Dravid and Laxman run Australia down, again, in Sydney earlier this year © AFP

Somewhere along the way, around the mid-1990s, Australia grew sick and tired of beating the pulp out of South Africa, England and the rest. They needed - and deserved - rivals who would bring the best out of them and they would bring the best out of: an opponent against whom history would define Australia's great teams. Rivals they would genuinely respect and desperately want to beat. West Indies were in gradual decline, England and South Africa too meek to stand up, Pakistan too inconsistent, and Sri Lanka and New Zealand played too sparingly.

The call was answered, both surprisingly and expectedly, by India. Surprising because India have hardly ever been the second-best Test side in the world. Expected because India had begun to gather together all the ingredients needed for a healthy rivalry with the best team in the world.

Over the last 12 years India have been the only team to have challenged Australia consistently enough for their contests to be termed a rivalry, unlike the Ashes or India v Pakistan, say. It has had all the ingredients. There has been great cricket - think VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid in Kolkata, think Harbhajan Singh in Kolkata and Chennai, think Ricky Ponting and Dravid in Adelaide, think Sachin Tendulkar in Sydney, think Michael Clarke in Bangalore. There have been extremely close matches, and dramatic subplots, in the form of captains who couldn't stand each other, high-profile farewells, colourful characters, sledging rows, and one near-diplomatic crisis. They have stretched each other, the umpires involved (who know how much rides on every decision), and at times the playing conditions.

Saving the best for Oz
Why should India produce their best against Australia, often bouncing back from pedestrian efforts against other teams to do so? The only year they have finished at No. 2 in the ICC's Test ratings was 2006, a year in which they didn't even play Australia. Before they beat Australia in 1997-98, they drew twice against Sri Lanka and lost to West Indies and South Africa. Before Steve Waugh's farewell series, where India retained the Border-Gavaskar Trophy, they lost to New Zealand away and managed a drawn series against them at home. Immediately after the exciting series in Australia earlier this year, India struggled to draw at home against South Africa. In each case, apart from the one disastrous series in 1999-2000, India have always given Australia a hard time on the field. Twice they stopped the victory march of the conquerors at 16 in a row, in Kolkata in 2000-01, and in Perth earlier this year.

India have saved their best for Australia, the first box that needs to be ticked for any rivalry to thrive. They cherish the fight, and in this case the fight cherishes them too. Historically Australia have hated losing to England and New Zealand, but on the evidence of the recent exchanges, India may have usurped those teams. And with their new-found aversion to losing against India, Australia have shown they enjoy the contests.

Well begun at home
India are good at winning in India, which means they know what it is like to beat Australia. When in the nineties Australia managed to beat most teams in their own backyard, the Final Frontier still remained. "Australia's performances overseas are not matched by many teams," says John Buchanan, whose first tryst with India was in the 2000-01 series. India had tasted success against Australia at home before that, in 1996 and 1997-98, and when under Sourav Ganguly and John Wright they became better travellers, they were hungry for more.

That don't impress me much
When Australia visited in 2000-01 they didn't know what the wall felt like: they had rarely been pushed to it for two years. They had just completed a 5-0 drubbing of West Indies, of which Steve Waugh wrote in Out of My Comfort Zone, "That wasn't how Test-match cricket was supposed to feel." All Australia were fighting at that point was themselves - and the complacency that creeps in at such times. Yet there was one team that plain refused to acknowledge their supremacy.

Waugh mentions in his book how Ganguly managed to get under the Aussies' skins, putting the boot on the other foot. "They have won most of their games at home, beaten West Indies 5-0 at home, beaten India, Pakistan at home," Ganguly said in an interview before the series. "They toured here in '96 and lost. They toured here in '98 and lost. So obviously that's going to be at the back of their mind."

"You had to give him an 'A' for effort in his attempt to annoy us," Waugh wrote, "and in particular me. It worked to a certain extent." It helps that India are a naturally aggressive side. That they don't give Australia a headstart.

Ganguly got India to think big. He believed Australia could be beaten, and he got his team to believe that. There were men in the side who would stand up against Australia's intimidatory tactics, so that when it came to the crunch Australia were not the predetermined winners. If others could choke against Australia, Australia could also choke against India - like they did in the final innings in Kolkata in 2001.

