It's been a heady last week. First, the Indians got the better of England in a nerve-wracking fourth-innings chase, and just Sunday the South Africans came up from behind to inflict a crushing defeat on the Australians. Victories for both the teams in question have meant accolades pouring in by the dozen from all and sundry. Both results, primarily on the basis of the circumstances in which they've been achieved, have seemingly instilled a sense of feel-good for Test cricket once again.

Unfortunately, the question that begs to be asked is whether or not all the hullaballoo accompanying both results is justified. Yes, records tumbled in both matches as improbable targets were chased down and there were some gritty knocks played by batsmen from both India and South Africa under immense pressure. But were both victories achieved against insurmountable odds or was it more a case of the batting side benefiting from conditions that were horribly skewed in their favour?

A closer examination of both games would conclusively prove the reason to be the latter. In the first instance, India scored 387 runs on the fourth and fifth days on a Chennai track that had as much bite as a snake without fangs. Nearly a decade ago, Pakistan had set India a target of 271 runs at this very venue, which India had threatened to chase down, riding largely on a master-class performance by Tendulkar, only to fall agonisingly short. On that day, Tendulkar had battled a potent combination of a venomous fifth-day Chepauk track, Saqlain's sorcery, Wasim's repertoire, the hysteria of an Indo-Pak game, the pressure of a fourth-innings target and back spasms to launch an incredible assault on the target.

Then, India had scored their runs at a run rate of 2.70 runs an over while in this last Test they did so at a robust run rate of 3.92 runs an over. Then, two once-in-a-generation bowlers - Wasim and Saqlain - had bowled 57 per cent of the total overs sent down by Pakistan (54.2 out of a total of 95.2 overs), while now Flintoff and Panesar (a modest caricature of the Pakistani pair) had bowled 50 per cent of the total overs sent down by England (49 out of a total of 98 overs). Virender Sehwag did label Sachin's current hundred as his best innings ever, but give me the 1999 Chennai Test all over again, playing itself out with the same result, and I'll take it any day. To watch Wasim dislodge Dravid in the second innings of that Test was to understand what the word 'incredible' meant, and to watch Tendulkar put bat to ball in the course of his 136 was to truly appreciate the work of a genius.

Which brings us to the Perth Test that finished Sunday. South Africa managing to hold their nerve in a crunch situation is not something we have come to expect of them. On that count, their effort needs to be lauded, more so when they've managed to do it against the Australians. But to go into overdrive and suggest that this is perhaps the finest run chase of all time is to flatter the Australian bowling attack no end. Two of Australia's main bowlers have played fewer matches than the number of fingers on an average human being's hand.

The only explanation for South Africa's deficit of 94 runs in the first innings is that it was a below-par batting performance against an ordinary bowling attack. Once the South Africans had got a hold on their nerves and come to terms with a toothless Australian attack, there was just comeuppance. Also, gone are the days when the Perth wicket enjoyed the kind of bounce that inspired the menacing Curtly Ambrose to deliver a fiery spell of 7 for 1 against the Australians in 1992. With India pulling off a win at this very venue early in the year, the psychological disadvantage for any visiting side has finally been nullified. Now, it's basically Gustav Kuerten winning at Wimbeldon, if the Championships were being played on clay.

Nevertheless, kudos to both sides for coming back from behind. That they exorcised a few demons in chasing daunting fourth-innings totals and did not choke at the last minute is creditable. But to get carried away in the euphoria of a win and describe these feats in superlatives is being grossly unfair to many a fantastic cricketing match, moment or performance from the past. In keeping with our tennis analogy, Rafael Nadal winning the French Open year after year for four consecutive seasons is good, but Rafael Nadal winning the Wimbeldon 2008 final, on a surface that was not best suited for his game, against arguably the finest tennis player of all time, is indeed the greatest game ever played.