The choice between watching grass growing in Hobart and Alastair Cook batting in India would normally be a no-brainer. But, given its relevance to the future of cricket, this column made an exception and watched the England captain in Rajkot.
Cook and his 19-year-old debutant partner, Haseeb Hameed, spent the first session of the fifth day's play tootling along, strangling what could have been an exciting Test match. With 10 wickets in hand, an overnight lead of 163 runs and no chance of losing, England might have pressed for victory. Instead, they meandered along at two runs an over, neither taking a risk nor playing a shot, seemingly content to move on to the second Test with a draw. Indeed, after the Test did finish in a draw when Cook set India a target of 310 from 49 overs, the England captain said he did not declare earlier because he "didn't want to give India a sniff".
More Sport Videos
- Video duration
- 00:46
Starc's perfect yorker
- Video duration
- 00:43
Lara: Nobody fears Australia anymore
- Video duration
- 00:27
Carlisle feels sorry for Watson
- Video duration
- 00:27
Djokovic: I don't feel vulnerable
- Video duration
- 00:40
Stoppage time goal denies England win
- Video duration
- 01:17
Sutherland: Significant fall from grace for Australia
- Video duration
- 01:26
Jordan Spieth remembers 2014 Phillip Hughes connection
- Video duration
- 00:27
Whitfield ban harsher than just six months
Starc's perfect yorker
Mitchell Starc put Australia back in the second Test, dismissing Dean Elgar with an amazing yorker.
It is a reminder of why Test cricket in India – and therefore globally – is under threat. Mark Taylor's oft-repeated suggestion of four-day Test matches has a certain logic from an Australian point of view, as four days would place more of a burden on captains to move the game along and produce a result. At least, that is what an Australian captain like Taylor would do, and it would be a good idea if Test cricket were struggling for popularity in Australia. But Test cricket's problem, as evidenced by declining audiences, is mainly in India, and the problem in India is not the duration of the matches but the attitudes of captains. As it always has been.
In this Test match England made 537 in their first innings. India resolved, from the outset of their first innings late on day two, to bat for a draw. They proceeded to grind out a 731-minute first innings of 488. The wicket was so good for batting that, even without trying, India scored at three runs an over.
Still, England had the position and the opportunity to force a result. But, in what retired Australian Test cricketers would call batting and leadership of unacceptable selfishness, Cook and Hameed strolled on towards a partnership milestone. Once Hameed did open his shoulders and take a risk, he got out for 82. He looked disappointed with his decision when he should have been proud. (If India had imploded, that would not have made Cook a genius. The indisputable fact is that, with batsmen like Joe Root and Ben Stokes in the sheds, England did not maximise their chances of winning. Even after Hameed and Root were out slogging, Cook made sure he nudged his way to his hundred.)
Test cricket in India is, and always has been, so weighted in batsmen's favour that the side that has lost the toss is seeking a stalemate from that point. Test crowds there have been low for decades, and the popularity of Twenty20 cricket has provided a contrast that makes them seem even lower. Negative cricket has long been the sickness of the five-day game in India. It is now a worldwide problem because India has become the world's centre. But it is not new. Until captains want to play the game to win in India, shortening the span of a Test match will make no difference, and make it easier to attain the draws they all too desperately seek.
This is not the Australian way, but it is the Australian way that is under fire. Australia never play for a draw in India (if they could), always seeking to move the game along, and in striving to win they most often lose. Whether in Hobart or on the subcontinent, Australia's attack-first mode of cricket is what gets them into trouble. Australia lose matches in India, Sri Lanka, the Emirates, England – and now at home – because their cricketers have lost the patience and temperament to weather difficult conditions and play a full five-day game. What wouldn't we give for six stodgy Cooks who could bat out a draw! How many T20 bashers would we trade for a genuine teenaged Test opener like Hameed! What torment does this diligent, well-prepared England promise Australia next summer!
Through their aggression, Australians destroy themselves. Through their defensiveness, England and India destroy a game. Which would you have? We say we would like it both ways, an Australian team who can play the Australian way when appropriate, and the English or Indian way when that is needed. This is what Pat Howard meant, perhaps, when he said during Sunday's rain that Australia needed to be more 'adaptable'. Someone should explain that this kind of adaptability, while a worthy goal, only comes along a handful of times in a generation, and when they come in a cluster that is what makes a great team.
So, while Australia are lambasted for playing their own way, a feckless younger generation putting entertainment ahead of survival, Cook cruises like a stately zeppelin towards his fifth Test century in India, more than any other visitor. As he did so, televisions were switched off across the subcontinent, and left on only in places where the only alternative was to look at the rain.
21 comments
New User? Sign up