India vs Australia 2018: 3 things India could have done differently in the T20Is
India levelled the T20I series against Australia by winning the 3rd game at Sydney by a margin of 6 wickets. While the first T20I was won by the Aussies by a narrow margin of 4 runs, the second match at Melbourne was abandoned due to rain, right after the first innings.
India were unlucky with the weather at Melbourne, where they seemed to be in a winning position after restricting Australia to 132 for 7 in 19 overs, when the heavens opened up.
However, with the win at Sydney, India managed to extend their unbeaten streak in T20 series to nine.
As far as Team India was concerned in the series, what was new for the team? Apart from the unexpected success of Krunal Pandya, the following routine matters happened in the series for India :
1. The Aussie batsmen failed to pick up Kuldeep.
2. Shikhar Dhawan, as is the case more often than not, clicked in white-ball cricket.
3. K.L. Rahul found himself in the playing XI despite repeated failures while Shreyas Iyer continued to warm the bench.
4. King Kohli anchored a chase in the third T20I which helped India to level the series.
5. Dinesh Karthik proved his value to the team as the new finisher for close to a year now.
Team India played the same XI right through the entire series, which under Kohli, was something distinctive. Turning back, India could have done differently in the T20 series against Australia which could have benefitted the team immensely in the long run.
Here is a list of 3 major areas where India could have done differently in the recently concluded T20 series against Australia.
#1 India could have played only one wicket-keeper in the playing XI
At the start of the series, the Indian team management decided to go in with Rishabh Pant as the specialist wicket-keeper and Dinesh Karthik as the specialist batsman. By adopting this strategy, the team management shut down a sixth bowling option.
Instead, India could have rotated Pant and Karthik for the series by playing only one of them in a match and the resultant vacancy could have been filled up with a bowling all-rounder like a Washington Sundar. That would have given India more options in bowling.
In the first T20 which India lost narrowly, the absence of the sixth bowler was felt so badly. At Brisbane, Krunal and Khaleel combined to bowl 7 overs and gave away an astounding 97 runs at almost 14 runs an over. The other 3 bowlers, Bhuvneshwar, Bumrah and Kuldeep were stingy in their 10 overs conceding just 60 runs at 6 runs per over.
Kohli had to continue with Krunal and Khaleel despite the hiding they got at the hands of Lynn, Maxwell and Stoinis. A sixth bowling option in the form of a Washington Sundar in place of Rishabh Pant or Dinesh Karthik in the first match could have made all the difference for Team India. In the end, India ended up losing the first match by just 4 runs by D/L method.
In the long run, India should choose between Pant and Karthik for the one available spot as otherwise, the player who will be playing as the specialist batsman will be under tremendous pressure to perform in his specialist role. India could have experimented this in this T20 series itself.