More »
Murali
Vijay’s Test career could be all but over. How did that happen? Wasn’t he
supposed to be the guardian of the worlds outside off stump? Our man Friday in
England? By Sunday, 12th August, Lord’s was lost. As was Vijay.
Bagging a pair often questions whether you have one.
Scores of
20, 6, 0, 0 marked Vijay’s slide, his Test average slipped below 40. Seven
years ago, Virender Sehwag bagged a pair in Birmingham. Even though he played
16 more Tests scattered over the next 18 months, that England series marked
Sehwag’s slide. 4, 18, 0, 3 – Gambhir’s series tally in England, 2014, was one
run less than Vijay’s in 2018 in as many innings. Over the following two years
and two months, Gambhir played two more Tests.
England
does that to some of the best. What, only the other day, Alastair Cook made his
retirement call. And he’s English.
In eight
innings so far, India’s other opener, KL Rahul has scored 113 runs to Cook’s
109 in seven innings. Both are exceptional slip catchers.
After
falling leg before wicket and hands in the air to Bumrah, England’s other
opener, Keaton Jennings’ dismissal received more replays than even Virat Kohli
google eyed one to Adil Rashid in the Lord’s ODI. He’s been possibly the most
condemned opener both sides. Yet, with 130 runs in the series, he could well
open the batting in all five Tests and beyond.
And what
about Shikhar Dhawan – unlike openers on both sides, he’s made it to double
figures in every innings – in all, 158 runs in six innings.
Series won,
3-1 up, England has lost one of their openers. India on the other hand, may have
lost three openers in their three defeats.
Each one
has been in varying degrees held responsible for India’s defeats. If India
fields new openers in the fifth Test, they too could add to the tally.
First Test:
India opened with Dhawan-Vijay. This move lacked conviction, it took one
defeat, that also a close one (31 runs) to toss the opening plan aside. In the
second Test, India opened with Vijay-Rahul.
It took a
second defeat to toss this opening aside too. By the third Test, India was
opening with another pair – Dhawan-Rahul.
Dhawan’s
dismissals and overseas record come in for a lot of flak – almost as much as
Cheteshwar Pujara’s.
Writing
these two off (for their overseas record) is an occupation in itself; it can be
so easily cut-paste from one opinion to the other that even if there was some
doubt to it, that doubt has been masked.
Dhawan
might have outscored Vijay, 39 to 26 runs in the first Test, even occupying the
crease for 120 minutes to Vijay’s 96 but public opinion thought otherwise.
The team
went with that opinion. It didn’t work. So, next Test they went with their gut.
It worked, India won, they stuck to their gut.
Few foresaw
Vijay’s failures, it forced the team’s hand. But in a way, it was in sync with
its underlying belief of aggression over defence.
Something,
if all things are equal (a home or Asia series), it would quite happily revert
to at the drop of a more traditional Test batsman.
Pujara’s
unbeaten century however, manoeuvers the team in another direction. It asks
uncomfortable questions of the taskmasters – makes them revisit the follies of
dropping him for the first Test.
Today,
Virat Kohli as Test captain is a constant. The others are variables. And while
a defeat often hurls a lot of questions, there really is only one that needs to
be asked – why is there so little belief in the abilities of players?
Why has it
come to a point that the batsmen are always on notice? Is public opinion,
that’s fickle enough to change from one session to the other, running this
team?
It’s
empowering to know that our collective criticism of Dhawan’s game outside off
ultimately decides he sits on the bench.
After
Kuldeep Yadav’s success in the T20s and ODIs, everyone and their uncle backed
him for Test selection. He was not picked for the first Test. However, after
the loss at Birmingham, even the rain gods couldn’t stop Kuldeep – he was
picked after the first day was washed out, with the rest of the Test under a
cloud. India missed that extra seamer. Kuldeep bagged a pair. He returned home
with Vijay, bowling nine overs in whites.
By the
fourth Test, there was enough indication for India to play two spinners.
England had announced their team on match eve with both Adil Rashid and India’s
old tormentor from Southampton, Moeen Ali.
In 2014,
when Moeen Ali grabbed eight wickets at Southampton, Jadeja wangled five –
three of which were when England was on the charge. Jadeja was not picked. Ali
took nine wickets. Ashwin who did play, three wickets for his troubles from 51
overs.
Whether
Ashwin was fit or not is an altogether different debate. India ignored both
history and the conditions. Reasons for picking Jadeja or retaining Kuldeep far
outweighed by those in favour of Hardik Pandya.
Just as
bowling Kuldeep was an afterthought at Lord’s, Pandya was at Southampton. His
17 overs went for 85, he made 4 and 0.
In all
likelihood, Jadeja will come in for Pandya at the Oval. If he doesn’t, then
Jadeja for Ashwin. Whatever happens, it will be for a dead rubber.
With so
little belief in Jadeja, retaining Kuldeep may not have been a bad idea. But
they were swayed by one match with conditions that were far more ideal for
rainwater harvesting than a wrist spinner’s first Test in England with the Duke
ball.
It might
have been a close series, and that too with such little conviction. Wonder how
it would’ve panned out, if they had used their brains, instead of ours.
