Sourav's 100th test match

Hail, centurion

Rahul Bhattacharya

December 25, 2007

'A hundred Tests is a statistic that privileges character above ability - as sport ultimately must © AFP

The gently exasperating and always engrossing Sourav Ganguly has reached 100 Tests. What a scandal! What about the obit writers! They've been at it for longer than anybody can remember, certainly from much before our centurion had appeared in his first Test. In his current, serenely paternal avatar, you can see him putting a sympathetic arm on their shoulders: "See, it happens..."

Ganguly, at various points of his career, was supposed to have been the teenage upstart who would not carry drinks; the symbol of Jagmohan Dalmiya's awful hegemony over the good game; the captain who backed a dud, name of Yuvraj Singh, because the two shared an agent; and the ex-captain who jeopardised his team's chances at a World Cup by trying to make a few extra bucks on his bat-logo contract. Reading the newspapers you would think the man ought not ever be allowed onto a field, a view match referees too seemed to concur with.

Underestimating Ganguly is among the game's more frequent misjudgements, a point he seems to be almost gleefully alive to. Sooner or later every detractor is charmed, bar perhaps one former coach.

This has been a well-earned century. A hundred Tests is hardly the phenomenon it once was. Forty players have gone past the mark in the last two decades, and ten in the last couple of years alone. But it still speaks of longevity - that is, the capacity to overcome hard times. It is a statistic that privileges character above ability, as sport ultimately must. Close to half of Ganguly's Tests have been while in possession of the maddest job in the business. And every innings from him right now is all the more poignant because there has been something more to his story. It was not the cricketer who was written off; it was the whole man.

Aside from the facts that Greg Chappell neither worked with Ganguly during his comeback and never ever wanted him back in the team, Chappell can be credited with the revival. In other words, Chappell's intervention made it an izzat ka sawaal (question of honour). Thus, our reassuringly lethargic Bengali was stirred into issuing his trainer the instruction, "Make me do anything that I haven't done for the last ten years", and was thereafter seen running about in Eden Gardens with a parachute attached to his rear, or moving into kickboxing stances. More instructive than his batting in first-class cricket was his bowling.

The movement, though, took some defeating. Chappell's management of cricketers may have been suspect, but he was a rousing leader of editors. When the words "cancer", "manipulative", "corrupted" and "past his sell-by date in all ways" find themselves in a single paragraph in an email from coach to journalists, you know what tone this campaign is going to take.

The issue is not whether Ganguly needed to be dropped from captaincy, or even the team, or even that he is doing well now. It was the response. You would have thought there was a civil-rights matter at hand. In fact, this was only a man who had temporarily lost his way. So it was that an editor supporting the revolution might shake his head when Ganguly was among the runs in domestic cricket and gravely pronounce, 'Not good for Indian cricket.' Classic scenes.

	Close to half of Ganguly's Tests have been while in possession of the maddest job in the business. And every innings from him right now is all the more poignant because there has been something more to his story. It was not the cricketer who was written off; it was the whole man

To watch him put together this fabulous year of batting has been fulfilling. He has confronted pace and bounce in South Africa, swing and seam in England, and the sneaky low pitches in the home series against Pakistan. He has done the rescue act (Johannesburg, Bangalore), played the key match-turner (Johannesburg, Trent Bridge, Delhi), and constructed precisely the epic that even his staunchest supporters thought was beyond him (Bangalore).

At the crease he cuts an uncluttered picture. In his newer stance, adjusted after seeking the opinion of Zaheer Abbas, he stands far more upright, less languid but more effective than before, particularly on the leg. The re-focusing walk towards square leg after every ball is tiring to even watch, but it does the job. He has become an excellent leaver of the ball.

Some of his batting has transcended context. There was something magical about his fifty at The Oval; coming from 11 for 3, with that much-cherished series victory in the slyest danger, it was valuable for what it achieved but memorable for its utter sleekness, the ball sliding off his bat like ice on marble. His second-innings 91 in Bangalore, because of its pace, because it made batting on such a difficult surface look easy, contained a touch of genius. If he carries this form through the Australian tour, this will have been a body of high accomplishment.

And it will also alter the way history judges him. His reputation as possibly the best and certainly the most successful captain India have had was secure, but he was also seen, accurately, as a batsman who could not fully live up to his exceptional talent. With this burst of productivity he has gone past Gundappa Viswanath in runs and centuries, is not far behind Dilip Vengsarkar, and at this moment averages more than either. Players, leaders in particular, are remembered by their image. But there is a kind of finality in figures. Centurions know that better than anybody.

Australia's attitude lacking in appeal

Australia's attitude lacking in appeal

Peter English at the SCG

January 6, 2008

	The decision that ended Rahul Dravid's resistance was one of many poor calls that went Australia's way © Getty Images

Andrew Symonds turned in disgust and threw darts with his eyes at Steve Bucknor. Mahendra Singh Dhoni had not played a shot to Symonds' offspin and the bowler was furious even though the ball was heading over the stumps. After the umpiring perks Symonds received during the match he had nothing to complain about.

On the last ball before tea it was Ricky Ponting who could not understand why Bucknor did not agree with a similar appeal against Rahul Dravid. Ponting crouched down and muttered as if nothing ever went his team's way. In this Test, from the moment Ponting's legside edge on day one went unnoticed by Mark Benson, almost everything did.

Symonds was the most fortunate man in the game. Following his batting reprieves, he was at the centre of another crucial decision that went against India and led to them losing the match. Poor Dravid, who battled to 38, was providing a formidable obstacle when he pushed his pad forward to Symonds and hid his bat and gloves behind his front leg. A sound was heard, Adam Gilchrist caught the ball, the Australians yelled and India's comfortable position of 3 for 115 was soon to be 6 for 137.

Bucknor was swayed in a ruling that was as bad as his miss of Symonds in the first innings. Listening to the edges has obviously become more difficult, but soon a fine servant may actually hear the calls for his retirement. The decisions contributed to India losing the Test, but the visiting players shook the hands of both officials after the match. While they took their caps off and lined up, the Australians danced, jumped and whooped in a manner that would have reminded the Indians of their World Twenty20 celebrations.

The noise of Symonds' nick on 31 was so loud it could have carried to the shoppers in nearby Oxford Street. Bucknor's decision cost India 131 runs and he also refused to call for the third umpire during a close stumping when Symonds was 148. Two days later Anil Kumble missed a hat-trick when Bucknor judged a wrong'un to be going over the stumps when Symonds pushed forward. He went on to score another 61.

Most Australian players believe luck evens itself out over a career, but their long-sightedness is not shared by visiting teams. Bob Woolmer reckoned Australia received almost six times more line-ball decisions than Pakistan during the 2004-05 series, and while it sounded like an exaggeration, the benefit of the doubt favours the home team in Australia and around the world

Umpires must feel like frontline soldiers on the final days of the Tests. Fielders crowd round the batsmen and they are shouted at every couple of balls over fantasy and non-fiction. Every country has its ways of pushing the rules and one of Australia's traditional pet hates was the amount of appealing conducted by teams from the subcontinent.

Shane Warne helped alter that view and on the final day his former team-mates were expert at trying to influence the officials with shouts at all volumes. (Despite the consistent requests, none was as ridiculous as Kumble's plea for an lbw of Brad Hogg in the first innings when the ball was struck through cover for two.) Benson was so worn down late in the afternoon that he sent a run-out call to the third umpire even though the batsman was in by a metre.

	"Both arguments are about telling the truth. Why should Clarke be trusted to rule on a potentially match-turning catch when he stayed at the crease on day four after edging a ball to first slip?"

In the same session he had to deal with Michael Clarke's low catch off Sourav Ganguly, who stood with hand on hip as he waited for a decision. Of course the Australians raced to the fielder and swamped him. They were certain it was out, but Benson wasn't sure. He looked to Bucknor at square leg and then walked down the pitch and asked Ponting what he thought. "He caught it," Ponting seemed to say and put his finger up. Benson did the same.

Fortunately for Ponting, who gained credibility for the decision by refusing to accept a low catch in the first innings, the replays did not show the ball falling short. Typically, they also could not clear all doubt from the take. Ponting's noble request for all teams to have an honesty system for these incidents has been rejected by the rest of the world - he had a small victory before this series when Kumble agreed the captains would have the final say on contentious catches - and they must have squirmed when they saw Ponting relaying the message to the umpire.

Australians see catching differently to appealing and walking. They say it's up to the umpire to decide on edges and lbws, but when it comes to knowing whether a ball has carried, the fielder is the best person to judge. What they miss is that both arguments are about telling the truth. Why should Clarke be trusted to rule on a potentially match-turning catch when he stayed at the crease on day four after edging a ball to first slip?

