The war of words has never failed to brighten the most boring of cricket days, not that the five days of the first Test has seen any. Zaheer Khan took his bold batting to where his mouth is – the result? More shots for boundaries. But did they all sail over the fence?
Let us look at what Zaheer had to tell the press and the public. “They know they can’t take 20 wickets and they are on the back foot. They couldn’t get me or Bhajji [Harbhajan Singh] out. So we are in with a big chance. They are under pressure - we know that. So we are looking ahead at the second game. I have never seen an Australian team play such defensive cricket, which is a good thing for us
Was Zaheer hitting below the belt? Perhaps not. After all with the Australians digging into the opposition’s ear at every possible opportunity, perhaps Zaheer was retorting to the spat he had with Brad Haddin earlier in the match. He had reason to feel he had vanquished the Australians, with the result of the series and the rest of the three Tests still up for grabs.
As far as his comments on Australia being defensive goes, perhaps he was referring to the period when Harbhajan and Zaheer were making batting look rather easy and ironically in contrast to some of the top order batsmen. To think that Australia were actually defensive through the game is preposterous and Zaheer would be aware of that.
As for his comments that, “Even the pacers didn’t look like getting wickets at any stage today.” He is entitled to it given that he had an outstanding innings with the bat and his knock would have coloured him in that respect. The fact that he outdid the other pace bowlers in the match, Indian or Australian, would have definitely encouraged him to feel that way. Indian fans can only hope Zaheer sticks to what he says, leaving it for the banter that it is and does not let it go to his head, which is what the Australians would love to play up as reverse tactics.
This is not to defend Zaheer or an attempt to condone the Indian verbal tactics but psychological warfare with words has always been played up, especially in the context of an Indo-Australian series, and so long as it does not get too personal, perhaps this is just a way of letting some banter through while psyching for the next game.
Ponting certainly sees it that way when he says, “I don’t know what he means, to tell the truth. We were the only ones trying to take the game forward. We played aggressive cricket. He can have a little bit of a chuckle on the inside at what he’s had to say. I don’t think it means too much to us.” The Australians skipper has every right to feel that way as well given that the Australians had begun well with the bat and ball. That there are obvious weaknesses is not lost on him. But if the Indian fielding is anything like that was on display in Bengaluru, Australia will fancy their chances to out beat India in that one crucial department and compensate for their spinning deficiencies.
The foreign media, especially the Australian, has never lost an opportunity to tell tales about the opposition. While Sourav Ganguly’s past antics have been well documented, the fact that they are choosing to single out the former captain for Australia’s failure to breakthrough reeks of desperation.
Ganguly overstepped if indeed he coerced the umpires into thinking about the bad light. But to say that Ganguly alone was deploying delaying tactics to save India sounds a little too preposterous. The man who has decided to quit at the end of the Test series is experienced enough to know wasting two or even five minutes is not really doing the trick in the modern day game that has become cricket. It is for the umpire and match referee to decide if a player is guilty of such a crime and if that was the case, would not have the umpires decreed?
It appears the Australian media’s obsession with Ganguly is not over yet, recalling his days with Steve Waugh. Wonder why the rest of the world is not obsessed enough to recall every time Shane Warne’s name is mentioned, that he was one of the two, the other being Mark Waugh, whose brush with the bookies was conveniently swept under the carpet by Cricket Australia? Surely Ganguly’s lackadaisicalness is nothing compared to bigger, unfamiliar crimes in the game. People living in glass houses should not…well, you get the picture.
By calling Ganguly a “serial offender”, it is not doing much reputation for the man or men behind this insinuations and who are not using the pen for the right means but rather to aid the Australians in the verbal warfare. The day may not be far off when even the writer from the press becomes a part of the dressing room entourage, scripting the words of the warfare in the battlefield he is familiar with.
Were the Australians depending on Ganguly’s early wicket alone to seal the game? Well, if that were the case as one should understand, they have unwittingly elevated Ganguly’s reputation at a time when he is desperately seeking some.
It appears that the Australians are smarting from their own missed opportunities which led to the Indian bowling attack helping India draw the game. The target, the media has found, appears too easy. After all with all the backlash happening at home over comments Ganguly supposedly made and which took even Dilip Vengsarkar by shock, who could be a more facile target to put under pressure and distract?
The games are being played, but not all are as dirty.
