...Meanwhile in Cape Town

South Africa 362 (J Kallis 161, H Amla 59, S Sreesanth 5/114) & 341 (J Kallis 109, M Boucher 55, Harbhajan Singh 7/120) v India 364 (S Tendulkar 146, D Steyn 5/75): T3/3 D4/5 at Newlands, Cape Town.

India need 340 runs, or South Africa to take 10 wickets on the last day to win the series 2-1.

Overlapping the last rites of the Ashes series, South Africa and India have been contesting the decider of a 3 Test series.

With a day to go a draw seems likely: if anyone is to win it will be South Africa. India will rue being unable to polish off the Proteas when they had them 6/130 in the second innings.

As in the first innings, where his 161/291b (19x4) was the backbone of his team's 362, Jacques Kallis kept the Indian attack at bay with with his second century of the match. a determined 109*/240b (8x4) made all the more impressive by having to cope with an injured rib. I don't recall seeing better confirmation of the old cliche "beware the injured batsman".

The Fox Sports report has a link to video highlights which will give you a brief idea of how he pulled things around.

Can South Africa bowl India out in a day? Harbhajan Singh's 4/10 at one point suggests the pitch is taking spin, yet, as his final analysis of 38-1-120-7 indicates, determined batting can cope with that. Paul Harris is no Harbhajan, but Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel are top class (and IMO Lonwabo Tsotsobe has bowled better in this match than his figures suggest) but India should be able to hold out for a draw.

The first session at least should be worth watching. If Sachin Tendulkar, whose first innings of 146/314b (2x6,17x4) mirrored Kallis', or Virender Sehwag are on song another late night may be in order.

Scorecard

India peg back Australia after good start: T1D1

Australia 5/285 (85.5 ov, R Ponting 77, S Watson 57) v India T1/2, D1/5 at Bangalore.

Australia, mirroring their first innings at Mohali, prospered in the first session then wobbled before regrouping to reach a total which needs augmenting on D2 to set the strong Indian batting a stern challenge.

The sun wasn't out in Bangalore (aka Bengaluru) when Ricky Ponting won the toss and elected to bat It didn't emerge for the rest of a day and contributed, together with India's decision to take the new ball, to an early finish.

Both sides were weakened, though India for whom VVS Laxman, Gautam Gambhir and Ishant Sharma were unable to take the field, were more so. For Australia Doug Bollinger was unfit and was replaced by Peter George, the first South Australian to appear in a Test since, I believe, Darren Lehmann in 2004 .

Once again Shane Watson and Simon Katich laid a good foundation by batting through the first session. The Indian bowling was generally steady without, as 0/95 from 27 overs suggests, often looking threatening.

But good times for India were just around the corner. Immediately after lunch (if that's an apt term for an interval starting in the late morning) Harbhajan Singh had Katich caught at slip for 47/95b (7x4), then Pragyan Ohja spun one which Watson gloved to MS Dhoni. His measured 57/88b (9x4) seemed, after T1, almost a failure, but of course it wasn't, even if 2/113 was a reality check.

The Indian spinners persisted. Ricky Ponting was positive, especially against his longstanding adversary Harbhajan, but Michael Clarke didn't settle in and was well caught by Suresh Raina (an excellent allround fielder) at backward short leg off Harbhajan for a modest 14. Ponting and Michael Hussey, both looking good, restored some equilibrium,moving the total from 132 to 189 at tea without further loss.

In the first two sessions the Indian frontline spinners bowled 19 0vers apiece (and Sehwag had already turned his arm over). But then it was Zaheer Khan's turn. At 198 he had Hussey caught in the gully for a pugnacious 34/45b (4x4). Enter Marcus North whose reputation and career were on the line.

North looked good by his recent standards, but I, not that I wished him ill (quite the contrary) was waiting for him to slip up. But I'm pleased to say he proved me wrong, batting through the rest of the day for a solid 43*/89b (4x4) .

The real surprise was that Ricky Ponting was the only other wicket to fall, and the great disappointment was that it was taken by the occasional offspinner Raina. Ponting drove and pulled well. He hit some balls in the air but I only noticed one that went near a fielder. His 77/147b (12x4), classy as it was, and given the manner of his dismissal (Hawkeye showed the ball barely clipping leg stump, which a UDRS appeal might have disallowed) , was disappointing.

It was also disappointing that there was a lot of booing from the considerable (at least compared to Mohali and most Commonwealth Games events) crowd when he was out.

5/256 was a modest total; 5/285 at stumps only marginally less so. Ravi Shastri, presenting the pre-match TV pitch report, opined that the wicket would be at its best on D2. If he's right, or even if he's not, Australia need at least another 120 runs.

Scorecard

Fox Sports coverage & link to video

Times of India report

Cricinfo Bulletin

Commissioner decides Harbhajan's fate by applying "comfortable satisfaction" standard

I'm not surprised that, after the quasi-judicial hearing held in Federal Court no1 in Adelaide , the ICC appointed Appeals Commissioner, New Zealand Supreme Court Justice Hansen has overturned the three Test suspension on Harbhajan Singh imposed by match referee Mike Procter.
Harbhajan has not got off scot-free: he pleaded guilty to and was was fined 50% of his match fee on a lesser charge of abusive language.

Justice/ Commissioner Hansen gave his decision on Tuesday and then published his reasons (see link) yesterday. Between these two events he learned that Harbhajan had in fact previously been reported for various matters not once but three times. The ICC had apparently not been able to inform him of this before he delivered his findings orally.

The whole thing reeks of a deal worked out behind the scenes even though the Commissioner, and just about everyone else involved in an official capacity, seems to have gone out of their way to deny this. At the end of his written decision, Justice Hansen stated [Paragraph 70]:

I have read some of this morning’s media reports of the outcome of the hearing. I trust now that the full facts are known and my reasons are available there will be a greater degree of proportionality and rationality. I wish to make it quite plain that as a Code of Conduct Commissioner appointed by the ICC I am independent of that body. I have brought that independence to this hearing. It was not the ICC that reduced the charge against Mr Singh from a level 3.3 offence to a 2.8. That was my decision and my decision alone. I made that decision on the basis of my factual findings and my legal interpretation of the Code of Conduct. An interpretation I may add that counsel were by in large in agreement with. I also wish to disabuse the media of any notion that there was some “sort of deal”. While I was tendered an agreed statement of facts at the commencement of the hearing, I still insisted on counsel assisting me to call the players that could give relevant evidence and to hear that evidence viva-voce and to have them cross examined. The decision that I have reached is based on my findings on that evidence. It is incorrect to suggest that there was some sort of an agreement reached between Australian and Indian cricket authorities that I simply rubber stamped. I also wish to add that while I was aware of the media furore surrounding this matter no-one has attempted to apply direct pressure to obtain an outcome. In any event as I said earlier it would be a breach of my judicial oath, and a dereliction of duty as an independent Code of Conduct Commissioner, to succumb in any way to such pressure. I repeat I have independently reached my decision based on the evidence as I have found it to be and in accordance with the applicable standard of proof and interpretation of the Code of Conduct Regulations.

The Agreed Statement of Facts to which he refers is included at Paragraph 6. It makes interesting reading (apart from the typos):

During the 116th over on Day 3 of the Sydney Test, Harbhajan Singh made friendly contact with Brett Lee. At the end of the over while the umpires were changing ends and the fields was crossing over to their new positions, Andrew Symonds approached Harbhajan Singh and told him that he had no friends amongst the Australians (he admits he used the word ‘fuck’ or a derivation thereof). Singh used similar language to Symonds and neither took offence at that stage.

However the exchange caused Singh to become angry and he motioned to Symonds to come towards him. Singh then said something to Symonds. There is a dispute as to what was said. However all of the players who gave evidence to the hearing before Match Referee Procter of what was said between Harbhajan Singh and Andrew Symonds namely, Harbhajan Singh, Andrew Symonds, Mathew [sic] Hayden and Michael Clarke, are all clearly of the view that in the circumstances, Harbhajan Singh used language that was (and intended by Singh to be), offensive to Andrew Symonds. Symonds took immediate offence at the language and behaviour of Singh.

After the exchange between Singh and Symonds, Michael Clare [sic] spoke to umpire Mark Benson and complained about Singh’s behaviour, Clarke then told his captain Ricky Ponting what he had heard. Ponting went to Umpire Benson and told him that he had been informed by Clarke of the use by Harbhajan Singh of offensive language towards Andrew Symonds. On his way back to the slips position Ricky Ponting spoke with Harbhajan Singh, Sachin Tendulkar then approached Ponting and Singh and asked Ponting to allow him to manage the situation.

Ricky Ponting then went into the slips. During over 117 Mathew Hayden informed Ponting that he had heard Harbhajan Singh use offensive language towards Symonds at the conclusion of the preceding over. At the end of Over 117 Ponting went of [sic] the field and told the Australian Team Manager (Steve Bernard) about the incident.

Harbhajan Singh (Signature), Ricky Ponting (Signature), Andrew Symonds
(Signature), Adam Gilchrist (Signature), Sachin Tendulkar (Signature), Michael
Clarke (Signature) and Mathew [sic] Hayden (Signature).


In arriving at his decision the Commissioner considered what standard of proof was appropriate. He chose to follow [see Para 30] Clause 4.1 of the ICC Anti-Doping Code:

The standard of proof shall be whether ICC has established an Anti Doping Code violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases shall be greater than a mere balance of probabilities but less than a standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt.

