India were second best for the first time in Vizag on a day when DRS came into prominence

Dating back to 2008, India has a disgruntled on-off relationship with DRS.

It is like when two people go on a couple of dates, and then decide they don’t want to be together. One of them goes on to charm the world, never settling down, while the other broods in silence, hoping to find something better.

Ultimately, though, they come together again, going one step further and almost getting into an arranged/forced marriage situation. They do not understand the compulsion, but go ahead nevertheless for the greater good. There is always the possibility though that this dissatisfaction would boil over one day.

With regard to India and DRS then, it happened on day four in Vizag.

It is not to say that the Indian team doesn’t know what they are dealing with. “Before the series, we sat down and spoke about DRS, and how to use it, whether whilst batting or bowling,” said Cheteshwar Pujara after the fourth day’s play.

Lack of application

The application bit is of concern though. Here is a small example: After the Rajkot Test, Virat Kohli had spoken about the need for the non-striker to stand closer to the stumps so that he is able to give an opinion about whether to go for the review or not. Most of the Indian batsmen didn’t adhere to it in this second Test, and were visibly standing in their normal positions.

It didn’t help. When Wriddhiman Saha asked for advice in the first innings, R Ashwin – standing wide at the non-striker’s end – gave his nod. Saha’s appeal was not overturned. Shortly afterwards, he didn’t ask Ravindra Jadeja to go for a review, even when the left-hander was not out, as replays showed the ball missing leg.

Ashwin stands out, in example, on the field as well. In both innings, he has forced the skipper to go for DRS reviews when Kohli himself has not been convinced about it. The Alastair Cook incident on this fourth day is a particular case in point. He had already escaped a review off Jadeja. And in the very next over, Ashwin forced another one. Pujara admitted that the close-in fielders added to the decision-making. It is the wrong way.

Without thinking of consequences – losing their second review – Kohli went for it. On both occasions, umpire’s call came into play. It is like god’s call – you pray for it, but you can’t really argue with it. Even if you don’t agree with it, you have to accept it. And so, India lost both their reviews by the 46th over of what is surely going to be a long, drawn out second English innings.

Umpire’s call

Umpire’s call is surely the next big DRS debate. It clearly retains the human element of control over proceedings, which is in keeping with the game’s traditional umpiring spirit. But can the decision be not out when the ball is hitting leg stump? Does it matter whether the area of contact is 25% or 45%? And is it fair that reviews get used up when umpire’s call is the final verdict? If DRS is for removing howlers, then shouldn’t the teams’ reviews only be used up when a mistake has been overturned, and not just for every marginal decision?

This whole thing, however, is a discussion for another time. Otherwise, it would only deflect attention off a day when England actually dominated proceedings.

Forget the scorecard for a moment. India lost six for 64 (before Jayant Yadav and Mohammed Shami stopped a total collapse). Then, England batted out 50 overs without losing a wicket on day four, and in the end they only lost two. In summation, you would think that the visitors are dictating the direction of play in this Test.

“No, I don’t think that collapse handed any psychological advantage to them. 405 is a tall target,” said Pujara, when asked if the momentum had changed hands. Stuart Broad had a different take.

“When you are 200 runs behind, it is very easy to throw the towel in. But we put pressure on them with early wickets. And we did not let them control the scoring, or let them declare. It led to us putting in a very solid batting performance and gives us hope for tomorrow,” he said after play.

A performance for the ages

Bowling with an injured toe and wrist, the pacer put in a performance for the ages. Years later, when you wonder about great fast bowling spells in the Indian subcontinent, remember how Broad bowled in Visakhapatnam’s maiden Test, particularly in the second innings. Using the variable bounce to great effect, he made such inroads that Cook didn’t need to use Moeen Ali for more than 3.1 overs, or Zafar Ansari at all, in the second Indian innings.

As Broad so aptly put it, England got a lift despite the 405-run target. It was clear that they didn’t contemplate any chances of winning. For that, you have to play shots. Scoring on a day four (and day five, as it now stands) pitch is dangerous. When your only intent is to shut shop and close everything down, the bowlers have to go the extra mile.

Cook did his usual thing – he has done it a thousand times, maybe more – only he did it slower than ever before in his career (slowest Test half-century). Haseeb Hameed was the real hero, though. There is no doubting his ability. But, at age 19, he seems to have a staggering comprehension of the match situation. It is similar to what Max Verstappen is doing in Formula One currently – maturity beyond his years. He is a world champion in waiting, and just like him, Hameed is a champion batsman in the making.

India’s desperation at this mega stonewalling effort was plainly visible when Ashwin went for that second review against Cook. It encapsulated the three sessions for the hosts. They were second best, both with bat and ball, as well as in referring to the TV umpire.

Thankfully for Kohli, Ashwin and their teammates, there is a fifth day to come.