Floundering in negativity

Another away series, another example of the mediocrity of what passes for India's seam attack. If the first Test revealed an inability to build and maintain pressure, then the second has shown an outright deficiency in performing to a standard capable of achieving more than allowing respectable opposition to comfortably compile big totals.

Bowlers win Tests and India's group don't have the wickets on the board. Even given outstanding series by the leading batsmen, which was far from guaranteed against England's under-rated attack, series success with Khan, Nehra and Agarkar was highly optimistic. Collectively they had played only 35 Tests before the series, none in England. Unless dramatic progress was made by one of the three or the unit as a whole demonstrated an unlikely level of discipline and intensity, then dismissing England's confident batting order for competitive scores often enough to win the series was unrealistic.

Even in the unsurprising event of that failing to happen, though, conceding 619 speaks of more than a fundamental lack of quality, which is the essential reason for India's bowling woes. Despite Vaughan's superlative knock, there was still scope for a weak but hard-working side to dismiss England for a lead of around 100 and conceivably put them under some pressure on the last day.

Instead, what transpired was the type of disillusioned, uninspired cricket one might expect in a dead match or already lost series. Having apparently conceded England could not be bowled out with a small enough lead to make second innings runs relevant, both teams disturbingly appeared to play with the same aim; England wanting to build their lead and India content to have them use up overs while waiting for the light to deteriorate.

Even for an ordinary bowling team, this sort of negativity should be a last resort. Zaheer Khan bowling Flintoff and Stewart in the same over showed a hint of potency remained, but India too readily lapsed into going through the motions, for which the blame has to lie mainly with Ganguly. Poor bowling is one thing, but it's incumbent upon the captain to foster the right attitude and prolonging the stay in the field doesn't qualify.

As so often happens, the defeatist mentality carried over to the batting with the loss of two quick wickets, immediately undermining anything that could have been achieved by extending England's innings.

Despite the positive run rates, neither team has appeared overly keen to seize the match, which has showcased more than one of cricket's negative aspects. The regulation governing bad light is one that needs examining to increase the attractiveness of Test cricket.

On day one, India accepted the light an hour before scheduled stumps when Laxman had some momentum. And on day three, England decided to come off an hour past stumps when they could have punished a tired India. Both were reasonable decisions at each team's discretion, but it's time teams were no longer given the option of stopping play for poor light.

In a match like the second Test where the quality of light has been a recurring problem, both sides are affected over the course of five days. Why less-than-ideal natural viewing conditions should be considered different to variable bounce, a damp outfield, extreme heat or any other uncontrollable circumstance to which players can reasonably adapt is puzzling.

If the safety of the players was endangered, then one could understand the umpires making a decision to suspend play. Other than in that circumstance, though, poor light should be considered part of the game, particularly during scheduled playing hours.

Suspending play for light might also be a little more palatable if over-rates were not so tardy. But it seems strange that one negative, a slow over-rate, should be balanced with another in allowing the batsmen to go off, which shows neither team are really interested in playing. India could labour through their overs on day four in the knowledge that when it came their turn to bat they could eventually accept the light, an advantage they did not deserve.

At grounds equipped with light towers, this is no longer an issue. Without them, for the sake of the spectacle, it should be incumbent upon teams to make the best of it.

Also a poor advertisement for cricket was the non-catch of Alec Stewart by Virender Sehwag, yet another of the endless series of examples of why catching decisions should not be referred to the third umpire. As it stands now, the existing regulations in effect make it illegal for a fielder to take a catch with his hands touching the ground. This point needs to be acknowledged, because it has almost reached the farcical stage where fielders may as well save their energy and not bother to dive for low catches.

Unless instances of cheating have coincidentally increased manifold to match the extended use of replays to decide catches, hardly likely given the nature of replays, then the invariable not out decisions are the fault of no-one but the system. Umpires, batsmen and fielders are doing their jobs correctly. It is simply that TV replays cannot be relied upon to provide an accurate picture, for it will always appear from certain angles that the ball has bounced when instinct, of the fielders and probably the field umpires, knows the catch to be clean.

The fallibility of the camera lens has to be admitted to make close catches legal again.

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw