Dravid has offered England a lifeline

I'm delighted to say that we have the makings of a great Test match at the Wankhede, because we have found what is a rarity in the subcontinent a proper cricket pitch that offers something to both batsman and bowler and challenges everybody to give their best.

There's a little bit of bounce, a little bit of movement off the seam and a little bit of turn. Nothing alarming, but enough to interest both seamers and spinners. Yet, it is also a pitch on which batsmen might excel if they concentrate and avoid silly mistakes.

Unfortunately for India, their batsmen have just not done the job. And they are a batsman short. So in no time at all, we see the likes of Irfan Pathan and Mahendra Singh Dhoni because neither Virender Sehwag nor Sachin Tendulkar are in form and the tail can't wag every time.

So, I come to the question that everyone's been asking: why bowl first? Rahul Dravid must have taken the decision in conjunction with coach Greg Chappell, but every person I meet, even young kids, can't believe that India actually opted to bat fourth on a pitch that has been known to turn square and crumble to dust during the latter stages of a Test.

I'll tell you what I think. At the start of the match, Dravid, Tendulkar and Anil Kumble were all presented with those lovely silver salvers and Dravid, being the good soul that he is, thought England needed a present too. So what better way to give them one than to bowl first? !

Speaking in jest

I speak in jest, but seriously, Dravid threw England a lifeline and they have grabbed it with both hands.

Before we came to Mumbai, everyone was discussing how much of a favourite India were to win the series 2-0. England were in disarray already. To compound the team's owes, Alastair Cook went down on the morning of the match, meaning a last-minute call-up for Owais Shah. I think India simply got over-confident and thought they could roll England over easy.

Another factor could have been the fear of facing England's seamers on the slightly damp pitch that we saw on Day One, but I think that's just stupid. No damp patch can outlast the Indian sun in March and it would have dried up in an hour at best.

Yet another idea could have been that the pitch would take appreciable turn, but I don't think it will. Yes, the odd ball will turn, but this pitch will not be the kind of raging turner that we traditionally associate with the Wankhede. If you look at both teams, it is the seamers that have done the damage.

To England's credit, they have batted superbly, and just like I had observed in my last column, Andrew Strauss has scored a century that made a world of difference. What he did differently was to leave the ball alone outside the off stump, thus forcing the bowlers to bowl straighter, whereupon he picked them off his legs.

Keeping him company was Owais Shah, and what a fantastic hand he's played. He didn't bat for three weeks, and wouldn't have batted here had Cook not fallen ill. So his poise and maturity are all the more praiseworthy.

Missing Laxman

You can see from his body language that he means to utilise this opportunity for all it is worth. India's butter-fingered fielders have helped and I can't help pointing out that VVS Laxman would have been invaluable in these circumstances.

While Strauss' performance does not surprise me, what has both surprised and delighted me is James Anderson's bowling. For me, what is significant is not that he has got four wickets, which he deserved, but that he gave away only 40 runs in 20 overs, which reflects great control.