Dravid did job one: he saw the shine off the ball, took the sting out of the bowlers and thereby protected the middle order from the new ball pairing. I't a shame he then got out rather than go on to bat through the day and into day 3... but such things happen: another time he'll get the same sort of start and then leave the field at the end of the day having anchored his side to a strong position, including seeing off the second new ball.

To criticise Dravid for valuing his wicket and then falling to one of (perhaps the) best bowler(s) in world cricket (and the best seamer in this match) strikes me as a bit rich in any circumstances, especially as the delivery that got him was a first rate off-cutter that stayed low and struck the pad. IF he was also feeling his way on the back of just about no cricket in the tour to date (could you remind me how many innings he's had on Aussie soil this season?) then he deserves some slack - and certainly more than LAxman, who committed the cardinal sin of gloving a short ball he was trying to leave, and Tendulkar, who was out trying to play a forcing shot off a player who should have commanded more respect and to a ball that was far too close to his body to warrant that approach.Yuvraj Singh, in particular, would have done well to imitate Dravid, and whilst it's harsh to criticise a batsman who's only faced 11 balls... he WAS having an un-neccessary dart at the ball, wafting outside off stump at the final ball before the te interval.

Dhoni should certainly not be criticised... but any other criticisms to be made should be for the way the lower order folded whilst attempting big shots.

For an excellent tribute to Clark see Cricinfo - Clark silences the doubters

Rachael you are talking about a sporting stadium in Australia that's nearest international relative would be the "Colosseum" in Rome.

12 weeks ago it was a football ground.

The best time for batting on this pitch is after the roller go's over it.

Dravid's "great wall of China" type innings ensured that did not happen.

Even Jaffar tried unsuccessfully to get Dravid to change ends and face Brett Lee. And it was only for reasons that Dravid knows (and most of us who watched his innings rightfully suspect fear) he did not face Brett Lee.

You amaze me ............you want to give Dravid a pat on the back for scoring 5 runs from 66 deliveries.

Yet Hayden & Jaques were "monkey's" yesterday for scoring 140 in almost even time...

Do you hate Australia that much Rachael that you as an "administrator" who's opinion I would generally respect as being fair and even with maybe the odd hiccup/mistake for which we are only human, is that clouded ?

I am sure this post is only an aberration.

If Dravid thought that was his job, he might have done better doing a sandpaper job on the ball while sitting on the potty. Why waste others' time and money?

An openers job is to get the innings off to a good start and then build a foundation for a good score. Scoring 5 off 66 and refusing to face the oppositions fastest bowler is not a good innings. By batting the way he did he immediatley got Australia onto the front foot and gave them the momentum.

__________________
Mark.

A generation or so back no one would have raised an eyebrow. Go and look at some of Trevor Bailey's innings, for instance. Given that the new ball pairing bowled pretty well and that Clark was bowling exceptionally I have no problem with how Dravid batted.

I'm not suggesting it was a great innings... but that's not because of what he DID do... it's because Clark got him with a first rate spell and thereby prevented him going on to bat out 5-6 sessions (as he's more than capable of doing).

Had Dravid scored 150 over 5+ sessions, grinding the Aussies into the ground, anchoring the side to a significant 1st innings lead and giving Harbhajan and Kumble the chance to bowl at a tired side on a worn pitch... he'd rightly be getting hailed from the rooftops... and no one would worry that he didn't start advancing his score until the Australian attack had been blunted.

ps. I've nothing against the Aussies whatsoever: I'm delighted to see that they've prepared a genuinely sporting wicket, am a tad disappointed that India didn't bowl better on it and am glad Clark has led a disciplined Aussie attack that has given the Indian's a lot to think about.

Look I am sure Dravid's innings may have been admired by certain but not all followers of the game maybe up until the late 1960's

But thats 40 years ago this is today.

But today it stank of a player who had past his use-by date, that was desperately clinging on to his position in the national team........unfortunately at the expense of his team.

And I will stand by my earlier statement that his "self indulgent innings" led to the premature end of Jaffar and Laxman, who were both put (through Dravid) under extreme pressure to get things moving.

I thought India played and were captained for the most part well yesterday...abiet for playing one spinner too many at this ground.

Today I thought if anyone except Dravid opened with Jaffar things would have been better for them now.

7 consecutive maidens is bloody ridiculous...even worse when 20 ball's later you are out for 5

It's called a "flipper" Acker. If you want to describe that wicket that way, then you may as well say the same for all of Warne's victims to the same delivery

Ganguly was bamboozled. He thought is was going to spin away, he rocked back to cut it, and was fooled. Ganguly is their form batsman - he scored 400+ runs against Pakistan earlier in the month - and that wicket that Hogg got was crucial.

I think Hogg will get another three or four next innings, he will play the entire series, and he will take at least 100 test wickets. You may well have to get used to him Acker - he is the best spinner we have IMO.

__________________

Yes this game has proven that the best time for scoring is against the new ball. Dravid sunk his team into a mire that they never dragged themselves out of. And sent me to sleep on the couch.

__________________

What you and I saw was a nude ball that did absolutely nothing "Seamer"

Any decent spinner including Warne, Benaud or even Murali would be ashamed to call that a flipper.

I have often seen that type of ball in numerous alcohol fueled social cricket matches, And usualy gotten out to by alcohol fueled batters.

I reckon the only thing that fooled Ganguly, was he expected at test level it would do something....

When in fact it did absolutley nothing.

Daniel Cullen or Cullen Bailey could easily produce the same type of "nude" delivery with the upside of having many more years in the game than Brad Hogg to build upon it.

Hogg was easilly getting shafted for 5 an over with a pretty high class pace barage operating at the other end.

I do not think either of the above would have got carted for much more than him. Plus both have a much bigger upside through longetivity than him.

Ravi Shastri, in the post-match discussion, called it a flipper too - Ian Chappell corrected him, and said it was a "skidder" - whatever that is.

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain