India in South Africa

From intent to form: The many contradictions of captain Kohli

While the India captain deserves credit for his great record, it’s time we start looking at the cracks in the foundation of his leadership.

Eight days. Eight days of cricket was all it took to shatter the aura of invincibility around the Indian team. It was an aura built on a superb season (primarily in Asia), in which, as captain Virat Kohli reminded a journalist in the post-match press conference at Centurion that India had won 21 matches (actually 20) and lost only two.

Virat Kohli has received heaps of praise over the last two and a half years for his captaincy. The fact that he has been in the form of his life with the bat has helped as well because let’s face it, when one of the best batsmen in the world is leading his team to series win after series win, very few people raise questions, and even fewer actually persist with them.

When India were handed a humiliating 333-run loss (an innings defeat for all practical purposes) by Australia in Pune, very few thought there was anything fundamentally wrong with the team. Anil Kumble’s unceremonious exit provoked more thought, but we were willing to bear with Kohli because of his great record, and were generally fine with him virtually handpicking the team’s coach.

This, however, was a double-edged sword, as the buck now stops with Kohli and Kohli alone. So now, when India have suffered their first series defeat in three years – which predictably happened the first time they played a competent team outside Asia – Kohli’s flaws are bound to come to light, and first among them is the gaping chasm between his talk and walk.

Current form

By now, anyone who follows Indian cricket is aware of how much the captain believes in “current form”. It was the primary factor in picking Shikhar Dhawan before KL Rahul in the first Test. Runs at home against Sri Lanka were considered good enough to face Dale Steyn, Vernon Philander, Morne Morkel, and Kagiso Rabada on a seaming pitch in Cape Town. Runs at home against Sri Lanka, primarily in limited-overs cricket, were also good enough for Rohit Sharma to earn a place ahead of India’s best overseas batsman, Ajinkya Rahane.

India's best overseas batsman, Ajinkya Rahane, hasn't played so far in South Africa (Image: BCCI)
India's best overseas batsman, Ajinkya Rahane, hasn't played so far in South Africa (Image: BCCI)

But the “current form” theory only seems to be applicable when Virat Kohli wants it to be. Bhuvneshwar Kumar, who took six wickets in Cape Town, including three in the very first spell of the first day, wasn’t deemed good enough to make the team in Centurion. Neither was Rohit Sharma’s poor show in Cape Town reason enough to conclude that his “current form” wasn’t good anymore.

Chopping and changing

With a personality as aggressive as Kohli, there were bound to be a few sparks flying in the press conference after the Centurion Test with journalists asking tough questions. When asked about the best playing 11, Kohli had this to say:

“I’m saying the loss obviously hurts. But you make one decision and you back it. We certainly don’t sit here and say, ‘Oh, if you fail in one game you are not good enough to be at this level, or once the team loses...’”

Bear in mind that Kohli has played a different XI in each of the 34 Tests in which he’s captained the team. Ajinkya Rahane had to sit on the bench after one bad series against Sri Lanka. Shikhar Dhawan was benched after the loss in Cape Town. And yet, Kohli claims that he believes in making one decision and backing it, a sentiment he expressed not once, but twice during the press conference.

Casualties of ‘intent’

“Intent” might soon become the most hated word for Indian cricket fans, and with good reason. It’s a word that has been thrown around by Virat Kohli for a while now, but no one is really clued in to what he means. Given Kohli’s aggressive brand of cricket, one might venture a guess that by “intent,” he means being attacking.

But let’s think about what “attacking” means. Legendary Australian opener Matthew Hayden once said, “All these things going around is not aggression. If you want to see aggression, look into [Rahul] Dravid’s eyes.” Dravid’s nickname was The Wall, implying how difficult it was to get through his defence. Hayden’s remark indicated that having a solid defence, gritting it out at the crease, and being determined to not get out constitutes aggression.

Hayden wasn’t wrong. “Intent” has different meanings in different contexts. For a technically solid batsman like Cheteshwar Pujara who has taken Dravid’s No 3 spot, the intent should ideally be to ensure that he doesn’t give his wicket away. But Pujara has possibly been the biggest casualty of “intent” in the Indian team.

Cheteshwar Pujara has possibly been the biggest casualty of “intent” in the Indian team (Image: AFP)
Cheteshwar Pujara has possibly been the biggest casualty of “intent” in the Indian team (Image: AFP)

Getting run out twice in the same Test match for a defensive batsman like Pujara seems extremely unlikely without external pressure, especially considering that he was once dropped from the team due to his defensive game.

It isn’t just Pujara. In India’s second innings at Centurion, only the wickets of Murali Vijay and Virat Kohli fall under the “forced errors” category. KL Rahul tried to cut the first ball Ngidi bowled, albeit with no conviction. Parthiv and Rohit decided to hook the ball. Pandya poked at possibly the worst delivery Ngidi had bowled in the entire match.

