We now know that your brain, if any present in your system, is off. It is not about losing three wickets in the penultimate over of the match but the way India was brought to that stage by a combination of Steve Bucknor, Benson and Ricky Ponting and his mates. Deduct 40 runs from Ponting, 135 runs from Symonds and the lead for India would have been 235 runs and not 69. Now deduct this from the Aussie second innings score of 401 and you will know, if you know your mathematics that is, that the target for India would have been 166. India crossed this score at "seven down" (because Dravid and Ganguly were ruled out by Bucknor and hold your breath, proposed by Ponting and seconded by Benson). So, India would have won the match by three wickets. Now, I know your argument: the Aussies would not have declared at 401 if the leead was only 166. Fair enough. But, in that case, India would have easily drawn the test had Australia played exactly eight additional deliveries from India since Australia "won" the match with just seven balls to spare. Have some sense I say. We do not dispute the superiority of Aussies in cricket but think again and tell us whether they won the Sydney Test fair and square when it was just not cricket.
