It is said that failure teaches more than victory does.
A mind that is in pursuit of success has to remain resilient in the face of failure. India’s defeat to Sri Lanka is one such setback, and the scale of it suggests that it was more than a stumble; it is, in fact, a rude awakening.
Failure doesn’t hold one back forever but the fear of failure most definitely will. This is perhaps the biggest lesson India can draw from the debacle.
Below are the five talking points from the Test.
Aggression: When asked to define what an aggressive mindset was, Virat Kohli said: “I think it really depends on an individual. It’s the clarity of thought that is required in high pressure situations, that’s how you elevate or differentiate yourself from average players or average teams.”
In reality, what India displayed seemed hollow.
The five-bowler theory: After the first day when India bowled Sri Lanka out for 183, it was a near-universal view that India’s reading of the pitch had been spot on.
Was it really so?
The previous day, Ravi Shastri had said that India might go with four bowlers if the pitch had enough juice in it. The one at Galle, with bite and turn on day one, fit that description aptly. However, India went with five.
What it did was reduce the chance of longish spells. Harbhajan Singh’s presence and the obligation to bowl him disrupted the rhythm of the attack.
For evidence of what a longish spell can accomplish on such pitches, consider Rangana Herath and Tharindu Kaushal, who bowled 29.3 overs in tandem at a stretch and bagged nine wickets.
The Indian bowlers’ spells in the second session on day three when Dinesh Chandimal was going berserk were: R. Ashwin 5-1-27-0, Amit Mishra 4-0-21-0, Ishant Sharma 4-0-24-0, Harbhajan Singh 4-0-20-0, Varun Aaron 2-0-7-0, Ishant 1-0-9-0, Ashwin 4-1-17-1, Mishra 4-0-28-0.
The No.3 slot: Rohit Sharma at No. 3 is a hot potato. With every failure he provokes debate and divides opinion.
In all fairness, Rohit has had only four innings from three Tests at one drop.
But is he cut-out for the job?
Kohli certainly seems to think so. “The reason why Rohit [Sharma] started getting more chances again was because Cheteshwar [Pujara] was going through a phase where he wasn’t getting too many runs. So it was a case of giving another batsman a chance,” he said.
“Right now, Rohit has got three-four chances at No.3. The idea has been to persist with him.”
Rohit’s selection has much to do with how Kohli’s vision of his team as an attack-minded outfit. But the way Rohit floundered against both pace and spin at Galle does not augur well for the team's prospects.
The spin conundrum: Graeme Swann and Monty Panesar tallied 37 wickets in four Tests against India in the 2012/13 series. Moeen Ali, in 2014, accounted for 19 in five. Nathan Lyon scalped 23 in four in 2014/15 while Herath and Kaushal scalped 15 in the first Test of this series.
India’s stats against spin bowling in the recent past have clearly been dismal.
The reason often given is that Indian batsmen do not face quality spinners in the domestic circuit.
But are there any quality spinners around, and even if there are, which Indian player plays domestic cricket?
It is perfect example of what is colloquially known as a ‘double whammy.’
“There is this need for spinners to excel in the shortest version,” said the famed cricket writer Gideon Haigh. “T20 demands that spinners disrupt and confuse the batsman by mixing it up. You need to bowl six different deliveries and not six at the same spot.”
Bowling spin and batting against it are skills that need constant honing. And, considering the truth in Haigh’s observation, the situation is unlikely to see dramatic improvement in the near future.
Stand on the DRS: For how much longer will India resist the DRS? Had the system been in place, India could well have been home and dry. Chandimal and Lahiru Thirimanne were both questionably deemed ‘not out’, with Sri Lanka five wickets down and around 100 runs adrift.
India’s opposition has been on the grounds that the system isn’t foolproof. But how valid is it when there is enough evidence that the accuracy of decision-making certainly goes up with DRS?
Most feel that the system does indeed need a fix — like not losing a review if the umpire’s call stands. The situation calls for a debate and not complete disengagement.
To his credit, Kohli did suggest that the stand would be reconsidered. “When the series is over we will sit down and figure out how important it is or how much we want to use it,” he said.
