Poor selection, questionable tactics and emphasis on all the wrong things: Why India aren't a great T20 side
You're playing a T20 match at the Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru. Even the most basic literacy of cricket will tell you that you have to field first. Virat Kohli didn't do that in the third T20I against South Africa on Sunday.
He was taking his team away from its comfort zone, he said. In many ways though, Kohli and the Indian team management had already taken the team away from its comfort zone with some absurd tactics and team selections.
"Look, we will have to take risks. Even when you want to win a game of cricket you have to take risks, so nothing is a given, nothing is a guarantee before you start playing," Kohli said at the post-match press conference in Bengaluru.
It's all well and good that Kohli is willing to experiment in the year that leads up to next year's ICC T20 World Cup in Australia, but India don't even have the basis for their squad for that World Cup set up yet. The experimentation with combinations must come only after there is a settled unit in place.
Since the start of 2018, the two wrist-spinners, Kuldeep Yadav and Yuzvendra Chahal have been India's most successful bowlers, with 23 and 20 wickets respectively. Kuldeep has done so at an astounding average of 10.08 with an economy rate of 6.02. Chahal, though, has been a little more expensive, going at 8.20 per over, in the 17 matches he has played in that period.
Neither of them figured in the T20I setup for the series against South Africa, and that might have been excused as both of them being rested. But since the end of India's World Cup campaign on the 10th of July, Kuldeep has played two ODIs and Chahal one ODI.
Kuldeep, in fact, didn't feature in India's last three World Cup games against Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and New Zealand.
The answer to the question of the two leggies not being involved was given by Kohli at the start of the series, when he said that he wanted his side to bat till 9 or 10, to give them that additional depth, citing that as something other teams have taken advantage of, in recent times.
Kohli even reiterated his stance after the loss in Bengaluru.
"I think as a team if we are willing to get out of our comfort zone a lot more, then we will be unfazed with what happens at the toss. That's our basic idea: trying to take the toss out of the equation as a side. That's why we are trying to play the best combination we can, (with) people batting till nine. So that if you bat first or bowl first, you know we are in a good position," Kohli said.
Why is that statement wrong? Kohli needn't look very far. Look at the IPL's most successful team - the Mumbai Indians. They've won four titles in the last seven editions, and if you look at their lower order in any of those editions, it would have always had Jasprit Bumrah and Lasith Malinga. And even though the likes of Mitchell Johnson and Harbhajan Singh could bat, they are hardly batsmen of the pedigree of a Ravindra Jadeja or a Krunal Pandya, who have been batting at 7 and 8 for India.
Washington Sundar opens the batting in domestic T20I cricket for Tamil Nadu. He batted at no.9 on Sunday night! Surely, something's wrong there?
In this quest to bat deep, Kohli has lost the thrust his bowling attack has possessed in white-ball cricket in recent times.
In fact, before this T20I series, Quinton de Kock had gotten out to Chahal in three of the four matches that he had faced the leggie, with Moeen Ali accounting for the opener on the one other occasion.
India opened the attack with Washington against de Kock, but the youngster from Tamil Nadu is hardly similar to Moeen. While Washington relies on his accuracy and flat trajectory, Moeen is a more conventional off-spinner with an emphasis on flight and spin. That's how you get de Kock out - by spinning the ball.
India had Jadeja, Krunal and Washington as the spinners in their side, although none of them are really known for being the biggest spinners of the ball.
De Kock is South Africa's dangerman, but India went into this series without the option that troubles him the most. Maybe Rahul Chahar could have troubled the Proteas captain, but we'll never know now.
On a pitch like the one seen in Bengaluru yesterday, where the Proteas' spinners Bjorn Fortuin and Tabraiz Shamsi made such a good impression, one wonders what could've been if India had the attacking wrist-spinning option.
Batting Woes Continue
Who's India's no.4? You haven't already tired of reading about that position, have you?
Let's just assume India had the right personnel to tackle that South African attack (Spoiler alert: They didn't). Were they used in ways in which they would be at their most effective? Start, then, with Rishabh Pant and Shreyas Iyer. Both play for the same IPL team. A team which, after years of misery, finally found the sweet spot and made the playoffs. How did they use their two dynamic young batsmen?
Iyer batted at no.3 and Pant floated between no.4 and no.5 depending on the situation. It was clear from the Delhi Capitals' usage of the two that Iyer would consolidate in the middle overs and take on the spinners, while Pant would be used to provide that flourish in the back-half of the innings.
It was a formula that worked well. Not for Mr. Kohli, though. The Indian captain did say that they had a miscommunication over who should've come out in Bengaluru, but Pant did bat at 4 even in the second game in Mohali.
Pant even took down Bumrah in the IPL, something precious few players have managed to do. The likes of Krunal and Jadeja are proven attackers of spin, who are not so comfortable when there's pace on the ball. In fact, in Krunal's 16-match T20I career, he's been dismissed only five times - all against pace. Krunal's misfortune against the short ball was a recurring theme of the IPL as well.
Does a team with so many people as support staff, with the amount of analytics available to them today, not look at these things? It truly is baffling.
But, why question their usage of players, when they don't even select the right ones? KL Rahul divides opinion in Indian cricket like no one else (well, maybe like Pant), but the fact of the matter is, since the start of 2018, there is a case to be made for Rahul being India's best batsman in the T20 format, at the top of the order.
Rahul has a better average than the current top 3, a better strike rate than the current top 3, and has more 50-plus scores than the current top 3.
Surely, if India think the current top 3 are the best they have, those numbers might force a re-think? But that it doesn't is a symptom of another big problem India display - the lack of ability to isolate different formats of the game.
For example, just look back to the West Indian side that won those 2 T20 World Cups in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, and the number of T20 specialists it had, and how they kept picking those players despite limited success in other formats in that time.
The likes of Dwayne Bravo, Samuel Badree, Darren Sammy and Andre Russell hardly made an impact in ODI cricket, but they were all-conquering T20I superstars.
Why, then, should India not look at that template? To leave out a player with Rahul's T20 record over the past couple of years is absolutely preposterous.
So, what do we have then? India don't pick their best T20 players for this series, they don't pick attacking bowlers with wicket-taking ability, they don't use their resources right with absolutely awful in-game management. Did we expect a series win, really? Even if it was not the strongest ever South African side?
There's a huge re-think needed with the way India approach their T20 cricket, and it must begin from the selectors, and trickle down to team management, support staff and the leadership group - whether that is just Kohli or a group with him.
Follow Sportskeeda for all the updates on India vs South Africa head to head, India vs South Africa schedule 2019, news, results, points table, most runs, most wickets and fantasy tips.