For all the drama that quite predictably accompanied it, I thought the most sensational part of the match actually came before it started. At the toss, Wasim Akram said he was looking upon this match as good practice for the tougher battles ahead. Now, Akram is a very clever cricketer and he must have had a reason for saying what he did, but it sounded then, as it still does, that he was trying to play a little mind game. They believe in Pakistan, with some reason, that their cricketers are mentally tougher and that under a bit of pressure, India tend to fall apart.
It wasn’t the only aggressive move Akram made. Aware that Shahid Afridi always fancies himself against India, and has given them some great starts, they preferred him over the more correct Wasti. It was a very good move for on the big day; the stronger mind is a better asset than a slightly more qualified cricketer is.
But then, things went horribly wrong for Akram in the afternoon and that is when he made his second bold statement. In hispost match conference he said, "I am very happy for Azhar and the Indian team." At most times, that is a generous statement to make and cricket was once a sport that bred generosity. I had a microphone in my hand, otherwise I would have clapped because I think sport is about trying your best to win but being brave enough to acknowledge that someone was better.
It struck me though that if Azharuddin had made that statement we would have hauled him over the coals for it. And yet, we like to believe we are a more liberal country!
I don’t think it would have mattered too much though because we seem to do it anyway! I fear sometimes that when it comes to our cricket, we draw conclusions first and go around searching for facts to suit our hypothesis. We have our fingers on the trigger when it comes to criticism but when the time comes for generosity, or fairness if you think generosity is a little over-stated, we seem strangely occupied.
Like Dravid, Tendulkar, Srinath, Kumble, Prasad and Robin Singh,Azharuddin had an outstanding cricket match. Well as Prasad bowled, and I was delighted for him, I wasn’t surprised when Sunil Gavaskar said that he thought the man-of-the-match award should have gone to Azhar.
He struggled for his early runs but fought it out and gave India’s bowlers something to bowl at. Then he moved his bowlers around quite brilliantly, took two slip catches, one of which only he among those on the field would have taken, and found the time to put an arm around Ramesh after the slightly dreamy young man had dropped the kind of catch that would have hung over him for the rest of his career. And I guess it was some kind of divine leveller, after all the furore at Calcutta, that that wonderful slip catch removed Saeed Anwar.
There is a feeling that India’s performance has come too late in the day. I am not quite sure. I maintain that, except for that half hour at Leicester (against Zimbabwe), India have played good cricket at this World Cup. The gains on this tour far outnumber thelosses and I am a lot more optimistic about Indian cricket now than before the World Cup began. And there has been no bigger gain than Rahul Dravid. But that is the subject of another story.