Where so many before them have been intimidated into submission by Australian teams before even reaching the crease, these two played with quick hands, clear minds, and a joyous spirit.
The baggage of yesteryear had been left unclaimed at the carousel.
V.V.S. Laxman got the plaudits for sealing the previous match in this series; his fellow veteran Tendulkar got them earlier this match for his sixth double-ton. But just as important was the debut century from young opener Murali Vijay, who put on over 300 runs with Tendulkar in a partnership that exhausted the Australians and ensured a narrow lead over their impressive first-innings total.
It was the second innings, though, when youth emphatically came to the fore. The Aussie lead of 206 might sound modest, but was more than enough to create doubt.
After all, Indian teams have chased only nine larger totals in Test history This was a fifth-day pitch, and the ball had reverse-swung viciously in the hands of the Indian bowlers. Skipper M.S. Dhoni freely admitted after the game that the dressing room was nervous.
Virender Sehwag was always the potential destroyer, but his dismal fourth-innings record was in the back of many observers’ minds. When Mike Hussey grassed a cut shot at gully in just the second over, we wondered if Sehwag would make him pay. But the very next over the danger-man was gone, snapped up by Tim Paine off Ben Hilfenhaus.
Thus bringing the two young replacements together.
Two overs in, the senior batsman gone, the target ahead of them, the weight of pressure and expectation. Not to mention the looming reputations of the injured men for whom they were filling in.
Vijay, in the side for Gautam Gambhir, was playing in just his seventh Test. Cheteshwar Pujara, at 22 years old, was replacing Laxman and had been elevated to Rahul Dravid’s No. 3 position. Pressure? He was also on debut, and had been out third ball in the first dig.
This was the kind of point where Australian teams have tended to will themselves back into matches. A couple of quick wickets here and the seeds of panic would be well and truly sown.
Nothing doing. Vijay, after all, had smacked the first ball of the innings for four, then repeated the dose two balls after Sehwag was dropped. Pujara then found the rope with a sweet extra-cover drive from his third ball. So much for early fourth-innings nerves.
One sensed a key moment when Nathan Hauritz got his hands on the ball. The Aussie spinner had laboured through a 40-over spell in the first dig, fruitlessly bar two late scalps. Tendulkar very nearly scored a hundred off Hauritz’s bowling alone.
The question was, could he bounce back? A steady spinning hand would be key to applying Aussie pressure.
Again, nothing doing. Hauritz’s first over went for 12, his next for 10. The Indian youngsters knew no fear. They skipped, danced, and took him for three boundaries. The pick of the lot was an outrageous cover drive by Vijay. Down the track, due to be stumped by a yard if he missed, he realised the ball was drifting wide of his shot.
No problem.
Just take the bottom hand away to stretch a little wider, then caress it between the two fielders in the deep to the fence. Did I mention it was one-handed?
By lunch both batsmen were on 29, and the target whittled down by the small matter of 73 runs. Pujara’s knock had come in one-day style, from just 25 balls, Vijay’s in a Test-brisk 35.
The young men had been told to rack up the runs before the ball could start reversing, and they had done so with confidence and vigour.
By the time play resumed it was the Aussies who didn’t look they believed they could win. Ricky Ponting unfathomably left the slip cordon vacant, and saw two chances in the first three overs fly through for boundaries. So much for taking catchers out to keep down the runs.
By the time Shane Watson pinged Vijay lbw, India had put on 88, with the young partnership adding 71 of them. The target had been reeled back in to 119, and the hardest part of the job had been done.
Pujara stuck around with Tendulkar to score 72, before Hauritz finally got a ball to dip as he would have liked. The chance of a century gone, but the debutant had taken his side to within 60 runs of victory.
Tendulkar made sure there were no slip-ups, adding 53 not out to his 214 from the first innings, to cue jubilant Indian celebrations. He’d delivered India’s first clean sweep against a major nation since 1994. And with five more Tests to come this year, the Little Master could shatter yet more batting records.
And what a contest.
Yet again, Test cricket between these two nations has been shown at its highest level. All this talk of pink balls and floodlights is bunk. Both Tests, played in the traditional manner, were filled with intrigue deep into the fifth day. Even the BCCI must be cursing the fact they only scheduled two matches.
