Why Kohli is right to leav Ashwin out
Ravindra Jadeja batting at No. 5 was the last straw. “Virat Kohli will go to any lengths to prove that his decision of not playing R. Ashwin is justified”, was one of the tunes the fans were playing on social media at the end of Day 3. These fans remind me of the American rifle shooter at the Athens Olympics in 2004, who was sure he had scored the 8.0 he needed to win gold. He had in fact scored zero and finished last, because he pointed his rifle at the wrong target.
It’s been amusing to see how every 10 calls for Ashwin to be included in the XI have been matched by barely a whimper of who he should replace. I put out a tweet at the end of Day 3 asking social media to poll whose place he should take. Nearly 30% said Jadeja, showing how many people are missing the point: Jadeja’s promotion to No. 5 is a well deserved punt. In this series, he’s spent more time at the crease than Rory Burns and Ajinkya Rahane. Jadeja’s average this series is bettered only by India’s top four. So more than Ashwin, Jadeja is keeping Hanuma Vihari out.
The question was never “Will Ashwin take more wickets than Jadeja?” Of course, he will. He’s the superior spinner. The question is “Will Ashwin take more wickets than a fourth seamer?” Because it’s not Jadeja keeping him out, it’s one of India’s four horsemen.
The World Test Championship final has left its scars on this series. It was an opportunity for Virat Kohli to win his first ICC title, perhaps his best opportunity. In that game, India persisted with three seamers despite the conditions screaming for four.
That Ashwin bowled superbly in that final mattered little. The team management clearly thought they had the wrong man. And this has been a “bowl-first” series. Every toss (aside from the Headingley disaster) has seen England put India in. Which suggests the conditions have warranted four seamers.
Now, bowlers work in pairs. In this series, large portions of the games were played in conditions where any captain would want a fast bowler operating. With three fast bowlers, a captain has to stretch one for a longer spell from one end, and rotate the other two. If all your pacers are bowling well, then over the course of an innings, each bowler bowls roughly the same amount of overs.
But with a three-pronged seam attack, a captain’s problems compound when bowler has an off-day. No that I said ‘when’, not ‘if’ even the best bowlers are robots. Suddenly your seamer has to bowl the m overs, and therefore is effective deeper into innings. And so a captain h rest the fast men by using s in conditions suited for pa
A four-pronged seam at in conditions that suit it very different beast. Less o in the legs means more in sity into each delivery, de into an innings. This is one son why India’s pace attack been labelled “relentless”.
I am a big fan of Ashwin cricketer. He has a penc for innovation, more at h in the creator economy t the cricket economy. His u disregard for tradition, ins leaning on common se might be my favourite qua And I haven’t even gotten t skills.
Ashwin’s popularity higher than it has ever b Through his Youtube con he’s provided us the kin peeks into the Indian m team environment that have been starved of for ades. Perhaps it is becaus his soaring popularity that discourse around his place never been shriller. Nor as to cricketing reasons.
So despite wanting to Ashwin play, I recognise th such conditions, there is m in leaving him out, beca India’s fast bowling stocks richer than they have ever b in history. Bumrah has 16 w ets so far. Mohammed Siraj 15, Mohammed Shami 11. fourth seamer for India c bined has 13. Would they h been as successful if they a triad, rather than a qu That is the question and t is no way to know the ans
Perhaps hindsight will p this to be the wrong move. haps the Oval pitch will t ragged on Day 5, and Jad skill will be insufficient, e with the rough. But the cric ing logic behind this decisi not as unsound as people making out to be.
When is it OK to drop Alpha? When the wolf you in his place can make the p stronger.