Clearly, showing Kohli’s brand of intent didn’t get the Indian batsmen anywhere. But one would think that a captain as aggressive as Kohli would show lots of intent in the field. On day four of the Centurion Test, India started the first session with just one slip to AB de Villiers, showing no intent to attack. If you thought the intent was to stop runs, you’d be wrong. With Dean Elgar on strike, the point region was an easy tap-and-run area, giving South Africa easy singles and a very comfortable start to the day.

It isn’t just about field placements. For almost four years, India have struggled with slip catching. Even after Kohli took over as captain, there has been virtually no intent shown of working on this problem. The solution seems to be a knee-jerk reaction of banishing whoever grasses one in the slips to the outfield unless it’s Kohli himself, even though he’s been one of the biggest culprits in the slip cordon.

False confidence

With Kohli constantly claiming that his team has the belief that they can win anywhere in the world, that they are the best team, and that they back themselves, one can assume that he believes that confidence plays a huge part in cricket. His “current form” theory is also indicative of that.

Sanjay Manjrekar recently wrote that it would take a great batsman like Sachin Tendulkar a week to acclimatise to conditions overseas, while the others took much longer. The Indian team arrived in South Africa exactly one week before the first Test, and then cancelled the only practice match that was scheduled, opting for net sessions instead. According to a report, senior players were given the option of skipping the ODI and T20 series against Sri Lanka and going to South Africa to get used to the conditions.

So what can we conclude from this? Ideally, a team would like to spend as much time as possible in the country they’re touring and play a practice match or two to build up their confidence in foreign conditions. Refusing to go to South Africa early, cancelling the practice match, and choosing to practise in the nets makes it seem like the idea is to build a false sense of confidence by not even facing reality. Even now, after the series loss, Kohli is stubbornly sticking to his initial stand and claiming that the team was well-prepared for the series, when all evidence says otherwise.

Let’s keep in mind that Kohli’s success in Asia is not at all unprecedented. The nature of cricket has changed in the 2010s, and virtually every major team has become dominant at home. While he deserves credit for his great record, it’s time we start looking at the cracks in the foundation of his leadership, because it seems that Virat Kohli’s captaincy is built on a bed of contradictions.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at
Sponsored Content BY 

Tracing the formation of Al Qaeda and its path to 9/11

A new show looks at some of the crucial moments leading up to the attack.

“The end of the world war had bought America victory but not security” - this quote from Lawrence Wright’s Pulitzer-Prize winning book, ‘The Looming Tower’, gives a sense of the growing threat to America from Al Qaeda and the series of events that led to 9/11. Based on extensive interviews, including with Bin Laden’s best friend in college and the former White House counterterrorism chief, ‘The Looming Tower’ provides an intimate perspective of the 9/11 attack.

Lawrence Wright chronicles the formative years of Al Qaeda, giving an insight in to Bin Laden’s war against America. The book covers in detail, the radicalisation of Osama Bin Laden and his association with Ayman Al Zawahri, an Egyptian doctor who preached that only violence could change history. In an interview with Amazon, Wright shared, “I talked to 600-something people, but many of those people I talked to again and again for a period of five years, some of them dozens of times.” Wright’s book was selected by TIME as one of the all-time 100 best nonfiction books for its “thoroughly researched and incisively written” account of the road to 9/11 and is considered an essential read for understanding Islam’s war on the West as it developed in the Middle East.

‘The Looming Tower’ also dwells on the response of key US officials to the rising Al Qaeda threat, particularly exploring the turf wars between the FBI and the CIA. This has now been dramatized in a 10-part mini-series of the same name. Adapted by Dan Futterman (of Foxcatcher fame), the series mainly focuses on the hostilities between the FBI and the CIA. Some major characters are based on real people - such as John O’ Neill (FBI’s foul-mouthed counterterrorism chief played by Jeff Daniels) and Ali Soufan (O’ Neill’s Arabic-speaking mentee who successfully interrogated captured Islamic terrorists after 9/11, played by Tahar Rahim). Some are composite characters, such as Martin Schmidt (O’Neill’s CIA counterpart, played by Peter Sarsgaard).

The series, most crucially, captures just how close US intelligence agencies had come to foiling Al Qaeda’s plans, just to come up short due to internal turf wars. It follows the FBI and the CIA as they independently follow intelligence leads in the crises leading up to 9/11 – the US Embassy bombings in East Africa and the attack on US warship USS Cole in Yemen – but fail to update each other. The most glaring example is of how the CIA withheld critical information – Al Qaeda operatives being hunted by the FBI had entered the United States - under the misguided notion that the CIA was the only government agency authorised to deal with terrorism threats.

The depth of information in the book has translated into a realistic recreation of the pre-9/11 years on screen. The drama is even interspersed with actual footage from the 9/11 conspiracy, attack and the 2004 Commission Hearing, linking together the myriad developments leading up to 9/11 with chilling hindsight. Watch the trailer of this gripping show below.


The Looming Tower is available for streaming on Amazon Prime Video, along with a host of Amazon originals and popular movies and TV shows. To enjoy unlimited ad free streaming anytime, anywhere, subscribe to Amazon Prime Video.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Amazon Prime Video and not by the Scroll editorial team.