India – England cricket series 2020-21 – A review

The nearly two months-long tour of the English cricket team is finally over with India winning in all three formats of the game. The Englishmen played well in the two shorter versions of the game and gave India a tough fight while the test series was dominated by India barring the first test where India found new lows. One could dismiss that first test performance as ‘one of those things’ and rest the case. While winning is important and must be celebrated, it is equally important to take a stock of all that happened so as to ensure that lessons learnt or shortcomings noticed are addressed for the future.

The test team squad selection was well done except for inclusion of Kuldeep Yadav and Shahbaz Nadeem. While Kuldeep was sitting on the bench since the Australian series, Nadeem lacked credentials as a frontline spinner to bowl in tandem with Ashvin Ravichandran. Washington Sundar filled Ravi Jadeja’s shoes admirably and had already proved his worth as an allrounder from the Australian tour. It may have been more prudent to send Kuldeep Yadav to play domestic cricket to reclaim his form by bowling long spells instead of warming the bench on the sidelines. A similar decision on the talented K L Rahul too would have paid rich dividends keeping in mind the two white ball cricket series that were to follow.

Thirty-one-year-old Nadeem’s place should have gone to either Siraj Ahmed, keeping an eye on the future, or if a third spinner was inescapable then a younger and more eager greenhorn spinner like Rahul Chahar could have been inducted with an eye for the future. If experience was the need of the hour then there was no better choice than Yuzvendra Chahal. Nadeem’s figures of four wickets for 233 runs in 59 overs in the first test hardly justified his selection. In the next three tests Axar Patel’s performance was a dream run for a debutant spinner and one wonders why selectors and team management could not foresee his potential for the first test. After all it is their job to do so instead of being overcautious and going for experience only that was not backed by performance. Washington Sundar as a third spinner was a fair choice.

After the tests it was the five match T 20 series– a format where England today is a very hard side to beat and relies on aggression from the word go. This is one format where even the best of bowlers and batsmen can flounder while a rookie can come trumps on a given day. It was a hard-fought series and could have gone either way and India were fortunate to win it. For India a major concern was Rahul’s performance with scores of 1,0,0 and 14 in the first four matches that he played. That is where a stint in domestic cricket earlier would have helped him without a doubt. The highlights of the series were the debut performances of Ishan Krishan and Sura Yadav with the bat. There was a slight concern about the performance of Yuzvendra Chahal but given the lack of a quality spinner to bowl in tandem on the other end, perhaps this could be overlooked. In all fairness Axar Patel could have been persisted with after his superlative performance in test matches. 

Finally, it was time for the three match one day series. Indian selectors and team management erred overtime in ODI team selection. India did not cater for a sixth bowling option that is an inescapable requirement in this format. If Hardik Patel was not going to bowl, and he did not in the first two matches, then playing him ahead of more accomplished and equally aggressive batsmen like Ishan Krishan, Surya Kumar Yadav, Mayank Aggarwal or Manish Pandey was highly questionable. In the first two ODIs he scored one and 35, in all probability any of the above four would have done better. His not bowling in the first two matches hurt India without any doubt. In last ODI with figures of nine overs for 48 runs and 64 runs with the bat justified his inclusion. This just proved the point about the need for a sixth bowling option particularly when Krunal Pandya, the only spinner was leaking runs galore in the four overs that he bowled. 

The real serious selection issue was with the spin bowling department in ODIs. Krunal Pandya, in the first place, was in the playing eleven primarily as one of the five frontline bowlers, any prowess with the bat was secondary. His figures of 59 runs in ten over for one wicket in first match, six overs for 72 runs in second match and four overs for 29 runs in the third did not justify his inclusion as a frontline spinner. With the bat apart from the dream debut knock of 58 runs, he scored only 12 and 25 in the next two. Surely the selectors or team management did not expect to see a repeat of his debut knock in every match. On top of it he was the lone spinner in the last match and bowled only four overs for 29 runs and had to be taken off. His wicket taking ability is very poor and probability of leaking runs very high. Anyone who thinks he is a frontline spinner material has to have his head examined. 

Keeping Chahal and Ashwin out for all ODI matches is bizarre to say the least. ODI cricket is like an innings of a test match as it is a 50 overs game. If Ashwin is a match winner in tests, it defies logic to declare him unfit for ODI matches. He is the best spinner in the country today and should just walk in the playing eleven. In all fairness he is a more accomplished batsman than Krunal if a number seven or eight has to play ten to fifteen overs on a given day. Playing Ashvin with Chahal or Axar is perhaps the best spinning combination that India has today. Even Sundar has to be preferred over Krunal, given his prowess with the bat and ability to bowl in the first ten overs of the match.

While experience and temperament are important criteria for test match selection, in the shorter versions of the game, infusion of fresh blood in a limited manner is important to exploit that aggressive and ‘no fear’ approach. Surya Kumar Yadav, Ishan Krishan, Sundar and Axar have proved that in the last two series. Perhaps Krunal too can be added to this list but without meaning any offence, he is not in the same class and the just-concluded ODI series proves that. 

As far as England is concerned, given their brand of overly aggressive cricket in white ball matches, it may suit them more to bat first whenever they win the toss. Unfortunately, In India they chose to field and perhaps erred in doing so. Batting first and setting a target will allow them uninhibited aggression without the pressure of runs on the board staring at them. When they chase, the challenge of an over 300 run score in an ODI will always be daunting. Aggressive batting, England style, is about setting targets without worrying for loss of a wicket or two in doing so, the aim being to prove a point that they can be audacious and create impossible targets. Chasing a target, in which India normally excels, is a more disciplined and calculative approach with a judicious mix of steadiness and aggression in different periods of the game to reach a milestone keeping the full 50 overs in mind. Both approaches work and captains have to take a call depending on their team’s strength and ground conditions.

END OF ARTICLE