<div>Your personality is often reflected in the way you approach your game. Virat Kohli, aggressive with a smart cricketing head on his shoulders, doesn’t mind risking defeat in pursuit of victory. Alastair Cook, calm and realistic, comes across as a leader who would rather be safe than sorry.<br /><br />While neither style is inferior or superior to the other, the pros and cons of a particular method are spelt out depending upon the outcome of a match. Kohli’s approach in the Adelaide Test in December 2014 was questioned as India went on to lose the match after coming close to pulling off a surprise win. Kohli, stand-in captain for MS Dhoni in that match, slammed a brilliant ton but was criticised for not trying for a draw even as batsmen kept deserting him at the other end.<br /><br />Though no visiting team in India has scored more than 276 runs in the fourth innings of a Test to win, England’s decision to go for a draw from the outset was a bit perplexing because they had to face a minimum of 150 overs, spread over day four and five. While a win for England was in the realm of fantasy, a positive intent from the visitors could have forced India to be less aggressive. Even in defeat, England could have drawn some positives by making Indian spinners work hard for their wickets. And once Cook and Hameed, two of the best grafters among tourists, were gone after a long vigil on the penultimate day, India were all over England like a bad rash. Much as Cook may offer in his defence, it appears a tactical blunder. <br /><br />Kohli of course wasn’t complaining as England had played straight into his hands. “We thought they would come out with more intent to be honest,” Kohli said, talking about England’s approach. “To see the approach that they had obviously gave us assurance that once we get a couple of wickets, it will crumble pretty quickly because there wasn’t much intent from the batsmen. On that kind of wicket, if you ask about my batting (in both innings), that was the plan -- to have intent. If you are looking for runs, you defend well because your head is on the ball as well. So that was the idea, to get runs as the pitch gets tougher to bat on, show intent and keep getting runs in between, extend the lead so that the opposition feels the heat of those 30-40 runs. It is a pretty basic thing to do, to be honest, and if you don’t have intent in the fourth innings, it is tough to play out four and half sessions,” he explained. <br /><br />Cook’s explanation had some logic but not when you have to survive 150 overs on a fifth-day wicket with at least four fielders around the bat all the time. England may have drawn some hope from their batting in the first Test but then this was no Rajkot surface. <br /><br />“We set our stall out pretty clearly from the start of the innings that we wanted to take it as deep as possible,” he began. “We saw in one game, South Africa played 140-odd overs (Delhi, 2015) and if we got to 150 overs, then we could have saved the game. It's not some people's natural way of playing. But you say play your natural way and you are four down and then the lower order starts digging in and you think why didn’t we start that right at the beginning of the game? We made a very clear policy. Of course, when it does not work, you feel you could have been more positive, get rid of the men round the bat but you make a decision as a captain, as a leadership group and everyone bought into it. We came up a bit short.”</div>
<div>Your personality is often reflected in the way you approach your game. Virat Kohli, aggressive with a smart cricketing head on his shoulders, doesn’t mind risking defeat in pursuit of victory. Alastair Cook, calm and realistic, comes across as a leader who would rather be safe than sorry.<br /><br />While neither style is inferior or superior to the other, the pros and cons of a particular method are spelt out depending upon the outcome of a match. Kohli’s approach in the Adelaide Test in December 2014 was questioned as India went on to lose the match after coming close to pulling off a surprise win. Kohli, stand-in captain for MS Dhoni in that match, slammed a brilliant ton but was criticised for not trying for a draw even as batsmen kept deserting him at the other end.<br /><br />Though no visiting team in India has scored more than 276 runs in the fourth innings of a Test to win, England’s decision to go for a draw from the outset was a bit perplexing because they had to face a minimum of 150 overs, spread over day four and five. While a win for England was in the realm of fantasy, a positive intent from the visitors could have forced India to be less aggressive. Even in defeat, England could have drawn some positives by making Indian spinners work hard for their wickets. And once Cook and Hameed, two of the best grafters among tourists, were gone after a long vigil on the penultimate day, India were all over England like a bad rash. Much as Cook may offer in his defence, it appears a tactical blunder. <br /><br />Kohli of course wasn’t complaining as England had played straight into his hands. “We thought they would come out with more intent to be honest,” Kohli said, talking about England’s approach. “To see the approach that they had obviously gave us assurance that once we get a couple of wickets, it will crumble pretty quickly because there wasn’t much intent from the batsmen. On that kind of wicket, if you ask about my batting (in both innings), that was the plan -- to have intent. If you are looking for runs, you defend well because your head is on the ball as well. So that was the idea, to get runs as the pitch gets tougher to bat on, show intent and keep getting runs in between, extend the lead so that the opposition feels the heat of those 30-40 runs. It is a pretty basic thing to do, to be honest, and if you don’t have intent in the fourth innings, it is tough to play out four and half sessions,” he explained. <br /><br />Cook’s explanation had some logic but not when you have to survive 150 overs on a fifth-day wicket with at least four fielders around the bat all the time. England may have drawn some hope from their batting in the first Test but then this was no Rajkot surface. <br /><br />“We set our stall out pretty clearly from the start of the innings that we wanted to take it as deep as possible,” he began. “We saw in one game, South Africa played 140-odd overs (Delhi, 2015) and if we got to 150 overs, then we could have saved the game. It's not some people's natural way of playing. But you say play your natural way and you are four down and then the lower order starts digging in and you think why didn’t we start that right at the beginning of the game? We made a very clear policy. Of course, when it does not work, you feel you could have been more positive, get rid of the men round the bat but you make a decision as a captain, as a leadership group and everyone bought into it. We came up a bit short.”</div>
