls at the start of his innings. Settling in is fine, but the same can be done more effectively by rotating the strike rather than dead batting the ball. Kohli too played 8 dot balls between 10 and 15 overs, but at the end of 15 overs, he was still batting on 16* (18b). Compare this with Dhoni's knock in the successful run chase against Australia, and you will find that Dhoni stood at 8* (24b) at one stage in that chase. Even if you grant Dhoni the benefit of a much easier chase on hand against Australia, I don't think you'd still justify 8 runs in 24 balls!

At the end of 15 overs, India stood at 118 for 2, and though only 21 had been scored in the last 5 overs, there was enough momentum to make Mahela Jayawardene delay taking the Bowling Powerplay, as he has himself admitted. Had Kohli made the kind of start that Dhoni made at Adelaide, India might have had about 10 runs fewer at that stage, and Sri Lanka might have taken the Bowling Powerplay, causing the batsmen to take a risk or two more than ideal. This is presumption, but by no means far-fetched!

In my last post, I had written: "if the best finisher of the team (MS Dhoni) is coming in to bat with 92 needed of 95 balls and batsmen like Suresh Raina (batting), Jadeja and Ashwin (to follow), and the team ends up needing 13 in the final over with two of these above batsmen still batting, then the chase has been miscalculated somewhere."

At Hobart, two of India's best chasers (Gambhir and Kohli) planned it in such a way that going up to the 40th over would not be necessary. One may argue that the early finish was more a result of the leaking Malinga - an assault that even Kohli would admit that he had not planned for - but I think it is still quite clear that Kohli had planned to finish the game off at least one over before the 40th. Their partnership saw calculated risks (mostly taken by Kohli) for boundaries every now and again, which allowed them to be unflustered if Sri Lanka managed to sneek in a good tight over. This is the reason why Rangana Herath's spell of 4 overs for just 20 runs did not have as big an effect on the result as it should have had.

When the second lot of powerplay overs commenced, Kohli executed the second half of his plan, which was to attack straightaway and keep the required run rate below 9 runs per over at all times, rather than chasing 13 off the final over! He was obviously helped by some poor bowling from Sri Lanka, especially some of the leg-stump lines... but one must consider that when a batsman is pulling off some calculated risks, the bowlers are under increased pressure and have greater tendency to falter.

India may still not reach the finals of the series, but it was a great match for the team... and something they dearly needed towards the end of a very difficult tour of Australia!

PLANNING OF A CHASE

India beat Australia earlier today by 4 wickets with 2 balls to spare at Adelaide in the 4th ODI of the CB Triangular Series. While Gautam Gambhir was India's top contributor with a measured 92, it was Dhoni's knock of 44* (58) that was the talking point of the day.

India won the match due to a massive 112 meter six by Dhoni followed by a no-ball by Clint McKay due to a above-waist height full toss. Once it was over, a lot of people called it all well and good... but was it just as well and good when the chase was on? My Twitter timeline at the time of the chase said that most of the viewers were having trouble understanding why Dhoni was leaving it so late. And I was with them... indeed, why so late?

The biggest question raised after Dhoni hit that monstrous six was that if one can hit such shots, why not try it earlier to ease a bit of pressure, rather than risking it all at the end. And these kind of queries were not just raised in the minds of casual viewers, but also the men in the dressing room. The Man of the Match Gautam Gambhir had this to say: "We should have finished this game in the 48th over. We shouldn't have taken this game to the 50th over, that's my personal observation."

What is the best way to plan and pace a chase? When do you attack and when do you rely on quick running? Obviously, the answers differ in different conditions, but I think certain things remain common everywhere. In my opinion, if the best finisher of the team (MS Dhoni) is coming in to bat with 92 needed of 95 balls and batsmen like Suresh Raina (batting), Jadeja and Ashwin (to follow), and the team ends up needing 13 in the final over with two of these above batsmen still batting, then the chase has been miscalculated somewhere.

