Test defeats do not sit well with the Indian fan. Particularly if they happen in the subcontinent. More so when they are snatched from the jaws of victory. India had Sri Lanka at 95/5 in their second innings in the first test of the three-Test series, with Sri Lanka requiring another 97 runs to avoid an innings defeat. Over the next three sessions, Chandimal and Herath conjured up superlative performances and hurtled India to a 63-run defeat.
The defeat, not surprisingly, has brought about a variety of questions — was Kohli too hot-headed for the captain’s role, what would Dhoni have done in such a scenario, did India pay for selecting Rohit over Pujara, and so on. Amidst all this, the spotlight has also been focussed on India’s strategy of playing five specialist bowlers, thus going in with a specialist batsman short.
Kohli, soon after he was appointed full-time captain, promised to usher in an era of ‘fearless cricket’. Processes, he felt, were good for only so long; the results had to come. He saw playing five bowlers as a clear means to that end — better your chances of taking 20 wickets in a Test, strongly bring about the possibility of a result and bat responsibly to influence the result in your favour. Given that India was saddled with a batting line-up in indifferent form, there did exist a lot of risk in going a batsman short, but nevertheless, Kohli, who had made it clear earlier that he would not mind risking a loss in a bid to win, pushed on.
In Defence of Kohli’s Five-Bowler Strategy
It is not hard to see the reasoning, though. The match was in the subcontinent; the pitches were not expected to be threatening; India, atleast on paper, looked the better side and had, in Ashwin, a very competent No. 7 bat. So, what went wrong in this match? The extra spinner, Harbhajan, expected to bowl like a man with over 400 Test wickets behind him was short of match-practice, ended up bowling like a man with 400 Test wickets far behind him, and conceivably, did not hasten or influence the fall of the opposition’s 20 wickets to any significant degree.
The batting, already a specialist short, was not helped by the near-collective failure in the second innings. As Kohli pointed-out in the post-match interaction, the second innings batting was tentative, lacked intent and consequently, helped ‘let the opposition in’. Kohli would not have had to look beyond his own dismissal to realize this — feet planted forward and attempting to flick/turn the ball without getting to its pitch, a low-percentage limited-overs shot at best.
The Indian cricketing public, quite justifiably, has the right to feel aggrieved over this result. After having dominated the Test for the most part, given the fact that the pitch held no demons, a target of 176 was no way unattainable for this lot. That said, however, a sample space of one Test (with one bad batting session) is no basis for the denouncement of the five-bowler strategy. A new-look team, with a new captain and a new approach, needs be given time and space to find its feet.
The addition of an all-rounder, Binny, to the squad is a step in the right direction, in that it is an indication that the team management is looking to address any imbalance that the five-bowler plan may have brought to the side. A captain focussed on results is something Indian cricket can certainly do with. Sterner tests will come to Kohli in the shores of Australia, South Africa and England in due course, and he must be trusted upon to mould his team in the way he wants to, to take those challenges on.
