NEWS
STAT SHEET
DIARY
HOT LINKS
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
BOOKS & THINGS
PEOPLE
DEAR REDIFF

Going through the motions, at Guyana

Prem Panicker

Very briefly told, the news is that after two whole days were washed out due to rain and marshy conditions on the outfield, play did resume at 4 pm, local time, on the evening of the fourth day of the fifth and final Test at the Bourda, in Georgetown, Guyana.

In that time, India progressed from 194/2, which was the score at the end of the first day of play, to 241/4. In the process, Sachin Tendulkar got to 83 before giving Ian Bishop a return catch which, for once, was accepted. And Rahul Dravid progressed to 92 before chasing a wide one from Rose to give Hooper, in the slips, an easy catch to take.

At close, Mohammad Azharuddin was batting on 4 - in what will probably be his last Test innings on West Indies soil - and Nayan Mongia was undefeated on nought. And with one day left to play, and not even one innings being completed as yet, this particular game has effectively been confined to the dustbin.

Critics of the little play there was will probably point to the fact that both Tendulkar and Dravid missed out on opportunities to record centuries that were there for the taking - but I suspect that this is the precise reason they missed out. Because it was all too easy.

When they came out, two and a half days later, to resume their interrupted innings, both batsmen were aware there was nothing in it but to go through the motions. The West Indies, too, were less than fully committed to the action, obviously looking to go through the formalities with as little strain as possible. And in such circumstances, it is very very difficult for a player to psyche himself up, to bring some sort of determination to the task of run accumulation.

Time and again, thus, Tendulkar appeared to be going for his shots with a half-heartedness that is not part of his batting philosophy in normal times. And Dravid, ever punctulious about leaving alone deliveries even just a shade outside off stump, was actually found flirting with several deliveries so wide he would, in normal circumstances, have left them well alone.

All this brings up the question - if neither the batsmen, nor the bowlers, nor in fact the spectators (for there were, understandably, just a handful who sat patiently the whole day waiting for resumption of play) are interested, then why go through the motions?

Earlier in this series, we found that the boards are not willing to do the right thing and rearrange the schedule in order to get a full five days play. So we won't even discuss the possibility here.

On four occasions in the past, we have found that Tests between the two nations, scheduled at the Bourda, have had to be abandoned, once due to race riots, and thrice due to rains. We schedule yet another Test at the same venue - again, there seems no point in asking why.

So that is the situation - despite the fact that the Bourda is probably as wet as Cherrapunji, we still schedule games there, knowing pretty well they have no chance of going through the full course. Though there are days to spare, we refuse to reschedule games (for instance, it was perfectly possible, since the rains have now gone away, to have taken Sunday as day two, got through as many overs as possible, calculated how many were lost, and spread them out over the next three days, the game to end not on Monday as scheduled, but on Wednesday.

Wednesday is the 23 - and the ODIs only begin on the 26th, so there's time yet. But no, such commonsense ploys don't recommend themselves to the respective boards, obviously.

So then there is just one question left to ask - why play at all?

Take the rule book, and see what it says in cases such as these. It says that the umpires shall make repeated inspections of the wicket, and do all that may be possible to ensure that at least two hours of play is made possible. And if in their opinion even two hours is not possible, then they may abandon play for the day.

If that kind of commonsense approach can be adopted towards each individual day's play, then why not for the whole Test? I mean, when two days were rained out, it was obvious that the Test in terms of a contest was dead. More so when it was not possible to have a full day's play even on the fourth day. So why, for heaven's sake, don't they have a rule which says that when in the opinion of the umpires and match referee the holdup has rendered it impossible to get through at the least three innings, then play may be officially abandoned?

Seems the sane thing to do, wouldn't you say?