BOMBAY, 9 January 2004 — A magnificent batting performance notwithstanding, India once again choked in the end and failed to earn a historic Test series triumph over Australia, indubitably the best team in the world?

For a side that dominated the fourth and final Test, right from the moment skipper Saurav Ganguly won an important toss to the last ball bowled in this fascinating see-saw battle, India just could not deal the final knockout punch.

However much the critics and the lay public may bring sentiments into play to describe the draw as a fitting tribute to Australian captain, Steve Waugh, who ended a fabulous 18-year career on his home ground with a match-saving knock in his last Test, it was quite clearly a match of missed opportunities for India.

In the end, just as the Australians were jubilant, as much in saluting their greatest captain as in saving a Test match, the Indians were crestfallen that they could not eventually win a match that was well within their grasp.

The defeat, highly disappointing as it was, must once again lead us to some serious introspection.

Before we look back on the entire four-Test series, in which the two teams were evenly matched, let us first analyze the final match that had provided the platform for India to win the first-ever Test series in Australia.

India, reputedly the strongest batting side in the world, realized its full potential at Sydney and the domination was so great that Australia’s main strike bowler Brett Lee became the first Australian bowler in 106 years to be hit for over 200 runs in an innings. The happy tidings were made more meaningful with Sachin Tendulkar returning to tremendous form.

Hereabout India once again exposes its inherent imbalance. The bowling attack, weakened by the absence of injured Zaheer Khan and Harbhajan Singh, found itself terribly wanting in penetration, except for just one man Anil Kumble, and to a lesser extent, young Irfan Pathan, playing in only his second Test match at the age of 19.

Thanks to a cushion of 700 runs on the board, India did manage to restrict the Aussies within the follow-on margin. The lead was less than what the tourists may have anticipated, yet it gave them the option of asking the home team to bat again immediately. But for strange reasons, the follow-on was not imposed. Not only was the stranglehold loosened, but also the psychological advantage was frittered away. No side, certainly not as formidable a team as the present Australian side, would have ever relished the prospects of following on.

And when India decided to bat a second time with a lead of 231 runs, there was little sense of urgency in enlarging that advantage for an early declaration. Two debatable points emerged at this stage. The first was that, having taken the first innings into a third morning, did India not declare the innings earlier than they should have? Once the 700-mark was topped, Sourav Ganguly applied the closure.

By extending the batting further, when the going was so good, India would have insured against batting again and thus given itself more time to get at the Australian batsmen, who would be laboring under the ignominy of a follow on, something which they haven’t experienced in recent times.

Kumble was a solitary reaper with just mild support from Pathan. In view of this weakness, India ought to have completely batted Australia out of the match.

As it turned out to be, Australia were in with a chance of having a go at a target of 443 in the last innings. Ganguly handled his bowling in a most unimaginative manner.

With as imposing a total as 700 on the board and with a limitation of only four regular bowlers, two of whom appeared ineffective, he surprisingly did not utilize his part-time bowlers in Tendulkar and Virendra Sehwag in the first innings, when Simon Katich and Jason Gillespie were locked in a century partnership. Australia would have been dismissed for much lower total than the ultimate 474.

Even in the second innings, the two were brought on to bowl when Australia had as good as made the match safe. There was a flurry in the last few overs when fortunes fluctuated from one side to the other, but that only provided a fizz to one of the best-contested Test matches in recent years.

With India winning at Adelaide and Australia at Melbourne, the series was drawn. India had fared far better than most had expected. It is unfortunate that they could not win the series.

Reposing faith in youth is always a good policy. While the inclusion of Irfan Pathan was fully justified, it was sad to note that the overall performance of the youngest member of the squad, 18-year old Parthiv Patel, fell far below expectations.