For a five-Test series

Daniel Laidlaw

After such a memorable Test series, it feels appropriate that there should be a period of appreciation, of reflection on the magnificent contest just passed. Instead, just three days after one of the greatest series of all time, we must endure a one-day series that does nothing to enrich what has gone before. A series of one-day matches immediately after an epic Test battle can only cheapen it. The hectic schedule dictates that there is no time for review or, for the players, recovery.

Considering the last two Tests were played back-to-back, enormously taxing in itself, and considering further that both those Tests were intense, draining matches that lasted the full five days, it is poor scheduling on the part of administrators to agree to commencing the one-day jaunt just three days later. They may be highly-paid professionals, but the cricketers still need rest. We want to see them performing at their best.

The Australians, in particular, appeared jaded in the field during Sunday's opening match. There were not the usual exuberant Aussie celebrations at the fall of a wicket. There is no way, in US parlance, that they will "mail it in", but after failing to achieve their all-encompassing objective of winning a Test series in India, there is little apparent appetite for a one-day series. But no tour would be complete without one, of course, and the public must have its entertainment and the sponsors and cricket boards their income.

When the one-day series was mentioned to Steve Waugh at the end of a television interview by David Hookes, he smiled wryly and said it "should be great", practically rolling his eyes as he went off camera. In a moment of honesty after reclaiming the Border-Gavaskar trophy, Sourav Ganguly also admitted India had "won the series that matters".

So why bother with a one-day series? Why not play a full Test series instead? It is far too late for all this to be considered, of course, but if ever these two countries are to meet in the five-Test series that everyone rightly wants, it will have to be at the expense of a one-day series. There is no other way without making a tour too long.

The Australians are bound to mentally weary at the end of a long season, a condition only exacerbated by losing, and it was no surprise at all that they lost the first one-day match. Of course, players will deliver the usual lines about always performing at their best and giving 100 per cent for their country, but in reality Australia are exhausted and India has already won the major trophy.

Other than pride of performance, there is very little to be gained from the one-day series. Be that as it may, with the World Cup champs playing India at home in front of capacity crowds, it should provide some entertainment.

If you're into that sort of thing. I, for one, would have liked to see a two-week break before the teams went on to play two more Tests in a five-match series. No matter how brilliant the individual performance or closeness of results, the one-day series simply cannot match the Test series.

Also, parallels should not be drawn between the two. They cannot be considered part of the same entity. If Australia win, it is not revenge, as it has no bearing on the Test series just gone. It would simply be a one-day series victory. If India win, it does not add confirmation to their Test success against Australia or signal improvement at Test level. It is just a one-day victory. A clear distinction must be made.

There is no relation between the two series other than individual enmities or the personal form of some players, although even that may not have much relevance. In an entirely different mental situation, Ricky Ponting may yet flourish, as might Sourav Ganguly. Harbhajan might get belted and Warne could, miracle of miracles, dismiss a few Indian batsmen. Either way, it won't change the Test series, or detract from or enhance the performances therein.

Interestingly, though, form and changes made in the Test series have been taken into account for the one-dayers. Did Rahul Dravid's standing as India's No. 3 in ODIs suddenly diminish simply because his position was altered in the Test team? If so, why?

There are currently different beliefs in place on whether Test and limited-overs form can be compared. Australia, which made a controversial distinction between its teams four years ago that has since been accepted, retained Ricky Ponting at No. 3 despite his woeful Test form. The thinking, rightly, must have been that it was unnecessary to drop him for his play against Harbhajan when it was likely he would begin facing seam bowlers. Had there been a fourth Test, Ponting would definitely have been left out.

Matthew Hayden was included on the basis of his Test form. Hayden simply had to stay after scoring 549 runs and demonstrating he could play Harbhajan better than anyone. To send him home, when he is already an accomplished one-day performer at the domestic level, would have been foolishly stubborn.

However, sensible exceptions aside, the differences in formats and style are generally too great to make a comparison. I doubt that Ponting's golf handicap is affected by his problems in the Test series. Yes, they're different sports, but the difference between Test and ODI cricket can be vast. The point is that it's mostly unfair to drop a player at one form of the game based on his performances in another. Dravid has earned the right to be India's first-choice No. 3 in ODIs and had done nothing to warrant demotion.

Mail Daniel Laidlaw