Adelaide 1960-61: A Test Match Without a Final Word

The match ended not with resolution but with defiance, its final moments echoing the drama of the opening Test. West Indies were denied a series lead not by collapse or chance, but by the stubborn refusal of a last-wicket partnership that transformed survival into resistance.

When Kline joined MacKay, the arithmetic was cruelly clear. An hour and fifty minutes remained; the target was irrelevant. Australia were not chasing runs, only time. Yet almost immediately, fate hovered. Sobers, stationed improbably close, four yards from the bat, leapt in confident appeal as MacKay edged Worrell. The cry was certain, the moment electric. But Egar’s finger stayed down. It was the turning point of the match. From that reprieve grew not merely survival but audacity: 66 runs added, time extinguished, and West Indian certainty dissolved into disbelief.

This was a Test rich in incident, almost overloaded with narrative. Gibbs’ hat-trick in Australia’s first innings—the first inflicted upon them this century- was not merely a statistical novelty but a symbolic rupture. Australia, so often immune to such collapses, fell suddenly from 281 for five to 281 for eight, undone in a blur of precision and panic. That collapse was sharpened by contrast with Kanhai’s mastery: a hundred in each innings, strokes flowing with a fluency that seemed to mock the contest itself.

West Indies had set the tone early. Winning the toss, they lost Hunte cheaply but found freedom on a pitch that neither hurried nor deceived. The partnership between Kanhai and Worrell—107 runs in just over an hour- was a statement of authority. Kanhai’s first hundred came in barely two hours, ornamented with sixes and boundaries that reflected not recklessness but command. Only Benaud, with his patient, intelligent spin, imposed restraint; his five wickets for 96 restoring balance to an otherwise fluent innings.

Australia’s reply mirrored the match’s volatility. Favell fell early, McDonald dug in doggedly, and Simpson, after flirting with disaster, found his feet and his rhythm. Yet MacKay, uneasy throughout, succumbed leg-before to Gibbs, and the innings seemed destined to unravel completely. Benaud, calm amid chaos, and Hoare, unexpectedly resilient, shepherded the score to 366—respectable, but insufficient to seize control.

If Australia hoped the second West Indian innings might offer reprieve, it did not. Their bowling lacked menace, and Kanhai resumed his dominion, completing a rare and magnificent double hundred in a Test match. With Hunte, he added 163, a record second-wicket stand for West Indies against Australia, batting that combined elegance with inevitability. When Worrell declared, the challenge was stark: 460 runs in a little over six and a half hours. It was less an invitation than a provocation.

Australia faltered immediately. Three wickets fell for 31, and the final day opened under a cloud of apprehension. A resolute stand by O’Neill and Burge briefly steadied the ship, offering hope until almost lunchtime. But as wickets fell and time drained away, defeat seemed only postponed.

Then came resistance of a rarer kind. MacKay and Kline did not merely defend; they fought. Stroke by stroke, minute by minute, they transformed desperation into resolve. For the final over, Worrell turned to Hall, seeking one last breach. It did not come. MacKay survived, and with him, Australia escaped.

The match ended not as a draw of convenience, but as a contest unfinished, its legacy defined by courage at the margins, by moments when certainty was denied, and by the enduring truth that in Test cricket, survival itself can be a form of victory.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar

Underarm Bowling 1981: The Ball That Rolled Away Cricket’s Soul

The series stood delicately balanced at 1–1. New Zealand had taken the first match, Australia the second. The third final of the Benson & Hedges World Series Cup was meant to decide momentum; instead, it interrogated the meaning of cricket itself.

Even before the last ball, the afternoon had begun to curdle.

Greg Chappell, Australia’s captain and fulcrum, had already been at the centre of controversy. On 58, he drove high and flat into the Melbourne outfield. Martin Snedden ran, dived, and claimed a catch that looked, and later proved, clean. Richie Benaud, watching live, called it “one of the best catches I have ever seen in my life.” Slow-motion replays reinforced the verdict. Snedden had cupped the ball above the turf.

The umpires disagreed.

In an era before television evidence could intervene, the decision stood. Some believed Chappell should have accepted Snedden’s word, invoking cricket’s old covenant of honour., Chappell insisted he was uncertain and within his rights to wait. He went on to score 90, before later walking when caught in a near-identical fashion, having seen the ball clearly held.

Already, the game had exposed a tension that would later snap: between what the law allowed and what the game expected.

Arithmetic, Exhaustion, and the Slippage of Control

Australia’s management of the closing overs betrayed an unusual disarray. Dennis Lillee, their premier bowler, completed his ten overs with the dismissal of John Parker. Richie Benaud later accused Chappell of “getting his sums wrong” by not reserving Lillee for the final over. Graeme Beard’s overs were similarly miscounted after a mid-field conference involving Chappell, Lillee, Kim Hughes and Rod Marsh failed to reconcile the arithmetic.

Trevor Chappell was left with the last over. New Zealand required 15.

Bruce Edgar, stranded at the non-striker’s end on 102 not out—an innings later called “the most overlooked century of all time “could only watch.

Trevor’s over was chaos in miniature: a boundary, Hadlee trapped lbw, two hurried doubles, Ian Smith bowled attempting a desperate heave. Suddenly, improbably, New Zealand needed six to tie. Seven to win was impossible. Six was not.

Under the laws of the time, a tie meant a replay.

The match was alive.

The Delivery

Greg Chappell, exhausted, overstimulated, and fielding the residue of a punishing season, made a decision that would outlive everything else he achieved in the game.

He instructed his brother to bowl underarm.

It was legal. That, ultimately, would be its most damning defence.

Underarm bowling existed in the laws like a fossil—permitted but obsolete, technically alive but spiritually extinct. It was against the regulations of several domestic one-day competitions, widely understood as unsporting, and never used in any serious context.

The umpires were informed. The batsmen were warned.

Trevor Chappell rolled the ball along the pitch like a bowls wood.

Brian McKechnie blocked it out, then flung his bat away in fury. Australia won by six runs. The New Zealanders walked off not defeated, but affronted.

In the confusion, Dennis Lillee remained fractionally outside the fielding circle. Technically, the delivery should have been a no-ball. Had the umpires noticed, the match would have been tied and replayed. They did not.

The law had spoken. The game had not.

Immediate Condemnation

Ian Chappell, commentating, instinctively cried out: *“No, Greg, no, you can’t do that.”*

Richie Benaud called it “disgraceful… one of the worst things I have ever seen done on a cricket field.”

The reaction crossed borders and institutions. New Zealand Prime Minister Robert Muldoon described it as “the most disgusting incident I can recall in the history of cricket,” branding it “an act of true cowardice.” Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser called it “contrary to the traditions of the game.”

In the New Zealand dressing room, silence curdled into rage. Mark Burgess smashed a teacup against the wall. “Too angry for words,” recalled Warren Lees.

Cricket, usually insulated from politics, had forced its way into parliament.

Context, Not Excuse

Years later, Greg Chappell offered an explanation, not absolution. He spoke of exhaustion, of being mentally unfit to lead, of a season so relentless he had asked to leave the field mid-innings. Rod Marsh confirmed it. Chappell had spent overs on the boundary, overwhelmed by heat and pressure.

Chappell insisted the delivery was not about securing victory, Australia had already won, but about protest. A cry for attention against a system that, in his view, was grinding players down without listening.

If so, it was the worst possible articulation.

Cricket has always tolerated cunning. It has never forgiven contempt.

Afterlife of a Moment

The underarm incident changed the law. The ICC banned the delivery in one-day cricket, declaring it “not within the spirit of the game.” Few law changes have been so swift or so moral.

The memory lingered longer.

Chappell was booed relentlessly two days later, then scored a match-winning 87 to secure the series. In New Zealand, bowls woods were rolled onto the field when he batted. The incident entered folklore, parody, cinema, advertising, and comedy. Glenn McGrath later mimed an underarm delivery in a Twenty20, prompting Billy Bowden to theatrically flash a mock red card.

Brian McKechnie bore no lasting grudge, though he wished the moment would fade. Trevor Chappell, forever reduced to that one delivery, learned to laugh along. Greg Chappell accepted the stain would never lift.

Why It Still Matters

This was not an act of cheating. That distinction is important and insufficient.

It was worse.

It was an assertion that legality was enough.

Cricket, more than most games, has always rested on an unwritten compact: that the law sets the boundary, but honour defines the field. The underarm delivery shattered that balance. It revealed what happens when calculation replaces conscience, when winning becomes detached from meaning.

The match itself was forgettable. The moment was not.

On one February afternoon in 1981, the law won, the game lost, and cricket learned, painfully, that some victories cost more than defeat.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar

When Collapse Refused to End: Karachi and the Art of Pakistan’s Reversal

Test cricket is rarely impatient. It prefers erosion to explosion, pressure accumulated grain by grain, outcomes disguised as endurance. Drama, when it arrives, is usually earned late.

Karachi, on that grey morning, ignored the tradition entirely.

The pitch wore an unfamiliar green, the light sagged under cloud, the air hinted at movement. Yet even these omens failed to predict what unfolded. Irfan Pathan began the match as a bowler on probation: two wickets in the series, increasingly readable, emblematic of India’s thinning pace menace.

Six deliveries later, reputations were irrelevant.

Salman Butt feathered to slip. Younis Khan was trapped by angle and indecision. Mohammad Yousuf, the axis of Pakistan’s batting, the calm around which chaos usually rotated, watched his stumps dismantled by late, venomous movement.

A hat-trick. The first over. Pakistan 0 for 3.

It was unprecedented. Even Chaminda Vaas’s famous hat-trick in 1999 had allowed the match to breathe first. This did not. This was rupture, not rarity, an opening that felt less like advantage and more like execution.

And yet, the match refused to die.

Kamran Akmal and the Logic of Survival

At 39 for 6, Pakistan were not playing for dominance or even respectability. They were negotiating survival. Fifty runs looked ambitious; the crowd prepared for surrender.

Into this vacuum walked Kamran Akmal, a cricketer better known as a punchline than a pillar. Volatile behind the stumps, erratic with the bat, he was an unlikely custodian of rescue. Which is precisely why his innings mattered.

Akmal did not answer chaos with counter-chaos. He answered it with thought.

By retreating deeper in his crease, he delayed commitment, blunted swing, and reduced deviation. It was not dramatic, just intelligent. In Test cricket, intelligence is resistance. Where others lunged and failed, Akmal waited. Where panic had consumed the top order, he imposed sequence.

His 113 from 148 balls was not aggression masquerading as courage. It was calibration. Partnerships with Abdul Razzaq and Shoaib Akhtar did more than rebuild a total; they restored balance. Momentum, once violently skewed, was slowly reclaimed.

It was the thirteenth century of the series. But unlike the others, statements of superiority, this was architecture under siege. Not dominance, but defiance.

Three Fast Bowlers, Three Different Truths

Pakistan’s recovery was not confined to batting. It was formalised by a bowling unit that understood asymmetry, how difference, not uniformity, wins Test matches.

Mohammad Asif, barely introduced to the format, bowled as though untouched by consequence. His height created awkward angles; his wrist position delivered movement that arrived too late for correction. Dravid fell to precision, Laxman to deception. There was no hostility, no theatre, only inevitability.

Abdul Razzaq, long reduced to the label of “utility,” rediscovered his primary function. His pace was modest, but his control absolute. Length became discipline, seam a suggestion rather than a threat. On a ground where he had once taken his only five-for, he repeated the feat—this time with clarity and authority.

And then there was Shoaib Akhtar.

Not so much a bowler as a disturbance.

He did not operate in spells; he arrived in bursts, like weather systems. He rushed Tendulkar, bruised Yuvraj, dismantled Dravid and Sehwag. His impact cannot be captured by wickets alone. He distorted footwork, compressed decision-making, and accelerated error. He was the fear that magnified everything around him.

Asif and Razzaq shared fourteen wickets. Shoaib supplied the menace that made those wickets inevitable.

India and the Cost of Rigidity

India, by contrast, revealed an uncomfortable inflexibility. Beyond Pathan’s opening eruption and Ganguly’s intermittent interventions, their bowling plans stagnated. As the pitch softened, so did their threat. Movement disappeared; imagination did not replace it.

The statistics are unforgiving. All seven of Pakistan’s top-order batsmen crossed fifty, only the second time in Test history such collective success had occurred, the first in 1934.

Younis Khan and Mohammad Yousuf extended their quiet mastery, assembling yet another century partnership, their fourth of the series. But the most resonant innings belonged to Faisal Iqbal.

Absent from Test cricket for three years and burdened by the inheritance of Javed Miandad’s name, he finally authored an identity of his own. His maiden hundred was built on assurance rather than defiance, secure back-foot play, measured front-foot intent. Where Miandad had thrived on instinctive rebellion, Faisal offered composure shaped by modern precision.

Pakistan surged beyond 600. The declaration felt less tactical than ceremonial.

India were set 607. Not a target, but a conclusion.

Collapse, Resistance, and the Shape of Meaning

India survived just over four sessions across both innings. The collapses were symmetrical: 56 for 4, then 74 for 4. These were not accidents of form but structural failures.

Yuvraj Singh’s century burned brilliantly against the wreckage. It was the fifteenth hundred of the series, equalling a long-standing record. Yet it felt solitary, artistry without reinforcement, expression without consequence.

When Razzaq claimed the final wicket, Pakistan had won by 341 runs, their largest victory by margin. A match that began in shock ended in command.

Beyond the Scorecard

This Test was not simply about skill. It was about reversal.

It was about marginal figures stepping into authority: Akmal through intellect, Asif through precision, and Razzaq through rediscovered purpose. It was about Shoaib Akhtar, not as a wicket-taker, but as a force that bent the game’s emotional climate.

It was also a reminder to India: dominance is conditional. Even the most vaunted batting orders fracture when challenged by variety and intent. Even favourable surfaces demand imagination.

And for cricket itself, it reaffirmed an old truth. Pakistan do not merely play matches, they transform them.

From disaster, they do not retreat. They reorganise.

And sometimes, they turn collapse into legend.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar

Clash of the Titans: India vs. Pakistan, Chennai 1999 - Pakistan Script Dramatic Victory, Tendulkar's Heroics Fail

Three weeks before the highly anticipated cricket series was set to commence, an act of calculated sabotage unfolded at Delhi’s historic Ferozeshah Kotla Stadium. Approximately 25 supporters of the Shiv Sena, a right-wing political party wielding significant influence in Maharashtra, desecrated the pitch, effectively rendering it unplayable. This stadium, originally designated as the venue for the first Test, became a symbol of the fraught intersection between sport and politics. 

