India v Australia, 3rd Test, Delhi, 2nd day

Laxman Double Ton helps India to climb a Big Score
Australia 50 for 0 (Katich 29*, Hayden 16*) trail India 613 for 7 dec (Gambhir 206, Laxman 200*, Johnson 3-142) by 563 runs


VVS Laxman tormented Australia with his second Test double-century and Gautam Gambhir registered his first as India batted themselves into an almost unconquerable position in the third Test. On the second successive day of complete Indian domination, Australia's greatest achievement was simply getting to stumps without losing a wicket.
But Matthew Hayden and Simon Katich were given a preview of the challenge that awaits them as the legspinners Amit Mishra and Anil Kumble spun a few deliveries viciously out of the footmarks that Australia's bowlers had created over nearly 12 hours in the field. The openers batted out 15 overs after Kumble delayed his declaration to allow Laxman to reach 200.
As soon as the milestone came with a lofted on-drive off Michael Clarke, India's batsmen were called in. They had done their job. If the first day did not consign Australia to an unwinnable position, the second day must surely have managed it. Gambhir and Laxman compiled a mammoth 278-run partnership that left Australia tired, frustrated and wicketless for nearly three sessions. In spite of Gambhir's achievement at his home ground, the day belonged to Laxman.
His list of achievements was impressive: he went past 2000 Test runs against Australia; he recorded his sixth Test century against them; and he turned it into his second highest Test score, behind his 2000-01 effort of 281 at Eden Gardens, an innings that still gives a few Australians sleepless nights. If ever there was proof of his love of this opposition it's his list of top Test innings - his best four are all against Australia.
Laxman began the day in ominous touch and pulled brilliantly when Brett Lee and Mitchell Johnson dropped short. He stalled for a while on 99 before driving Cameron White comfortably through cover for four and went on to cause problems for all the bowlers. The Australians helped him by regularly straying onto his pads and it was like handing Cookie Monster control of the Arnott's factory.
At one stage Ricky Ponting even effectively relocated the slips cordon to short midwicket to handle the situation. It was reminiscent of the old Test Match board game where children carefully place their little plastic fielders in unorthodox positions to deal with the predictability of the restrictive batting mechanism.
Ponting lined up his three catching men - a misnomer as they weren't offered any catches - on the leg-side but Laxman still found the spaces with casual flicks and well-timed drives. And unlike the Test Match batsman there is nothing restrictive about Laxman's technique, so he also took the opportunity to glide easy runs through the vacant slip region.
He left some of his most flabbergasting shots until late in the day. Can anyone truly explain how he turned a Johnson delivery that was angled across him and was well outside off stump into an on-drive for four? And yet he did it so effortlessly that viewers could not help but assume that was the most logical stroke for that delivery.
In Laxman's company, Gambhir was as anonymous as one can be in reaching 200. He played some impressive shots of his own; he clubbed White contemptuously through midwicket and when things became so desperate for Australia that Ricky Ponting bowled for the first time since 2005-06, Gambhir pulled his slow-medium bouncer easily over the infield for four.
When Gambhir got his double-century with a clip off his hips from Lee, his celebrations were relatively muted. There was a raise of the bat and a handshake from a smiling and admiring Lee, but Gambhir was clearly exhausted. The proof came when he wearily played on to Shane Watson on 206. It was Australia's first success since Sachin Tendulkar departed just before tea on the first day.
By the time Gambhir went, India were 435 for 4. It was all rather academic after that. Laxman kept scoring, the lower order gave him impressive support and Australia kept toiling without much hope of achieving anything of real value. But a few things were confirmed in the period that followed, namely that Katich should bowl more often, Johnson is a tireless worker and Brad Haddin is struggling with such long and hot days behind the stumps.
It has been a tough tour for Haddin, who has had to deal with unfamiliar pace and bounce while trying to maintain his concentration. His worst moment came when Laxman, on 134, got a thick edge off Watson. The ball flew between the wicketkeeper and first slip but it was so close to Haddin that he would not have needed to dive; as it was, he didn't even move.
Haddin did grasp a second, almost identical chance soon after to remove Mahendra Singh Dhoni, who had been briefly entertaining in smashing 27. The reflexes of Katich were sharper. Dhoni pulled violently back at head height towards the bowler Katich, who somehow got his left hand to the ball and simultaneously dropped an almost impossible chance while saving the umpire Aleem Dar from losing a few teeth.
Had Katich pinched the chance it would have been two wickets in two overs after he removed Sourav Ganguly for 5. It was strange that Ponting had not asked Katich, a left-arm wrist-spinner, to bowl to Ganguly earlier in the series. The similarly-styled Brad Hogg removed Ganguly four times in last season's Tests and Katich duly continued the trend, drawing Ganguly into a drive to Ponting at cover.
Katich, White, Clarke and Ponting all bowled spells that helped relieve the fast men, who couldn't find much movement and were often given depressingly defensive fields. But Johnson showed heart and was still firing in short and fast stuff late in the day. He was rewarded with an lbw decision against Kumble (45) and finished with 3 for 142.
The very fact that Johnson's figures were considered reasonable highlighted just how much India dominated the first two days. The first belonged to Gambhir, the second to Laxman - for Australia to rescue the match, the third day must be emphatically claimed by one of their top six.

India v Australia, 3rd Test, Delhi, 1st day

Gambhir century sets India on course

India 296 for 3 (Gambhir 149*, Tendulkar 68, Laxman 54*) v Australia

It took Gautam Gambhir nearly four years to make his second Test century having posted his first against Bangladesh in Chittagong; within nine days he has added a third. And if scoring two hundreds against the world's No. 1 Test team within a fortnight was not enough of a thrill, Gambhir can celebrate striking his highest Test score at his home ground and giving India an excellent start to a match that could deliver them the Border-Gavaskar Trophy.
When Gambhir, who had been impressively patient throughout the day, brought up the milestone with an unexpected six slammed nonchalantly over long-on off Shane Watson, the roars around the Feroz Shah Kotla were loud and long-lasting. The fans had been denied a century from Sachin Tendulkar, who was in magnificent touch until he fell for 68, but the Gambhir hundred was ample compensation.
The only ones not cheering were the Australians, who were witnessing an opening day that bore worrying similarities to the first three sessions in Mohali. Ricky Ponting insisted at the toss that his men had identified the problems that lost them the second Test and had worked tirelessly to fix the issues.
But apart from pinching two early wickets, Australia again had few causes for optimism. Their concerns included a lack of pace in the pitch, the absence of a frontline spinner, the inability of their fast men to consistently swing the ball, and the concentration of India's batsmen. It was a very familiar list of troubles.
The day went firmly in India's favour as soon as Gambhir and Tendulkar bedded down for a patient and important 130-run partnership. For most of their time together it was Tendulkar who looked by far the more dangerous. Unburdened by questions over when he would break the Test run-scoring record, he was in superb form.
A couple of brilliantly executed back-foot drives that raced past point for boundaries off Mitchell Johnson were a hint that something special might have been coming. An exquisitely-timed cover-drive to an overpitched Brett Lee delivery was just as attractive and Tendulkar passed 50 for the 20th time in Tests against Australia with a delicate and seemingly effortless late cut for four off Stuart Clark.
A 40th Test century was looming when Tendulkar edged behind off Johnson in the final over before tea. But Australia's momentary spark was quickly extinguished after the break when Gambhir lifted his pace.
When the Australians were running through a pre-series analysis of India's batting line-up they must have assumed the major threats would be the usual suspects: Tendulkar, VVS Laxman, Virender Sehwag, Sourav Ganguly and Rahul Dravid. But the back-to-back centuries have come from Gambhir, the least experienced man in the top order.
Particularly impressive was the patience displayed by Gambhir after the early losses of Sehwag and Dravid. He comfortably saw India through a slightly nervous period, realising that there was not severe swing, seam movement or steepling bounce, and a sensible approach should work.
He did pounce at times - a pull off Watson comfortably cleared midwicket and sped away for four - but mostly Gambhir displayed his class with terrific timing and placement. A cover-driven boundary off Johnson rivalled anything Tendulkar had provided and he was quickly on to any seamers who strayed towards his pads.
Australia were celebrating early but their happiness diminished as the day wore on © Getty Images

When the platform was safely constructed, Gambhir changed gears more smoothly than Lewis Hamilton. Watson's around-the-wicket angle, which had tied down the left-hander, suddenly became a liability as Gambhir clipped balls repeatedly through the leg side. He began to cut and drive through the off-side more readily and capped off an attacking period by clubbing the six to move from 99 to 105.
The runs did not stop there. Laxman was almost unnoticed, inasmuch as that can be said of his glorious flicks through leg, in building a valuable half-century that helped stop any momentum Australia might have collected when Tendulkar departed. Laxman and Gambhir's unbeaten 139-run partnership became a major frustration for Ponting, whose troops performed admirably at times but failed to maintain the pressure.
The first hour had brought two mood-improving strikes for a team that had suffered a crushing loss in Mohali. In the third over Sehwag was beaten by Lee's speed and was struck dead in line, then as soon as Johnson came on he drew Dravid into an ill-advised drive that caught the edge and was terrifically snared by Matthew Hayden at first slip.
But the momentum eased, despite impressively tight bowling from Stuart Clark, who returned to the side having missed the second Test with an elbow injury. Australia's decision not to play the offspinner Jason Krejza meant Cameron White was again the leading slow bowler and his initial signs were not good.
Tendulkar contemptuously slog-swept a barely-turning White delivery over midwicket for four and drove him through cover, while Gambhir also attacked with delight. It took India 16 overs to take 27 runs from Clark; it took them four overs to strike the same amount off White, who was duly shelved and not seen again for the rest of the day.
Michael Clarke had a trundle and Simon Katich was given his first bowl of the series, although his major contribution was to antagonise Gambhir after comprehensively getting in the way of an attempted single. Words were exchanged and Billy Bowden inserted himself between Katich and Gambhir but the incident had no bearing on the final wash-up.
At a venue where India have won the past seven Tests a stumps total of 296 for 3 was precisely what Australia didn't want. They would hate to hear it, but it was an even worse outcome than the first day in Mohali, when India closed with 15 more runs but two fewer wickets in hand. Ponting has four more days to inspire his men.

Easy lies the head

There's something special about Dhoni.
It can't just be that he's a provincial from Jharkhand who's made it to the top. There's been a cohort of "provincial" players who have represented India in recent years: Mohammad Kaif, Virender Sehwag, Suresh Raina, the brothers Pathan, come to mind. It can't even be that he's the outstanding player among them, because he's not. Sehwag is the greatest natural talent Indian batting has seen since Sachin Tendulkar's debut.
Dhoni, judged purely as a batsman or a wicketkeeper, is a limited player who has made the most of his abilities. He was a middling-to-poor keeper when he was first selected to play limited-overs cricket for India in 2004, and it wasn't till India's tour of the West Indies in 2006 that his work behind the stumps became reliable. He was a better batsman than he was a keeper when he began his international career. It's worth remembering that he was lucky to play for India at all. Had Parthiv Patel or Dinesh Karthik made the most of their international opportunities, Dhoni might have laboured in the salt mines of domestic cricket for the whole of his career. Patel and Karthik are both several years younger than him and they made their ODI and Test debuts before he did.
In fact, the first thing that distinguishes Dhoni from the generation of players that debuted for India in the 21st century is that unlike Irfan Pathan or Patel or Sreesanth, he was not a prodigy. He wasn't a teen sensation plucked out of obscurity and planted on the world stage. He ground his way through all the tiers of competitive cricket: the Under-19 teams battling for the Cooch Behar trophy, the obscure matches played for Bihar in the Ranji Trophy, the India A sides, and then, eventually, when younger, more touted players failed, he was picked to play for India. He was 23 years old when he played his first one-day international and 24 when he made his Test debut.
His first claim to the world's attention was the savage 148 he struck against Pakistan in the ODI in Vizag in April 2005. This was exactly twice the number of runs Sehwag made in the same game, and Dhoni's century helped India win the match. He followed this up with an even more remarkable 148 against the same team, this time in a Test match in Faisalabad; the hundred took him all of 93 balls. But while Dhoni has consolidated his claim to being one of the most effective one-day batsmen in the world, his Test form has remained modest. He hasn't scored another century; unlike his great contemporaries, Adam Gilchrist and Kumar Sangakkara, he has been a battling batsman rather than a dominant one, and sometimes not even that. On the tour of Australia earlier this year, Dhoni played all four Tests without scoring a fifty. He averaged under 18 and looked out of his depth against first-rate fast bowling on brisk pitches. Harbhajan Singh made more runs in fewer matches at a higher average and a superior run-rate.
So why is Dhoni special? It is because he is the first Indian cricketer whose persona is more important and more valuable to his team than his cricketing abilities. And what does that mean? It means several things, so it's best to itemise them.
Dhoni's most striking characteristic is his poise. As a batsman and wicketkeeper he leaves no one in any doubt about his competitiveness, but he doesn't sledge, he doesn't curse, he doesn't make like a drama queen when he's given a dodgy decision, and if he has to play through injury (as he did in the CB Series in Australia) he gets on with it.

Dhoni's most striking characteristic is his poise. As a batsman and wicketkeeper he leaves no one in any doubt about his competitiveness, but he doesn't sledge, he doesn't curse, he doesn't make like a drama queen when he's given a dodgy decision

He is the only Indian cricketer in the last 40 years (apart from Sehwag) who actually does what Kipling prescribed in that corny but resounding poem, "If": he meets with Triumph and Disaster and treats those two imposters just the same. Think of the great players who play alongside Dhoni: Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Sourav Ganguly and Anil Kumble. They're all more gifted cricketers than Dhoni will ever be, and they've all captained India with varying degrees of success, but not one of them conveyed the sense of reassurance and calm that Dhoni brings to both his demeanour as a player and as a captain. Of all of them, Dhoni is the least likely to suggest by his manner that winning and losing are matters of life or death. Despite the enormous rewards that come with playing for India today, his body language, his lack of visible agitation, make it clear that he knows that in the end it isn't war, it's only a game. After winning the World Twenty20, as his team-mates leapt about, Dhoni was caught by the camera walking up to the stumps, close to expressionless. His matter-of-fact acceptance of defeat in the final of the IPL, which was won by the Rajasthan Royals, led by Shane Warne, was the obverse of his calm at moments of triumph. And Indian selectors and spectators and sportswriters, traumatised by decades of knotted tension, respond to that sane maturity. It calms us.
He's the only Indian captain in recent times who doesn't stamp his feet and scowl when a fielder lets him down on the field. Kumble, Dravid, Ganguly and Tendulkar were all masters of visible reproach when they were leading the team. Dhoni will occasionally ask a player to get his act together, but it's done without knitted brows and theatrical questioning; it's cricket minus Kathakali. His take on controversies involving his team-mates is relaxed and dispassionate. When Sreesanth became known as a serial offender for his antics, Dhoni was content to observe that players learn to rein themselves in once they're disciplined and suspended.
He is also undeferential. Nothing in his early career suggested that he considered himself a "junior" member of the team, and nothing in his present manner suggests that he takes himself seriously as a "senior" member, despite being captain of the ODI side and heir-apparent to Kumble in Tests. He doesn't refer to the team as "my boys" nor does he hesitate to press for youth in the limited-overs squad, despite the risk of alienating "senior" players. It isn't an accident that Dhoni became captain of the ODI team inside three years of making his debut: from the start he carried himself as a mature adult who could deal with responsibility without being weighed down by it. The contrast with Yuvraj Singh, who made his ODI debut four years before Dhoni, couldn't be more striking. Yuvraj would have been India's ODI captain had he lived up to his early promise: he chose, instead, to live a prolonged adolescence.
None of this is to suggest that Dhoni doesn't deserve our attention for his cricketing ability. He bats like a self-taught caveman, and when his homemade brutality comes off, it's thrilling. The two-handed top-spin forehands he uses to counter yorkers; that hernia-inducing mid-air shot, legs scissoring violently to make momentum; those ball-flattening lofted smashes that leave the bowler wondering if he needs a helmet, enliven the game. And should he manage to translate his new-found ability to accumulate runs briskly without risk in ODIs to Test cricket, he may yet rival Sangakkara as a wicketkeeper-batsman. But even if he doesn't, he will live in the history of Indian cricket as the country's first adult captain since MAK Pataudi.

Gilchrist's comments were taken out of context - Tendulkar

Adam Gilchrist has told Sachin Tendulkar that his comments questioning Tendulkar's evidence in the Harbhajan Singh racism case had been taken out of context. Excerpts from Gilchrist's new book, published in the Sydney Morning Herald, questioned Tendulkar's sporting spirit and his role in the hearings into the alleged racist remark made by Harbhajan. In True Colours, Gilchrist suggested Tendulkar had changed his statement.
"Gilchrist called me up and clarified this issue," Tendulkar told news channel Times Now. "He said his comments have been taken out of context." To another channel, IBN-Lokmat, Tendulkar defended himself against Gilchrist's remark that he was "hard to find for a changing-room handshake after we have beaten India".
"Before, during and after the match I don't like to enter the opposition dressing-room as it is not my culture," Tendulkar said. "But I have nothing against other cultures. I have never walked off a ground without shaking the opposition players' hands."
Indian cricket officials have already criticised Gilchrist for questioning Tendulkar’s honesty. MV Sridhar, the Indian team manager on the tour, had added a twist to the saga by offering a different version to Gilchrist of what Tendulkar had said.
"During the hearing in front of Mike Procter, the match referee, during the Sydney Test, Tendulkar told him that he had heard some form of abuse,” Sridhar told Cricinfo. “But Procter didn't probe any further and left matters at that. But subsequently in front of Justice Hansen, when both parties were cross-examined by legal counsel, Tendulkar said that he had heard Harbhajan say teri maa ki but clarified that it was an abbreviated form of an abuse."
Sridhar was present at both hearings after the Test, first with Procter and then with Justice John Hansen. Sridhar questioned the timing of Gilchrist’s revelations and said he used the incident merely to get cheap publicity for his book.
“It is absurd that he [Gilchrist] is speaking after almost a year after the incident,” he said. “It's just a cheap marketing gimmick to sell the book. Why did he try to go public now because he realised the importance of the moment like the India-Australia series which has gained Ashes-like proportions?"
He said he was surprised at how Symonds, who claimed he was racially abused by Harbhajan in Hindi, got away despite admitting that he was involved in a heated discussion with him. Symonds saw Harbhajan hitting Brett Lee on the backside so he stepped in and “had a bit of a crack at Harbhajan”, telling him exactly what he thought of his antics. Harbhajan was initially banned for three Tests but his punishment was overturned on appeal.
BCCI vice-president Rajiv Shukla said the board would not pursue any action against Gilchrist. “I think it is better to ignore Gilchrist’s comments,” Shukla said. “The only one to lose respect will be him, not Tendulkar.”
Niranjan Shah, the BCCI secretary at that time, felt Gilchrist only wanted to "sensationalise the incidents" to sell his book. "Everything was properly handled by the authorities with the appointment of proper men to conduct the hearing after a proper procedure was put in place. After the matter is over, to claim these things in the book is nothing but foolishness."

Gilchrist defends his comments on Sachin

Nowhere did I accuse Sachin of lying

Adam Gilchrist has insisted that he did not accuse Sachin Tendulkar of lying while presenting evidence in the racism hearing after the controversial Sydney Test. He also denied calling him a “bad sport” after observing that it was often hard to locate Tendulkar for an after-match handshake following Indian losses.
Gilchrist's comments, quoted from his soon-to-be released autobiography True Colours, caused a stir in India and both players confirmed they had spoken to each other and agreed that the remarks were taken out of context. The main issue surrounded the racism hearing of the Indian offspinner Harbhajan Singh.
Harbhajan was accused of racially abusing Andrew Symonds and was suspended for three Tests but later had his ban overturned on appeal. Tendulkar was batting with Harbhajan when the incident occurred and Gilchrist observed that the evidence Tendulkar gave during the match referee’s hearing was different from that he presented during the appeal.
“All I stated are the facts that everyone knows, that initially Sachin mentioned he wasn't sure what Harbhajan had said, then later confirmed his support when Harbhajan said he'd used a Hindi word in the heated exchange with Symonds,” Gilchrist wrote in his column for the Times of India. “Nowhere do I accuse Sachin of lying. So to have spoken directly with Sachin about these matters was a great relief for me."
However MV Sridhar, the Indian team manager for the tour who was present at both the hearings, first with Mike Procter and then with Justice John Hansen, contradicted Gilchrist's statements. Sridhar said Tendulkar had told Procter that he had heard some form of abuse but the match referee did not probe further. Later, Sridhar said, Tendulkar told Hansen he had heard Harbhajan say teri maa ki but clarified that it was an abbreviated form of an abuse.
“I am pleased to say that at the conclusion of our chat the same respect Sachin and I have always had for each other continues to exist. The headlines arose from the manner in which some journalists interpreted a couple of points I have made in an about-to-be released autobiography.”
Gilchrist said the Harbhajan hearing was too big an issue to ignore in his book. “My only real reference to it was to recall the way the events unfolded from the initial hearing, the night the match finished, through to the final judicial hearing a few weeks later.”
Gilchrist said the references to Tendulkar not shaking his hand in the changing rooms after Tests were merely to highlight the cultural differences between the two countries. He said he never intended to question Tendulkar’s sportsmanship.
“In the book, I mention that a cultural difference between our team and that of the Indians was the importance of shaking hands with the opposition after a loss," he said. "It's simply my thoughts and from my experiences it seemed that this routine wasn't as important to some oppositions as it was in Australia, where it is drilled into us from an early age.
”I made the comment that Sachin and Harbhajan were sometimes not around to shake hands. Whether that is right or wrong is not my point. It was more the cultural differences I was trying to highlight, which it's fair to say, have been integral in most disputes or flare-ups between these two proud nations in the past.”
Gilchrist said he had nothing against India and that he had always enjoyed touring the country. “I also feel that people who know me, or people who read the book in its entirety, will know only too well the sincere affection I have for India as a country and the very friendly, passionate people that live here.”