Despite the scoreline, squad limitations, and dubious captaincy decisions, the Australians scrapped from start to finish. The Ashes have recently been compelling, as have England’s contests with South Africa, but the India-Australia rivalry is the finest of the modern era.
And for the majestic work done by India’s senior batsmen – how fitting that Dravid was there with his old mate Tendulkar to seal the win – youth was the story of the final day.
With all we’ve heard about how India will handle the transition once its veterans move on, it was of the greatest significance that the next generation delivered their team to the doorstep of victory. They stamped out any hint of shakiness like an errant cigarette butt.
If Australia are to trouble England in the Ashes, they could learn a few lessons from their most recent opponents. Clear heads, self-confidence, and an unfettered approach took India home. Now let’s see if the Aussies can bring anything home from this.
Will
Guest
Here we go again, why don't we just admit that India well and truly outplayed us? Far more pressing issues then Ponting's captaincy, for a start, look at the middle order. Firstly, one guy above suggested that Ponting should bat at 5. Ponting is far and away our best batsmen, therefore, it is illogical to bat him at 5. The fact that you guys are saying the Australian team should take a more aggresive mindest is contradicted by arguing for Ponting to drop down the order to 5. That is a defensive move if I have ever seen it. I remember laughing at the Poms batting KP at 5, although, I suscept KP was the one wanting to bat at 5, because it is a damn lot more easier to bat at 5 then 3. When I see the teams best batsmen at 5, the first thing I think is that they guy is playing for his average, or that the team is hit rock-bottom and they are just trying to get the match past the 3rd day. Ponting is on the same level as Border in terms of captaincy, although, I think Ponting is more aggresive then Border, not least as a batsmen. Since Warne and McGrath has retired, Ponting has captained 38 test matchs, for 20 wins, 11 losses and 7 draws. This gives a winning percentage of 52.6%. Now, that is very acceptable considering the loss of so many players in this period. With Warne and / or McGrath in the team (although McGrath missed the Sri Lanka tour of 2004 and the SA tour of 2006) Ponting captained 35 test matchs for 27 wins, 3 losses and 5 draws. This is a winning percentage of 77%. The ironic thing is, people say Warne and McGrath made Ponting look good as a captain, but Ponting has actually captained more test matchs without these two great bowlers. In the ODI arena, Ponting as captain has a winning percentage of 72.7% Now, Ponting's numbers are very impressive for an apparent dud captain. The numbers are too strong to suggest that Ponting is a poor captain. I think his a good captain that has handled himself admirably during this difficult period in Australian cricket. No other captain has had to lead a side that has lost so many great players. People suger coat the success of past captains, especially Allan Border, because as time passes people forget about their blunders and only remember their success. Geoff Lemon, and Geoff Lawson for that matter, would be best served looking at the statistics and basing at least part of their argument on fact. Often the ball won't carry to the cordon in India, hence 2nd and 3rd slip are often not needed. Additionally, we are not privy to the tactical analysis that goes on in the dressing room during which plans are no doubt formulated for each batsmen. For example, Sehwag had a deep third man for the upper cut rather then a conventional first slip. It was clear that a bouncer barrage was on the cards. It is unfair to be critical of a captain for his field placings if the viewer is not aware of the plan that is in place for the batsmen concerned. Before making changes for the Ashes, we need to view form in the Shiled and in the ODI fixtures before the Ashes. There is no point in throwing Hussey and North to the curb if their replacements have a shocking run in the shield prior to the Ashes. I don't think Australia is far away from being a pretty song team. People just need to stop the hysterical over-reaction every time Australia loses.
Lolly
Guest
A team that has lost three matches in a row could do with some unsettling surely?
Andy
Guest
Like you say Lolly, I really don't understand this fear of "unsettling the team". Are they some kind of over-sensitive children who will throw a tanty if they can't play with their mates? Surely there is a professional level of sportsmanship and team training at the elite level that can be passed onto players before being selected so they can make the transition as seamlessly as possible? This bloody minded faith in under-performing players simply cos they've been around for a bit beggars belief.
