A negative mentality, mistakes and a remarkable Rohit Sharma - How England lost the fourth Test

SIMON HUGHES AT THE KIA OVAL: India had enough bowling depth to see them to victory on the fifth day. But England allowed several opportunities to stamp their mark on the contest slip through their fingers, and they were duly punished

This was a great Test match. No doubt. Any sporting event which goes deep into a fifth day with no one being quite sure of the outcome will always have people coming back for more.

WinViz was going haywire all match, with England runaway favourites after bowling India out for 191, the tourists striking back by having them 62 for 5, England back on top having engineered a lead of 99, but then seeing India gradually eek out the advantage with determined batting on the fourth day.

But at the end of that, all results were still possible, with the draw actually the favourite. On a compelling fifth day, India gradually made their depth of bowling resources and consistent hostility felt – their three main seamers were quicker than any of England’s. They deserved their ultimate success after tea.

I admit I have been a proponent of four-day Tests. With Test series so tightly packed, I like the way four days fits into the seven-day week (with three days rest between games.)

The majority of Tests finish inside four days anyway (Headingley last week barely lasted beyond three.) I know the arguments about allowing a match to go to its natural inclusion, that four days makes draws more inevitable – yet less creditable - and that play on a wearing fifth-day pitch is always liable to be intriguing.

But if overrates were better – and tardiness punishable with run penalties – four days would still be satisfactory for most Tests. That said, all Tests featuring two of England, Australia or India should be five-day affairs. These are the countries where the format thrives.

So where did England lose this? Having recovered from 62 for 5, they should have made 350. There were a few soft dismissals during the latter part of their innings. A lead of 150 would have been much more onerous for India to overcome.

Second, they dropped crucial catches during India’s second innings – Rohit Sharma could have been caught on six and 31 and there were other misses too. The pitch was flat but India could have been dismissed for 350.

Third, the hosts seemed to adopt an over-defensive mindset on the fifth morning. The proactivity of the night before (and Rory Burns and Haseeb Hameed’s excellent opening stand at Headingley) seemed to have gone.

They should have recognised that this was a golden opportunity to put pressure back on the bowlers, but instead, they adopted a ‘see-what-happens’ mentality.

^{Player of the match Rohit Sharma was the difference for India}

England scored only 54 runs in the morning session, although admittedly it is never easy scoring fluently off a left-arm spinner aiming into the fifth day rough. After that, the best they could have hoped for was a draw.

This is perhaps carping. India won because they had the one batsman who made a major score in the match. Rohit’s 127 was the only hundred in the game and his first outside India. It took him the best part of six hours and is a major landmark for him.

He has realised, relatively late in his career, that there is so much more satisfaction to be derived from battling through awkward periods of cloudy weather, fading light and feisty Dukes balls darting about than thrashing the white ball around for a 110-ball century.

It has added an important dimension to this Indian side that they lacked last time they were here. It is one of the factors that make India marginally the better side and favourites to make it 3-1 at Old Trafford. Let’s hope it is as enticing a contest as this was.