The bowling combination muddle

Despite an emphatic triumph against South Africa, India has much to ponder

Ahead of India’s tour of Sri Lanka this season, Virat Kohli had advocated the five-bowler theory for the Indian team. For the Indian captain, it was the way going forward. Everybody believed Kohli was an attack-minded captain.

Yet, by the end of the series against South Africa, India had reverted to four bowlers.

Truth to tell, the team-management has been sending mixed signals.

In Nagpur and New Delhi, venues for the last two Tests, India played an extra batsman in Rohit Sharma. And his run of scores 2, 23, 1, 0 underlined the failure of the ploy.

The question is was there a need for India to play it safe even after the series had been won in Nagpur? And was the slot for the sixth batsman created only because the player in question was Rohit, an under-achiever in Tests for all his ability?

It is clear India deviated from its strategy by accommodating Rohit. The side was also taking a step back from a path its captain had so bravely embarked on.

Did the side lack the belief to play the extra bowler even in familiar conditions against a demoralised side when two members of its attack, R. Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja, were all-rounders?

The flip side of the argument is that India played horses for courses. The side wanted to bolster its batting, backing its two spinners, Ashwin and Jadeja, to accomplish the job on tracks that assisted spin.

Unfair to Mishra

But then, was the team being fair to leg-spinner Mishra who had bowled so well, particularly in Nagpur, where he picked the key wickets of the well-set Hashim Amla and Faf du Plessis, in the second innings. In his only other appearance in the series, in the first Test at Mohali, Mishra had castled South Africa’s best batsman A.B. de Villiers in both the innings.

India started the series with five bowlers for the Mohali Test in pacemen Varun Aaron and Umesh Yadav and spinners Ashwin, Jadeja and Mishra.

It was a well rounded attack reflective of the side’s intentions. India won the Test by 108 runs.

Given the cloud cover on the morning of the second Test in Bangalore, it was understandable that the team picked a pace-bowling all-rounder, Stuart Binny, for Mishra.

Binny has his critics but the country is short of cricketers of his ilk who can lend balance to the side.

Then, Rohit surfaced in the third Test at the expense of a bowler.

The move was hard to comprehend since play was washed out after day one in Bangalore and India batted 22 overs without losing a wicket.

No need for extra batsman

There was no pressing need for India to opt for an extra batsman. When Rohit was picked for the Nagpur Test, the move meant India benched a paceman to go in with only one seamer. This is a risky strategy on any wicket since your lone paceman can pull a muscle in the first over.

And someone like Umesh Yadav, not picked for the Test, can always strike on dry, dusty tracks such as the one in Nagpur with his reverse swing.

India outplayed South Africa by 124 runs at Nagpur. With the series in the bag, couldn’t India enter the final Test in New Delhi with a five-man attack? Such a move would have echoed the confidence in the unit.

Sadly, Mishra, who deserved to play the Delhi Test, was left out even as Rohit retained his place. Despite an emphatic 3-0 triumph in the series, India has much to ponder over the composition of its eleven. Kohli needs to walk the talk.