And in this innings of MS Dhoni, it is quite apparent where the miscalculation occurred. His innings break up is like this - 8 runs of first 24 balls, 25 of next 31 balls, and 11 runs of the last 3 balls. He came in when 92 were needed of 95 balls, and ended up playing 30 dot balls, i.e. 52% of the total deliveries he faced. To put it in perspective, Gambhir faced 52 dot balls in his 111-ball innings, i.e. 47% of the total deliveries faced by him, despite batting through the middle overs as well!

One might well argue that since Dhoni was not doing much to get the required run rate down, Raina and Jadeja had to go for the big hits, and lose their wickets in the process. Gambhir was right when he said that it's difficult in the middle, and different people plan their chases differently, but surely, when you end up with 7 runs of 19 balls in the Batting Powerplay and play a dot ball in almost every over where you also take a 2, you are not doing a lot of good, are you?

Dhoni is usually a fabulous planner and executor of chases - stiff ones, tricky ones, easy ones and straightforward ones. He, along with Gautam Gambhir and Virat Kohli, have made India a very competent chasing unit in limited overs cricket, and also made the World Cup runners-up captain Kumar Sangakkara remark that a team needs about 350 runs on the board to feel safe against this Indian team. But every now and again, there arises a question mark of Dhoni's strategies in such situations.

Like it arose today, it had also arisen during the first Twenty20 between India and Australia earlier on this tour. One of the earlier occasions that I can remember when a similar question had arisen in my mind was not a chase, but India setting a target for New Zealand on the tour of 2009 in the 2nd Twenty20 International, where he wasted the middle overs with 8* (18) before ending up with 28* (30). In that match too, it might be argued that Dhoni's slow approach forced Yuvraj Singh, Yusuf Pathan and Ravindra Jadeja to play shots that shouldn't have ideally been required in those situations.

The man I have written this post about - MS Dhoni - had brilliantly executed the 161 required runs of 170 balls in the World Cup finals. The run rate required then at Wankhede Stadium was 5.68 runs per over, and here at Adelaide Oval was 5.81 runs per over. If he can do it so well there, why couldn't he do it as well here? Had this been a one-off case, I wouldn't have bothered writing this long a post, presuming it to be a mistake. But it is not a one-off case, and thus this has to be considered a strategy of some sort - and in my opinion, a miscalculated strategy!

INDIA IN AUSTRALIA, 1ST TEST - HOW CAN UMPIRING GO OUT OF FOCUS?

I was far too young to follow India's tour of Australia in 1991-92. Once I started understanding and following the game of cricket, India has toured Australia in 1999-00, 2003-04, 2007-08 and the current one now in 2011-12... and each time, umpiring has been a subject of sharp focus!

If that is not enough, the scrutiny of umpiring decisions have started in the 1st Test on all but one of the above tours. Only in 2007-08 did the opening Test at MCG on the Boxing Day go through without an umpiring decision worthy of remembrance years later! Unhappy with how incident-free the 1st Test was from an umpiring perspective, the cricketing Gods put in all their efforts to ensure that the 2nd Test would not only compensate for the 1st one, but also supersede all other incident-involving Australia-India Tests of my living memory.

1999-00: The first Test was in Adelaide... and it will always be remembered for the infamous shoulder-before-wicket LBW decision by Daryl Harper against Sachin Tendulkar of Glenn McGrath's bowling. Even in that era, that particular decision gathered a lot of inches and minutes in print and television media respectively. I shudder to imagine what would have happened had such a decision been given in this era!

It was a marginal call, as the ball could have clipped the top of the stumps or gone over it. In normal circumstances, the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman. Only when the batsman does not offer a shot does the benefit of the doubt go to the bowler. Was that a case of no shot offered? In my view, definitely not! When a batsman ducks under a bouncer that hits him on any part of his body and goes for runs, it is given as leg byes. When no shot is offered, and the ball is deflected of the pads of the batsman, no runs are given. This rule may be farcical, but as long as it exists, ducking cannot be deemed to be a case of no shot offered, and the benefit of doubt in that case should have gone to the batsman.