Freakshow
To think big was one thing, to do big was another. India, importantly, has had players who have looked forward to the contest and have performed beyond themselves against Australia.

Australia are a work of committee, more so now that Shane Warne is gone; they usually have everything down to a plan. They are professional, efficient and well-prepared. They are vulnerable against individual brilliance, the sort one doesn't get to see everyday. South Africa try to play Australia's game, and fail; India try to play their own game, and fight. It was Laxman and Dravid in Kolkata and Adelaide, Harbhajan in the 2000-01 series, Virender Sehwag in Chennai, and Tendulkar in Sydney. Ganguly stood up to Australia too, with that century under immense pressure in Brisbane. It has to be more than a coincidence that the freakish, once-in-a-generation type performances from India all tend to come against Australia.

And it's not just the Indians. It has usually taken individual efforts from left field (Brian Lara in 1998-99, Kevin Pietersen at times) or the unknown (the surprising early reverse swing in England in 2005) to topple Australia. Perth this year has perhaps been the only exception.

"It's actually a back-handed compliment. All it shows is - it's a credit to them - it takes special performances to beat them," says Dravid, who has produced two such and been close witness to a few others by Laxman, Tendulkar and Ganguly.

What is it about Australia that inspires these efforts? "To be honest," says Dravid, "personally speaking, we don't go out thinking: this is Australia and I need to raise my game. Perhaps there is a huge sense of personal satisfaction because they have been such a competitive team for the last two decades. Perhaps you know subconsciously that when you perform against Australia there will be a high visibility."

It has also helped that the composition of the two teams hasn't changed drastically over the years. That has helped the development of one-on-one rivalries. The England side that played in Australia in 2006-07 bore little resemblance to the one that saved the Ashes legend from becoming a myth two years ago. There was no Simon Jones to torment Michael Clarke. On the other hand, Harbhajan Singh still gets to have a go at Ponting.

Change your enemy
Apart from raising their own game (Laxman averages 50.63 against Australia, as opposed to 43.79 overall; Tendulkar's corresponding figures are 56 and 54.23, Harbhajan's 28.81 and 30.87), India have also managed to pull some of the Australians down. Once a team reduces Shane Warne to paying 47 runs for every wicket he takes, it wins more than half the battle. It is a message that has been strong enough to push the Australians out of their comfort zone.

Battles within wars: Harbhajan v Ponting is among the key rivalries that India v Australia has spawned over the years © AFP

The last time Australia toured India, in 2003-04, they gave up their preferred mode of out-and-out attack and employ - quite successfully as it turned out - a defensive approach. That India got Australia to change their game is a credit to them; that India did not then manage to get a step ahead is a discredit.

What makes Australia play a game they are not used to is a mix of conspicuous disregard and self-belief from the opposition.

"The bowling attack has been important for us," says Dravid. "We know that we have the capability to take 20 wickets. Not only on turners, but even if the opposition gives us tailor-made tracks. Actually we have won a lot of our away Test matches on tracks that have assisted bowlers.

"We are not just looking to draw Tests against Australia, we are looking to win. It is a big switch."

A grudging respect
Buchanan agrees with Dravid's assessment. "India is a very strong side in terms of quality players," he says. "They have a strong batting side, backed up by good bowling and strong leadership. In terms of all-round strength, it is one of the sides - perhaps the side - that can challenge Australia."

Australia have started acknowledging, grudgingly perhaps, that they are in for a long fight whenever they face India. While Waugh criticised Ganguly, he didn't miss the fact that Ganguly was a proud man who injected toughness into his side. "I know that they know they are in a contest," says Dravid. "I think they enjoy that. For a lot of time, Australia has had it really easy against many teams. Probably we are the only team over the years where they have gone in knowing there is competition."

But despite all that has been going for India, Australia have been the better team in this rivalry. Dravid acknowledges that. "Let's be fair, even though we have competed, they have played some really good cricket. They have won at home, they won against us last time, they hold the Border-Gavaskar Trophy."

Interesting times await the rivalry. Australia are a team in transition, India won't be able to resist change for long. The new personnel will have a legacy to carry. The two teams owe each other a lot: they are as much partners as they are rivals. But it suits all concerned that the moment they are on the field, the gloves are off.

Sidharth Monga is a staff writer at Cricinfo

© Cricinfo

Comments