by Sumit Srivastava
At the start of the India Australia test series, one felt that it could be side lined because of the chaos surrounding the Commonwealth Games and it looked as if people were more concerned about the snakes being found in the Games village that the cricket on the pitch. But what a Test series it has been and one feels cheated with only 2 tests in the series. There should have been at least 3 simply for the great contest India Australia series provide.

After a nail biting finish at Mohali, the emphatic Bangalore win puts India strongly at the top of ICC Test Cricket Ratings and pushes Australia down at number five. The three key players from this Indian outfit were missing but still Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s men prevailed in Bangalore and this is what makes this victory more special. Australia fought really hard in both the Tests but India had the better combinations for each situation and it gave them the decisive edge over the Aussies.
On day five, after the spinners did the damage to the Australian top order, Zaheer Khan and S. Sreesanth used the reverse swing beautifully once again and cleaned up the tail without wasting much of the time. A target of 207 could certainly have been tricky on the deteriorating fifth day Bangalore track; India needed a positive frame of mind right through their chase.
After Virender Sehwag got out in the second innings of the second Test, the crowd, experts and even the Australians were waiting for Rahul Dravid at number three. But to their surprise, it was not Dravid but a kid, touted to be a replacement walked out, taking every one by a surprise. It was Cheteshwar Pujara whose age matches almost as much as Sachin Tendulkar’s cricket career and was trying to fill the big shoes of VVS Laxman. The lad drove elegantly, cut fiercely, pulled with great control and rotated the strike as if he has 20-25 Test matches under his belt and it was his knock which made the task easier for the Indian side.
The way both Pujara and Murali Vijay approached after losing Sehwag early was really refreshing to watch. Vijay too had a great game and he showed that he was settling in nicely in the international arena. In all the Test matches he had played, he has got the chance because of the unavailability of a regular batsman and he has essayed his role in a more than decent manner. Vijay certainly does not have the technique of Rahul Dravid, but seems to have a very good temperament. But he has a tendency to commit to the front foot which might see him in trouble on quicker tracks or when the ball is swinging.
Zaheer Khan deserves some special praise. It is not usual to have an Indian pace bowler be the man of the match on home tracks but he might soon make it a routine. He has made the young bowlers like Ishant Sharma and Sreesanth bowl around him quite wonderfully. He has also made the old ball talk viciously in both the matches and cleaned up the tail quickly which, in many cases have been a problem area for India. Harbhajan Singh and Pragyan Ojha complemented each other really well as they kept the pressure on the Aussies and kept taking important wickets at crucial junctures.
If Doug Bollinger’s unavailability hit Australia hard in the first Test, it was Nathan Hauritz’s virtual unavailability which really struck Australia and Ponting in both the matches and especially on the fifth day track at Bangalore. He was certainly low on confidence but the field that Ponting gave to him was certainly not there to make him feel confident. Had Ponting given him some confidence, we could have a different Hauritz and he could have produced a different result like Ishant Sharma did in the last Test.
One feels that it was the batting, especially in the second innings of both matches, which let Australia down in the series. Michael Clarke was the only Australian batsman who was willing to use his feet and come down the track to the spinners but he could not spend enough time at the pitch. Ponting, Michael Hussey, Shane Watson and Simon Katich got starts but could not convert it into big ones and this is what made all the difference.