A victory marked by a lot of `josh'

Defeats that are difficult to digest. Victories that one really gets enthused about. Indian cricket may have more of the former than the latter. The loss to Zimbabwe at the World Cup last year was particularly galling. It was difficult to forgive the Indian team for losing three wickets in an over to an ordinary bowler at the doorstep of victory. At the other end of the scale, it is difficult not to get excited about Saturday's win over Australia in the ICC KnockOut tourney at Nairobi.

I saw my first Test match in January 1961. Since then, despite the fact that my cricket viewing has generally been confined to Madras, I have been fortunate to have been witness to many notable Indian victories. And in the last 25 years, thanks to television, I have watched many famous triumphs - both in the Test and one day arena. But I must admit that even an experienced hand at the game - a keen eyed witness to top class cricket for four decades, a professional journalist for over three decades - was genuinely appreciative of the victory on Saturday. And when Navjot Sidhu said he felt like standing up and cheering in the TV studio, I felt the same way. There was something very positive, very exciting, about the Indian performance, the like of which has not been seen for a very long time. Whatever happens to India in the tournament, the victory over Australia will rank very high given certain circumstances.

Just consider the background against which the victory was achieved. Interest in the game in India was at an all time low thanks to the match fixing scandal, the income tax raids, action taken against some cricketers and a generally sub-standard showing in recent times. It seemed like Indian cricket had reached the point of no return. Under pressure, the players seemed to have forgotten what winning was all about. And a victory against the reigning World Cup champions was just the kind of blood transfusion that Indian cricket needed.

Viewed from any angle, it was an outstanding achievement. In the first place, not many gave a new look, largely experimental Indian side much of a chance against a thoroughly professional Australian squad. And overall it must be said that the Australians did not perform badly. No, there was something rather extraordinary about the Indian outcricket that led to the unexpected denouement.

`Josh'. That one word, so aptly Indian, would perhaps sum up the performance. Rarely have I witnessed any Indian team perform with such spirit. They were absolutely pumped up from the first ball of the morning, evidently as a result of some top level discussions among the team management - a decision that was then conveyed to the team members. This was a side determined to take on Australia on level terms, to show them that they were not a side that would succumb to pressure or the reputation of the opposition.

Tendulkar and Ganguly versus McGrath and Brett Lee is the kind of matchup that would have any connoisseur of the game rubbing his hands in anticipation. But in the past, more often than not, the bowlers have been allowed to dictate even though on record and reputation there is little choose between the pairings. On Saturday, the Indian pair carried the fight into the enemy camp with a daring guerilla attack and fortune favoured the brave. And then with Yuvraj Singh successfully adopting the aggressive methods which had been decided upon, the Indians were able to post a challenging total.

Still, it was not exactly a surprise that Australia still remained the favourites even at the halfway stage. After all there is always a perennial doubt about the Indian bowling and fielding. But then the Indians, with the ball and in the field, showed the same aggressive instincts that had marked their showing with the bat. Rarely has an Indian side showed such absolute brilliance in the field and with this kind of backing, the bowlers gave no opportunity for the Australians to settle down. It is not often that during an Australian innings of almost 250, there is not even a single half century. And this alone would perhaps be symbolic of the Indian outcricket.

But for me, the defining moment of the Indian performance would be the searing bouncer that Zaheer Khan, bowling in only his second ODI, sent down to Steve Waugh, playing in 'only' his 299th ODI. As long as the experienced 35-year-old Australian captain was around, the Aussies must have still fancied their chances. But that bouncer that whistled past a ducking Waugh's helmet was the apotheosis of the Indian performance. In that one delivery, Australia knew that this was not the Indian side that has so often faltered at the doorstep of victory or made a mess of things at the all important end. In a way, Zaheer's dismissal of Waugh shortly afterwards was not exactly a surprise. It was that bouncer that really set the Australian captain up for the guillotine.

And in this glorious moment for Indian cricket, should we not spare some time for the much maligned selectors? When a team fails, much of the blame is hurled on the selection committee. By the same yardstick, does the quintet get some credit when the team succeeds? Just one question. I am sure all of us can recall the captain, the vice captain and the remaining members of the 1983 World Cup winning squad. But does anyone remember the chairman of the selection committee which picked that side?