Surfing the net a day before the start of the first Test in Bangalore, I chanced upon Australian captain Ricky Ponting’s comment to the visiting media that he found Virender Sehwag’s charge that the Australians claimed half-volley catches to be ‘fairly insulting’.

“It’s amazing how they’ve picked out a lot of negatives from the Sydney game and don’t seem to be speaking about the Perth Test (the third Test which India won), where we probably had the same things happen to us,” Ponting said.

“Not one member of the Australian team has spoken about that — we go about our cricket in different ways.”

I thought Sehwag had done well to draw first blood before a ball was bowled in the series, having rattled the Australian captain and said as much in a text to the Indian opener. His reply was simple: “I did not say anything [like that] to anyone.”

That set me off on a bid to try and reconstruct that episode, starting with the AAP report a day before the opening Test. It claimed Sehwag had alleged that the Australians had cheated to win the Sydney Test at the start of the year.

Its first paragraph was quite dramatic. “Indian opener Virender Sehwag has dramatically raised the temperature surrounding Thursday’s first Test against Australia in Bangalore by loudly claiming the Australians cheated to win the spiteful Sydney Test match in January.”

Clearly, Sehwag was responding to a question if India would accept any attempt to have an arrangement with Australia. The question itself had its genesis in Ponting expressing a desire to reinstate the catching pact, after demanding the highest standards of on-field behaviour from his players during the coming series.

“I will have a think about it and see if I think it is the right idea to bring it up again,” Ponting said in Hyderabad after the lung-opener against the Board President’s XI. “Anil was the one who did not want that after the Sydney Test for one reason or the other. We will have a chat and it’s important to us Australians to play the game in the right spirit and embrace the culture.”

Let me use the same report to reproduce what Sehwag actually told ESPN-STAR Sports. “We suffered the most in the catches pact during the last series,” he said. “There is no point in having such an arrangement when the Australians are claiming one-bounce catches. We’d have won the Sydney Test if they hadn’t claimed catches off half-volleys in that game.”

The AAP writer did not take any of this into account when concluding that Sehwag had called the Australians cheats. Of course, any one is free to make inferences but to attribute the word to the Indian opener defied logic and smacks of sensationalism.

Barely a day later, former India captain Sourav Ganguly had to issue a denial against an interview that he had purportedly given to a Bengali newspaper. The interview – reproduced in substantial chunks by English newspapers – was damaging, not just to his team-mates and selectors but also to the man himself.

Ganguly’s insistence that he did not give anyone any such interview has a note of truth. From what we can put together, the reporter was eavesdropping on a private conversation that Ganguly was having conversation with someone else. Now, this is as good – or as bad as a sting operation – and raises questions about the ethics prevalent in modern cricket reporting.

That brings me to the point I am making here. There is a third team involved in the series – and this is the media. Reading between the lines is a tricky art and not everyone, Australian or Indian, can do it right. The cricket teams have enough going between themselves and the media to fuel the fire. Yes, the media has to inform, educate and analyse. But to incite?

The degeneration of cricket reporting is easy to understand, given that news TV seems to set the agenda for all media. Nearly all news TV channels in India draw eyeballs with their cricket programmes and make some money as well but there are only a few channels that really care for cricket. Others prefer to track cricketers and spice up even the slightest of controversies.

Some years ago, the then Chairman of Selectors Dilip Vengsarkar told me in an interview that TV had no credibility. Unless other sections of the media exercise caution now, I am afraid credibility will not be a quality that is associated with any media any more. That can lead to all media being dismissed as sensational. And that is not a healthy situation at all.

Forward fast to 2008 and Bangalore. India goes into the first Test with three of the Fab 4 not having a hit for the better part of a month and a bit. Sachin, because of injury and VVS and Saurav for not being part of the Irani Trophy ( or the warm up game against Australia. Granted that Saurav had a hit against New Zealand A, but that was neither here nor there).

Step forward Ricky Ponting. And his insistence on bowling his part time spinners for extended periods to the three batsmen.

49(126) SRT , 42(142) VVS , 47(115) and 26(68)SCG later, history may just be repeating itself.

PS:- VVS Laxman played in the Irani Trophy.. My apologies for mis-stating this in the post. Thanks Rahul for pointing this out .

South Africa’s move to bring Kent allrounder Ryan McLaren into the national side has failed after the county did not release him from his three-year contract. McLaren, who’s on a Kolpak deal until 2010, has withdrawn from the ODI squad to face Kenya and Bangladesh.

So, whatever happened to “he is just a player and he should be allowed to play wherever he chooses” and “it is grossly unfair for a cricketing body to prevent a player from plying his trade” and “sporting bodies cannot dictate what contracted players should do”, you know, the usual bile directed towards the BCCI whenever the ICL issue crops up.

White’s selection did not surprise me – Australia lost Perth because of over rates and they were not going to repeat that mistake again.

But playing 8 batsmen and going light in the bowling department pointed to a team that was intent on grinding things out, playing time and only when losing was no longer an option was it going for a win ( shades of Sydney 2007).

The second indicator was Ricky Ponting’s innings – he had to exorcise his ghosts and so the 100 could not be better timed. It was the post 100 innings that surprised me. 102 in 185 balls was stretched to 123 in 243 balls – 58 balls for an additional 21 runs when the Indians were there for the taking.

The final indicator – the session by session breakdown of the runs scored

Lunch – 70/1 in 26 overs ( RR 2.69)
Tea – 91/1 in 30 overs ( RR 3.03)
EOD – 93/2 in 33.2 overs (RR 2.79)

Granted that the early loss of a wicket and the assistance available to the seamers called for consolidation in the first session. And the partnership between Katich and Ponting did well to turn the heat on India in the second session.

