Cricket writer’s challenge: discuss bowling first in a Brisbane Test without referring to Nasser Hussain. Better to fail at that challenge in the first line and get it out of the way. England’s former captain has copped an unfair amount of grief for his decision at the toss in 2002. Captains who bat first and lose badly never get criticised for making that decision.

England of that era were likely to be thumped by an epochally great Australian side no matter what they chose. Facing Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne, and Jason Gillespie, they were bowled out in the fourth innings for 79. Facing those three first up would not likely have helped.

So when Rohit Sharma made the same call at this year’s Brisbane Test, the issue is not that Hussain’s history should have been a lesson. The issue is that all history at this ground should have been a lesson. An obvious repeated characteristic at the Gabba is that pitches can look a lot more threatening than they turn out to be. Green tinges regularly disguise a friendly batting surface beneath. Of the 24 previous Tests here this century, 15 have had first innings above 300, with 10 of those above 400. Batting first in Brisbane is something to be sought rather than feared.

Not that there was much batting to be done on the first day. Normally precipitation in this city is brief and brassy, flooding the ground for half an hour before scudding on its way. On this day though it was uncharacteristically persistent. Instead the brief burst was of cricket, two fruitless forays totalling 13.2 overs from India’s bowlers.

Recent changes to make a more dynamic Kookaburra ball might render all the old Gabba stats obsolete, but if that’s the case India didn’t make any use of the added jeopardy, erring too wide or too short. Usman Khawaja and Nathan McSweeney safely negotiated their return for day two.

That second day might see an immediate turnaround of fortunes, and Rohit’s decision to bowl will end up vindicated. But questioning the decision so early is not about whether or not the gamble works. It’s about pondering the process that led to choosing that gamble.

Start with the obvious factor that batting fourth tends to be more difficult, as Australia found at this ground earlier this year when they failed to chase 216 against West Indies. Captains who choose to bowl first have to be confident that doing so is advantageous enough to forfeit the chance to bowl last. It’s hard to imagine that Rohit would be so fooled by some grass on the wicket that he would assume it would make his bowlers unstoppable.

So one has to guess that there was some defensiveness to the decision as well. In short, you can’t lose a Test in a session bowling first – even a good early partnership can be overhauled. But you can lose a Test in a session batting first, if you lose enough wickets. The dodging of fate that India remarkably achieved after their early Perth collapse is not one that can be often repeated. So it’s hard not to posit that at some level, India’s captain was worried about his team’s lean batting returns, and wanted to postpone their examination by Australia’s bowlers.

If so, it sets a defensive tone for the match, a team trying to cautiously navigate a difficult fixture. If Australia can do what Australian teams usually do batting first at the Gabba, building up a substantial score, India will face no less difficult a passage of play when the home team finally takes the ball.

Perhaps Rohit will be proved right, as he often has been when doubted. Perhaps the returning rain will wash out this game entirely, and it won’t matter either way. Perhaps India’s bowlers will use the reprieve to return on day two with a far superior approach, finding some missing zip after another night’s sleep. But as things stand right now, with so few overs possible on the first day, it seems as though India’s best position would have been resuming batting on day two at no wicket down, not resuming bowling when the other team is.