What we have learnt from Kohli's first year as Test captain

As a new captain, what sort of team would you prefer to inherit: one full of proven match-winners who are stars in their own right, or a team of young talented players who might become stars eventually?

The first option is a tempting one, because you don't have to worry too much about the results - the match-winners in the team will win quite a few on their own. In the first few months of his tenure, a new leader is judged by the kind of results his team produces, and if success is almost assured, he can slip into his new role easily. In a team like this, the leader's personal form, or lack of it, also goes relatively unnoticed, and he isn't subjected to all that much scrutiny.

The flip side is that such a captain will almost certainly have to deal with a bunch of inflated egos. The solution is to lead by delegation or committee (you don't want to offend the senior players and disrupt the hierarchy) and eventually find a way for a smooth transition. You need to say goodbye to older players when their time is up, but that isn't easy to do in certain cultures. MS Dhoni inherited such a team and fortunately his style of leadership perfectly suited its demands.

The second option isn't quite as tempting because a team full of young players is susceptible to making mistakes, which are likely to end in a few defeats. Experience at the highest level is a critical component to succeeding and the lack of it can harm you in the short run. And if the captain happens to be only a few years old on the circuit himself, he's duty-bound to lead by example, since his personal form is likely to have a direct bearing on that of his team.

Having said that, it is a wonderful opportunity for such a captain to build a team of his liking. A captain who inherits such a team must have an eye for talent, like Sourav Ganguly, who was in a similar position and excelled because he knew how to spot talent and back it.

Virat Kohli has also inherited this sort of team and has just such an opportunity to make an impact. It's also a blessing that Kohli's captaincy style isn't about leading by delegation or committee; he's more about leading by example and direction. He seems to have strong ideas and isn't shy of following them irrespective of the outcome.

These are early days in his tenure as captain and a small sample size is bound to give inconsistent readings, so it is prudent to say that these are only early impressions.

It's quite evident that Kohli isn't just talking aggressively but also walking the walk. While his predecessor, Dhoni, focused on the processes, Kohli made it pretty clear in his first few interactions with the media that the time for processes was over; his team would only focus on results. He also said that since Test matches are won by taking 20 wickets, he would play five bowlers in every game. He did that in Bangladesh, but changed tack to four and a quarter bowlers - Stuart Binny is only a token fifth bowler in Test cricket - after a loss in Galle.

Still, one must make allowances for a young captain. The good thing was that by the time India played South Africa in Nagpur, the talk of the fifth bowler had, quite rightly, disappeared, because in a three-day Test match you need extra batsmen, not bowlers. Hopefully in the future as well the talk will only be about picking a bowling line-up that is capable of taking 20 wickets.

Kohli also made it clear what kind of players he wants in his side. Pacemen and not seam bowlers. Fast bowlers are rare in Indian cricket, but they are pretty much their captain's bowlers. If he thinks highly of them and knows how to utilise them, the ones he has at his disposal are sure to mature faster.

Among batsmen, it seems that Kohli prefers ones with flair, as is indicated by his unequivocal support for Shikhar Dhawan and Rohit Sharma. Till the third Test in Sri Lanka, Cheteshwar Pujara wasn't considered to be one of India's top five batsmen. And in Kohli's short captaincy tenure, Rohit has already been given opportunities at Nos. 3, 5 and 6. Obviously, Kohli thinks highly of Rohit's abilities, and there's nothing wrong with that. If Ganguly hadn't persisted with Yuvraj Singh or Virender Sehwag, India wouldn't have found two quality match-winners.

While it makes sense to create a team that plays your brand of cricket, you need to be able to provide room for those who don't quite fit that mould to flourish too. The pitch for the last Test in Sri Lanka was perfect for Bhuvneshwar Kumar's bowling, and the situation called for not tinkering with the batting position of the team's best Test batsman, Ajinkya Rahane, in order to accommodate someone else. Leading India is like walking a tightrope, and it's important for a captain to learn his lessons quickly.

With regard to tactics, I saw Kohli use an in-out field at almost every stage of the game in Sri Lanka. Old-fashioned players like me cringed at that strategy: why would you want to give an easy single-taking opportunity to a batsman who has just walked in? There seems to have been a radical shift in the thought process of the new generation, because a single is no longer a batsman's lifeline. Most modern batsmen feel under pressure if they are not hitting boundaries. The thing that stood out in Kohli's tactics was that the focus was still on taking wickets. He didn't compromise on catching fielders to have men patrolling the fence instead. Hashim Amla was guilty of doing that against India: he either attacked or defended but never found the right balance.

Kohli, on the other hand, came across as a more tactically aware captain. Still, he did make a few mistakes: starting the second day in Mohali with pace bowlers; not having R Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja bowl in tandem for the first hour that day; and on the first day in Galle not starting the second session with Ashwin, who was India's best bowler before lunch. It's generally believed that you should start a new session with your two best bowlers, but there are many instances when Kohli chose not to do so. Either that is because of a shift in modern-day tactics too or because he simply didn't get it right.

But since most of these surprising decisions were taken after a break in play, I'm inclined to think that Kohli alone wasn't responsible for them. There's always a chat with the coach about the plans for the next session, which includes the important question of which bowlers to start with. I'm not privy to what happens inside India's dressing room, but you cannot rule out the possibility that the coach isn't providing the right inputs.

My experience of playing with Kohli tells me that he is the sort to seek some counsel on issues like team selection and broad strategy. If that's the case, it's the duty of the support staff to highlight these errors of his. Making mistakes can be an important part of succeeding, provided you learn from them and, more importantly, don't repeat them. But that doesn't seem to be happening in Kohli's case.

John Wright, Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid were critical to Ganguly's success because they were able to make him see the other side of the argument. While the captain is indeed the leader of the ship and must take all decisions, there's no guarantee that all his judgements will be spot on. All good leaders have strong sounding boards and it's essential for Kohli that he has one too.

His initiation as a Test captain couldn't have come at a better time. The long home Test season will have allowed him to sharpen his captaincy skills without compromising on results. When things are heavily loaded in your favour, small mistakes don't cost you matches, especially Test matches. While winning should be Kohli's top priority, it will be good for Indian cricket if he also keeps in mind the larger picture of developing a team that does well overseas.