Quite a few people have lost their credibility in the past few days, and one is not referring to the groundstaff at the Wankhede stadium.

One can imagine Australia's cricketing community clutching their stomachs in laughter, at the ridiculous ease with which they got the Indian media to toe their line, or rather, lines, at the end of the Mumbai Test. The Australian cricketers, past as well as present, pilloried, abused and criticized the pitch, which they dubbed as 'diabolical'. Matthew Hayden was reported to have walked to the middle and 'spat' on the wicket in disgust at the end of the game. Ricky Ponting 'appealed' to Rahul Dravid to join him in lodging a formal protest with the ICC regarding the wicket. Mark Waugh formally joined the anti-Sourav Ganguly club headed by his illustrious twin, who after the unsuccessful tour of India in 2001 had described the Indian captain as a 'prick'.

The reactions of the Australian cricketers to the defeat at Mumbai were only to be expected. Quite simply, the best team in the world does not like to lose a game of cricket, and that is fair enough. However, what was reprehensible was the sycophancy of the Indian media. It is a pity that even after 57 years of independence, many people in India, several cricket writers among them, haven't got over their 'white skin' complex.

The Indian cricket media joined their Australian counterparts in slamming the Mumbai wicket. In doing so, they also showed that like the Australians, they had forgotten the basics of the sport they all claim to love. They forgot that cricket is basically a battle between bat and ball.

It is true that the batsmen dominate 90 % of all Tests and one-day internationals, and wickets are prepared keeping 'runs' in mind. In an age in which the quality of bats has improved by leaps and bounds, so much so that even mishits make it to the boundary and occasionally over it, the bowlers are still expected to come out all guns blazing. The balance worsens in one-day cricket, which is, as we all know, a game designed only for the batsmen.

Taking all this into account, what is so offensive about the odd match in which the bowlers get an opportunity to dominate the proceedings? A glance at the record-books will show that a majority of the most exciting Tests and one-day internationals were low-scoring affairs, in which the bowlers had a huge say in the proceedings. From a purely Indian point of view, think of the 1983 World Cup final, which was won by the bowlers. Think of the Rothmans Cup clash against Pakistan at Sharjah in 1985, in which Imran bundled out India for 125, and the Indians struck back to bowl Pakistan out for 87.

Should a smashing 100 on a flat, totally bowling-unfriendly wicket be rated higher than a 50 on a track that has something in it for the bowlers? One supposes the immediate answer will be 'No', considering that the latter effort comes about through a closer contest between bat and ball. Gundappa Vishwanath's unbeaten 97 against the West Indies at Chennai in 1974-75, played on a spiteful wicket against a rampaging attack led by Andy Roberts, is rated as one of the best knocks ever played on Indian soil, as is Sunil Gavaskar's 96 against Pakistan on a Bangalore 'minefield' in 1986-87. Innings like these are remembered to this day for they showcased the art of batting in all its glory, in difficult conditions at that. VVS Laxman's 69 and Sachin Tendulkar's 55 fell into the same bracket.

Both batsmen have made bigger scores in international cricket, but their knocks at Mumbai will certainly rank among their top five innings in Test cricket. They looked completely at ease on the third-day pitch, and played their strokes at will. It was only after their dismissals that the innings fell apart. Quite simply, the Australian batsmen did not apply themselves as well as the two Indians, and that is why they failed to overhaul a target of 107.

But did the Indian media state this fact? Not quite. They continued playing 'follow the leader', devoting reams of newsprint to Ponting's 'anguish' and Mark Waugh's angst, among other things. Sourav Ganguly was called a 'squealer' when he pulled out of the Nagpur Test, and the Aussies (and regrettably, Indians) went to the extent of questioning the veracity of his hip injury. It was left to Ganguly himself to point out that no one had bothered to think whether Ponting's 'gradual' recovery from his thumb injury had anything to do with his poor record in India against the in-form spinners. Ganguly's 'weakness' against the short-pitched ball was highlighted, Ponting's against spin wasn't. Not even by the Indian media.

As if this wasn't enough, then came Mr. Mark Waugh, spewing vitriol on Ganguly the cricketer and captain. A man who along with Shane Warne, was the first cricketer to 'officially' confess to taking money from a bookie in 1998-99, questioned the credentials of a man who is his country's most successful captain ever, and got away with it. This would only happen on the sub-continent.

The Australians did most things right on their tour of India and reaped the rewards for doing so. It's quite sad that they did not end the tour on the same note. It's one thing to hate losing, and another to whine like Australia's pet-hates, the Englishmen. It's one thing to feel the pinch of a defeat, and another to claim that the pitch denied the spectators two days of cricket. The expressions on the faces of the Indian supporters at the end of the Test told a different story.

P.S: Even if we accept for a moment that the pitch was unfit for Test cricket, was it solely responsible for the world's best team losing ten wickets in two hours? Sadly, this question has remained unanswered. But then, was it asked?