At Paragraph 40 the Commissioner explained what he thought the "comfortable satisfaction" standard is:

I take it to be that the finder of fact does not need to be sure or satisfied beyond reasonable doubt but it is not sufficient if his mind is swayed only to the extent of the balance of probability, in other words, to the comfortable satisfaction of the person hearing the matter. I am also satisfied that the more serious the allegation made against a player or official, the more improbable the event so the evidence must be stronger to establish it. In this case, with a Level 3.3 offence alleging a racist comment, the allegation is clearly of a very serious nature. In such a case it requires strong evidence to establish it. For the reasons that follow it is tantamount to the criminal standard.

I could go on (and on) about this but won't; though I recommend that, if you're in the slightest degree interested in the matter, you read the entire 22 page decision.

Needless to say, elsewhere there's been plenty of comment: even the Governor-General has stated his views.

For a survey of the controversy since it began 27 days ago see .

For a sample of Indian media perspectives see Hindustan Times and The Hindu : "Indian cricket may pat itself on the back for winning this final encounter following a four-Test series in which it played splendid cricket to challenge the hegemony of cricket’s superpower, Australia. What was indefensible, from the standpoint of the spirit of cricket, was the BCCI’s unsporting tactics to pre-empt due process and the threats or implied threats to call off the tour. By behaving very much like cricket’s bullying financial superpower, it has lost goodwill round the cricket world. "

For Australian comment see The Age, which has a link to video and stump microphone audio of the incident as well as a conciliatory piece by Harsha Bogle, and various items in The Australian.

Threats and recriminations abound in wake of Test

Harbhajan Singh's three match ban for making a racist comment has added to the bad blood resulting from the circumstances in which Australia won the Second Test, and the manner in which they celebrated their victory.

Yesterday I said that Anil Kumble and the Indian players had accepted their defeat gracefully. This was true only of the immediate aftermath of the game. The Indian media, as I mentioned yesterday, have led (or reflected) public opinion in their country to excoriate the umpires for incompetence (or worse), the Australians for cheating (or worse) and the ICC match referee Mike Procter for various things including buckling under the demands of the Australians.

In Australia there is, as exemplified by online polls and suchlike, a broader range of opinion with many, to their credit, prepared to criticise aspects of the conduct of Australian players.

At the moment there is some doubt as to whether the tour will continue. My guess is that it will: there is a sufficiently long break in the program to allow for some repair work, if only papering over a few cracks, to be done before the Perth Test begins on 16 January. How, and by whom this might be done I'm not sure, but reckon that the ICC needs to get involved pronto with the peak governing bodies of Australia and India.

Things are unfolding (not I hope unravelling) rapidly so for now I'll just link to some comments:

#Peter Roebuck in The Age today "Rotten from first day to the last", which begins :

India has been dudded. No-one with the slightest enthusiasm for cricket will take the least satisfaction from the victory secured by the local team in an SCG Test match that entertained spectators at the ground, provided some excellent batting but left a sour taste in the mouth. It was a match that will have been relished only by rabid nationalists and others for whom victory and vengeance are the sole reasons for playing sport. Truth to tell the last day was as bad as the first. It was a rotten contest that singularly failed to elevate the spirit.

# Peter Lalor in The Australian's "A win, a hangover and a sense of dread" (with 212 comments as I post).

# ABC TV's 7.30 Report: including comments from

-Gideon Haigh: "It's a shame that Australians, in the way that they play the game, aren't actually doing themselves many favours at the moment... someone calling someone else on the cricketing field a monkey that's like someone saying squashing an ant is murder. The confrontation on the field was extremely unedifying and I'm sick and tired of these kind of contrived aggressive, overbearing tactics from both sides.

- Malcolm Conn: the Australians are" not a bunch of cheats and anyone who calls them a bunch of cheats I think should really have a good think about what's considered cheating and what's not"

- Harsha Bogle, "The moment you say, "Take my word for it", you're committing yourself to being honest in every sphere. Then you cannot say that I will appeal when a batsman is not out, but you take my word when I've taken a catch. See, you cannot be selectively moral."

The ABC's Jim Maxwell also appeared:

HEATHER EWART: Finally, who's right and who's wrong here in your view?

JIM MAXWELL: Well, there's always the grey area. The umpires are certainly in the wrong and they're the ones in the middle that may have caused a lot of the trouble. The players do need to understand that there are certain limits and they need to play within those. Almost everything they do on the field is going to be scrutinised. Unfortunately, it's the nature of the game with television getting in so close to it these days. But I just think they need to go a bit more quietly about what they're doing. Because the fact is Australia plays some of the best cricket of any team of all time. Just get on with playing the game and forget all the other nonsense, stop trying to bait people. If something goes wrong, deal it with it on the field, don't let it be carried on in another place because there'll be no end to it, as I say. The lawyers will love this.

# R K Raghavan in The Hindu "Investigating cricket misconduct":

We initially believed that the controversy could hardly be resolved because it was a question of one man’s word against the other.

If Harbhajan’s conviction was based on the greater credibility of Symonds’s version of the incident, it is grossly unfair to him and a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, even conceding that Harbhajan was not facing a judicial enquiry.

#Cricinfo's The Surfer blog links to many other media comments from around the world.