In a test match series of the magnitude of an India-Australia series, there is of course a lot of articles and analyses on offer from the media. My usual haunt is Cricinfo, which for the most part gives insightful and trenchant commentary on the day’s action (when you’re on the other side of the world, that’s the most that you can hope for!).
This report appeared today at Cricinfo, and discusses how the Indian batsmen were forced out of their respective comfort zones by setting defensive field settings.
Only Dravid found a method to beat the suffocation … [and] he worked around it [Ponting’s field settings]. … Dravid waited for the ball [that he could hit suitably, and scored off them].
Unlike several of his team-mates, his dismissal was not a result of a rash shot. … he was beaten by Shane Watson’s inswing and got struck on the pad with the bat extremely close to ball. The decision might have gone his way on another day.
I wonder why Sourav Ganguly’s name does not come up even once in the entire write-up. Sourav scored 47, only 4 runs less than Dravid, at a patient 40 runs per 100 balls. About his dismissal, the daily bulletin of the day’s play mentions:
… [Johnson] trapped Ganguly lbw for 47. It was a rotten bit of luck for Ganguly, who was probably struck outside the line – although at first view it looked a reasonable shout – from the first ball after he had a concentration-breaking interruption due to a nosebleed.
The same bulletin continues:
… there were some positive signs from Ganguly… Apart from one loose waft outside off stump – and he chastised himself furiously for it – he displayed impressive focus.
Isn’t it shameful that a journalist resorts, even subconsciously (that, I think is worse – it only means that his ideas are so ingrained that he cannot get out of them), to a “Who’s better” contest within a team, when both batsmen contributed almost equally?
Why is it so hard to recognize that both these batsmen are great in their respective rights, and give them the due that they so well deserve?