Well, Edgbaston Stadium continued to be an unlucky venue for the Indians as they lost another Test, which they dominated for close to three and a half days. Defeats are painful, no doubt, and inevitable, sometimes, but it is the manner of losing that is going to hurt India for a long time to come. Despite setting an imposing target of 378, England cantered home without breaking into a sweat, that too, against a bowling attack considered to be the best in the cricketing world right now. We won’t be indulging in any blame game right now, many have done the same. Instead, we will focus on three players that Team India could have included in the playing XI for the last Test of the Pataudi series, which ended in a 2-2 draw eventually.
Umesh Yadav
Since the last few years, especially with the emergence of new bowlers such as Jasprit Bumrah and Mohammad Shami, the Nagpur-born cricketer has been constantly ignored by the team management for the majority of Tests. In reality, Umesh Yadav has the pace and movement to rattle the best of batters and the last time he played a Test on English soil last year he had a match haul of six wickets, including the prized scalp of the then-England skipper Joe Root. However, for strange reasons, team management chose to ignore the bowler for the all-important game and we can’t help but wonder whether Yadav could have done anything worse than Mohammed Siraj or Shardul Thakur, who were guilty of straying on the leg sides of both Root and Jonny Bairstow.
Ravichandran Ashwin
This is getting boringly repetitive that every time India play a Test match indifference towards Ashwin dominates the news headlines and post-match analyses. The scenario was yet again similar when India took the field for the final match devoid of the Offie. Even with a new captain and a coach at the helm, Ashwin’s fortunes have not changed for the better. Several ex-cricketers, such as Graeme Swann and Danish Kaneria, were of the view that the Tamil Nadu tweaker could have made a difference to Team India’s fortunes along with Ravindra Jadeja. In fact, there were a few patches on the pitch, especially on the fourth and fifth days, which Ashwin could have easily cashed in with his guile and variations, and don’t forget he has always had the better of English star all-rounder Ben Stokes in Tests, 11 times in 24 matches. So, did India miss a trick or two by not picking him? Let’s stick to facts and avoid speculations.
Sarfaraz Khan
The way Root and Bairstow batted, it seemed even if England had to chase 500, they would have rattled off the humongous target with consummate ease. So, more than the batting, it’s the bowling, especially in the fourth innings, that is proving to be a major headache for the Indian team. However, it can’t be denied that most of our top batters were going through a bad phase with the willows, not a good omen for a crucial game like the one in Edgbaston. There will always be ifs and buts, still, could India have drafted in the Mumbai batsman at the expense of Hanuma Vihari, who not only failed with the bat but also dropped an important catch of the first innings centurion Bairstow in the second innings.
Cricket pundits were of the view that India could have easily batted England out in the second innings with an in-form batter and trying out a rookie like Sarfaraz, who became the poster boy of Indian domestic cricket recently after emerging as the top-scorer in the 2022 Ranji season, would have served India very well in the end. This might sound like a conjecture, but considering the form of some of our main batters, even a small but significant contribution from a top-order batsman would have made a whole lot of difference to the prospects of Team India. Is it another case of lost opportunity for India? Only time will tell.