Barely a fortnight later, another incendiary incident shook Indian cricket. Vandals infiltrated the BCCI headquarters in Mumbai, wreaking havoc on property that included the nation’s cherished 1983 World Cup trophy. The desecration of this emblem of national pride evoked widespread anguish. "I cried all night," lamented Kirti Azad, a member of that victorious squad, his words underscoring the emotional toll of such an affront. The fallout prompted officials to reshuffle the venues for the first and second Tests, a logistical decision emblematic of the precariousness of the situation. 

Meanwhile, Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray, unrepentant and resolute, boasted of dispatching party operatives to Chennai to assess the security arrangements for the series. His rhetoric escalated ominously, with threats of deploying suicide squads and even releasing venomous snakes onto the field, a chilling metaphor for the venom coursing through the veins of political dissent. 

The tension reached a grim crescendo on January 24, just four days before the match. The Times of India in Chennai reported the tragic death of Palani, a 40-year-old autorickshaw driver who had self-immolated in protest against Pakistan’s participation in the series. His sacrifice, though extreme, laid bare the raw, visceral emotions the series had provoked among certain sections of the populace. 

As the match approached, the atmosphere in Chennai was suffused with unease. Journalists found themselves barred from entering the stadium until late on the eve of the game, a restriction emblematic of the heightened security apparatus. Photographers operated under strict surveillance, and parking zones around the stadium were subject to unprecedented scrutiny. “For the first time, every car parked in the stadium required a pass bearing the police commissioner’s seal,” recalled Keshav Sriraman, a member of the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association’s executive committee. Police officers stood vigil over the pitch, their unyielding presence a stark reminder of the fragile line between celebration and chaos. 

The Contest at Chennai Begins

The opening day of the Test saw Pakistan electing to bat, but their innings began on a precarious note, teetering at 91 for five. Amid the ruins, Yousuf Youhana and Moin Khan staged a gritty counterattack, each crafting resilient half-centuries that steadied the innings. Wasim Akram added a defiant 38, his strokes marked by characteristic audacity, before Anil Kumble, in a masterful display of precision and guile, dismantled the tail to claim figures of six for 70. 

India’s reply was buoyed by the debutant Sadagoppan Ramesh, who, alongside VVS Laxman, stitched together a brisk opening stand of 48 on his home ground. However, Wasim Akram, ever the wily campaigner, struck twice in quick succession after the evening's break, dismissing both openers and tilting the balance. Saqlain Mushtaq then began weaving his web, enticing Tendulkar into an uncharacteristic misjudgment. Charging down the track, Tendulkar mis-hit a looping delivery to backward point for a third-ball duck, an anticlimactic dismissal that underscored Saqlain’s mastery. 

Despite these setbacks, Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly anchored India’s innings with poise, guiding their team to a slender 16-run lead. Yet, the spinners remained relentless. Shahid Afridi, better known for his exploits in limited-overs cricket, showcased his versatility with the ball, claiming the final three wickets with his leg-breaks, a precursor to his heroics with the bat. 

The third day belonged unequivocally to Afridi. Renowned for his blistering 37-ball century in one-day cricket, he defied his reputation as a mere dasher by constructing an innings of extraordinary discipline and flair. Over five hours at the crease, Afridi compiled a majestic 141, laced with 21 boundaries and three towering sixes. His partnerships with Inzamam-ul-Haq and Salim Malik seemed to place Pakistan in an unassailable position at 275 for four. 

But the game, like fate, can be capricious. After tea, the narrative took a dramatic turn. Joshi’s dismissal of Malik triggered a collapse of epic proportions. Venkatesh Prasad, in a spell of breathtaking precision, tore through the lower order with five wickets in 18 balls, conceding not a single run. His final figures of six for 33 stood as a career-best, encapsulating a spell that transformed the match. 

India faced a daunting target of 271, a total that loomed large against the weight of history. Their highest successful fourth-innings chase at home—a nervy 256 for eight against Australia in 1964-65—seemed an eternity away. As the players departed the field, the air was thick with anticipation, the outcome poised delicately between possibility and improbability. 

Waqar Younis Strikes, Sachin Tendulkar Stands Firm

 As the shadows lengthened late on the third evening, India found themselves at a precarious 6 for 2, chasing a daunting 271. The atmosphere in the stands was a volatile mix of hope and apprehension when a helmeted Sachin Tendulkar emerged from the pavilion. VVS Laxman, his brief stay at the crease cut short by a venomous in-ducker from Waqar Younis, was still within earshot as Tendulkar strode to the middle. The crowd, a sea of rising bodies and fervent voices, seemed to channel a collective plea: “Score if you can, but for heaven’s sake, don’t get out.”

