Perth and After

With Perth out of the way it's worth considering where Australia and India currently stand. As Peter English pointed out in a slightly over-pessimistic piece on Cricinfo yesterday, Australia had a defeat coming to them. Too many players had been lost and too many consecutive games won for anything else to have been the case. To me, though, even if India go on to draw the series in Adelaide (unlikely, but far from impossible given what happened there last time), Australia remain the team that sets the standards that every other international side has to aspire to and it'll take many more defeats to change that.

However, it's also a good time to be a follower of India; with away wins becoming more frequent, a range of seam bowlers developing rapidly and Kumble captaining the side with inspiration and inclusivity, things look good, even allowing for what happened in Melbourne and Sydney. Indeed, with Pathan, still young at 23 and starting to recapture something of his best form, RP looking to me like an increasingly classy and mature operator and Zaheer to return, the possibility of a three-pronged left-arm seam attack is a tantalising one. And then there's Kumble himself, who looks good to deny Anno Domini for another year or two now that the captaincy is finally his, and Harbhajan to come back in, and I haven't even mentioned Ishant Sharma, who remains raw, but confirmed, with his spell to Ponting on Saturday, that he's a bowler of rare potential.

The batting will require reinforcements soon enough, but, in the short term, India's challenge is to build on this. Another win at Adelaide might show that they're starting to move away from being the type of side that can beat anyone when the mood takes them and towards being the type of side that can simply beat anyone.

What Can You Do?

It wasn't a great surprise - quite the opposite, in fact - to see the way in which India capitulated at Melbourne. Indian batsmen and pacy Australian tracks have rarely mixed well, and they went into the first Test of the series with even less practice behind them in local conditions than Fletcher and Flintoff's doomed England side did last year.

Today, though, could have been different. But it wasn't. When Australia are the home team it rarely is. When I went to bed with an hour gone RP had whipped out the openers, but I was woken by the news that Australia had been 134-6 before Hogg and Symonds had brought them round.

That's the thing about Australia. At least one player, often two, will always step up to the plate (as Duncan Fletcher might say); as they flourish the opposition, as often as not, will fall away as they see their early good work disintegrate. It's no good just starting well against Australia; you have to keep a high level of performance up all the time (and receive all the help from the umpires you can get). If you don't you're dead meat, especially if the game's being played in Australia.

Still, at least playing Australia stops weaker sides from getting the idea that they belong at the same table.

What can you do?

Well, it's not Australia's fault that they're this good. All anyone else can do is try to get better.

Final Analysis

So, India won the Twenty20. I didn't see enough to offer too many opinions, other than that I don't half like the look of RP Singh.

Sambit Bal sums it all up very well here.

Clean Hitting

I saw absolutely nothing of the England-India game last night and have still only managed see three of Yuvraj's shots - that's all BBC Breakfast showed when I staggered into life this morning. A look at YouTube will be in order over the weekend, I think.

I've written before about my admiration for Yuvraj and the cleanness of his hitting. I read today that he'd said that he didn't agree with comparisons between himself and Sobers, but I disagree. That's exactly who he's always reminded me of most.

One of my past pieces about Yuvraj is here.

Tonight, though, India didn't even need him as they laid South Africa's typically vulnerable challenge to rest, with young Rohit Sharma and RP Singh to the fore at a pulsating Kingsmead.

Semis to come on Saturday.

Not Bad, But Not Good Either

You wouldn't say that England were categorically poor on another perfect day for batting at The Oval, but they could, and should, have done a lot better.

Cook, although he made 61, is finally being forced to wake up to the fact that Test cricket is a difficult game, and his reliance on his strength, the straight-bat clip through the leg side, is becoming a weakness. Pietersen started well but his eyes lit up a little too quickly when Tendulkar came on. Vaughan was deceived, Collingwood got another bad one from Howell, and Matt Prior is having one of those games. Ian Bell, with positive footwork and, until his dismissal, good shot selection, was England's best player.

India stuck at it all day, relishing their advantage. Zaheer was excellent once again, Kumble was steady, RP was under-used and there were late signs that Sreesanth was getting mind and body together.

Now will Dravid enforce the follow-on?

Getting it Wrong, Getting it Right

Well, now. I got it a little bit wrong, but India, ultimately, got it very right.

I fell into the trap of assuming that if India were going to bowl a side out in the second half of a Test match to set up a victory, the man to do it had to be Kumble. An indolent reading of history suggested as much but in England? In the monsoon summer of 2007? At a lush Trent Bridge - which has gained an increasing reputation as a swinging ground in recent years - it was always more likely to be a seamer. And, with the way he's been bowling since his first spell at Lord's, it was always likely to be Zaheer Khan.