While I remember just this incident clearly from that tour, I do remember that there definitely was discontentment about umpiring during that tour. I have read that that particular tour accelerated ICC's plans of implementing the concept of two neutral umpires in Tests. This article from the Cricinfo archives points out that there were arguably three contentious decisions against Sachin Tendulkar alone in his 6 Test innings on that tour.

2003-04: The first Test was in Brisbane... and the central figure was once again Sachin Tendulkar. The bowler this time was Jason Gillespie and the umpire was Steve Bucknor. Again, the media coverage was immense and even Gillespie had admitted that his appeal had only been academic and that he wasn't actually expecting to get the decision in his favour.

While the ball pitched outside off and seamed in, even the naked eye could tell that the bounce was far too much in that ball to be able to hit the stumps. Truth be told, I think that this ball would have passed the stumps at a higher altitude than McGrath's bouncer four years previously that resulted in the shoulder-before-wicket dismissal. That same article to which I have provided the link above talks of the coverage that followed this Steve Bucknor decision.

2007-08: Like I said, the first Test at MCG was more-or-less incident-free, and the second Test at SCG overcompensated for that! There has been more than enough coverage of the Sydney Test of 2008 - both the racial abuse allegation as well as the collection of umpiring errors! Andrew Symonds was reprieved thrice (twice by Steve Bucknor and once incredibly by the third umpire Bruce Oxenford!) and Ricky Ponting was reprieved once and then given out when he shouldn't have been. Sourav Ganguly was ruled out caught by Michael Clarke by umpire Mark Benson in consultation with Ponting rather than the third umpire.

There were some more incidents (I remember Rahul Dravid too falling victim of a Steve Bucknor error), but the key one definitely was the first reprieve that Andrew Symonds received on Ishant Sharma's bowling. Steve Bucknor (once again!) failed to see/hear a very clear edge with its big woody noise and a clear deflection of the ball on its way to MS Dhoni behind the stumps. That decision was very clearly a result-impacting decision. Symonds was on 30 then, and Australia 193 for 6. Australia ended up with 463 with Symonds unbeaten on 162. Even though India had no business losing the Test on Day 5, there might have been a completely different result had Symonds been ruled out there and Australia slumped to 193 for 7.

2011-12: The first Test at Melbourne, Day 1... and both umpires in the limelight for one caught-behind decision each. Maraius Erasmus ruled Michael Hussey out for a golden duck off Zaheer Khan's bowling and soon thereafter, Ian Gould ruled the debutant Ed Cowan out for 68 off Ravichandran Ashwin's bowling.

While I wouldn't call either of those decisions a 'howler', the debate on it shall be no less than the other decisions of the past... because we live in the era that has tasted the implementation of DRS. Where I stand on the issue of DRS is absolutely unrelated to what this post is about, and so I'll refrain from getting into that. But it must be said here that there is a difference between a marginal call and a howler, and DRS is starting to obliterate that line. Had it not been for the debate on DRS, the Hussey and Cowan dismissals might have been talked about just for a few hours, and then archived somewhere in history. But now, we'll have gigabytes of data to tell the future generation different versions of what actually transpired there!

NOSTALGIA

My mind goes back to that morning 8 years and 10 days ago. 16th December 2003. I was 15, had just finished a class at my boarding school, and rushed out as it ended to find my Physics professor. I knew he would have the score.

When I found him, I did not need to ask. I knew. His smile (and he rarely smiled!) made it obvious. India had won by 4 wickets at Adelaide, and Rahul Dravid had hit the winning runs. "Poetic justice!" is what he had said back then!

I had followed that Test series (from Brisbane to Sydney) by snatching updates on All India Radio and begging for more updates from professors whom I knew had internet connections. Despite the fact that we were clear underdogs, I still had hopes from our team. Back then, I was less of a realist and more of an optimist! I still remember thinking that during the World Cup less than a year before that series, India had clearly been the second best team. The time seemed ripe to take on the best team in their backyard!