It is the approach in the 3rd session that intrigues me. India was there for the taking , Ponting had already scored a 100 and the game was favorably poised for the Australians. And yet, instead of ramming home the advantage, the Australians decided to adopt a wait and watch approach.

And the wicket in the last over of the day’s play definitely did not help. Ideally, Australia should have had at least 300 runs on the board as this would have been the ideal cushion for a bunch of players making their debuts in India.

400 is the minimum Australia should be targeting. If they continue at the current rate, it will take them an additional 52 overs – effectively 5 sessions to get 400.

5 sessions out of 15 for 1 completed innings – not the intent expected from a team that has not previously lost at the Chinnaswamy stadium.

A well deserved first century on Indian soil.

The BCCI and Cricket South Africa (CSA) organised an umpires’ exchange programme under which two umpires from India will officiate two first-class matches in South Africa’s domestic competition while two South Africans will stand in Duleep Trophy games in India. CSA has a similar programme with New Zealand Cricket for the past 11 seasons.

Strong words Pricky. They might just come back to haunt you!

The hour that will live forever

By Stephen Brenkley at Headingley
Sunday, 25 August 2002

In the evening gloom of Headingley two batsmen, one great and the other very good indeed, decided to transform the Third Test. The end of a perpetually gloomy second day was approaching when Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly unfurled a sequence of breathtaking strokes.

For almost an hour they supplied an irreproachable example of what it means to take apart bowlers. Unforgettable deeds have been performed at this ground – sometimes they seem to run at least one a Test – but this joined them immediately in the pantheon.

At 5.58pm England took the third new ball. At 6.09pm, with four of five bulbs aglow on the meter, the batsmen were offered the light, which they declined. At 6.14pm there were five lights on. At 6.56pm play was suspended for the day.

In the 68 balls which were bowled in that spell, including a no ball and one which took a wicket, India added 96 runs. They went from 488 for 3 to 584 for 4. Any side subjected to this kind of blistering attack in a one-day match would feel terminally aggrieved. This was a Test.

It was marked not only by its big hitting, of which there was a multitude – nine fours and five sixes – but by its constantly cheeky running, designed to irritate beyond distraction a side who had been in the field for two days. Tendulkar and his captain were glorious. The old ground was dark but they illuminated it.

It went like this. After 162 overs, Nasser Hussain, England’s captain, decided they should take another new ball. Matters had hardly gone their way over the first two days but some swift inroads would curtail the tourists’ advantage. Besides, it was dark and Hussain must have toyed with the notion of being able shortly to seek the sanctuary of the dressing room. That was the only way England were about to gain any respite, but it was not arriving in a hurry.

Matthew Hoggard took the first over. It was pretty uneventful. Five runs were scored. There was no indication that India meant business. They had spent the match simply grinding the home side down. There had been the odd flourish. No more. No need.

The second over with the new ball was bowled by Andrew Caddick. The first ball went towards point, briefly in the air. No chance, no run. Caddick cajoled the second into rearing at Ganguly. He could only fend it away and it looped towards first slip. Since edges usually fly in that direction, it was an agonising delay while the ball arrived. You cannot practice slip catches like this. Robert Key dropped it. No more runs came. Then Hoggard bowled a maiden.

Around now the umpires gave the batsmen the chance to go off for bad light. On the scoreboard, four of the lightbulbs which give a guide to how poor the daylight has become were on. At Trent Bridge a fortnight ago, England scampered off with only one light showing.

Through the gloom you could swear that Ganguly almost sneered as he refused the offer. And at the same time a light came on in the batsmen. “We decided that in the last 10 to 15 overs that we needed some quick runs,” understated Ganguly later. “We had to carry on because the match is interestingly poised.” They did not exchange many words but now they clearly declared war. Drinks were taken.

Caddick’s next over went for nine, including consecutive fours at the end; Hoggard, struggling as well for his length, conceded six. Caddick went for 11 including a stunning six by Tendulkar, stepping across his stumps and heaving it into the corner of the new Headingley Lodge. It tested the hideous concrete and the concrete was not found wanting.

Hoggard and Caddick, England’s opening bowlers do not forget, had another over each in tandem. Twenty-four runs came. Ganguly, out for 99 at Trent Bridge, was there again. Not for long. Ashley Giles was brought on to slow the pace of the ball. It went quicker. Ganguly started the over on 99 and finished it on 120. Four, six, six, four, the new Western Terrace peppered. Key was not in the slips any longer. Nobody was.

Alex Tudor came on. His second ball went for six. Caddick was brought on at the Kirkstall Lane end for Giles. Five runs.

And then Tudor struck with the first ball of the new ball’s 12th over. Ganguly, being outrageous, stepped back and saw his stumps splayed. The new batsman, VVS Laxman, arrived. India prepared to resume. There were seven overs left.

But suddenly they departed. Nasser Hussain had intervened on behalf of the fielding side – which is not necessarily permissible under law 3.9(b)(ii) – and the umpires decreed that the light was too bad to continue. It was a coruscating 58 minutes of cricket. And nine balls later, on Saturday, Tendulkar, too, was out.

I’ve said to the boys right from the start that we have to play a brand of cricket that’s going to take the game late into the fifth day because that’s how most Test matches end up here, whether it be a result or a draw.

After all, prolonged and painful trumps quick and easy. Every single time!