England became the world’s best white-ball team by trusting in a philosophy and picking the right personnel to execute it. Judging by India’s latest T20I squad, we’re no closer to settling on a coherent philosophy that will change the trend of near misses at the tournaments that matter.
Cricket, like most sports, can be a game of numbers. But the best teams, selectors and coaches also have a happy knack of making sense of those numbers or, in some cases, looking beyond them. If statistics alone were the criteria, Michael Vaughan – whose captaincy won England the Ashes after a 16-year gap in 2005 – might never have played for his country. Nor would Michael Clarke have been picked to make the impact that he did in his early 20s for Australia.
India’s T20I squad for the upcoming series against Sri Lanka raises some interesting questions. It’s been obvious for a while that India’s template in the shortest format was a dated one. Many teams would be satisfied with semifinal appearances in two of the last three T20 World Cups (2016 and 2022). But for a country that’s home to the Indian Premier League (IPL) and has by far the largest talent pool, the failure to push on and win trophies simply isn’t good enough.
Change was needed, and the selectors have delivered that, so what’s the problem? As ever, the opacity surrounding selection continues to grate. There was a time about two decades ago when the board secretary would front up to the cameras and microphones and try to explain the rationale behind selections. It didn’t always make sense, but it was something that went beyond innuendo and Chinese whispers.
Now, we have no clarity. Has Virat Kohli been rested? Have the selectors moved on from KL Rahul? Is the old firm of Bhuvneshwar Kumar and Mohammed Shami considered too old for T20 World Cup contention in 2024? Is this the core group that will be trusted with challenging for a trophy that India haven’t won since the inaugural event in 2007?
The first step to success is often recognition of past failures. India’s tactic of going in with a top three of Rohit Sharma, KL Rahul and Kohli was always doomed to fail. It may have worked a decade ago, but modern-day T20 cricket demands that at least two of your top three have a strike-rate of around 150 (nine runs an over).
Rahul and Rohit both strike at 139, while Kohli’s is a smidgen lower at 138. But the numbers for the last two calendar years offer some clues as to why India have been blown away by sides with a more attacking mindset. Rahul’s strike-rate from 27 matches is below 130, while Rohit has just eight half-centuries from 40 innings. Kohli has a century and 12 50s from 28 innings, while averaging well over 60, but the strike-rate is stuck in the mid-130s.
Kohli’s record in the big tournaments is way superior to the other two, and it could be argued that he has frequently had to play the consolidator’s role because of the lack of output from the other end. What we can say for sure is that no contemporary T20 side can afford three ‘anchors’.
There are some left-field selections here. Shubman Gill has been picked despite a mediocre IPL strike-rate of 125.2. Harshal Patel, who has often struggled outside the subcontinent, will be 34 by the time the next tournament is played in the Caribbean and the United States of America. Deepak Hooda, Rahul Tripathi and Ruturaj Gaikwad have been chosen largely on the back of IPL performances, while Shivam Mavi and Mukesh Kumar have no great track record there either.
To win trophies – as Indian fans have discovered in recent times, a string of bilateral successes means nothing if you fluff your lines on the big stage – you need to have a coherent philosophy. It’s hard to fathom just what India’s is going to be from the 16 that have been chosen for this series.
Is the 32-year-old Yuzvendra Chahal the only wrist-spin option being considered, especially after he wasn’t trusted to deliver at the T20 World Cup? Will Sanju Samson finally get a run of games to show what he can do? Is Gill being groomed for the anchor role? Will Umran Malik be tasked with blowing batting orders away with his pace, even if he leaks a few runs in the process?
Following years of pathetic performances, England identified a white-ball template after the 2015 World Cup, and stuck to it. Personnel changes were made, but the approach never changed. It’s led to them becoming the world’s pre-eminent white-ball team, and holders of both the trophies that matter. Will India’s selectors show the same faith in a process, even if it results in a bilateral setback or two?
With the exception of Hardik Pandya, who has clearly been identified as captain, only Chahal has more than 50 caps. Suryakumar Yadav has played 42 times, but those appearances have all been squeezed into the past couple of years. Washington Sundar and Axar Patel have played over 30 games without establishing themselves in the XI.
What message have the selectors sent to Ravi Bishnoi, who took 16 wickets in his first 10 T20Is, while conceding just 7.08 runs an over? Is Shreyas Iyer’s game considered too sedate for this format? And where is Mohammed Siraj after his sterling displays in a recent T20I series in New Zealand?
If this is a squad chosen with only Sri Lanka in mind, then that’s fine. But if the intention is to groom a team that can win the trophy in 2024, then a shot of experience needs to be infused. Sachin Tendulkar didn’t score a hundred in his last 23 Tests, averaging just 32, but his presence in the XI undoubtedly helped the likes of Kohli and Cheteshwar Pujara to bed in to the side. There’s nothing quite like learning on the job from the very best to have played the game.
Even if Kohli isn’t part of the 2024 plan, this inexperienced batting group could learn much from watching him prepare and play. A reliable anchor also frees up those around him to express themselves without fear of failure. Even England usually have Dawid Malan and Ben Stokes, who play in more conventional fashion, while those around them blaze away.
With no rationale behind any of the picks, we’re just left to speculate and extrapolate. And there is still complete silence on what approach India will take in the T20I arena. Has there been any discussion on a split-coaching arrangement, with Rahul Dravid handing the Test team, and someone with greater T20 experience supervising the white-ball squads?
These are the questions that Indian cricket needs to answer first. Instead, as ever, we’re just met with a wall of silence.
Dada to begin with you have hit right note in calling out the strike rates. We clearly saw the number of dot balls we consumed in 6 overs which created that extra pressure in the back end. For instance playing at the challenging Optus that too with a potent SA we opened the books on the 10th ball. Dot balls to me were also responsible to our cause.
We should clearly charter our roadmap on horses for courses as you said. With due respect to Dravid and his ability we need a person who can guide the younger lot in tackling the needs of T20, and who better than Virat provided people are coming for the larger cause