England's route to boredom

The second day of the third Test here was not as silly as the first, but in some ways it was more irritating. It was just as well that in the afternoon and evening the good crowd was able to worship faithfully and noisily at the shrine which is India's Sachin Tendulkar. Although effective, England's defensive tactics were most unedifying as they limited India to 99 for 3 in reply to the tourists' 336.

For over after over left-arm spinner, Ashley Giles, plugged away from over the wicket bowling at the batsman's legs. The wicketkeeper, Jamie Foster, was taking up his stance outside the leg stump. The short fine-leg, waiting for a top edge, scuppered the paddle sweep and the deep backwards square-leg, the full-blooded sweep.

The ball beat a constant tattoo against Tendulkar's front pad unless it was wide enough for him to play no stroke at all, and it seemed an insult to his genius. He was being invited to get himself out and naturally he refused the invitation. Once, when Giles gave one a bit of air on the other side of the wicket, presumably by mistake, he unleashed a sumptuous drive to the cover boundary.

Thank goodness they did not bowl like this to Ranji, Trumper or Jessop in the "Golden Age". Otherwise the art of batting would have been strangled at birth and we would never have known about the glorious and rich strokes these three and all the other entrepreneurs of the time gave to the game.

A slow left-hander bowling into the rough outside the right hander's off-stump produces a situation which is as near to stalemate as cricket gets. Who wants to pay good money to watch this? It is not a pretty sight.

The lawmakers have done their best and added a clause to the "No Ball Law" which says that bowling which prevents the batsman from playing a stroke – even in Test cricket – should be called a wide. The weapon is there to put an end to it, but so far the umpires will not risk using it. The claws need sharpening still further.

The authorities would do the game a great service if they insisted on a strict interpretation of this law. These were England's tactics in the second Test at Ahmedabad, and having taken the side to a winning position there without the umpires showing any disapproval, of course Nasser Hussain was going to try it here again. And it worked – to some extent.

By adopting these tactics which are an innate admission of weakness, the captain is effectively saying to the batsmen: "Look, we are not a good enough attack to get you out, but we are most generously going to give you the chance to commit suicide." Why should the batsmen oblige? It was never intended that cricket should be played this way and it goes against the whole spirit of the game.

Yet, this is an age where laws are stretched, parameters of acceptability are continually being pushed back and anything goes. If cricket becomes the sort of game which was on show here in the second half of the day, one wonders how many people will bother to cross the road to watch it. The game needs stronger policing more than it has ever done, but laws are no good unless they are enforced.