December 27, 2003
COURSE REVERSED
Australia’s fielding during the first day of the Third Test was widely condemned. Here’s Robert “Crash” Craddock in the Herald Sun:
Australia has been exposed as an occasionally ponderous fielding team that, at times, has to hide three or four players.
And from India’s News Today:
Uncharacteristic fielding lapses and indisciplined bowling let the hosts down badly while the Indian batsmen capitalised on them to move to a position of strength.
Trevor Marshallsea in the SMH agreed:
Waugh's hopes of scoring a victory here to save the series were looking as shabby as the half-demolished members' stand at Australia's biggest cricket ground.
Not after today, they weren’t. India fielded like amputees, and Australia ended the day in a position identical to one held by India yesterday: 3/317. This match is swinging Australia’s way -- for now.
UPDATE. Peter Roebuck in The Age now says the match is Australia’s to lose:
India played poor cricket on the second day of this match and will be hard pressed to avoid a heavy defeat. Faults hidden in Adelaide and on Boxing Day returned to haunt a side whose mood changed dramatically in the course of 24 hours.
Ever since Virender Sehwag's audacious innings ended with a boundary catch, the Indians have been falling back. At a crucial time the tourists lost their way. Reprieved, Australia has played stronger cricket and is well placed to square the series.
Mind you, that’s coming from the same man who predicted that Graeme Hick would be the player of the ‘90s and Abdul Qadir would be the last influential wrist-spinner. This game ain’t over. Tony the Teacher has lots more on what is becoming a brilliant, teasing contest.
Posted by Tim Blair at December 27, 2003 05:53 PMThat's amazing. This item was posted at %:53 pm, a full hour before stumps. Yet it precisely predicted the eventual stumps score. How'd you do it? And can I have a loan of your crystal ball?
Posted by: The Mongrel at December 27, 2003 at 06:05 PMThat's amazing. This item was posted at 5:53 pm, a full hour before stumps. Yet it precisely predicted the eventual stumps score. How'd you do it? And can I have a loan of your crystal ball?
Posted by: The Mongrel at December 27, 2003 at 06:05 PMThe joy of being a blog pundit rather then being a sports reporter is that you don't have to post if you don't know what is going to happen. These guys had to put something in, and they did get it right. Australia was very ordinary in the field on day 1.
That's cricket though. You can bounce back real quickly in this game.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein at December 27, 2003 at 10:38 PMSemi-agreed, Wicky. But they didn't have to extrapolate one day's bad fielding to a likely defeat. And it'll be interesting to see if they are as harsh on the (much worse) Indian fielding.
Posted by: tim at December 27, 2003 at 11:03 PM