Indian team reached Australia in December 1985. This was perhaps the weakest Australian team India was facing in Australia. Just a month earlier, Richard Hadlee has claimed 33 wickets in the three-test series, leading New Zealand to their first ever overseas series victory in Australia. Therefore, India too could fancy their chances of a maiden series win down under.
The first test in Adelaide was drawn due to rain. David Boon and Greg Ritchie both scored hundreds. Ritchie was considered to be a great find for Australia, a find considered so great that he could replace Greg Chappell. Kapil Dev took eight wickets in the lone Australian innings before Sunil Gavaskar got his first hundred after claiming the record for most hundreds. He competed 9,000 test runs and carried his bat too.
The Melbourne test was drawn by the efforts of Greg Matthews who stretched Australia’s first innings to 250 plus and by Allan Border who, in the second innings, batted for over an hour with the last man to delay India’s victory, a victory still possible but eventually denied by rain. India needed only 125 and they were halfway when it rained for the rest of the final day- how cruel that was! Perhaps, the greatest opportunity to win a series in Australia was lost. In Sydney again, India’s mountain of runs wasn’t enough to force a victory. India needed three wickets on the last session but failed to wrap up. Australia escaped a 2-0 defeat.
It was the limited overs series that shocked me though. Australia appeared a different team altogether in the series that involved New Zealand too, with Richard Hadlee playing in all matches. India began well, by defeating New Zealand in a high scoring game but lost matches to Australia, whose team was in the rebuilding phase. Players like David Boon, Dean Jones and Steve Waugh, who made debut in the test series, were unleashed. India found their vigor tough to handle. India reached the finals by outmaneuvering New Zealand in a close contest but lost both the finals to Australia. I was left confused with the result – despite dominating the tests, why couldn’t India defeat them?
There was one mammoth score – a 295, including 125 from Geoff Marsh. Besides, there was a huge loss handed to Australia by New Zealand. The margin was eye-popping – 206 runs!
I learnt something about New Zealand, their players and Richard Hadlee. I found an edition of Sportstar had all the scorecards of the tests in which he demolished Australia by claiming 33 wickets – 15 in the first test when he claimed 9 in the first innings and caught the other batsman, thereby handing the debutant bowler his first wicket. He could have easily dropped the catch and claimed all ten wickets, but great players are far from records. That was my learning.
Martin Crowe too attracted me. He had scored 188 in 1985 against West Indies, so he was one of the most talked about batsman. His elegance was charming, making him a right-handed version of Davis Gower. Besides Richard Hadlee, he was the only player who mattered for New Zealand, though others too performed, but a genuine lack of ability was conspicuous.
For many weeks after the second final was played in Sydney in early February, Sportstar and Sportsworld continued to cover Australia’s victory.
In April that year, happened a tournament which changed the course of Indian cricket. A lot of viewers like me painfully remember the final of the Australasia cup which not only led to many suicides but also communal discord.
India won a low scoring, dull event called Asia cup 1984- first cricket tournament organized in Sharjah. It was led primarily by Asif Iqbal, former Pakistan captain who was seen as a “soft” figure by Indian media because he had led Pakistan in a lost series in India. After Asia cup, he was desperate to expand the events to outside Asian teams. In Oct 1985, West Indies had participated but England had sent a C or D level team. New Zealand was yet to play in Sharjah.
The format of the Australasia cup was odd. Whereas modern organizers look to increase the number of matches, the series involving five teams had just five matches, which panned out in an even bizarre manner. India played New Zealand while Australia played Pakistan in qualifiers to semi-final. The winners of these matches and the “better loser” of these matches would qualify to the semifinal. The “better winner” of these two would play the “best loser” in one semifinal while the “worst winner” of the qualifiers would play Sri Lanka, who were given special treatment because they had won the Asia cup (India had not competed in that). Thoroughly illogical!
More (il)logic was applied to determine the best loser. As I recall now, the criterion assumed 15 runs as equivalent to one wicket. So, between two losses of 55 runs and 4 wickets, team losing by 55 runs would qualify.
As it turned out, India battled hard to defeat New Zealand by 3 wickets while Pakistan defeated Australia by nine wickets. In the semifinals, India overcame Sri Lanka and Pakistan trounced New Zealand by bundling them for 70 odd runs. The stage was set for an epic final.
Comments