Questions answered on Day one

The Australians have a belief that whoever wins the first session wins the first day, wins the first Test and goes on to win the series. An authoritative start often leads to a first Test victory and a series triumph. Using that theory, Australia is in for a successful tour, as India was 62/4 at lunch on the first day of the series.

Examining the opening session of Australia's last three trips to the subcontinent confirms the belief. At Chennai on the previous tour in '98, India was 86/0 at lunch and went on to win the first Test and the series. In Rawalpindi later that year, Pakistan was 78/4 and Australia won the match and claimed the series. And then at Kandy in Sri Lanka in '99, Australia went to lunch at a disastrous 61/7 and never recovered as they lost the match and series.

All of this history makes Steve Waugh's decision to insert India a bold one, but completely in keeping with his captaincy beliefs. It has long been held that batting first is the safest and most successful route in Tests. But Waugh does not care for this particular tradition and believes that bowling first is an attacking move that allows a team to take control of a match immediately, which is what Australia aims to do at the start of every series.

Whatever the result of the toss, India was going to bat first. After including three fast bowlers, Waugh had no choice but to take to the field if he was going to make use of them and challenge India with pace. India, on the other hand, would also have had to bat first so the spinners could be utilised in the final innings. So the theme of the opening day was set up from the beginning.

Knowing what the opening session meant in terms of seizing momentum from the outset after electing to bowl first, Australia had to take command early and did just that. After finding a Wankhede wicket providing decent pace and bounce, the Aussie strategy centred on overwhelming India with pace and on the first day and that was more or less what transpired.

There were questions to be answered and in the first session a few were found. Would Glenn McGrath be effective on Indian pitches? Could Australia assert some authority over India's powerful batting line-up? Yes on both counts. The question of how McGrath would fare on pitches with little bounce proved redundant as he bowled unusually short on a strip with some early lift, digging the ball in at Ramesh and Das on his way to a haul of 3/19 from 19 miserly overs. Then Shane Warne, back in the country where he was hammered three years ago, went a small way towards the long process of restoring respectability to his record against his nemesis side with an impressive 4/47, his best against India. Interestingly, Warne was first introduced to the attack with the total 49/3, a vast and significant difference to previous entries to the bowling crease. Warne benefited from the bounce and turn in the pitch, which was as close to Australian conditions as he is probably going to find.

The contrast between the first and second sessions was stark as Tendulkar began to lead a rapid Indian revival in Australia's only period of uncertainty on the first day. On the last tour, a partnership of this type may have led to a full-scale session or more of Indian domination as the Aussie attack was taken apart. But McGrath is the pivotal weapon in the Aussie armoury and on most occasions makes a difference when a wicket is needed most.

Thrown the ball after Tendulkar had punished Fleming, McGrath made an immediate impact by inducing an airy back-foot drive from Laxman, which was particularly untimely for India considering the momentum Tendulkar had just built up. The Aussie spearhead then removed the Mumbai Maestro himself, delivering two bouncers before offering one of driving length in the corridor, which Tendulkar accepted to his demise.

The death of Sir Donald Bradman is a pertinent reminder to appreciate the era we live in, with Bradman's admitted batting likeness on show in Sachin Tendulkar. It may not be given much consideration now, at least not outside of India, but we are privileged to live in the era of Tendulkar. We should enjoy every moment of his batting because we may be pulling out the videos, or DVDs, and recounting his feats to our grandchildren in years to come. Tendulkar made 76 while the rest of India managed 100.

There appeared to be three stages in his innings. First it was supreme timing as he got underway, then the period of responsible defence as he steered an ailing India to lunch, before undertaking a recovery with a display of strokeplay. Against Warne and Gillespie he displayed the definition of controlled aggression, forcing Warne around the wicket and having Gillespie post a deep point.

One particular shot stood out, and it was not even one of the glorious straight drives. In the first over of McGrath's spell in the middle session, Sachin played what looked to be a regulation back foot defensive stroke. But such was the latent timing and power of shot, the ball was suddenly racing through cover with Gillespie in desperate pursuit, forcing the fast bowler to make a full-length dive to pull it up just inside the boundary. Those are the kind of defensive strokes Bradman must have played.

Ultimately, though, it was not Tendulkar's innings or the bowling of a couple of Aussies that were the featured topics of the day. It was the overall state of the match, which already lies heavily in favour of the tourists. In two tour matches, Australia could not produce a performance of combined bowling and batting consistency. They have now managed the first, and if India cannot stop them from producing the latter they will be on the way to winning the first Test and securing a 1-0 series lead. And it can all be traced to the opening two hours.

Mail Daniel Laidlaw