And take them on we did! That Adelaide Test took my love for the game to a different level... particularly Test cricket! India had won after conceding more than 550 runs in the first innings. If the Eden Gardens miracle of 2001 was not enough, this one just reaffirmed my faith that there is no game quite like Test cricket!

And then, on the next day (17th December 2003), Rohit Brijnath became my favourite cricket writer with this wonderful piece on the front page of The Indian Express. Yes, those three "architects" of our win deserved no less!

That Australian summer changed a lot of things about my relationship with cricket! I had followed India's tours to England and the West Indies earlier in the decade with considerable studiousness, but this was the tour that created an impact... an impact that made cricket a lot bigger than a mere sport for me!

An hour before the Boxing Day Test match kicks off at Melbourne Cricket Ground, memories of that match at Adelaide (and to think that I managed to watch just the highlights) create a nostalgia in my mind. I hope that this series is just as hard fought and fairly-fought, and when "dusk begins its quiet descent", the winners are wearing blue caps!

THE CENTURION TEST

The anticipation is almost palpable now. For both the Tests that start tomorrow... particularly South Africa v India at SuperSport Park, Centurion. I just hope that the Gods don't decide to pour water all over the show.

Since I have already done a preview (sort of) of the Perth Test, this one will focus on the Centurion one. The match starts on 16th December 2010. This day - the 16th of December - holds special memories for Indian Test cricket fans. Exactly 7 years ago, on 16th December 2003, India defeated a world-beating Steve Waugh-led Australia at Adelaide and announced to the world that lousy visitors we are no more!

It marked the start of a new era. Some may argue that this era began with the victory in England in 2002 itself... when we showed that we are capable of winning Tests in alien conditions as well. But the Adelaide win was way beyond just a win... it was a celebrated milestone, and India has not looked back since then.

Though there are question marks now over the spot of the chief architect of that win (viz. Rahul Dravid), there can be no denying that he would want to erase those question marks with a strong match and series winning performance in South Africa... along with his contemporaries Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman. The desire is almost a desperation now... and when such stalwarts are desperate, you know that something's bound to give!

On the other hand, South Africa is also aware of the importance of this series... and they know that a series win against India is the biggest step (almost a leap) that they can take in their desire of regaining the mantle of No. 1 Test team in the world. If the ICC Rankings are disconsidered for a moment, then there are a lot of people in the world who hold the belief that the South Africans are the real No. 1 team in the Test world. But India has an opportunity to shake this belief... to destroy this notion and firmly establish themselves as the best cricket team in whites.

The weather has been very wet in this build up to the First Test. There are chances that a lot of play will be lost on most of the days. So whereas I was initially hoping that India should bat first (simply because Gambhir - Sehwag v Steyn - Morkel is THE BATTLE of the series), now I hope otherwise. Batting first under cloudy skies with wetness in the pitch will be extremely difficult against the South African pace attack... just as it will be difficult for Smith, Peterson, Amla, Kallis, De Villiers and Prince against the Indian pace attack minus Zaheer Khan.

Zaheer's loss may have a telling effect, but the best that India could have hoped for in Zaheer's absence was for helpful conditions to assist the likes of Sreesanth, Ishant Sharma and Unadkat / Yadav (I believe that it will be the former who makes the cut tomorrow). If India does bowl first under overcast skies, that should compensate well enough for Zaheer's absence.

Talking about Zaheer, its only apt that we drop a line of two about Zaheer's potential replacement for the match as well. I would like to see Jaidev Unadkat make his debut tomorrow... and given how this 19-year old had performed six months back in his first-class debut at Leicester with a 13-for, I will definitely be hoping for another impressive performance on his Test debut. He (or Umesh Yadav) will be the 267th Test player for India... but I guess Unadkat will be the first teammate of Sachin Tendulkar who would have been born after the master made his debut over 21 years ago (he has played AGAINST youngsters who were born after his debut... I can recall Mohammed Aamer during the ODI match against Pakistan during the Champions Trophy last year).

Sorry for digressing... but now that I have brought up the topic of Sachin Tendulkar, there has to be a mention of the eagerly-awaited 50th Test ton also. Another feather in that cap, which must weigh a ton now!

