The 19th century American poet John Whittier was speaking for India when he said, “Of all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these: ‘It might have been.’ ” It might have been a great series win for India, it might have been the start of a new era in Indian cricket, it might have been victories in Edgbaston and Southampton too besides the one at Trent Bridge. If only, if only.
Not since V.V.S. Laxman made 167 as an opener at Sydney in January 2000 has an Indian batsman combined defiance and elegance in the manner K.L. Rahul did on the final day of the series. It may have been too much too late, but it gave fans something to cling to ahead of the Australian tour.
More though needed
If bowlers win matches, in India’s case batsmen lose them. To lose a series they were expected to win sends out a message that cannot be ignored. India need to put more thought into their away series. Of the 14 Tests in England over the last three tours, they have won just two. India refuse to learn from their mistakes, repeating them even as the personnel change.
It hasn’t been all gloom and doom, though. Besides the batting of Virat Kohli throughout the series and the final day’s fireworks from Rahul and Rishabh Pant, it has been the tour for India’s fast men.
Ishant Sharma’s 18 wickets, Mohammad Shami’s 16, Jasprit Bumrah’s 14 and Hardik Pandya’s 10 spoke for an attack that seldom dropped below the threshold of top quality. The batsmen owe them a huge apology.
Every time India lose a series abroad, their No.1 ranking looks inauthentic. It happened in England in 2011; skipper Mahendra Dhoni was asked by Mike Atherton then, “Did you cherish the No. 1 spot?” A 4-0 defeat gave the top ranking to England.
Despite the defeat now, India retain their position. From the Duckworth-Lewis to the ranking system, the average fan sees something abstruse, perhaps even esoteric, in such calculations. But they don’t argue so long as the figures are in India’s favour!
Under-prepared
As in 2011, so in 2018, India were under-prepared. And despite the bluster of coach Ravi Shastri and the fitness regimen of skipper Kohli, the Indian team looked ragged and bereft of ideas at the key moments. Perhaps the Committee of Administrators (CoA) will ask questions of this duo, maybe they won’t. Had this been a football tournament, the coach might have lost his job. But cricket does things differently, which can be both good and bad. Rahul and Pant might have saved a few careers!
Two former players made important observations about the team that should provide food for thought. Mike Brearley, former England captain and an admirer of India’s captain was quoted as saying, “(Kohli) has so much charisma, articulacy and authority that there’s a danger of him becoming authoritarian.
“He has got to have the capacity to tell people what to do. But if you become too authoritarian, then you are not open to other points of view. Becoming too influential can also mean that people are scared of giving you the opinion and then you don't gather in.”
Does that explain the poor selections, the occasionally defensive captaincy, the apparent lack of involvement of the senior players in team decisions on the field? It certainly explains the lack of preparation before the Test series.
Performances nosedive
Sunil Gavaskar pointed out on television that since the IPL became the showpiece of the domestic season, India’s performances abroad in Test cricket have taken a nosedive. To bat roughly 110 overs to save a Test is tough but not impossible.
Jimmy Anderson and Stuart Broad started brilliantly, but neither was unplayable. Shikhar Dhawan and Cheteswar Pujara disappointed while Kohli himself hung his bat out first ball to edge to the keeper.
With Rahul in command, India must be on the lookout for a new partner at the top of the order for him. Too many Indian tigers at home showed themselves to be lambs abroad. No team which aspires to greatness can be satisfied with only home wins.
Since the IPL, to follow Gavaskar’s argument, old-fashioned crusty, defensive batting full of self-denial and asceticism has virtually gone out of India’s game. Gavaskar himself was a master at this, forced into the role by both temperament and circumstance, and was the author of many fighting drawn encounters.
Since the exit of Rahul Dravid India have lacked a batsman who can consistently frustrate bowlers by defence rather than encourage by strokeplay. The key is consistency.
Of India’s 57 Tests abroad in the 10 years since the IPL, they have won just 17, and only five in one of England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. This is not conclusive, but indicative.
Yet, this has been a wonderful series, not as one-sided as the scoreline indicates. That, ultimately, is India’s consolation.
