Proteas shut the door on India

Heavy overnight rain notwithstanding, play on day three started on time -- more accurately, 15 minutes before time to make up for the lost overs of day two.

Niky Boje, after completing unfinished business from the previous over, was allowed to get a few more overs in -- until, that is, Laxman came gliding down the track to ease him to the long on fence. Shaun Pollock immediately took the ball back and in his first over, completed a second successive five-fer when he angled one in from just outside off to catch Laxman on the pad.

It was an iffy call -- a case could be made that on the angle, the ball was going to just miss leg. Or again, maybe not. In other words, benefit of doubt territory. But Pollock cut loose with an appeal that would have given Caruso a complex, and the umpire put the finger up. Maybe the umpire is a fan of high octave singing. Or maybe he just wanted to shut Pollock up. In the event, a calm, composed innings of 89 (121 balls) finally came to an end. Laxman had in this knock played the shots you associate with him -- but more to the point, he had also shown some determination to wait for the right ball before bringing those wrists into play.

Anil Kumble in this innings reminded you of just why you got so irritated when he slashed to slip immediately on arrival at the wicket. For when Kumble decides he wants to, he can be a gritty batsman -- compact, prepared to put a premium price on his wicket, and capable of putting loose deliveries away. Once Laxman left, however, Kumble pre-empted last man Srinath, cutting hard at Hayward for Kirsten at gully to pluck the rocket out of the air and end the Indian innings for 201 in exactly 62 overs -- which meant the home side began its second innings with its balance sheet reading 161 for no loss.

When top international players rate Javagal Srinath among the leading quick bowlers in the world, Indian fans tend to sneer. Those among us who concur with that assessment, meanwhile, tend to despair. And to wish -- especially while watching him bowling well within himself -- that Srinath had the fire in his belly to back his skills.

Figures make interesting reading -- Srinath, now playing his 8th Test on South African soil, has 43 wickets at 24.88 -- far more than any other contemporary bowler. To give those figures the perspective of comparison, Glenn McGrath has thus far played 5 Tests on SA soil -- and taken 17 at 26.94.

This morning, even more than in the first innings, he showed why top opposition batsmen rate him so highly -- his spell was nothing short of brilliant. His pace has fallen off over the years -- but when he wants to hit it, his length is unerring, the ball moves nicely away off the seam, occasionally it jags back in very sharply and invariably catches the batsman in the box, and in short, he makes the best of batsmen look like novices.

More to the point, he had the fire. He knew the batsmen were in trouble against him, he wanted them, he screamed to his fielders to stop his intended victim from getting off the hook with a single, he harangued Ganguly on one occasion when the Indian captain placed himself too wide at mid off to stop the single -- in a word, he caught fire and burnt bright, in a spell that read 8-6-4-2.

The breakdown is interesting -- Gibbs faced 7 deliveries without scoring a run; Kirsten got 0 out of 11, Kallis got three off 12, Neil McKenzie 0 off 11, and Boeta Dippenaar 1 off 7. This, bowling to a team that had the luxury of 161 on the board before

Gary Kirsten had a particularly torrid time against Srinath, being repeatedly beaten outside off. Finally, Kirsten squared up once too often, and got the outer edge in a fashion reminiscent of the first innings. As in the first innings, Virendra Sehwag almost gave Kirsten a life -- this time, by diving across to second slip and in the process, unsighting that fielder. Laxman produced a brilliant take -- keeping his eye on the ball despite the distraction of the diagonally diving Sehwag, and taking it low, and late.

Ajit Agarkar at the other end started off in his usual tempestuous fashion, attempting to bowl 6 different deliveries in each over and getting taken for runs. Finally, in his fourth over, he did what he is best at doing -- bowling at pace on a very full length, moving it just enough to hassle the batsman, and slipping in one good bouncer to push his target back. The follow up delivery was full, hitting off and seaming in a touch -- Gibbs (12 off 21), tentative after the bouncer, half-pushed in defence, and the ball went through the gate to hit the top of the stumps. In the first innings, Agarkar had time and again beaten the bat in identical fashion without hitting the stumps -- the difference this time was the foot fuller length he bowled.

Srinath then weighed in with his eighth wicket of the match, again hitting the full length and seaming it away late. McKenzie, primed by a couple of deliveries seaming in, pushed for that delivery, and got the edge to the one going the other way to give Dasgupta a low, diving catch to his right reducing South Africa to 26/3. McKenzie had faced 17 deliveries for his 2 runs.

The conditions called for more seam once Srinath tired -- but Ganguly had only himself (3-0-6-0) and Tendulkar (3-0-5-0) to throw at the Proteas. Lunch was taken with South Africa 47/3 after 22 overs, Boeta Dippenaar batting 9/33 and Jacques Kallis 12/47.

Post lunch session

I'll never understand how Kallis and Dippennaar didn't both lose their wickets through laughing too much, immediately after lunch.

Dippenaar has been struggling for form, with the threat of upcoming hopefuls breathing down his neck to make things work. Kallis in this innings was struggling, period. Both would have walked out knowing that before they had got fully set, they'd have to take on Javagal Srinath, with nine overs worth of rest before lunch plus the whole lunch break behind him.

Instead, they got Tendulkar and Ganguly -- in other words, nice non-threatening bowling to get set against -- immediately on resumption. Why, when India needed to attack, and hard at that, Ganguly kept his best pace option on the fence at fine leg will remain a mystery. (Talking of mysteries -- when Venkatesh Prasad is part of the playing XI, the captain struggles to hide him in the field, since he ranks as the slowest mover in the field, with a throw only marginally better than the lobs Srinath with his dodgy shoulder produces. Why then, when India needed a substitute before lunch, was Prasad sent out to do the job? Only the Indians would send their worst fielder out when a substitute was required.)

