Sloppy England toss away advantage

If England go on to lose this series, they may well look back on the first day of this Test as the time it slipped away.

It was hard to fault them in Visakhapatnam. Yes, they might have batted better on day two and, yes, they missed a key (though tough) chance on day one. But they were minor moments in a game in which the opposition took advantage of winning an important toss.

Here England had every opportunity. They not only won a toss that should have proved every bit as important but they benefited from some poor fielding from India that had reprieved the highest run-scorer in Test cricket this year (Jonny Bairstow) and the highest run-scorer in England's Test history (Alastair Cook). They should have punished such profligacy. They should have established a match-defining platform.

Instead, they will start day two scrapping to remain in the game.

That they have any chance of doing so is largely due to two facts: the sustained fine form of Bairstow and a pitch that has already misbehaved a little - Haseeb Hameed was dismissed by a delivery that reared and Chris Woakes by one that kept a little low - and may well deteriorate. Perhaps England's total is not quite as modest as it appears at first glance.

England will know, though, that they have allowed India a strong foothold in this game that they might have denied. And they will know that they squandered the chance to record a substantial first-innings total through some unnecessarily aggressive batting.

We have to be careful with criticising England's batting. We cannot praise them for their bold approach when the aggressive strokes land in the stands and chastise them for their carelessness when the same strokes land in hands. We cannot judge just by results.

So Cook, for example, cannot be faulted for his shot selection. The ball that dismissed him was short. He was right to try and cut it. He simply executed the shot poorly. He should still play that shot the next time he faces the same type of delivery. He should do it better. He will know that.

But some of the other batsmen need to ask themselves: what was the hurry? What was the necessity for Ben Stokes, who had been playing so straight and with such discipline, to skip down the pitch and even bring the possibility of a stumping into the equation? What was the necessity for Jos Buttler, who had done the hard work in reaching an increasingly assured 43, to skip down the pitch and try and drive through extra cover?

Why did Joe Root, whose best Test innings (arguably, at least) came at Old Trafford earlier this year, when he demonstrated his denial as much as his strokeplay, think that he should pull the first delivery he received from a spinner before lunch on the first day, when he had not had time to assess the surface?

The answer, as so often, is that England had decided to take the attack to the bowlers. They had decided 'not to let them settle' and to 'be positive'. They have embraced the modern approach - especially visible in Australia where attitude has largely replaced technique - that, to be successful in Test cricket, you don't just have to score runs, you have to score them fast.

It is an error. While long-form cricket survives, there will always be a place for accumulation. The balls not played will always be as important as the balls that are. The likes of Cook will continue be as valuable as the likes of Stokes. There will always be a place for denial and discipline and determination. There are times when England have to dare to be dour, dare to be dull, dare to be different.

As Bairstow put it: "Grinding out the runs was something that we had to do." It's just that too few of them did it.

England have to learn that there are different way to gain the upper hand on a bowler. One of them, no doubt, is to score at four an over. Another is to make them bowl for five or six sessions. Success doesn't have to be rushed. Erosion's impact tends to last longer than a storm's.

This was, in some ways, an oddly low-quality day of Test cricket. After all, two of England's top three were dismissed by long-hops and some of India's fielding was more Monty than Jonty. We had deliveries that bounced twice before reaching the batsmen and deliveries that were so wide the keeper had no chance.

All of which prompted the thought: might, by 2025, the best Test side be the one whose long-from cricket has deteriorated least quickly? Might it be the side who exhibit the fewest characteristics of T20? And, if so, will anyone want to watch them?

Modern Test cricket is wonderfully entertaining. It may never have been more so. But is it as high quality as it once was? On days like this, it doesn't seem so. On days like this, it seems more circus than theatre.