MELBOURNE: Throughout the World Cup, there have been chinks in the armour India have been trying to cover up.
The slow starts, for example, were offset by a heavy dependency on Suryakumar Yadav to provide late momentum.
India were also adamant about playing two finger spinners come what may. The fact that they made the semifinals was a bit fortuitous: if not for Virat Kohli‘s two sixes against Haris Rauf in the 19th over in the Pakistan game and the timely rain break against Bangladesh, India’s World Cup campaign could have been a bleaker story.
All these chinks led to the remarkable unravelling in the semifinal against England.
TOI takes a look at the issues…
Are seniors like Rohit, Kohli, Bhuvneshwar and Ashwin now misfits in the T20 team?
In short, does the team need a completely new look a la 2007, the last timet hey won the T20 World Cup? The captain’s struggles with the bat were on plain view. He tried his best to hit his way out of trouble in the Powerplays but was not successful in these conditions.
Kohli may feel hard done by if he is included in this group: he is the world’s top batter in terms of averages in T20Is since Jan 1, 2021 (average 60, SR 136. 70), a notch above Mohammad Rizwan. Given his consistency, Kohli is the glue that holds India together. But do India need more proactive batters against spin among the top three? As for Bhuvneshwar, maybe it’s time to look past him.
Coach Rahul Dravid‘s take: “These guys have been terrific performers for us. It’s absolutely not the right time to talk about this stuff. We’ll have enough matches, enough games as we go ahead and India will try and prepare for the next World Cup.”
Why was the team management adamant on playing Axar Patel?
It is becoming apparent Axar is no like-for-like replacement for Ravindra Jadeja, because he simply doesn’t have a similar explosive capacity with the bat as a floater in away conditions. He scored 9 runs from 3 innings. With the ball, too, his returns were meagre, just three wickets for 115 runs from 13.2 overs (ER 8.62). Axar, of course, is a better allround package than Chahal, but was he the right fit for Australia? And was there a case for playing a specialist leggie in Adelaide?
Captain Rohit Sharma’s take: “Except that game against Netherlands, Axar did not bowl his full quota of his overs, only because of the conditions. We’ve got four seamers who bowl their quotas, which means the spinners will not bowl their overs. Guys can have one bad tournament. That doesn’t mean he is out of form or not able to execute plans.”
Dravid’s take: “The nature of this format is such that youcan get taken apart. He bowled a very good over against Bangladesh just before the rain break. ”
Why couldn’t the top order seize the day in Adelaide in the semis?
For over the past one year, India have talked up their changed batting ethos in the Powerplay: attack more, seize the day, discard the conventional slow starts which have no place in T20Is anymore. After landing for this tournament in Australia, they discovered that the conditions were difficult to power explosive starts all the time and seemed confused about which way to go.
In hindsight, maybe they should have had a bit more faith in their new approach, especially in Adelaide in the semis against England. India scored at 8.67 in the Powerplay between two World Cups but here their best was a 46/1 against Zimbabwe. They were poor against Pak (31/3 from the first 6), Netherlands (32/1), SA (33/2) and Bangladesh (37/1). In the semis they managed just 38/1. England nailed the Powerplay by racing to 63/0. The game was lost here.
Dravid’s take: “When the game started, the boys were saying the pitch is a bit tacky, a bit slower. We should have been able to get to 180-185 on that wicket.”
Dravid’s take before Bangladesh game: “If the conditions dictate that the ball is nipping around, then we can afford to maybe be a little bit more conservative, keep wickets in hand. It’s about being smart. I don’t think there’s just one way to play T20 cricket in all conditions.”
Why did India say they “would have batted first anyway” in Adelaide after being put in to bat by England?
Simply because India have an excellent win percentage of 70. 83 batting first in T20Is this year. However, having seen how the other night game in Adelaide against Bangladesh had panned out, where it was far easier to bat under lights, India should have been flexible. Is India’s approach of preferring runs on the board in high-pressure knockout games a defensive one?
Dravid’s take: “Honestly we looked at those things. Also runs on the board was something in a semifinal. Maybe things would have been different with an early wicket.”
Did Team India mess up its own bowling line-up for the tournament?
In Bumrah’s absence, India’s plans went haywire. They leaked runs at the death against Pakistan and South Africa and were expensive in the Powerplay in both matches in Adelaide (Bangladesh were 60/0 after six).
Dravid’s take: “It’s an area of our game that we’ve wanted to look to address, to look to get better at. Obviously Bums (Bumrah) was one of those guys pencilled in to bowl two of those overs. It has been heartening to see the way Arshdeep Singh has developed over the last few months.”
Why was Rishabh Pant not sent up to tackle Adil Rashid in the semis?
It’s a mystery because for days beforehand, Pant had been preparing by tackling Chahal in the nets. It is likely India punted on Hardik Pandya’s ability to fire in big games instead.
Did Bhuvneshwar crumble under pressure in the semis?
Pretty much so, according to his captain.
Rohit’s take: “I thought we batted pretty well at the end to get to that score, but we weren’t good enough with the ball. When Bhuvi bowled his first over, it swung a little but not in the right areas. Keeping it tight is something we spoke of. But that is something that didn’t happen today and that is disappointing. When it comes to the knockout stages it’s about handling pressure.”
Should India have different coaches and captains for white-ball formats and Tests?
This is a tricky one. Indian cricket has traditionally not handled multiple power centres well. But given England’s success in this department, it might be worth emulating. If you can have specialised players for formats, why not specialised coaches?
(Statistical inputs by Rajesh Kumar)