Lolly
Guest
What I find really peculiar is that the whole ethos is to not 'unsettle' the team, hence they'll stick with Huss and North till the Ashes are dead and buried. But that doesn't make any sense. The last time we debuted three newbies in one series was the last time we won against a decent team. Sure Mitchell Johnson had his once in a generation moment (that's dead and buried too) but even so...
james
Guest
Its time we pick players that have the talent and have the ability to go a long way in the baggy green. Don't pick players purely on stats. I mean Andrew mcdonald scored 160 odd in a recent shield game, but I don't think he is a test player. Whereas Luke Pomersbach only averages 41 or 42 atm but he does have talent. Last a couple he has had off field problems plus last year Tom Moody, WAs coach last year made him bat at the no.3, it wasn't pomersbachs position. In the recent shield he played against Victoria he scored two fifties batting at no.5. If he gets his head right he does have a promising future in the baggy green. Other players who have not be mentioned are as follows A.Finch Vic. M.Wade Vic. N.Maddison N.s.W T.Copeland N.S.W. P.Nevill N.S.W. C.Lynn QLD B.Cutting QLD C.Boyce QLD
Geoff Lemon
Expert
I'm with you.
Geoff Lemon
Expert
Sure, but is it disrespecting a player to acknowledge that they're not up to the job? Ponting has always been a timid and defensive captain. When he had great players in his team, he let them do their own work. Warne pretty much captained by default those last few years, and any decisions Ponting made were by committee. Now he defends himself against Warne's criticism of his fields to Hauritz by saying that Hauritz chose his own field. Sure, blame it on the guy who's under pressure. As captain he approved that field, so it's his call. Agreed there aren't a lot of obvious options - you need someone whose spot is secure. But Katich would be a better choice - he's at least aggressive and forthright. He couldn't be any worse, that's for sure.
jameswm
Guest
I have to agree with OJ - to an extent. Ponting is one of the greatest batsmen I've seen, but he's not a great captain. I think he should bat at 5 and be relieved of the captaincy - simple. But unfortunately Aussie cricket doesn't work like that. Khawaja should be a shoe-in ahead of North and Hussey - the guy is the annointed next-in-line (he went to England) and just socred an effortless double ton. I dare say both Smith and O'Keefe are better spinners than Hauritz - and Horry had never taken a 5-wicket haul before he came into the test team. Can you imagine that? I'm afraid Horry, trier as he is, really only got in by default, and we've been waiting for someone else. The best performed spinner right now is Stephen O'Keefe.and to balance the team right you could handle both Smith and O'Keefe, one at 6 and the other at 8. Both are good first class batsmen. Then again, the selectors are useless.
sheek
Guest
OJ - Oh really.....?
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Ponting was a useless captain even when he had Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Hayden, Langer, Martyn & Symonds. That's a well known fact.
Bayman
Guest
The other side of the coin, though, is that if you don't have the bowlers to win you better damn well have the batsmen to save and this is one of our current problems - we don't!
Bayman
Guest
Ian, I always knew that Warne was trouble!!! I joke but essentially you and Joe are correct. Bowlers win matches, batsmen save them. Always been, always will.
Bayman
Guest
Sheek, You are clearly a still water running deep. Your "making love" analogy is so true (trust me, I know!!!!!) and it reminds me of the married couple making love. Usually it's about a thirty second event but one day it's thirty minutes. The wife is astounded and very pleasantly surprised. "What happened?" she asked, "That was fantastic, you lasted so long". "Yes" replies her husband, "For some reason I just couldn't think of anybody!" Some things just are because they are. The issue today is our selectors have the same problem as the husband - for some reason they just can't think .......you get the picture. And, maybe they're right!
JohnB
Guest
Clarke's always had a bad back. Krejza had one game where he took a hatful (expensively) and has done little since. Hauritz has had a few chances, and did pretty well last year (under Ponting's captaincy). He doesn't seem to bowl in a way that is successful in India, and whether he's quite up to it against the best players remains an open question (to me anyway). You talk about developing these blokes - if they haven't quite got the ability in the first place to be top line test bowlers, I don't think any amount of "development" (by which I assume you mean opportunity, coaching and encouragement) is going to create it in them - and in any case it's not up to a test captain to be "developing" players in that sense - his job is to win the current game.
JohnB
Guest
Maybe you don't have slips in if the pitch is behaving in such a way that edges aren't going to carry anyway.
Brian
Guest
Ponting not a great captain cause he's simply not a particularly smart bloke. I am not saying he is stupid and he's an awesome batsman but in cricket the captain needs to be a great thinker. Taylor, Waugh, Fleming, Ranatunga were all analytical guys with less batting ability but better management skills than Ponting. Truth is Ponting was chosen because when Waugh retired the other four batsman Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Lehman were all consdierably older and the last of them retired in 2008. Similarly it now seems that Clarke will be next. I agree on the point of 20 wickets but one has to wonder how much of the recent dominance was simply down to the once in a generation Warne. Whenever Aus v RSA met during Wanre's career I felt he was the difference. Two teams with strong mentalties, good batsman and keepers bought up with good techniques and a plethora of fast bowlers. The only difference now is that they currently have a better captain which is why their 2nd and we're 5th. In reality though we are really 3rd rather than 5th. (Ind, SA, Aus, Eng, SL, NZ, Pak, WI)
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
My problem is not with Ponting's captaincy per se, it is with his single-handed destruction of spin bowling in Australia. Clarke could and should have been developed, but because he did not have the accuracy of Warne and the turn of Warne he was abandoned. Krezja could and should have been developed, but because he did not have the accuracy of Warne and the turn of Warne he was abandoned. Hauritz could and should have been developed, but because he did not have the accuracy of Warne and the turn of Warne he was abandoned. See the theme ?
sheek
Guest
Geoff, Every test captain should be respected. There are great captains & ordinary captains, just as there are great players & ordinary players. Reaching the pinnacle of your sport is a mighty achievement, even for the also-rans at that level. Ditto captaincy. Sure, Ponting has his flaws but he is still the best available, I believe. Where is the genuine alternative? Many say Clarke, but I'm not convinced he will be a significant improvement. I guess we can do worse than try him out. Katich is another possibility, but there's less than a year in age between him & Ponting. Others suggest Cameron White, but he would struggle to hold his place at test level. So while it's all very well to say Ponting should go, we aren't exactly spoilt for alternatives, either for the team itself, or for the captaincy.
Geoff Lemon
Expert
Sheek, I take your point that the problem has far more elements to it than simply the captaincy. (Also, as far as national problems go, having a misfiring cricket team is a pretty cushy one to have.) Captains can only work with the resources that they have. But some do it much better than others, and Ponting is in the latter bracket. Guys like Stephen Fleming and Border are in the former. I'm going to write at more length on this very soon, so I won't get into a full analysis now. But Ponting's defensive mindset has cost his team on a number of occasions. Defending 200 with two and a half sessions to play, how can you not have slips in to your strike bowlers with the new ball? The only way to win from there is to take wickets. Surely a captain has to back his bowlers to deliver. If they don't, so be it. But protecting them with men on the boundary while the edges fly to third man is just killing yourself a little more slowly.
Joe Barrett
Guest
Well once again we take our focus off the fact that all test matches are won by taking 20 wickets with the exception of a decleration. Why we continue to constantly focus on anything other than the development of great bowlers i do not understand. Every single dominant side in Cricket history has done so on the back of its bowling attack. We had the same batsmen in 2003 - 2004 summer at home vs India but we only just managed to draw the 4 test series 1 all.Lets look back at our great teams the 59-60 Australian Team Benaud, Davidson, Lindwall the 75 Australian Team Lillee Thomson Walker Mallet recently McGrath Warne Gillespie . All our dominant periods coincide with great bowlers. The Windies in the 80s Marshall, Holding , Garner still only visiting team to win a series 5 - 0 .Look im not for 1 minute downplaying great batsmen but the aim is still to take 20 wickets to win .It does not matter if you score 600 hundred in any innings of the match you have to still have to take 20 wickets.When our focus returns to this we will again rise to the top.