Can we stop glorifying the 2003/04 Border-Gavaskar Trophy, please

It is a literal drug. Just like when our love for our homies increases ten folds when we’re three drinks down, when we’re under the influence of Nostalgia, it tends to make us undermine the present and glorify the past - to such an extent that our brain starts fabricating and altering information to suit the agenda of the past being better than the present. So this got me thinking: what If I could smash this imaginary wall of bias that exists between myself and my views about the past; would it help me unravel truths and facts that have remained unexplored and unstated all these years?

It seemed like a pretty interesting prospect. And so I did. I decided to put an end to the relative bias that subconsciously existed within me and look at things as they were - this time, from a critical standpoint. It then made me realize why the Border-Gavaskar trophy between Australia and India in 2003/04, that was played in Australia, should not be glorified and instead be considered as one of the worst, most boring series of cricket played between two elite nations in the 21st century. 

In retrospect, it is hard to fathom why the series was never called out for being so excruciatingly one-sided in favour of batting. Was it because it was the first time India avoided defeat on Aussie soil in almost 20 years, or was it because it was really the first time that kids now in their mid and late 20s, like myself, were old enough to grasp India playing Australia Down Under, whilst completely being in their senses? 

I remember the very first day of the tour being bittersweet: I’d gone to bed at 8 PM the previous night (yes, 8 PM!!) in the hope of waking up at 5 am. I did wake up just in time to watch Zaheer bowling the first over but then was left frustrated after rain played spoilsport for most of Day 1. Looking back, I realize what was dished out to my 8-year-old self was not good cricket, rather punishment; a species of human beings called ‘bowlers’ getting obliterated live on television. 

As I grew older and older, I did realize that the series was boring and not worthy to be even talked about - except, of course, the famous Adelaide win - but it wasn’t until recently that I realized the true, appalling nature of how painfully boring, bad and imbalanced it was. The numbers from the series are so skewed in favour of the bat that when I went through it a couple of days ago, it made me wanna throw up. 

The two teams batted a total of 8 times in the series in the first innings, and together, they accounted for an average first innings score of 489. The lowest first-innings total in the series was 323 posted by Australia in the first Test - after being inserted into bat by India at the Gabba - and only twice in the entire tour did the two teams fail to score over 400 in the first innings. India ended up scoring 705 runs in the first innings of the Sydney Test, batting for two whole days, and trust me, at no point, was 1000 out of their reach. The pitches were SO. DEAD. 

You might think that the mammoth first-innings totals might have kind of skewed the overall average but no, the two sides scored an average of 217 runs in the third and fourth innings throughout the course of the series. Or, in other words, they averaged 43.42 runs per wicket in the third and fourth innings of matches, which is seven fewer than the tally of 50.83 per wicket, which was what they managed to achieve whilst batting in the first and second innings. Overall, a total of 5,651 runs were scored in the series at an average of 48.29 runs per wicket. I kid you not, these numbers are real. 

Looking at these numbers, I could only imagine the poor fate of the bowlers in the series. Remarkably, barring Anil Kumble - who took 24 wickets at an average of 29.58 - there was not a single bowler who managed to average under 30. Of the 14 specialist bowlers who partook in the series - spinners and pacers included - only three bowlers, Kumble, Gillespie and Agarkar, managed to end the series with a bowling average south of 43.00. In fact, there were seven bowlers, including Brett Lee, Harbhajan Singh, Irfan Pathan and Stuart MacGill, who averaged over 50. In contrast, 11 batsmen averaged over 40 with the bat - seven of them over 58.00. 

Of course, we reminisce about the invincibility of both Rahul Dravid and Ricky Ponting in that series, but given the kind of disgraceful pitches that were on display, is it really fair to classify them as elite performances? We are quick to put down Suresh Raina’s century on debut against Sri Lanka because it came on a lifeless Colombo wicket but the whole Border-Gavaskar Trophy in 2003/04 was nothing but the Colombo Test match multiplied by four, minus the presence of world-class bowlers (except Kumble, I’d say). 

Speaking of the quality of bowling on display in the series, Australia were missing both Warne and McGrath, and so it looked like they used the opportunity to try and ‘test’ whether certain bowlers would cut it at the Test level. Nathan Bracken and Brad Williams in that series, for instance, were so unthreatening with the ball that it felt like throughout the four Tests, India were facing a Prime Minister’s XI team that purposefully sent out its weak bowlers to devoid the touring team of quality practice; except here, it happened in what is considered to be one of the most ‘prestigious’ series in cricket. 

Run-fests can be excused if the match is accompanied by drama, controversy or, at the least, some entertainment, but this entire series provided zero entertainment due to the audience. The 2014/15 Border-Gavaskar Trophy, for instance, was also a despicable run-fest, but we at least had great drama in Adelaide, which was followed by a somewhat sporting pitch in Brisbane. The 2003/04 series, on the other hand, was nothing but an execution chamber for bowlers which also, unfortunately, served as the swansong for Steve Waugh.

That Adam Gilchrist, the most entertaining player across the two sides, ended up averaging 16.00 with the bat, ON THOSE WICKETS, should tell you everything you need to know about the entertainment factor in that tour. Barring the unexpected Aussie collapse on Day 4, the much-celebrated Adelaide Test, too, was a cringe-worthy run-fest which I definitely would not rewatch barring the moment where Dravid hits the winning runs off MacGill. 

I could only imagine the kind of outrage that would have followed had a series like the 2003/04 Border-Gavaskar Trophy unfolded in this day and age. The 2017 Boxing Day Test between Australia and England got so much flack for the MCG wicket being dead, yet the average first innings total in that particular Test, 409, was EIGHTY RUNS FEWER than the number that we witnessed in the entirety of India’s tour of Australia in 2003/04. 

Players of the yesteryear are quick to label the current era as ‘weak’ and whine about how T20 cricket has ensured the dominance of bat over ball, yet they conveniently ignore and seldom criticize tours like this one - and many others - which thrived on the exploitation of bowlers. Instead, flabbergastingly, they are celebrated. From an individualistic standpoint, I consider the 2003/04 Border-Gavaskar Trophy series between India and Australia to be a low-point in the sport of cricket in the 21st century. It’s unfortunate that till date, this series is glorified - proving that people don’t really give a damn about an even contest between bat and ball and are more than happy to sing praises as long as it fits their agenda. I do hope, from the bottom of my heart, that we never witness such a series ever again.