The curtain has closed on yet another action packed series between Australia and India. Unlike the 2001 series in India, the competitiveness of India has surprised. India are always difficult in India – Australia has not won a series in India since Richie Benaud was young. And India has never won a series in Australia, normally and recently being hammered on our bouncy wickets.

I wish to focus on this series and the cricket played in it, not on the retirement and career of Steve Waugh. That topic deserves, and will be given, separate coverage. That being said, I believe that the timing of the announcement of Waugh’s retirement did have some impact on the series which will be discussed later.

Before getting started, I would like to offer a big raspberry to Cricket Australia (CA) regarding the official Test series program that was available at the SCG. For a start, some of the articles were clearly written half way through the series. It is traditional and I believe expected, that series programs are written before the series and serve as a preview. The program itself was headed “The Final Campaign” and sub-titled “Steve Waugh’s Final Test”. There was nothing to indicate that the publication related to a Test series between Australia and India. I think that CA should have refrained from joining the orgy of merchandising hype surrounding that famous retirement and stuck to the bigger picture. Presumably, a different program was offered at the Brisbane, Adelaide and Melbourne.

This series did not run as expected. At the end of the rain affected first day, all indications were that India were in for a pounding. However, they turned it around, shot Australia out and then Ganguly preceded to hit a scintillating 144. Ganguly’s leadership as been credited with much of the improved performance of India – and that innings was a real captains knock. The Brisbane Test was interestingly poised and it is a shame that rain prevented it from being finished.

Thereafter the series became a run-fest. Many have been asking why – and there isn’t a single answer. Australia’s first innings scores were:

323 (after reaching 2/268), 556, 558 and 474

and India’s were:

409, 523, 366 (after reaching 4/350) and 7/705.

That is serious scoring in any language and it is a credit to the rate of scoring that two results were achieved.

Most of the batsmen cashed in, with Ponting (242 and 257), Dravid (233 and a couple of nineties) and Laxman (148 & 178) the real super stars. Not to be forgotten are Sehwag with a memorable 195, Langer with a brace of “modest” tons and the Little Master, Tendulkar finally plundering with unbeaten scores of 241 and 60 in the final Test. To put that turnaround into perspective, consider that Tendulkar played five Tests in 2003 and scored 178 runs at 17.80! Hayden weighed in with one century and a powerhouse 99 from as many balls.

Ponting topped the averages for Australia with 706 runs at 100.85. Australia does not play that many four Test series, but I would be surprised if that is not a record for 4 Test series. It would be in the top 10 for all series.

Dravid made 619 at 123.80 – once again, mind numbing figures.

So why all the runs? I think that there are a few factors, most of them obvious:

1. Neither attack was strong. While both attacks included some world class bowlers, Australia was deprived of its best through injury and suspension and Indian bowling lacks depth at present. Kumble, who had by far the most impact on the series was regarded by many not to be in the frame, having averaged over 90 for his five wickets on the last tour.

2. Both batting line-ups are very strong. Both sides have 3 real super stars and a very capable supporting cast. It is not surprising that they would dominate under-strength attacks.

3. What has happened to the pitches? It seems to me that pitches are becoming homogenised and too heavily weighted towards the batsmen. Perhaps the groundsmen are weary of embarrassment over short Tests and unplayable wickets. Perhaps they are under instructions from the authorities to produce pitches that will produce longer matches. Shortened matches cost money. I remember when Perth was a very bouncy and neither an lbw nor front foot drive would be seen (I know we didn’t play at Perth but the comment still stands). I love a juicy, Brisbane green top that promotes seam and swing – it’s a real test for the day one top order. And isn’t Sydney supposed to disintegrate after Day 3 making a bowler like Kumble unplayable? What we saw were pitches that resembled highways – concrete slabs.

4. The Australian fielding was well below par. This had an affect on the Indian’s ability to score. In the 4th Test, Australia took just 9 wickets for over 900 runs. They dropped 4 straight forward catches and took two wickets from no-balls. In two separate, farcical Brett Lee overs, we saw a batsman caught from a no-ball and then dropped in the slips. Australia, from the bowlers perspective, had to dismiss that batsman three times to effect the dismissal. Watching the fielding, I was thinking that if this is what we can expect from now on, someone had better be calling Bobby Simpson. Or perhaps there is another explanation. I think that Steve Waugh’s retirement announcement before the series put pressure on Steve and the team. I think there was an element of anxiety because of a desire to send Steve out on a winning note and that had an impact on catching, in particular. I think that it is possible that the players and more particularly, Waugh were affected by the emotion. I’m not sure that Waugh was as sharp and innovative in the field as he usually is.

Whatever the reasons, the series is over and honours are even. Waugh is gone and that presents opportunity for the new captain and also a middle order batsmen.

Katich had a great series and with his performance in Sydney, must have consolidated his place in the side. He has played the last six Tests and can’t be regarded as filling in. Who will get Waugh’s spot? The short list must be: Lehmann, Love and Clarke. I think that Lehmann will get the nod when fit but I would like to see Clarke come in. His youth and hunger and obvious talent would be good for what is an aging team.

And is the vacancy created by Waugh the only vacancy? I think not. I like Martyn but while not failing, he has not put on the big scores. This is particularly glaring at the end of a run feast. He scored 254 runs for the series at 42.33. While 42.33 is a respectable average, let’s remember that there were four individual innings that yielded about as many runs as Martyn made in the entire series. Martyn struggles against spin and where are the next two series? Sri Lanka and India. Need I say more?

Finally, I have one comment about the run chase (or lack of) on the final day at Sydney. Steve Waugh’s assessment of India’s moderately sporting declaration giving Australia a 2% chance (which he revised to 3% when pressed) was about right. I don’t think that there can be any criticism of making 6/347 at 3.85 runs per over. They had to play for safety first and then consider a late charge if practical. Let’s not forget that targets of over 400 have only ever been scored to win a test on three occasions. The highest ever, 418, made by the West Indies just last year took 128.5 overs (run rate of 3.24).