Poor planning and neglecting players who were better suited to deliver the results in the T20 World Cup semi-finals led to the tame elimination.
PREMIUM
India’s Head Coach Rahul Dhavid and skipper Rohit Sharma (ANI).
As the fevered discussion over India’s semifinal loss at T20 World Cup slows down and stakeholders seek to understand what went wrong, India will envy Pakistan’s record: semifinalists in 2021, runners up in 2022.
There are many lessons to be learned. Even though they reached the semis, skipper Rohit Singh and Rahul Dravid would have known that they were not convincing in the league phase.
Sunday’s final is an excellent case study. India’s batting is better than Pakistan’s. Rohit Sharma’s team scored 168 against England in the semi-final loss. Pakistan scored just 137. The stark contrast is in the bowling. While economy rate is the main focus in T20 cricket, skipper Babar Azam packed his side full of wicket-taking options.
Watch Shaheen Shah Afridi and Naseem Khan, Haris Rahauf, and Mohammad Wasim 168 defend against England at Adelaide. The success of Pakistan’s tactic shows that international pacers can only bowl 140 kph. It is a combination high-skilled players who can perform at high speeds. India’s 160-point victory over Pakistan in the opening match of the World Cup was their highest total.
There is nothing worse than a captain not being able pick a wicket. This happened against England. You don’t know where you should look as the camera pans over you repeatedly. It wasn’t the first. After setting 152 runs to win, India failed to pick one Pakistan wicket last year. Virat Kohli was the one who suffered the frustration of the 10-wicket loss in Dubai.
At the Asia Cup in Dubai in August-September, alarm bells rang when Sri Lankan and Pakistan chased down 182 & 174 respectively.
Although Pakistan lost to England in Sunday’s final, Babar Azam had enough bowling skills to win the match. Only Ben Stokes was able to stop them from winning the trophy, with Shaheen Afridi’s injury helping England.
IDENTIFY PLAYERS
The half of the job of a coach and captain in building a team is to identify the right players who can perform when the heat is on. As skipper, Sourav Ganguly was an excellent example. His success was largely due to the effort he put in to find talent with the help of his teammates and then backed them. Yuvraj Singh and Harbhajan Singh, Munaf Patel, Zaheer Khan, Virender Sehwag, and Zaheer Khan were all supported to the hilt. Pakistan was also supported with Imran Khan-Inzamam -ul Haq, Wasim Akram, and Waqar Younis being identified and blooded quickly.
What did India do at the World Cup? Bank on Bhuvneshwar Kumar. Every player knows when the game is over. It was the 2021 World Cup match with Pakistan for Bhuvneshwar. He was a pedestrian with the new ball, scoring 18 runs against Mohammad Rizwan and Babar Azam. His final score was 3-0-25-0. It was similar to the treatment Manoj Prabhakar received from Sri Lanka openers Sanath Jayasuriya or Romesh Kaluwitharana in the 1996 ODI World Cup match in Delhi. He didn’t play for India after his spell of 4-0-77-80.
Bhuvneshwar was persistent though. He performed well in bilateral series, but it was how you perform on flatter pitches when the batters have the upper hand that matters. He failed to perform again when the pressure was on in semi-final.
The India selectors, team management and team management should ask themselves if they have really created a world-class attack for this tournament.
India lost their best attacking option when Jasprit Banumrah was injured and unable to play. It required a rethink of the bowling plans and a selection of a line-up that displayed more attacking flair. India needed bowlers who could run at 140kph or more. This is because it is difficult to beat world-class opponents. India needed bowlers who could run at a fast pace. Umran Malik was the one they found in IPL. However, they decided to not back him for the World Cup.
India had a lot of 30-plus players (Sharma and Kohli, R Ashwins, Bhuvneshwars, Mohammed Shamii, Yuzvendrachahal, Suryakumar Yadav, Dinesh Karathik, Bhuvneshwars, Mohammed Shamii, Yuzvendra Chahal, Yuzvendra Chahal, Sharma, Kohli, R Ashwin) when they picked their IPL team.
CSK are great at getting the best from seniors. Experimented campaigners in form can be great match-winners. Shane Watson is an excellent example: he scored 117* for CSK at the 2018 IPL final, and 90 at the 2019 final.
India was neither here nor there. They did have some 140-plus options back home. Umesh Yadav was also one. Shami and Yadav with the new ball, and Arshdeep Pandya and Hardik Pandya as the third and fourth seamers would have made for an incisive attack. These two experienced pacers were outstanding performers last IPL with new ball and have a great record in Australia.
PRITHVI SHAW QUESTION
If India was going for the top, why was Prithvi Shaw at home? It is difficult to get a player to adapt to a different style. India continued to bank on KL Rahul to be an enforcer. He finished with an average score of 21.33 and a strikerate of 120.75. Shaw is an attack guy. His T20 strike rate of 151.67 is his best. It’s about making tough selection calls. Ganguly had to remove VVS Laxman’s name from the 2003 World Cup. He did. India’s think-tank did not make the hard calls.