On that note, I end this preview... and lets hope that we witness a cracking start to the blockbuster contest tomorrow.

GAMBHIR TICKS THE UNCHECKED BOX

The first South Africa - India Test match starts in just a couple of weeks from today at the SuperSport Park, Centurion... and in the lead up to that Test match, it is great to see Gautam Gambhir get a century against New Zealand today. He was the only unticked box remaining in our top and middle order.

Virender Sehwag - He is in roaring form... second highest run scorer in this calender year (2010)... and could be the key for India's series win in the Rainbow Nation. Back to the land where he embarked on his journey in Test cricket, there are high expectations of him this time round. With the pace that the South African attack can generate, his fiery slashes may carry all the way over the third man boundary!

Gautam Gambhir - It was good to see him get some runs against the Kiwis. He did get lucky with a couple of streaky inside edges... but the crucial thing is that he capitalised on the luck. And once he got closer to three figures, he looked as comfortable as he's looked this entire year. Surely the signs are good for the Indian opening partnership...

Rahul Dravid - Though I am not completely confident about his form and indeed his place in the side, but it cannot be denied that he did get 2 centuries in Tests against New Zealand. That is bound to give him some confidence before the South African tour. But if I were MS Dhoni, I would still tell Cheteshwar Pujara to be on standby mode... just in case!

Sachin Tendulkar - Though the New Zealand series was not that productive, it cannot be denied that he is looking in ominous form. He will be facing South Africa in any form of cricket for the first time after the history-making 200* (147) at Gwalior. This time he'll have a chance to make another history... No. 50 is waiting... will it be SuperSport Park, Centurion, where he had smashed the Pakistanis into submission at a World Cup just under 8 years ago?

VVS Laxman - The South Africa tour will be a difficult one. There will be times when that brilliant bowling attack will put the Indian batting unit under immense pressure. And that will be the time when we'll again look towards Lax to bail us out... for he's a crunch-situation specialist. It will be interesting to see the fields that Graeme Smith sets for VVS.

The anticipation is building up for the clash of No. 1 against the No. 2. I know that a lot of neutrals will follow the Ashes more religiously that this one... but I think that this series will be a lot more interesting and the mini-battles a lot more absorbing. Obviously, this feeling may have come (or may have been strengthened) by the 22-wickets-over-5-days draw at The Gabba and the prospect of another such match at Adelaide next.

So I can't wait for December 16th to arrive... it's time to see the best in action!

THE BRISBANE TEST - FROM THE NEUTRAL EYE

How quickly fortune can change! Three days into the first Ashes Test, Australia was right on top... leading England by more than 200 runs, having gotten 10 first-innings English wickets without even letting the second new ball become due, centuries for batsmen who had had question marks over their places in the squad and there seemed to exist a tremendous amount of optimism in the media all over the island nation.

Two days later, the tables have as upside down as upside down can be! Whereas less than 77 overs were needed to take the first 10 English wickets, Australia couldn't prise out more than 1 over almost double the number of overs in the second innings. The captain led from the front, then the vice-captain overtook him and went further ahead... and meanwhile, the South African born No. 3 continued his dream run against the Aussies.

Since England won the final 2 days of the drawn Gabba Test, there is naturally a lot of optimism now in the English media and there are talks about momentum and psychological advantage... But putting all this aside, what else can be deduced from this match?

England batted for a total of 228.5 overs and scored 777 runs for the loss of 11 wickets at 3.40 runs per over. Australia, on the other hand, batted for a total of 184.4 overs and scored 588 runs for the loss of 11 wickets at 3.18 runs per over. Given that 302 of England's runs were scored by Alastair Cook (that's 38.88%) and 136 of Australia's runs were scored by Brad Haddin (that's 23.13%), it is surprising to see England scoring a good 0.22 runs per over more than Australia over the duration of the match.

So the numbers too, prima facie, showcase England as the better side over the Test match. But the catch is, they were just slightly better. 'Slightly better' will not be good enough to win the urn, maybe just good enough to retain it.

Australia's problems are being talked of loudly and clearly all over the cricketing world at the moment. But England should realise that they have problems of their own. Australia, even at their worst, can put up a huge fight. England's worst fear right now would be a scenario where Ben Hilfenhaus finds his rhythm (which he is soon bound to), Mitchell Johnson producing one of his once-in-10-Tests brilliant efforts, Doug Bollinger returning to the squad with decent match practice (sorry Peter Siddle, but you are not going to be getting hat-tricks everyday... everyday's not your birthday), Marcus North finding grip and turn with his off breaks and the English batting having its once-in-10-Tests batting collapse... all in the same Test.

But then, England will also be cheered up by the fact that the above scenario is unlikely to occur in the 2nd Test... since it is at Adelaide. So what I am left wondering about now is that if Brisbane has produced only 22 wickets over 5 days (10 of which fell under a cloudy Day 1), what is going to happen at Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne? The flip side is that these venues might just provide the impetus needed to spur a certain Graeme Swann back into the thick of things.

Frankly, the first Test was a let down from what I expected. I hope Adelaide delivers a better show...

DRAVID CONQUERS ADELAIDE

With a perfect square-cut, an epic is sealed

Adelaide, 16 December 2003

When Rahul Dravid walked out to bat less than half an hour into the final morning at the Adelaide Oval, he knew that India were on the threshold of something special. Ajit Agarkar's unexpected six-wicket haul the previous afternoon had set up a target of 230 runs, and by the time Dravid emerged to rapturous applause from the Indian support, Aakash Chopra and Virender Sehwag had already whittled off 48.

Dravid had scripted an epic 233 in the first innings, adding 303 with VVS Laxman, but he needed a kiss from Dame Fortune to get going on the final day. Brad Williams had injured his left shoulder, but he toiled heroically, and when Dravid had made just 9, a perfectly pitched delivery on off stump flew off the edge. Adam Gilchrist grassed the chance, and though Williams continued to trouble him with reverse-swing, Dravid wasn't to be denied. He added 70 with Sachin Tendulkar, and as nails were being bitten to the quick, Laxman came out and caressed a lovely 32-run cameo. Simon Katich's left-arm spin induced a couple more flutters, but fittingly the last act was to feature the two men who had done so much to ease the path to victory.

As Agarkar watched from the non-striker's end, Dravid cut a Stuart MacGill delivery through point. There was a yell of delight and a clenched fist, and Steve Waugh made it a point to pick the ball out of the gutter and hand it over to a man who embodied the warrior spirit that he himself personified.

- Dileep Premachandran

Link to the Original Article - Ranked at No. 41 by Cricinfo.

THE 'WALKER' WALKS AWAY

Two years ago, on this very day - 4th March, Adam Gilchrist, arguably the best wicketkeeper to have graced the sport, played the last international innings of his career in front of a packed Gabba against India.

The Aussie fans wanted Gilchrist to play another match at the Adelaide Oval - for a couple of reasons. One, to ensure that the best of three final goes into the 3rd match after India had sealed the 1st one. Two, to watch Gilchrist play one more time - a delight very rarely matched.

Though it was not a fitting end (Gilly played on for 2 and Australia went on to lose the match and the series), it was a still a glorious career. "To the team and all the support staff, it's been a magic ride," he said. "It's not a fairytale ending tonight, but it's been a fairytale career. To be involved with you guys is something I'll hold dear in my heart for the rest of my life."

And having watched you bat like just you can so many times is something we hold dear, Gilly! Out of the many qualities that he was renowned for, the one that stood out was his walk-when-you-know-its-out attitude. He was called unAustralian for it, but the world loved him just as much, if not more.

His last appearance in a World Cup match was the finals of 2007 World Cup in the Carribbean, where his awesome 149 all but sealed the tournament in Australia's favour. Though Gilly is till seen playing enthusiastically in the IPL, watching him bat in an international match (especially Tests) was a different experience altogether.

We wish you all the very best in whatever you do ahead, Gilly!