It was hard to wish against Dravid too. Here was someone struggling with form, someone who had had a glorious run in 2003-04. You must feel for someone who isn’t able to get the ball off the square. He was on 18 for 40 balls, by the end of which the crowd were egging him on fervently. Every leave and block was met with disappointed sighs and every ball was preceded by an eager cheer. It was almost as if he was on 99.

The 19th run was followed by an ecstatic applause and he responded with a sporting lift of the bat. There was an embarrassed smile that accompanied that gesture, one that said, ‘Thanks for understanding the struggle’.

**

Umpires, it seems, don’t share this desire for competition. They need to be unbiased, of course, but why is it that the weaker side invariably gets the worse of the decisions? I have no scientific basis for making this statement but have noticed the trend over time.

Or maybe they seem weaker because they can’t make up for the errors. Symonds hurt India, adding more than a 100 after he should have been out. With every run Symonds scores the umpiring error gets magnified. Had Symonds been out for 50, you could guarantee that the Indian board wouldn’t have been too intent on lodging a complaint with the ICC. It’s only because he got so many more that it became a concern in the first place.

**

On a related topic veteran journalists and commentators in this country have been having a hard time for a while. It must be tough to write on a victory every day. The adjectives must have run out by now. It’s also a contrast of sorts, after writing on defeat after defeat in the ‘80s they’ve had to do the reverse. It must be similar to West Indian scribes: from celebration in the ‘80s to criticism now. Is it easier to write on defeats or victories? Whisper it if you must, but defeats open up a number of more possibilities.