The first two deliveries Tendulkar faced were dots, but they carried a weight far beyond their numerical insignificance. Years later, he would recount this moment in *Playing It My Way: My Autobiography*: "Waqar welcomed me to the crease with a couple of bouncers and even walked up to me on one occasion to say, 'Ball nazar aayi?' (Did you see the ball?) I didn't say a thing, but my eye contact was enough to give him the message. I hardly moved, and he was soon walking back to his bowling mark. I remember muttering to myself, 'You are not bowling that quick, my friend.'”

The tension in the air was almost tangible, and when Tendulkar finally opened his account with a well-judged two, the crowd exhaled in unison, a brief respite from their collective anxiety. Four more dot balls followed, each one steadying the nerves, until Tendulkar produced a moment of sublime artistry. Facing Waqar, he unfurled a cover drive that seemed to transcend the game itself. The movement was poetry in motion: the right leg back and across, the left leg hovering momentarily above the ground, the bat meeting the ball with a crisp, resonant crack. The red blur scorched the grass, and as the left leg returned to the turf, Tendulkar completed the stroke with a delicate sideways hop, a knight in shining armour prancing across the diagonal.Ball nazar aayi?

The shot elicited a spontaneous outpouring of admiration. "What a shot," Harsha Bhogle exclaimed on commentary, his voice tinged with awe, carrying the moment into millions of homes. It was a shot that encapsulated not just technique but defiance, a declaration that the battle was far from over. 

As the day drew to a close, India stood at 40 for 2, still 231 runs adrift. The target loomed large, but with Tendulkar at the crease, hope flickered, fragile yet persistent, like a candle resisting the wind. 

The Thrilling Fourth Day – Story of Drama, Heartbreak and Joy

On the warm morning of January 31, 1999, the MA Chidambaram Stadium in Chennai stood as a cauldron of tension and anticipation. Half an hour before the fourth day’s play, a police cordon encircled the pitch, a fortress of security amid the fervent crowd. Among the spectators, a group chanted provocatively in Hindi, *“Harega bhai harega, Pakistan harega”*—a linguistic affront in Tamil Nadu, as pointed as the taunt itself. The air carried a mix of salty breeze and the faint, pungent aroma from the nearby Buckingham Canal, a reminder of the city's unique character. After 12 long years, an Indo-Pak Test on Indian soil was poised to deliver high drama. 

This was the ground where Sachin Tendulkar had orchestrated symphonies with his bat. In 1993, he had dismantled England here; in 1998, he had reduced Shane Warne to a spectator, slog-sweeping the leg-spinner’s around-the-stumps delivery into the midwicket stands. Ian Chappell, then on commentary, would later declare that shot a turning point in the series. Now, playing his fifth Test against Pakistan and his first as a fully realized batsman, Tendulkar had entered the fray with a mission. 

But the wily Pakistanis, led by the indomitable Wasim Akram, were not inclined to surrender. On the second day, Tendulkar’s attempt to dominate Saqlain Mushtaq ended in ignominy—a mistimed loft off a doosra, ballooning to backward point. Out for a third-ball duck, he left the stage under a cloud of disappointment. 

Day four brought another chapter of attrition. The crowd roared as Wasim Akram unleashed a spell of artistry that seemed to transcend the limitations of a subcontinental dust track. Against Rahul Dravid, the ball danced to his command—seaming in, seaming out, as if choreographed. Akram had trapped Dravid lbw earlier, only for the umpire to miss the pad-first contact. Undeterred, he returned with a delivery that pitched on middle and clipped off-stump, leaving Dravid bewildered. Years later, Dravid would reflect on this moment in Sultan: A Memoir: “Wasim was a real inspiration for fast bowlers all over the world, especially in the subcontinent. When he was bowling, you were captivated. Easily one of the most skilful bowlers I have played against.”

The collapse continued. Mohammad Azharuddin misjudged a straighter one from Saqlain and was trapped leg-before. Sourav Ganguly’s square drive ricocheted off silly mid-off, bounced awkwardly on the pitch, and landed in the wicketkeeper’s gloves—a bizarre double-pitch catch. Umpires Steve Dunne and Ramaswamy deliberated briefly before sending Ganguly on his way, prompting cries of “Ramaswamy down, Steve Dunne up up” from the stands. India were reeling at five down, and the mood in the dressing room during lunch was sombre. 

Nayan Mongia, India’s wicketkeeper, recalled the silence and a single technical insight that changed their approach: *“Saqlain Mushtaq had created havoc in the first innings. Most of us hadn’t read his variations. But Mohinder Amarnath had written that Saqlain’s ball from close to the stumps would go away from the right-hander, while the one from wide of the crease would turn in. Once we learned this, it became easier.”

