Return to basics

From the start, the third Test appeared somehow cast in a slightly different mould. Conditions in the preceding two should have been reasonably favourable to India imposing their preferred style of cricket; yet just the opposite happened: It was England who batted with more initiative, bowled with more purpose, and generally appeared to possess the plan and desire to take charge of the series.

Even without knowing the conditions, the third Test at Headingley, on the other hand, would have been expected to suit England clinching the contest. With India having been played into a hole and acquiesced in digging part of it themselves, the seam and bounce which prevailed should have been conducive to England finishing them off.

Yet, ironically, it is in these circumstances that India mustered the determination to finally assert itself on the series. There had been glimpses, but they were mainly confined to batting in the second innings - the belated spirit shown on day five of the first Test, and the effort of Tendulkar, Dravid and Ganguly to save what the bowlers had all but lost in the second. Both those innings, however, were rearguard; neither set the tone.

The third Test began differently. Two spinners and a makeshift opener in part intimated the plan, which then evolved along the type of lines that must be envisaged at team meetings. It was as if a decision had been made to return to basics and adopt a traditional method, irrespective of conditions: Bat first, watchfully compile an unassailable total over two days, then unleash the spinners to wear down the opposition with the confidence of those runs behind them. It is possibly the simplest and most time-honoured way to win Tests, and certainly much more suited to India's strengths.

With a solidity and purpose that perhaps reflected the unified stance on contracts in the dressing room, that is exactly what transpired. England, theoretically stronger with Caddick and Tudor returning, thoroughly failed to exert the pressure on India's batsmen that had seen them make inroads in the previous two first innings.

What tests they did pose were answered by Dravid, who exhibited all his best qualities. On the first day, both Bangar and Dravid appeared to feel the weight of responsibility that had been placed on them by India's position, and their demeanour reflected the occasion. Watchful and concentrated, Dravid provided the innings with its necessary foundation, the well-known temperament and discipline a feature. He appeared to accept the responsibility of batting for as long as needed, eschewing expansive strokes but increasing the tempo as the situation warranted.

Without an express bowler and with Flintoff apparently impeded by injury, England failed to exploit the conditions. But it wasn't explained by lack of resources. Hussain seemed to too readily concede his bowlers were not capable of taking wickets by conventional means, as England were lamely reduced to bowling short at Tendulkar from around the wicket. It was a departure from the purpose with which they'd previously performed; too tactical when the simplicity of an accurate good length would have sufficed.

India's reformed approach was only fully emphasised by Ganguly's extraordinarily selfless batting late on day two. Accepting the offer of poor light could potentially have meant the difference between drawing and winning the series. One never knows. In the second Test, England cost themselves time that would have been invaluable by being too negative in this regard.

India could not lose the match by that stage so batting on was the only appropriate decision to make. That in no way indicated a hitting spree would result, but it is to Ganguly's credit that it did. He risked missing another century by initiating the counter-attack but, Sunil Gavaskar's admonition from the Sky commentary box notwithstanding, he set a commendable example.

The only criticism to make about the amazing assault in the gloom was why it was left so late. If that is how Ganguly and Tendulkar are capable of batting when it is dark, then one can only imagine what India might more regularly achieve with just a little more inspiration under normal conditions.

If nothing else, the sensational display proved that batsmen can indeed continue past the time umpires would typically allow play to stop, and that a change of regulations is in order. The approach could not have contrasted more with that of both sides at Trent Bridge.

The total thus accelerated, the match-winners were provided with the runs, time and confidence to ply their craft at an optimum level. Anil Kumble finally had an away surface on which he could extract his dangerous steep bounce. Harbhajan Singh, with a phalanx of catchers around the bat, could follow his own plans uncompromised by a need for containment or lack of support from wayward seamers. Even Ajit Agarkar was able to maintain a consistent line and length for a time.

With the spinners operating, England's batsmen appeared under a hitherto absent pressure and, unsurprisingly, the entire attack benefited. One could almost see the self-belief returning at the joyful rediscovery of the type of cricket India are capable of playing. A little more of it, and the series is wide open again.

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw