At the end of the second day's play of the
2nd Test match between Australia and Pakistan at Sydney, Pakistan was in a dominant position. After dismissing Australia for 127, they were 331 for 9, a lead of 204 runs. That "evening",
on another blog I got into a
discussion with
Tifosi Guy about the relative chances of either team winning. TG, an unabashed admirer of Australia, felt that the home team would still win. I cited past history, namely that only 5 teams in the history of Test cricket had ever conceded a lead of more than 200 runs after the first innings and still won.
TG and I made
a friendly wager about the game. This post is the price I am paying for my (misguided) faith in Pakistan (or as
Osman Samiuddin says - Panickstan).
All the Pakistani team had to do was score 175 runs in 5 sessions of play on a pitch on which the 9th wicket partnership of the Australians had put on 123 runs. Surely, top order batsmen could be relied upon to score 50 more than that. Sheesh!
You are, indeed, what you repeatedly do.
What followed was a perfect lesson on how
not to chase a target. The way they batted, Australia would have probably won even if they had declared at their overnight lead of 80 runs. The prevalent emotion among the Pakistani batsmen (with the impressively notable exception of Umar Akmal) seemed to be of panic and anxiety while Australia walked around like a team that was defending 500 runs.
TG, you were right about Australia knowing how to win. (Surely even you will admit that it was a case of Pakistan not knowing how to win). Anyhow, I have learnt my lesson - unless it is India - I will not consider the Aussies out of a Test until the last
nail in the coffin wicket has fallen or the
imperial Storm Troopers have been destroyed winning run scored against them.
Now, can someone pass the ketchup, please?
2 comments:
Top post JQ. Well written !!
Yep Aus just did their normal thing - never giving up. Pak on the other hand - it's as you said, don't know how to win.
While watching early this morning, there was this damning stat - in last three years ( well in theory two, since in 2008 they didn't play any test), they won just 2 tests and lost 8.
That I guess summed up the day's play.
I'll be honest - even with a target of 175, didn't expect Aus to win. The pitch was still good to bat on, and the bowling of Aus is still finding it's feet/consistency.
Woke up this morning and Sky were showing a quick recap of day's play. Gave a big whoop when Umar Akmal feel because I knew that they would have won from there, which they did.
It remains to be seen if this test win now serves as a stepping stone for Hauritz, much in the same way the win against SL in 1992, gave Warne the belief.
I still wish Lee comes back, and also Clarke. Both though are stretches - the present attack doesn't quiet pose the cutting edge.
Thanks, TG. Just keeping up my end of the bargain. :-)
Hauritz is missing a big thing that Warne always had - an aura of mystery about him. Warne always projected the impression that he knew what he was doing. Only he could make the commentators think that getting hit for a few sixes was part of a grand plan to get the batsman out eventually (except for the times he played the Indians!). Hauritz looks lost most of the time and gets the ball almost by default after all the fast bowling options have been used up, more than as an attacking option. You did not watch it live but for a long stretch of time all Hauritz did was bowl short and wide of the off-stump with a slip, a gully, a point, and a sweeper, trying to get the batsmen to edge an attempted cut. Warne was commentating and was apoplectic about the tactics (or lack thereof it).
Post a Comment