India should have gone in with the extra bowler in Galle © Associated Press

Stats do the talking: Sri Lanka post a colossal 520 for 8 after being reduced to 393 for 7. India, on the other hand, lose the last five wickets for a paltry 26 runs in the first innings. Once again, five middle-order wickets pack up in 36 runs in the second innings –appalling figures that sum up the Indian tragedy in Galle.

Was it the Indian batting that failed twice in Galle or the bowling that allowed the Sri Lankans to post a mammoth total or, perhaps both? What exactly was the reason behind India’s dismal show in the first Test? While armchair criticism is rampant at this time, a bit of introspection, not misplaced criticism, would do us a world of good.

In my view, we started the first Test match on the wrong foot. The team’s endeavour, especially the No.1 team in the world, should be to win the match regardless of the toss and the conditions. Since you need 20 wickets to win a Test match, it’s imperative to tighten up the bowling unit before the start. While picking the playing XI, one must take into account the track (which would always be batsman friendly in the sub-continent) and the possibility of losing the toss (which means bowling first).

Did we have a bowling department convincing enough to dismiss the strong Sri Lankan batting twice? If the honest answer to the question is a No, it rests the issue. We hoped that we would win the toss, bat first and post a huge total, make Sri Lanka bat twice and ‘perhaps’ win the Test match. But as we now know, Test matches are not won on naive presumptions.

Let’s have a look at how the first Test panned out. The bowling looked quite listless to start with which was perhaps along the expected lines. You don’t expect an attack comprising a debutant, a rookie and a bowler making a comeback of sorts to run riot. Even the senior-most bowler was under the weather and perhaps wasn’t a 100% fit.

Just to add to India’s woes the track was flat and MS Dhoni called incorrectly. While the fast bowlers redeemed themselves somewhat and brought India back into the game, their slower counterparts failed to step up. Sri Lanka’s lower order made merry and the No.8 and 9 batsmen notched up their highest first class scores. Our bowling had run out of steam by the time the tail arrived.

Yes, the famed batting line-up failed twice in Galle, but had the Sri Lankan tail not wagged as much, we wouldn’t have fallen short of the follow-on mark. No, I’m not trying to defend the batting breakdown, but only saying that even if India batted better, we could have only salvaged a draw. For batting can either set up or save a Test match but rarely win it for the team.

While saving a Test match is an art, you must always plan to win. Despite the twin failure, I’d say that our strength lies in batting and hence can provide cushion to the bowling department. India must play bowlers who can take 20 wickets and if four bowlers don’t look resounding enough, there’s no harm in playing five. In any case, Dhoni at No.6 is as good a batsman as you could ever get at that position. By sacrificing one batsman you’d put some real pressure on the batting line-up and undoubtedly they’d respond positively.

It’s only wise to strengthen your bowling on good batting surfaces, just like you bolster the batting on surfaces which assist the bowlers.

It would be a good idea to first employ the UDRS and then make an effort to make it as perfect as it can get © Getty Images

The ball hits the edge of the bat before crashing into the pads. The fielding team appeals vociferously and the umpire adjudges the batsman out. Haven’t we seen such inaccurate judgments being pronounced time and again?

They are far from being an aberration, and the argument is that the umpires are humans and can err too. Point taken. But what happens next depends on that single decision the captains would have taken ahead of the series. For example, if you happen to be involved in a series where the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) is not being used, you must make your way back to the pavilion without even breaking into a frown. For a frown or a shake of the head might be considered ‘showing dissent’ and could attract a summons from the match referee or even a fine.

But if the UDRS was in use, you could make the ‘T-sign’ and the matter would be referred to the third umpire, if your team hasn’t already exhausted two unsuccessful challenges. India and Sri Lanka were the first two teams to experiment with the UDRS two years ago. Since then, both teams have taken radically different approaches. While Kumar Sangakkara believes the UDRS should be mandatory, MS Dhoni believes that there’s no point in using it until it’s foolproof.

Evidently, these reactions are based on their experiences. While Mahela Jayawardene (Sri Lanka’s captain when India toured Sri Lanka in 2008) got it right almost every single time, his counterpart, Anil Kumble, got it wrong more often than not. But isn’t it inappropriate to blame the system for not getting your judgement right? The reason the Indians struggled the first time UDRS was brought into play, was because Kumble was at mid-on or mid-off which isn’t ideal to make a call. And hence he had to rely on Dinesh Karthik for inputs, who, unfortunately, got it wrong and so did Kumble. Jayawardene was always in the slips, had a better view, and hence had the advantage of calling correctly.

I’m not saying this system is absolutely correct but does that mean you refuse to use it until it’s perfect? Would it also not mean that Test matches, around the world, will then be played with different rules?

We all remember that infamous Sydney Test between India and Australia. I will refrain from going into the murky details of the sordid affair, yet the issue got instigated with Andrew Symonds not given out off Ishant Sharma. Pity; it was visible to everyone except the umpire that he’d nicked it. Had there been the UDRS in place, the matter would have been settled there and then. And perhaps matters wouldn’t have escalated to such extremes.

Yes, there’s a lot that can be done with the current UDRS, like giving the third-umpire more power and responsibility. He should be given the right to inform the on-field umpires immediately if an error is committed. Why wait till the session gets over or till the players appeal? The idea is not to undermine the role of the on-field umpire but to empower him to make the right decisions. In fact, everyone else except the men who have to make decisions have access to the technology, to assess if the evaluation was correct or not. Every error is magnified with the TV coverage and followed by intense scrutiny from the media and people alike.

I don’t know of a batsman worth his salt who likes to be given out when he is not and the same goes for the bowlers with regard to their dismissals. So, instead of being reluctant, a good idea would be to employ it first and then make an effort to make it as perfect as it can get.

Getting rid of meaningless matches may not be possible, for how would weaker teams improve otherwise? © Getty Images

“How to make an apparently outdated Test cricket in vogue?” is the big question everyone seems to be asking. While debates and discussions are gaining momentum, MCC has gone ahead and renovated the format for others to either follow suit or mull over. The only format to be played exclusively at day time might now be played under lights and with a pink ball. Obviously, the intent to save the oldest format of the sport is pretty evident.

But what is it that has led to taking such drastic steps to revamp the most classic format? Well, the first problem is the empty stadia and dropping TRPs and second is the lack of interest shown by the youngsters in the longest format.

The first proposal is to make it a day-night affair to cater to the prime-time television. Apparently it isn’t only the viewers in the stadium who are missing but also the people who watch the action on telly that are giving it a miss. While cricket at prime-time might increase viewership, it won’t be a bad idea to get to the root cause of dwindling interest. In my humble opinion people are staying away from Test cricket for a variety of reasons. First could be the meaningless matches (say Bangladesh v India). Regardless of the build-up, it would take some serious love for the game to watch the batsmen piling up runs against hapless bowling.

But it is not only the matches amongst the unequal which fail to ignite interest. Even the two top teams playing on a dead-flat track would face similar fate. The series Australia played against India in 2008-09 would be the prime example of not producing interesting cricket despite the best in the business locking horns.

Getting rid of meaningless matches may not be possible, for how would weaker teams improve otherwise? But at the same time I’m not sure if getting a royal beating by bigger teams every time is helping them either. Hence we may need to tweak the rules a bit to accommodate them till they reach a certain level. My suggestion is to put a cap on the number of overs a team can bat to 125 in the first innings and 100 overs each in the second dig. This might ensure that the stronger team won’t run away with the game and the weaker team isn’t out of it either. And it goes without saying; ICC must ensure that Test Cricket is not played on a road but on tracks which have something in it for everyone.

The second fold of the problem is that young cricketers don’t seem to be interested in playing the longer format anymore. They’d rather play in the lucrative T20 leagues than toiling hard for years to acquire the requisite skills to succeed in Test cricket. Let’s face it. These youngsters have choices in front of them and you can’t blame them for choosing the more profitable option. After all one can earn more money in 60 days of T20 cricket than what you’d get after playing for the country in Test cricket for 5 years. I think it’s about time that we increase the financial reward substantially for playing Test cricket but also bring that in to public knowledge. Every Test hundred, a five-for and a win should attract monetary rewards. This might ensure that the Cheteshwar Pujaras and Rahul Dewans of the cricketing world won’t sacrifice their technique and temperament to get on to the T20 bandwagon.

It may not be possible for not-so-rich cricket boards across the world but since India hosts the most lucrative T20 league, it can definitely do its bit to safeguard the interest of the oldest form of cricket.

Gary Kirsten has helped Gautam Gambhir correct his problem of falling over © AFP

What is the easiest way of dealing with an out-of-form player? Drop him, send him back to play domestic cricket and wait for him to make amends before drafting him in again. Quite easy. Now, what would be the most difficult way of dealing with the same struggling cricketer? It would be to get to the root cause of the problem, help him rectify it and all this while putting an arm around his shoulder to boost his morale. Because technical glitches won’t take too long to be rectified but shattered confidence might just take an eternity to be restored.

You really don’t need a qualified person to find faults. It’s ridiculously easy to say that X player is a suspect on short-pitched deliveries and Y player can’t swing the ball anymore. But it takes not only a qualified professional but also a really patient and understanding man to rectify these mistakes.

Poor form is seldom the spin-off of one thing or one aspect of the game going wrong. The starting point of the downfall may well be negligible but you get to know its effect only when it snowballs into a much bigger and easily identifiable problem i.e. poor show on the field. For example Sreesanth’s poor bowling form often starts with his non-bowling arm coming down a tad early which eventually leads to his straying in line. The same can be said about Ishant, only that his wrist is often the culprit.

Gauti also had this perennial problem of falling over and hence was susceptible to sharp in-coming deliveries. Gary made those minor, but necessary, adjustments in his stance and head position and the rest is history. It not only changed the fortunes of his career but of the Indian team too. And Gautam is never shy in giving Gary the due credit.

If Gautam’s example spoke about the positive influence of a coach, here’s the exact opposite of that. A bowler, from a respectable Ranji Trophy team, was struggling with the problem of over-stepping. So much so, that the poor guy was bowling every delivery from at least six-eight inches over the popping crease. There were a plethora of coaches supervising his progress, or the lack of it. All that these wise men did was tell him that he was overstepping and that he needed to stop it. They had nothing more to offer to the player. Another bowler, this time on an India A tour, was bowling at least two-three no-balls in an over. To give devil its due, the coach did work with him in-between the matches, but made little headway. In fact he bowled a 15-ball over in the following game. Clearly whatever the coach did was not enough.

Now, a qualified coach would tell you that correcting the simple problem of overstepping is not rocket science and hence should have been rectified easily.

Practice doesn’t make a man perfect, it just makes him permanent. So, God forbid if a player is practicing the wrong technique, he’s just making matters worse for himself. Bowlers who are found guilty of chucking are the prime example of practising the wrong skill. It’s as much their fault as it is of their respective coaches.

The role of a coach is to first identify and then nip the problem in the bud. It’s about time that our state teams, right from the age-group teams, hire professional coaches. After all BCCI is spending millions to conduct regular coaching courses at various levels and it’ll serve its purpose only if the state associations make use of these coaches.