Saqlain was at the zenith of his powers, his doosra a weapon of deception. His first three Test wickets in India—Tendulkar, Azharuddin, and Dravid—were scalps of the highest pedigree, each a master of spin, each undone by his guile. Yet, his triumphs came amidst personal turmoil. His father’s recent passing and a family tragedy had cast a shadow over his form. Questions about his suitability for Tests loomed, but Saqlain found solace in Wasim Akram’s camaraderie. “Wasim brings out the best in me,” he admitted. 

After lunch, Saqlain and Wasim bowled in tandem, a relentless assault on India’s hopes. Tendulkar, burdened by expectation, faced the challenge with steely resolve. At the other end, Mongia battled his own demons—a fever of 102 degrees, a saline drip, and injections to keep him on his feet. “It was so hot, I was batting in a sweater!” he later recalled. Meanwhile, Akram, battling groin pain, admitted to taking *“six to seven painkillers” to keep going. 

Tendulkar Conquers Pain o Esaay and Epic

As the second session wore on, Sachin Tendulkar’s body began betraying him. He frequently walked toward square leg, his movements laboured, his hand instinctively clutching his lower back. Each over seemed an ordeal, each delivery a test of will. By the time tea arrived, his condition had worsened; his grimaces were no longer fleeting but etched into his expression. Yet, India survived the session without losing a wicket, reducing the target from 185 to 126. 

In the dressing room, Tendulkar lay flat on a towel, cold compresses covering him in a desperate attempt to lower his body temperature. Cramping and exhaustion wracked his body, and the thought of batting for another two hours seemed insurmountable. Meanwhile, the Pakistan dressing room was steeped in tension. A Channel 4 documentary captured Wasim Akram sitting alone, running his fingers through his hair, his usually unflappable demeanour showing cracks. Someone muttered, *“Joh ho gaya woh ho gaya”* (Whatever has happened has happened), a resigned acknowledgement of missed opportunities. 

 

Azhar Mahmood later reflected on that moment: “We had so much respect for Sachin. Watching him play Saqlain and Wasim with such ease that day was unbelievable. Reverse swing, bounce, turn—everything was in our favour. And yet, he got a hundred.”

The third over after tea brought Tendulkar’s response. Saqlain Mushtaq, bowling with his trademark drift and guile, delivered the first ball. Tendulkar pulled it to midwicket for four. The next ball was paddle-swept for another boundary. Sunil Gavaskar, on commentary, couldn’t contain his admiration: “Even as he played that shot, my fellow commentator [Ramiz Raja] had his hands up in applause.”* 

Then came a moment of fortune. Tendulkar charged Saqlain, misjudging the length of a doosra, and got a bottom edge that ballooned toward Moin Khan. The wicketkeeper had three opportunities—catch, stump, or silence the crowd with a lullaby—but he fluffed them all. Saqlain, already mid-celebration, froze in disbelief and slumped to the ground. Moin stood motionless, hands on hips, a vice-captain bereft of words. Yet, Akram clapped immediately, a gesture of encouragement and reassurance. 

Two balls later, Tendulkar paddle-swept Saqlain for another four, followed by a cross-batted smack to the boundary. Sixteen runs off the over. The target now stood at 103. 

Pakistan opted for the new ball with 95 runs still required. Tendulkar’s back had “all but given up,” but he and Nayan Mongia decided to take calculated risks. Mongia, a former opener, felt more comfortable against the hardness of the new ball than the treachery of reverse swing. The next five overs yielded 33 runs. Tendulkar was all elegance, driving straight and through the covers. Mongia played the aggressor, whipping and chipping over the infield. A bouncer from Akram flew over both Mongia and Moin to the boundary, while Saqlain’s flighted delivery was dispatched over midwicket. 

“The thing with that Pakistan team,” Mahmood later said, “was that we always had options. Wasim and Waqar were masters of the new ball and reverse swing, and Saqlain could bowl with both. With such a lethal attack, you always had hope.”

Hope flickered to life when Mongia slogged Akram across the line. The top edge spiralled toward the covers, the ball seemingly suspended in time as the crowd screamed in vain. Waqar Younis steadied himself and completed the catch, silencing the stands. 

Sunil Joshi walked into a cacophony of nerves, greeted by Tendulkar’s anguished admission: “Jo, mera back is getting stiffer and stiffer. I can’t take it anymore. I’m going to swing.” Joshi reassured him: “You just stay here. I’ll score.” True to his word, Joshi took on Saqlain, lofting him for six over long-on.“I always felt I could read Saqlain,” Joshi later said. 

But Tendulkar’s body was breaking down. Every movement was agony, every shot a crescendo of pain. Desperation overtook calculation. Facing Saqlain, he attempted to hit a doosra over mid-off. The ball bounced more than expected, taking the leading edge and soaring skyward. 

Akram, standing at mid-off, steadied himself under the skier. On commentary, Harsha Bhogle captured the moment with poetic finality: “Oh dear… he’s got the leading edge… man’s under it… it’s taken… what have we got here… Sachin Tendulkar’s knocked on the door… it’s still closed…”

As Akram clasped the catch, the door indeed remained shut. Tendulkar’s heroic innings, one of defiance and grit, had ended. For Pakistan, the game was once again theirs to lose. 

India Collapse, Pakistan Win

The silence was fleeting. In moments, the Chennai crowd rose in unison, not in despair but in reverence, to honour a monumental innings. Tendulkar had fallen, but as the poet Balakumar once wrote, the Chepauk faithful laid out a bed of cotton for their fallen hero. 

Before departing the stage, with India still 17 runs adrift, Tendulkar turned to his partner with a parting message, a blend of hope and expectation: *“Jo, match finish kar ke aana”* (Jo, finish the match and come back). Sunil Joshi, now entrusted with the task, stood alongside three fellow Karnataka players, ready to script the final act. 

"I told Anil, avanu thirugsalla [he won’t turn it]. Saqlain is only bowling doosras. I’ll take the scoring chances; you just play out Wasim,” Joshi later recalled. 

But fate had other plans. Anil Kumble, playing for the team’s hopes, misjudged a Wasim Akram delivery that straightened after pitching. The umpire’s finger went up, and Kumble was gone for 1 off 5 balls. 

When Javagal Srinath joined Joshi at the crease, the strategy shifted again. “We thought Srinath could chance his arm against Saqlain,” Joshi recounted. “I told him: anything pitched up, swing. If it’s short, just block it. I’d take the single and give him the strike.” 

Yet the pressure mounted. In his attempt to steer India closer, Joshi miscued a shot, offering a simple return catch to Saqlain. He walked back for 8 off 20 balls, his disappointment palpable. “That dismissal still haunts me,” he admitted years later. “I wanted to be there at the end. I wanted to finish it.” 

In the stands, disbelief turned to resignation. The once-roaring crowd now sat in stunned silence, as though watching a car hurtling downhill, its brakes long gone. The wreckage was inevitable; the only question was how soon. 

“The moment Sachin got out, you could feel the air shift,” said Venkitasubban, a spectator. “The fielders seemed revitalized as if victory was now a certainty.” Saqlain Mushtaq emboldened, zipped through his overs, each delivery tightening the noose. At the other end, Akram surged in, his strides longer, his pace sharper, the aura of inevitability growing with each ball. 

For those in the crowd, memories of Bridgetown 1997 resurfaced unbidden. Then, too, India had been tantalizingly close, chasing 120 only to crumble for 81. The parallels were inescapable. The narrative of collapse had taken hold. 

Srinath, playing with a heavy burden, succumbed to Saqlain, and bowled for 1 off 8 deliveries. 

The scoreboard told the cruel story: Tendulkar out at 254. India all out for 258. 

As the Pakistan players celebrated, the Chennai crowd, ever gracious, rose once more. This time, the applause was for the game itself—a contest of skill, grit, and unrelenting drama that had left them breathless, even in heartbreak.

The Aftermath

The crowd at Chepauk, initially struck silent by the cruel twist of fate, rose to its feet in unison. Their applause was not wild or frenetic, but steady, deliberate, and heartfelt—a collective gesture of respect for a contest that transcended rivalry. Sensing the moment, the Pakistan team began a victory lap, acknowledging the grace of their hosts. For anyone familiar with the emotional and often volatile world of India-Pakistan cricket, it was a profoundly moving scene, a testament to the shared humanity beneath the fierce competition. 

VVS Laxman, reflecting on that day in his autobiography, wrote: “I saw Sachin weep like a child [...] None of us knew how to console him.” 

Tendulkar himself would later confess, “My world seemed to collapse around me [...] I just couldn’t hold back the tears. It was the only time I refused to go out and accept the Man of the Match award. [BCCI president] Raj Singh Dungarpur tried to persuade me, but I told him I was in no state, physically or mentally.”

In the Pakistani dressing room, joy erupted without restraint. High-pitched cheers and celebratory cries filled the air, mingled with moments of quiet prayer and reflection. Some players knelt in gratitude, their emotions as raw and intense as the game itself. 

Wasim Akram, speaking to Channel 4 years later, summed up the sentiment succinctly: “We needed one wicket. We needed Sachin’s wicket.” That dismissal, a moment of triumph for Pakistan, had turned the tide irrevocably in their favour. 

The celebrations extended well beyond the field. That evening, the team visited a mosque to offer thanks, followed by a celebratory cake at the hotel. The national anthem was sung with pride, its verses echoing their sense of unity and achievement. Some players ventured out for a quiet meal, their smiles now relaxed, their shoulders lighter. 

The next day, life began to return to its ordinary rhythms. Saqlain Mushtaq, the architect of India’s collapse, was seen strolling through the streets of Chennai, shopping for a sari for his wife—a poignant reminder that even in the most intense rivalries, human moments endure. 

