India vs England: Batting depth is one thing, but it is far more important that bowlers bowl well

Liam Dawson and Adil Rashid's runs were more than welcome but what does batting well do for a bowler's wicket-taking capabilities?

Dawson impressed with the bat but it is his bowling that could make the difference (AP)

It is too little too late, but the 108-run partnership between Liam Dawson and Adil Rashid enabled England to post 477 their second highest total of the series.

Rashid came within two runs of recording a career best while Dawson’s unbeaten 66 set a record for an England number eight on debut, beating the 59 made by David Bairstow against India at the Oval in 1979.

On the face of it, their runs showed the benefits of batting deep. Yet human nature being what it is, you have to wonder if having number eights and nines with multiple first-class hundreds abrogates responsibility from the top order as well as for themselves - Rashid and Dawson’s principal roles in the side being to bowl out India cheaply, something England have not achieved so far in the series.

Some batsmen will say they play better and more freely with the safety net of a lower order who can make runs beneath them. Of course a lower order rescue service is not guaranteed, a case in point being this series where apart from this Test and the first one in Rajkot, England have been dismissed for sub-par totals in their first innings

It used to be that the top six were meant to make the bulk of a team’s runs, with the lower order perhaps supporting them but rarely to the extent expected now. As such, batsmen were forced to take responsibility, especially if they got a start, to make it count, something Joe Root, by his own admission, has failed to do on this tour after Rajkot, where he has been dismissed three times for scores between fifty and a hundred.

Root made 88 in this Test a score exceeded by Moeen Ali, who notched up 146. It is almost impossible to be critical of someone who makes that many but Moeen was reckless in his dismissal, falling to a bouncer trap that was so well telegraphed it might as well have been announced over the PA System. After Mumbai, where 400 was shown to be under par as a first innings total, England needed at least 500 here and Moeen, having got well set, should have taken it upon himself to get England there.

Does success with the bat breed complacency with the ball? (AP)

Instead, he showed a susceptibility, entirely avoidable with some judicious ducking or swaying, to the short ball that has been with him since the start of his career. Unless he can overcome it, as Jonny Bairstow has done, and soon, he cannot bat at number four against teams with decent bang-it-in bowlers like West Indies, South Africa and Australia, England’s next three Test opponents.

Having so many bowlers who can bat might give batsmen and captains that safe, snuggly feeling, but what does it do for their wicket-taking capabilities? There is a school of thought that says bowlers who make runs feel good about themselves, that feel-good factor then transferring to their bowling.

An alternative to that, and something Moeen has probably been guilty of this series, especially after the rise of Rashid in the eyes of his captain Alastair Cook, is that success with the bat breeds complacency with the ball. It has not helped that Cook has, at times, had six bowlers to call upon, but sometimes it helps players to have their roles sharply defined. In any case, Tests tend to be set up by batsmen but won by bowlers taking 20 wickets and England have achieved that only once this series and only when India were well in charge of the game.

Moeen has shown an inability to enjoy success with both bat and ball at once (AP)

That said, Dawson was excellent, especially after being struck on the helmet second ball, when he ducked into a bouncer from Ishant Sharma. A blow like that can have two effects: it can persuade batsmen they don’t belong at this level or, it can wake them up. For Dawson it was the latter and he scarcely made a mistake thereafter.

His success with the bat confirmed what many have been saying about him, that he has the attitude and self-belief to succeed at the highest level if not the obvious bowling skills, at least not yet.

If there is a boosting effect between run-scoring on debut and wicket-taking Cook did not seek to exploit it, only turning to Dawson for the penultimate over of the day. But then Cook has been guilty of stodgy captaincy all series, his employment of a sweeper at deep cover from the off in India’s innings being another example of his obsession with safety first despite his team’s total of 477.

With the series gone but some pride still to play for, the inevitable post-mortems are taking place among fans and the media. Those seeking the most positive spin have gone for the “ifs and buts” theory of how different the series might have looked if England had taken their catches and not spilled Virat Kohli on the occasions that they did.

It is simpler than that. Bowlers decide Test matches and in this series England’s have been outshone comfortably by India in both spin and seam departments. When looking for reasons why England lost in India, you need look no further than that.