A new begining

India has found its ideal No. 3...at least for one innings. The critical one-down position, the inhabitant of which is a perennial debate for most teams, had a significant bearing on proceedings of day three of the second Test. Had Dravid gone in at his customary No. 3 slot, it is unlikely India would be in the remarkable position of setting Australia a testing fourth innings run chase. By inserting Laxman at first drop, Sourav Ganguly made his most pro-active move of the series and it paid of brilliantly for the Indian captain.

With Laxman having stood tall to smack the Aussies around in an innings to boost the confidence of the rest of the batsmen (incredibly, after Steve Waugh repeated India's mistake of the previous day by pushing the field back for the set batsman), the best option would have been to send him right back out there while he held the ascendancy. Failing that, at least he got back in while he could make a difference.

Australia brings out the best in Laxman. It's an unlikely scenario, but he has two centuries in his past three Tests against them and they were both masterful. It's due to his style of play and natural approach, conducive to making runs against Australia's attack. Being a strokemaker who scores a high percentage of boundaries, he's suited to batting against an attacking field such as that employed by Australia. Unlike Ramesh, his attacking strokes don't carry a high degree of risk. Unlike Dravid, be bats without inhibition. He highlighted again that the best way to succeed against the Aussies is to attack them judiciously - easier said than done.

Somehow, India and Australia had almost swapped positions by the end of day three. Bowling India out cheaply in the first innings may actually cost Australia. Instead of retaining the advantage of bowling last, Australia is facing the prospect of chasing a target, something it would not have anticipated after scoring 445 in the first innings. After losing all three sessions on day two, India turned around to claimed two of them on day three.

Suggestions of saving the game were misplaced. It's more difficult to draw against Australia than it is to beat them if no rain is involved. Due to the way Australia advances the state of the match, either with bat or in the field, whatever happens occurs quickly. If they're not scoring runs at 3.5 or more per over, they are usually losing wickets. And if they're not taking wickets, then runs are usually flowing against them.

For the first time, the Indian batsmen forced Australia to adjust to the way they were batting rather than the other way around. The result was an attacking partnership, as Warne served up full toss after full toss and Laxman hit Gillespie and Kasprowicz off their length. He made them bowl to him.

After Waugh experienced first-hand the negative affect giving away runs has on a team, you would think there was no way he would repeat the same flawed ploy. But as Ganguly had given the Australians impetus by releasing the initiative on day two, so too did Waugh allow Laxman the same freedom of commencing without pressure. There were differences, as Laxman initially refused to take the singles on offer, but the lack of intent by the Aussies was enough: Laxman flourished, and began to play like the kind of Indian batsman Australia fears.

At the time, enforcing the follow-on was the aggressive option and the one that had to be taken. In hindsight, Waugh may question whether it was the right call. It wasn't the safest one, but at that stage safety was not an issue. Australia had control of the match, and still does, but by seeking the most efficient end of the match, put its position of invulnerability at risk. One wonders whether the fans, having left with India in tatters, will return in greater numbers now that a contest is in prospect.

As Laxman's scintillating innings progressed and the deficit decreased, the similarities to the first Test became evident. Then, Tendulkar and Dravid had threatened to produce the kind of partnership Laxman and Ganguly did here. In collapsing in Mumbai, Australia strode to a convincing victory and the Test was subsequently viewed as a walkover. Thus it was difficult to know if India's batting resurrection in the second innings was genuine. After all, another collapse could occur at any time that would have seen the Aussies charge to a series win. But as it stood after three days, the indications were that India might have found, courtesy of Laxman, just the right spirit to sorely test Australia. The problem was, it may have been too late.

You can see why the Aussies respect Laxman. He is the exactly the type of player who, on his day, can dominate their bowling because he is never tied down for any length of time, defusing any build-up of pressure before it can have an affect. Grinding batsmen such as Michael Atherton, Gary Kirsten or Jimmy Adams typically have little success against Australia because their style of batting serves the Aussie strategy of wearing down a batsman with six consistent balls over after over. Laxman, on the other hand, never allowed them that luxury.

Shane Warne was played so easily in defence that he completely lost his length and looked like the Warne of the previous tour. McGrath and Kasprowicz were forced around the wicket for nothing other than to change the line. A part-time spinner in Mark Waugh was brought on and feasted upon. Australia was short of solutions.

Also heartening was that Tendulkar's dismissal did not herald a collapse, as Ganguly weathered the storm of a packed slips cordon, likely verbal volleys, and the ball deliberately angled wide of him to give Laxman the necessary support. Unsurprisingly, McGrath, the one bowler not mastered, proved the critical partnership breaker. Now, India's series future may rest on the approach of the man who switched positions with Laxman, Rahul Dravid, if Laxman's knock is not to be considered too late.

Daniel Laidlaw

Mail Daniel Laidlaw