Virat Kohli's captaincy at Adelaide heralds the dawn of a new era in Indian cricket

2014 was the year of renaissance in Indian cricket. Okay, maybe that is an exaggeration. After all, it was just one Test match. But what we saw in Adelaide was unprecedented for an Indian team. And yet, India went 0-1 down in the series.

The visitors lost the first Test against Australia by 48 runs. The Test in which India were led, for the first time, by Virat Kohli.

The first line would ordinarily not evoke astonishment. India were expected to lose in Australia and they have begun on a losing note.

However, in Adelaide on Day 5, India had a real chance of winning the Test match. In fact, at one point it seemed even likelier than a draw. Process that.

When Murali Vijay and Virat Kohli were batting, the target seemed well within reach. Around four runs per over were required and both players were batting with complete ease. Nathan Lyon no longer looked like a demon and Mitchell Johnson's bowling was also looking innocuous.  

Except that it all unravelled after Vijay was out. For purists, an Indian loss never looked an option at tea. 10 overs later, it was a certainty. But herein lies the fun.

It made sense for India to continue their attempt at victory even after Vijay was out. 122 runs were required at a little over four an over; Rahane and Rohit Sharma were the next batsmen in. The problem was they (and the rest of India's batsmen) weren't prepared for Nathan Lyon. The wicket was allowing a decent amount of turn and it was purely due to the class of Kohli and the focus of Vijay that India were looking comfortable. Of course, all of this is hindsight.

Rahane was unlucky to be given out, but Rohit was just out of his depth. On a placid wicket Rohit failed to read line and length correctly in both innings. You can only praise talent so much. Scoring 264 in an ODI in India on a flat track saves your spot for a while, but it cannot hide your obvious deficiencies. You almost thought of Laxman when Rohit was out because Laxman would be expected to play that ball on the back foot. 

With five wickets down and 87 runs still needed, the India of old would have played for a draw. That was still eminently achievable. In fact it was the expected result. But Kohli is clearly not MS Dhoni or even Sourav Ganguly.

It is here that the oft-repeated difference between Asian and non-Asian teams comes to the fore. Asian teams seek a conservative, safety-first approach even with a victory in sight. We tend to follow the same principles in sport as in life - opt for prudence and better be safe than sorry.

For India, the worst example of this approach was their go-slow at Dominica in the West Indies in 2011. Set a target of 180 off 47 available overs to win the match, India under Dhoni never even tried to win. Consider this - the mighty Indian batting, consisting of Murali Vijay, Rahul Dravid, Suresh Raina, VVS Laxman, Virat Kohli and MS Dhoni himself, did not feel confident that they could last 47 overs against a mediocre bowling attack, if they were to be marginally positive in approach. India were 1-0 up and a shock loss would have been dreadful, right?

The much-hailed Sourav Ganguly was also guilty of conservative decision making with India on the cusp of a historic series win in Australia in 2004. India batted for too long in their second innings with the series tied at 1-1. Clearly in command of the match, India could only take six Australian wickets in the last innings. The logic was befuddling - India had never won a series in Australia before, so why worry about losing one then? Wouldn't an epic series win have looked much better on Ganguly's resume as captain than a drawn series? India have never even come close to winning a series in Australia since, and it looks unlikely that it will happen anytime soon.

Coming back to the Adelaide Test, India made a bold decision to keep going for the victory after Rohit Sharma was out. But was Saha's approach a little too aggressive? Isn't there a gear between the ultra-defensive and the overly aggressive?

While one cannot predict Saha's thinking, it might be reasonably assumed that Saha realised he was not good enough to bat at normal speed on the turning wicket. Perhaps Kohli and Saha felt the trade-off would be greater if they went on an all-out attack, because the last two wickets had proved that Nathan Lyon was in fact back to being a demon. 

Even so, Saha's execution was a little rash and perhaps showed his inexperience. Kohli's (presumed) lack of advice to Saha complicated the matter. After hitting a six and a boundary, Saha played a tailender's shot and was bowled. The ball was not worthy of a wicket. 

Kohli's decision to continue the offensive approach even after the tail had begun is to be commended, even if the execution was more unplanned than it should have been. Perhaps his last shot - a miscue - could have been played into the ground instead of in the air. But to be fair to Kohli, it was a poor delivery asking to be hit. He just couldn't time it well enough. Oh, and there was the small matter of Kohli having scored 141 - his second century of the match.

A point has to be made here about the absence of R Ashwin and Bhuvneshwar Kumar. Both are capable batsmen who can play for reasonably long periods with comfort. Bhuvneshwar proved it in England and R Ashwin has couple of centuries in Test cricket. The absence of these players - one not picked and the other out due to injury - may have influenced India's decision to keep treading the aggressive path. Quite simply, Kohli may have realised that Mohammad Shami, Karn Sharma, Varun Aaron and Ishant Sharma were not equipped to deal with Nathan Lyon or to face the hostility of second new ball. So the only way forward was to keep attacking.

Thus, India's last chance to shut down stroke making and play towards a draw went when Wriddhiman Saha got dismissed. After Saha, there was only one way forth. Virat Kohli had perhaps realised this way before any expert or spectator did, and had drawn the battle lines with gusto. His team continued to follow his conviction even after his own wicket had fallen.

Let us keep the arguments about unnecessary aggression or suitable pitches aside for now. No Indian captain before Kohli would even have envisioned chasing 363 on the last day. Not only did Kohli envision it, he backed himself to the end and scored a lion's share of the runs that would take India close to victory. Indian captaincy came of age in Adelaide. Indian cricket found a new way to compete. In Virat Kohli, the team found a captain who resembled the Ricky Pontings and Graeme Smiths far more than the Indian captains of yore. 2014 might just have heralded the dawn of a new era in Indian cricket.