Decline? What decline?

Written by Jarrod Kimber

Monday, 21 January 2008

I never congratulate Australia for winning, so it seems odd to do it for India. They beat Australia, which should be the aim of any team playing a test. They trained hard, the conditions helped, the injury to Hayden helped, and they out played Australia, this lead to a test win.

In order for India to become a great test nation they should have expected to win this test. Not because their fans expected to, but because they put in the hard yards, are a talented group of players and because they should believe in themselves.

India has the best record against Australia of any country over the last 15 years. and they were still 2 nil down against this new look, obviously more frail Australian side. This is the side that almost lost a test against one player (the king kumar) in Hobart, only a few months ago.

They kept out Clark and Lee as best they could. They worked over Hussey and Ponting pretty well, the pitch suited them more than it did Australia and they found out Australia’s dirty little secret, they aint as good as they used to be.

India deserved to win the test, but they must remember all they have done is won one test.

England are still paying for thinking all their hard work in beating the Aussies was enough. Sure a bunch of them got (practically) knighted, and Freddy is still drunk, but at the end of the day a win in one series is just a win in one series.

India haven’t done that. They have climbed a huge mountain in beating Australia at the waca, but when they got to the top of the mountain, guess what they saw, higher peaks.

England saw that, and thought bollocks to that, lets go get a beer.

The Indian side is very well suited to beating Australia. Swing bowling and a formidable batting line up is what England used. They are hungry and mostly in good form. They have good balance and used sound plans to bottle up Australia's gun batsmen.

But Adelaide is a different fish of kettle.

The ball may not swing, the Indian batsman may not be able to hold Lee and Clark out, and Hayden might come back.

Plus the fact that pretty much since India drew in Australia 4 years ago, every time Australia has lost, they have played their best cricket. Look at their record after the 2005 ashes, or their form at the word cup after losing to England and New Zealand.

Then what, a score line of 3-1 and the world seems a dark place again.

India must look at this win for what it is, a small step in the right direction, but many an explorer has fallen off a mountain.

Even Sober.

And for all the other test nations that thought this win means you will knock off Australia, remember these two details. The last time India toured they drew with Australia, and yet Australia has lost only one series since then. The last time Australia lost a test was in 2005, and that got them so angry they went on a war path demoloshing all teams in their wake, and inspiriing this 16 test run.

Are they as good as they used to be, ofcourse not, are they still good, yup.

(Jarrod Kimber, (Uncle J Rod to you) was born in a cricket family of fast bowlers, tail enders and bat throwers. So he became a leg spinning opening batsmen who enjoyed sledging. After the odd run in with selectors (damn muppets) he decided to hang up his boots, sit on his couch and fire up his laptop. He takes cricket as serious as cancer. When not here he can be found at www.cricketwithballs.com, offending South Africans and calling Tony Grieg a pervert.)

Comments

Add New

RSS

Vistasp - Agree, but...

Unregistered | 2008-01-31 00:52:49

First things first, I love the way you write (and know) your stuff. It's a pleasure to follow your blog as well.

Mr Kimber, I agree with everything you say but there is one unusual thing that has happened in this series and one that does not happen too often. From my perch here in Mumbai, I get this feeling that despite losing the series, we Indians feel like we have won the damn thing. (And subsequently, despite winning it, Aussies feel hollow about the whole darned affair.)

Allow me to elaborate: God alone knows if Kumble's boys would have even lost the first test if they had a decent time to acclimatise themselves. And the last test at Adelaide (played on a track as flat as Keira Knightley's, to borrow your colourful phrase), was dominated in more sessions by Indians than Ponting's men. A fair result in Sydney would have actually meant that the series would have been decided 2-1 in India's favour. This, as they say may be in the realm of IF and BUT, but is definitely not that unlikely.

Not accounting for all the needless and hyped-up controversies throughout the tour, where too, the sympathy factor worked in favour of the Indian team, it's easy to see why this feeling (winner being the loser and viceversa)should prevail across the cricket loving community of both countries.

Reply | Quote

Uncle J rod - true

Unregistered | 2008-02-01 05:27:55

But i would argue one thing, had Australia not won in Sydney, India may not have won in Perth. The Indian team galvanised together under a strong leader and played well in Perth, had the Sydney game petered out into a draw, perhaps India would not have had the motivation to force themselves together.

Reply | Quote

Vistasp - Probably so...

Unregistered | 2008-02-01 06:51:20

I can't pick a bone with that Uncle. The motivation to put it across must have definitely peaked in Perth though on the face of it, it does seem like the sides were fairly evenly matched.

Reply | Quote

jaideepv - sorry, no dice

Unregistered | 2008-02-01 07:04:21

I disagree. I think the Indians were sufficiently motivated, as they have been in tests in Australia in recent years (except maybe Nagpur 2004). In Melbourne they were not acclamitised, and in Sydney the pitch played too easy in the second Aussie innings. It's just that the wicket in Perth helped their bowlers and so they had the Aussies in trouble. I think the team was hugely motivated for this series because it was goodbye to the Big 5 after this in Australia. Because by your logic, they should have been on fire in Adelaide too, but they weren't, because the pitch didn't help their bowlers.

Reply | Quote

Uncle J rod - doubt it

Unregistered | 2008-02-02 04:40:59

No after Perth, India did what most teams do against Australia, they celebrated so much, that they didn't play with the same intensity.

In Sydney and Adelaide their intensity was down.

Melbourne i agree with you, but in the other two they let the games float when they should have pressed forward.

Perth they pushed harder, because they were angry.

Reply | Quote