Rohit judged the length of virtually every delivery

The skipper playing late and with soft hands was key on the turning Nagpur pitch and holds lessons for Aussie batters who flopped against Ashwin and Jadeja.

Winning at home on turning pitches is not new to Indian cricket. What was special about the win at Nagpur was that India got 400 runs on a pitch where Australia got only 177 and 91 in two attempts. This shows both batting and bowling excellence from India.

Indian captain Rohit Sharma celebrates his century during the 2nd day of the 1st test match between India and Australia (PTI)

Of late, against good teams India may have won a home Test but their batters were not able to put a great distance between their own performance and the opposition’s. So, this win was especially heartening.

Ashwin and Jadeja, and Axar too, have been great match-winners but many times they have not had big scores as a cushion, and they have had to do their demolition job very quickly. That they have done this quite consistently for a period of time is just amazing.

So, what was different at Nagpur? One important factor was Rohit Sharma. Rohit actually set a template for batters around the world including some from his own team on how to bat on pitches like this.

Generally the first imperative for a batter when the ball is released by the bowler is estimating the length, where it’s likely to pitch with regards to where you are standing.

If it is going to be a fair distance away then you go on the back foot, which means going deep into your batting crease and giving yourself time to watch the ball and have control over its behaviour.

If it’s going to pitch very close to you then you get on to the front foot and have that bat so close to the pitching of the ball that you just stub out any possible surprises the ball may have for you. This is the gospel of batting.

Rohit judged the length of virtually every delivery bowled to him to perfection.

What’s more, he played the ball very late and never reached out for it. Anxiety actually makes you go at the ball rather than wait for it to come to you; it’s the same with catching too. You are seeing this afflict one Indian batter.

Take the example of David Warner getting out in both innings, to Shami and Ashwin.

On both occasions he judged the length poorly. He wasn’t able to make a decision early enough to commit himself on to the front foot or the back foot, and on both occasions he was stranded on the crease. This happens when you are confused and aren’t able to make a quick enough decision to go forward or back and the ball has already arrived.

That’s when you are hoping and praying the ball comes straight off the pitch but against good bowlers that does not happen, the ball invariably turns or seams to send you packing.

Judging length is far more important than judging line. That’s why you will find bowlers who pitch the ball up have greater wicket strike rates than those who just bowl a good line.

Getting Khawaja to drive and having him caught at slip was Ashwin using length to get a batter out.

The other thing Rohit did superbly – Smith and Marnus Labuschagne too did that in the first innings – was having that bat in line to defend the straight ball and not the turning one.

Both Smith and Labuschagne are dramatic with their batting mannerisms which helps us understand their psyche and tactics. Every time Smith went forward to Jadeja and the ball turned across the face of his bat, he immediately would give a ‘thumbs up’ to the bowler. This was Smith reinforcing his own primary thought that the ball that will turn and jump is not going to get him out. The one that comes straight off the deck will.

So, he is telling the bowler ‘well bowled, but I am cool with it’, I care more about not getting out. No wonder, Smith also remained not out in the second innings.

Now the real hard part on a pitch like Nagpur was what we kept saying as commentators…natural variation.

On non-turning pitches, the natural variation depends on which part of the ball has hit the ground. If it’s the seam there is a chance it will bounce and turn a little more, but if it pitches on the smooth leather area it’s unlikely to turn much.

It’s impossible for a batter to know this but the seam position in the air gives good batters a reliable indication on the likely behaviour of the ball.

But on turning surfaces, a ball meant to go straight judging from the seam position in the air can hit a rough area and turn and vice-versa, foxing the batter. Hence the commitment to worrying only about the controllable, which is being wary of the straight ball that is likely to hit the stumps, ensuring you are not getting out LBW or bowled and being nonchalant about the ball that turns and jumps across the face of the bat.

Ashwin in his interview made an interesting observation. In a Test where the spinners ruled, there was no bat-pad catch. The reason for that was the top surface was a bit too loose and hence there wasn’t vicious unplayable turn and bounce which you see on other turners. I guess that’s why India could get 400, because they had in their captain a batter who played late and with soft hands, the only way to survive on a pitch like this.