One of Gilchrist's finest traits is he walks whenever he gets an edge, and claims to appeal only if he's sure the batsman has got a nick. Apart from Dravid, Gilchrist was the best-positioned player to know what Symonds' delivery had touched. It was definitely not bat or glove. Gilchrist also did not see the puff of dust from the ball bouncing after Dhoni hit it into his leg before ricocheting back to the wicketkeeper, who appealed with his team-mates for a catch. It was an easy decision for Bruce Oxenford, the television umpire.

Under Steve Waugh the Australians devised a Spirit of Cricket document that they swear by. They insist they play the game "hard and fair" and are shocked whenever their outlook is challenged. After emotional days like this it is hard to sympathise with their complaints.

India tour of Australia 2007-2008

Kumble questions Australia's spirit

Peter English at the SCG

January 6, 2008

	Ricky Ponting reacted angrily when questions were raised over his appeal for a catch while fielding in close, when replays seemed to show it touching the grass when he landed © Getty Images

Anil Kumble has accused Australia of not playing in the spirit of the game in a heated finish to a Test that continued the ill-feeling between the teams. After a match filled with controversy it was revealed the BCCI would request Steve Bucknor, the "incompetent" official, be replaced for the third Test in Perth while Kumble will review the pre-series catching agreement he had with Ricky Ponting, who aggressively defended his integrity.

"Only one team was playing with the spirit of the game, that's all I can say," Kumble said after a day that included a horrible decision for Rahul Dravid and a claimed low, slip catch by Michael Clarke against Sourav Ganguly. The dismissal was sealed when Ponting told the umpire Mark Benson it was out, although television replays were, as usual, not conclusive.

"We'd like to play hard on the field and expect that from Australia as well," Kumble said. "I've played my cricket very sincerely and honestly, that's the approach my team takes, and we expect that from Australia as well. Sometimes it happens that in the heat of the moment you take those chances and then probably don't say anything on that. It's a part of the game."

Australia's sprint to victory with seven balls to spare was also overshadowed by the charges of racism tabled against Harbhajan Singh, a complaint which was raised on the field by Ponting, and an India team official was angry at the treatment towards the side during the 122-run defeat. India suffered heavily due to the poor umpiring and Chetan Chauhan, the India manager, believed they would not have lost if they had received 50% of the contentious calls.

"The way the umpiring was, the team is agitated and upset," he said. "A lot of decisions have gone against us. Of course a few went against the Australians also."

The crucial rulings involved Bucknor and Andrew Symonds, who was given not-out to a loud edge when he was 31 - he made 162 - and today he dismissed Dravid caught-behind when the ball flicked the batsman's pad. "Had some of the decisions, I would say 50% of them, were received in our favour, the result would have been different," Chauhan said. "It really affected us. We're not saying this because we have lost the game. It was for everybody to see."

Bucknor and Mark Benson both had matches to forget and Bucknor is due to stand in Perth from January 16. However, Chauhan said the BCCI was lodging "a strong protest" with the ICC "so that some of the incompetent umpires do not umpire in the rest of the series".

The Indians were not the only ones fuming. Ponting reacted angrily when asked about his appeal for a catch against Mahendra Singh Dhoni that was ruled not out because the batsman did not hit it. The ball ballooned away from Ponting at silly point and he dived to make an athletic take, which sparked loud appeals, but replays seemed to show it touching the grass.

"There's no way I grounded that ball. If you're actually questioning my integrity in the game, then you shouldn't be standing there," Ponting told an Indian journalist. "What I did in the first innings, doesn't that explain the way I play the game?" Ponting told the umpires he had not accepted an edge cleanly despite the appeals from the players around him.

"I'm saying I'm 100% sure I would have caught that catch off Dhoni," Ponting said. "As it turned out it was given not out anyway, am I right or wrong?"

Adam Gilchrist also took aim at criticism of Australia's delay in closing their second innings today, shouting "How about that declaration, Tony Greig" while Ponting was conducting a radio interview. The Indian media also made an official complaint to the BCCI about what a journalist called the "humiliating" treatment from Ponting during an abbreviated press conference before he attended the hearing involving Harbhajan.

Ponting believed there was nothing wrong with Australia's on-field conduct during the match. "I have absolutely no doubt about this match being played in the right spirit," he said. "There's been one little issue that's come out of the game, otherwise the spirit between both teams in both Tests has been excellent." In Sydney Kumble and India disagreed.

Peter English is the Australasia editor.