The fact that they only took a single wicket in the first session didn't matter at all either, with most of the side - Sreesanth excepted - patiently biding their time through a warm afternoon and the majestic quality of Michael Vaughan's century in the knowledge that the new ball could change things quickly. With Zaheer and RP using it beautifully and the below-par Kumble seeing to the tail, it did, and only a further 63 are now needed to secure a deserved victory.

India have flattered to deceive many times over the years, but, if they can win tomorrow and repel England at The Oval (and England will really come at them hard there), perhaps we can start thinking about a future in which the side can start to get a bit nearer to fulfilling the perenially disappointed hopes of its millions of followers.

The middle-order is certain to need some re-stocking before long but the bowling looks good. In Zaheer you have as mature and skilled a left-arm swing bowler as there is in the world, in RP Singh as promising a left-arm swing bowler as there is in the world and in Sreesanth as contradictory and potentially dangerous (in many senses) a right-arm seamer as there is in the world. And Pathan and Harbhajan to come back in.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. For now the onus is on Wasim Jaffer and Dinesh Karthik at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.

Everything else comes later.

There's Always Something

Aside from events on the field it was an interesting few days - a near monsoon on Friday, with play, amazingly, following a couple of hours later; Ottis Gibson taking ten wickets in an innings on Saturday; and, most impressive and moving of all, RP Singh taking off his cap to acknowledge the applause of the members in the Long Room on Sunday in a gesture at once old-fashioned and deeply impressive.

That's what I like about trips to London (and Lord's). There's always something happening.

A Quiet Classic

In a quiet way, the first Test between England and India at Lord's was a classic. Or at least it looked like that to an English follower starved of competitive Test cricket for most of the summer. The unique brilliance of Shivnarine Chanderpaul can only take a series so far, and it was good to see England back in a battle. A battle in which they won most of the minor skirmishes and very nearly the whole damn thing.

There's simply no getting away from the fact that England look a more positive, united and vibrant team whenever they're led on to the field by Michael Vaughan. And, with the skipper himself refreshed as a result of his extended injury layoff and showing the type of judgement, command and tactical acumen which used to be second nature, they're even better. With a series of bowlers who can all hit the cut strip with regularity and move the ball at will in their different ways, they're better still.

With those bases covered, all you need is runs. They were largely provided by a watchful, often hesitant but deserving Andrew Strauss, the renewed elegance of Michael Vaughan, and Kevin Pietersen, who, in typical fashion, progressed through the gears to the point of total command after lunch on Sunday.

England's bowlers performed with relaxed penetration. It's no more than you expect from Sidebottom and Panesar now, but it was great to see Jimmy Anderson deliver his most complete performance in an England shirt and Chris Tremlett, whose unexpected selection ahead of Stuart Broad almost had me choking on my hotel breakfast on the first morning, justified his place and dropped a few hints for the future.

India started poorly with the ball in favourable conditions on Thursday but turned things around after Friday morning's monsoon. Zaheer hinted at his Worcester form, Sreesanth ran in hard and gained a few rewards from Steve Bucknor, and RP Singh looked like a bit of a find. Runs were harder to come by though, with only Karthik and Dhoni, in the second innings, really doing themselves justice. Dravid was unusually anonymous (but will surely come back fighting), Tendulkar lacked authority (and the jury is out on whether he can find it again), Ganguly flashed with bat and mouth but never suggested permanence, and Laxman's footwork and demeanour looked a bit too diffident for his own good.

England deserved to win and were unlucky not to get the chance to finish the job, although, if they could have stirred themselves to bowl their overs a bit more quickly yesterday morning they'd probably have wrapped the game up way before the rain came. I see from Cricinfo that the otherwise admirable Peter Moores is trying to justify England's slow over-rate by reference to the need for meticulous field-placing. That's as maybe, but they could do a lot better by cutting out their latest piece of modish fielding nonsense which appears to be to throw the ball to the wicket-keeper from anywhere on the field, regardless of whether there's any point to it. If the batsman hits the ball to mid-off and is not attempting a run, then why doesn't the mid-off fielder just throw the ball straight back to the bowler, rather than hurling it to Matt Prior and then getting it back about thirty seconds later via one of the slips (usually Strauss)? Talking of which, I don't think one of the slips (usually Strauss at Lord's again) needs to polish the ball on his backside until his trousers are virtually worn away after every ball. Fifteen overs an hour should be relatively straightforward whoever's bowling, and might show that the players have given some thought to the fact that people have actually paid money to watch them play and have the right to expect to see ninety overs in a day.

India look to be going in the right direction with the ball but will need more runs from all parts of the order if they're going to threaten England at Nottingham and The Oval. And it's up to SRT to show that reports of his imminent demise are greatly exaggerated.