In the event, Agarkar had to take over after one from Tendulkar, Harbhajan came on after two futile overs from Ganguly (costing 12 runs). And Srinath, as it turned out, was the fifth bowler used after lunch -- so who said we don't have depth in bowling?

Dippenaar will consider himself unlucky. Harbhajan drew him forward to oneturning sharply enough to beat the bat and take the pad. The ball on the rebound went very very close to the glove before landing in the hands of silly point -- and the umpire sent the batsman off. The ball could have touched the glove on the way through -- but there was no way of knowing for sure, and that spells "benefit of doubt" to me. In the event, Dippenaar gone for 28 off 78 and South Africa 91/4.

Lance Klusener played the only way he knows how -- neck or nothing, clubbing Harbhajan twice over long on for huge sixes in a single over., then square cutting him next over for four. At the other end, Kallis, intent on anchoring, had a slash at Agarkar, the ball flying very quickly off the top edge. Laxman at second slip flung his hand up and managed to get a feel of the ball, without quite clinging on (129/4 the score at that point -- and Kallis crossed the 50 mark with the resulting runs).

Harbhajan Singh had the last laugh though when Klusener tried to work the offie to leg, against the turn, for a bat-pad to silly point (again, if there was a touch of wood on that, the umpire is the only one who saw it). Klusener 29/32 and South Africa 139/5.

The 51st over of the innings was bowled by Anil Kumble -- his first, in the innings! I'm no fan of Kumble on foreign tracks, especially ones without cracks in them -- but against that, it wasn't as if India had so many options that it could afford not to bowl one of its four specialists for that long.

That in turn begs a question. It was public knowledge that coach John Wright and captain Saurav Ganguly disagreed on whether or not to play Kumble here. Wright wanted Kumble, Ganguly did not, preferring a seamer. As it turned out, Ganguly was quite correct -- but against that, once the team is picked, do you as captain show your disagreement by not using the bowler you didn't want? Is that fair on the player, and the team? The way it was done, it was an insult to a senior player -- and such behaviour does not promote team spirit. (Ironically, in the one over that Kumble did bowl, he found the batsman's edge twice, on one occasion almost getting the played-on).

South Africa went in to tea on 147/5 after 51 overs, with Kallis batting 58 off 137 and Pollock on 1 off 10. The session produced 100 runs in 29 overs for the loss of two wickets -- for which last, God and umpire Howell, not in that order, be praised. The two wickets notwithstanding, the game by that point had already gone out of India's hands, thanks to the fact that they did not ram home the advantage of the first session.

Post tea session:

South Africa is not India. Not stating the obvious here -- merely leading up to the point that unlike India, South Africa -- or in fact any leading international team -- will easily let go an advantage once they have it.

That was evident during the post tea session, as Kallis and Pollock, with shrewd stroke selection and a willingness to wait out the good balls, batted India right out of the game. It was the kind of display Indian batsmen could have learnt from -- but then again, if they were into learning, it is not as if examples have been in short supply all these years.

The interesting bit about this phase of play wherein the Proteas looked to add as many runs as they could, without risking their wickets, was the approach the two took to Harbhajan. This Test is their first look at the man who destroyed the Aussies. In the first innings, they were pegged back by the offie. Here, with plenty of runs backing them, the two batsmen decided to turn the heat on the bowler, probably with a view to taking an early mental edge. Thus, Pollock kept going down the track to the offie, while Kallis alternated between wristy flicks off the pads, and back foot square drives and cuts, to keep the pressure relentlessly on the off spinner.

The period also saw Umpire Howell attempt to correct two wrongs with another wrong, when Harbhajan induced Pollock into a lunging defensive shot -- this time, it was bat onto pad, Sehwag at short square dived to hold a beauty, and Howell stood unmoved.

Anil Kumble, meanwhile, finally got a spell from the 59th over on. And bowled well enough to put pressure on the batsmen -- but by then, the Indians appeared to have given up anyway.

And finally, with lights blazing down, the umpires yet again called play off for light -- with 14 overs still to be bowled.

South Africa went home for the day with 211/5 -- a cumulative lead of 372. Kallis, with 84/201 and Pollock with 38/66 had batted through the session, what there was of it. And indications are that SA will bat through the first session tomorrow and possibly even part of the second to completely shut India out of the game.

Bottomline: Geoffrey Boycott made a brilliant point during his commentary yesterday. At one point, a fielder made a diving line save, the third umpire was called in to adjudicate on whether the it was four or no. And the umpire took a full two minutes to give the decision, watching innumerable replays.

Fair enough -- a run more or less can make a heck of a difference (though it is hard to see how it can in this particular game, the rule still holds).

But, asked Boycott, if you are prepared to take so much time to decide if it is a four or no, why on earth don't you take the same amount of time to review decisions and decide if the batsman is really out or no?

Why, indeed?

This match has already seen half a dozen lousy decisions at the least. In one of those instances, a batsman who hadn't gotten into double digits went on to make 196. Even if he hadn't, the fact remains that wrong decisions can upset the rhythm of a game, and if there are many of them in a game, then it can actually impact on the result.

If the technology did not exist, it would be a different matter. But the fact is, it does -- very good technology at that. So why on earth is it not being used?

When SS Das was given out in the Indian first innings, Sunil Gavaskar immediately -- even before the replay was shown -- picked the edge onto the bat. And pointed out that the decision was wrong.

But Sunny Gavaskar also wears the hat of chairman of the playing committee -- and in that capacity, spearheaded a decision earlier this year to not increase the powers of the third umpire.

Why?

Why is the ICC so incredibly resistant to change?

Full scoreboard

India's tour of South Africa: Complete coverage