Thank You

Faisal Caesar

 

Perth 1993: Thirty-Two Balls That Closed an Era

 The final Test of the Frank Worrell Trophy in 1993, staged on the brutal openness of the WACA Ground, was not merely a series decider. It was an inflection point, one of those rare matches where time seems to fold inward, where an era recognises itself at the very moment of its passing. Cricket ended indecently early that week, five minutes before lunch on the third day, as if the game itself had lost the will to continue. By then, Curtly Ambrose had already altered the language of fast bowling.

That Ambrose would later circle the boundary in a Nissan jeep, the Man of the Series reward, felt less like a victory parade and more like a coronation delayed only by protocol. Perth had not witnessed a spell; it had endured an event.

A Series Heavy with Inheritance

The 1993 contest carried the long echo of 1960–61, when Australia and the West Indies first elevated Test cricket into something existential, sport as ordeal, as theatre of nerve. Allan Border’s Australia had been meticulously reconstructed from the wreckage of the early 1980s: disciplined, hyper-fit, psychologically armoured. It was not a romantic side, but it was ruthlessly functional. This was a team built to survive storms.

Across them stood a West Indies team in transition, captained by Richie Richardson. For the first time in nearly two decades, the Caribbean arrived without the pillars—Richards, Greenidge, Marshall, Dujon—whose presence alone once bent matches to their will. The assumption, widely shared and quietly smug, was that decline had finally arrived.

Instead came resistance.

Australia struck first in Melbourne. The West Indies responded in Adelaide with a one-run victory so violent in its psychological effect that it left scars deeper than most innings defeats. Perth, then, was not simply a finale. It was a referendum—on authority, on continuity, on who still owned fear.

The WACA: Where Pace Is Sovereign

Border’s decision to bat first was orthodox, almost conservative. At the WACA, courage is rewarded in daylight; survival is a skill, not an act of defiance. David Boon absorbed early hostility. At 85 for 2, Australia looked composed, operational.

Then Ambrose returned after lunch, and gravity shifted.

Thirty-Two Balls of Irreversibility

What followed cannot be reduced to swing, seam, or raw velocity. This was control weaponised. Ambrose’s length was despotic, his bounce judicial, each delivery an argument with no appeal.

Mark Waugh edged, seduced into error.

Boon, settled and secure, was undone by a delivery that rose like a sprung trapdoor. Richardson’s slip catch was instinctive, almost dismissive.

Then came Border. First ball. Edge. Gloves. Silence.

The immovable centre of Australian cricket was gone before the crowd could negotiate disbelief. The WACA did not erupt; it inhaled.

Ian Healy survived the hat-trick ball only to fall moments later, Brian Lara completing the geometry. At 102 for 6, Australia were no longer contesting a Test match; they were bargaining with inevitability.

Merv Hughes’ attempted counter-attack felt symbolic rather than strategic—a gesture against extinction. The mis-hit found Keith Arthurton, and the collapse, having lost all resistance, simply concluded itself.

Australia: 119 all out.

Ambrose: 7 wickets for 1 run in 32 balls.

Statistics are an intrusion here. This was intimidation refined into method, violence distilled into precision.

Authority Without Ornament

West Indies replied without theatrics, which only deepened the wound. Phil Simmons’ 80 was patient and unspectacular; Arthurton’s 77 fluent, defiant. Richardson’s 47 from 40 balls carried a sharper message: domination need not be slow.

The lead—203—was not merely numerical. It was terminal.

Collapse as Closure

Australia’s second innings opened with resolve and ended with symbolism. Ian Bishop removed Boon for 52 and then delivered a moment of almost literary cruelty: Border out again, for a second duck. In 138 Tests, he had never suffered such indignity. The edifice fell twice, and publicly.

Bishop’s 6 for 60, coupled with Ambrose’s nine wickets in the match, sealed an innings-and-25-run victory. More importantly, it sealed a judgment. The series, the ground, and the psychological balance all tilted westward.

Meaning Beyond Memory

Ambrose finished with 33 wickets for the series, equalling marks set by Clarrie Grimmett and Alan Davidson. But numbers are secondary. Context is everything. This was achieved against a fully armed Australian side, at home, on its fastest terrain.

When Richardson later named Ambrose the finest fast bowler he had played with—placing him above Marshall, Holding, Roberts, and Garner—the claim carried the weight of lived authority. Border’s own acknowledgement merely completed the consensus. This was greatness without rhetoric.

The Last Roar

The 1993 Frank Worrell Trophy was not the start of renewal. It was the final, thunderous affirmation of an old order. West Indian supremacy would soon recede, but in Perth it burned with terrifying coherence, fast, disciplined, merciless.

Curtly Ambrose did not simply win a Test match. He closed an era on its own terms: uncompromising, unsentimental, and beyond rebuttal.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar