How effective are India's bowlers on batting pitches?

The Rajkot Test was filled with tough lessons for India. But a draw was secured, and the team moves on to Visakhapatnam, its picture postcard beaches and possibly turning pitches.

At the most recent international match played at the venue, Amit Mishra picked up five wickets and New Zealand were bowled out for 79 after having been 63 for 2. Before the start of that ODI, the host broadcaster's pitch report suggested it would be a belter. Fifty or so overs in, it was turning from one corner to the other.

India's bowlers may not mind a similar setting come Thursday. They tend to work better when there's something in it for them, much the way children are far more inclined to do their chores when they get extra dessert at dinner. Work needs incentive and, often, it is in the form of chocolate cake.

They weren't too bad in Rajkot. In fact, Umesh Yadav and Mohammed Shami were able to find reverse swing when it looked like none of England's bowlers could. They created chances with the new ball on the first day but were let down by their fielders. R Ashwin, often the big brother pulling this bowling attack out of trouble, crafted two fine wickets to redress the dropped catches but from there on; from the second session of the Test, India slowly lost their way.

It raised a familiar question. Can India's bowlers be effective on a good pitch?

It's a difficult proposition because the window of opportunity you have is quite small. Say the first half hour when you can expect some sideways movement. Making the batsman play as much as possible in this period is vital. So too is attacking each one's weaknesses. For example, India rarely tried to bounce Moeen Ali when they themselves had success with the ploy before. England were very keen to test Cheteshwar Pujara with the short ball.

The other thing when dealing with stubborn pitches is having a clear plan and sticking to it. When the batsman knows there is no seam or swing or spin, when he can trust the pace and bounce, it is only the bowler's discipline that creates doubt: keeping the ball outside off stump if he is susceptible to nicking off, getting closer if he tends to get bowled or lbw. Be boring. Be repetitive. Play on his ego. Induce the mistake. Savour the triumph.

India were lacking in this regard. At times, it seemed like they didn't have an idea of what they wanted to do. They were hoping for wickets rather than pushing for them. They were hoping to keep the runs down rather than devising ways to find wickets. They had an in-out field on the second morning in Rajkot. Yet, they conceded 21 boundaries in a single session. This spell of play forced India so far back in the match that it required their five batsmen to bat at their peak not once but twice to save it. Could they have done so had they conceded 537 runs in the first innings away from home?

Losing the toss was a mitigating factor, a sizeable one. It meant India had to bowl when the pitch was at its most docile. England too conceded a total of 488. But they made the batsmen take a lot longer to get there. Chris Woakes took the pitch out of the equation with his pace. Stuart Broad was skillful enough to repeatedly hit a crack, which ran length-wise down the pitch, to see if it could give him some natural variation.

There are ways to overcome a stubborn pitch. The margin of error is small and it often takes an exceptional effort to succeed but there are ways.

Harking back to the Eden Gardens where India clinched the No. 1 Test ranking, Virat Kohli was noticeably chipper. He had won the Test mace a year into full-time captaincy, he had another series victory on his record and the signs pointed to dominance over the entire home season in 2016-17. But the reasons for his happiness were none of those things. The batsmen did well on a seamer-friendly surface. The fast bowlers outdid New Zealand's, who were arguably more used to such conditions. Kohli had seen his team stand up to adversity. He wouldn't want that to be a one shot.