[ad_1]
NEW DELHI: Injury to real all-round talent and vice-captain Hardik Pandya during the game against Bangladesh was unfortunate. But it played a positive role in clearing the cobwebs of the Indian think-tank.
Mohammed Shami, paceman of far higher pedigree, not finding a place in the first XI, because of the perceived utility of Shardul Thakurwas a travesty of justice.It needed an ankle knee twist to correct that folly.
Once Pandya was unavailable and replaced with specialist batter Suryakumar Yadav, the bowling looked thin and an axe had to fall on Thakur. In the absence of Shubman Gill, India had played Ishan Kishan in the opening game against Australia and played three spinners. Ashwin could not keep his place in the next match against Afghanistan as conditions in Delhi were thought to be different. That paved the way for Thakur’s entry.
Of course, there was a reason why India picked Thakur. Losing ICC knockout games on a consistent basis have made them overthink.
Thakur was a good antidote: Against a middle-order collapse or one of the bowlers getting injured during the game or having an off day. But was it necessary to pick an insurance player by compromising the quality of bowling attack? Why rest one of your best bowlers (Shami) fearing an accident? Moreover, with Thakur not getting to bat and not bowling full quota overs meant half-baking one of your resources.
The defensive mindset of picking Thakur and covering for eventualities could have also found a modern expression: “team’s requirement in an ever-dynamic environment” (or any clever phrase to that effect). And it is perfectly understandable if the team management argued that Shami would have played the subsequent matches even if Pandya was not injured.
However, it also meant that worldclass batters and world-class bowlers needed a cushion of early wins (to play Shami later in games which are not must-wins) and a cushion of Thakur in the initial games.
Pandya’s injury gave the team management a forced reason to rejig the playing XI. Else changing the winning combination would have been quite tricky.
When India reached the 2003 World Cup final in South Africa, three players did not get a game: Ajit Agarkar, Parthiv Patel and Sanjay Bangar. More importantly, ‘worldclass’ Anil Kumble got just three games – against Holland, Australia and Pakistan in the league phase.
Dinesh Mongia was dubbed an allrounder by captain Sourav Ganguly. And Mongia played ahead of Kumble in the title clash against Australia. There was little chance Ricky Ponting and Damien Martyn would have got out to him. India clearly missed Kumble’s guile in the crunch game.
To be fair to Thakur’s skills, he is a bigger wicket-taker (on his own skills) than Mongia was. After India’s win over New Zealand, Rohit Sharma has said in jest that Thakur is a “badey match ka” player.
Thankfully, going by current form, he is not expected to take the place of Shami in this team. The tree of Shami is an important part of Mahabharata. The pandavas had hidden their weapons inside the shami tree when they had to bear one year of exile after 12 years of vanvaas.
Shami has been associated with weapons for the ages. Now, the Indian team think-tank is reaping the reward of the Shami weapon which has not suffered from any rust despite being unused for some time. And fans of skilful cricket are lapping it up.
Mohammed Shami, paceman of far higher pedigree, not finding a place in the first XI, because of the perceived utility of Shardul Thakurwas a travesty of justice.It needed an ankle knee twist to correct that folly.
Once Pandya was unavailable and replaced with specialist batter Suryakumar Yadav, the bowling looked thin and an axe had to fall on Thakur. In the absence of Shubman Gill, India had played Ishan Kishan in the opening game against Australia and played three spinners. Ashwin could not keep his place in the next match against Afghanistan as conditions in Delhi were thought to be different. That paved the way for Thakur’s entry.
Of course, there was a reason why India picked Thakur. Losing ICC knockout games on a consistent basis have made them overthink.
Thakur was a good antidote: Against a middle-order collapse or one of the bowlers getting injured during the game or having an off day. But was it necessary to pick an insurance player by compromising the quality of bowling attack? Why rest one of your best bowlers (Shami) fearing an accident? Moreover, with Thakur not getting to bat and not bowling full quota overs meant half-baking one of your resources.
The defensive mindset of picking Thakur and covering for eventualities could have also found a modern expression: “team’s requirement in an ever-dynamic environment” (or any clever phrase to that effect). And it is perfectly understandable if the team management argued that Shami would have played the subsequent matches even if Pandya was not injured.
However, it also meant that worldclass batters and world-class bowlers needed a cushion of early wins (to play Shami later in games which are not must-wins) and a cushion of Thakur in the initial games.
Pandya’s injury gave the team management a forced reason to rejig the playing XI. Else changing the winning combination would have been quite tricky.
When India reached the 2003 World Cup final in South Africa, three players did not get a game: Ajit Agarkar, Parthiv Patel and Sanjay Bangar. More importantly, ‘worldclass’ Anil Kumble got just three games – against Holland, Australia and Pakistan in the league phase.
Dinesh Mongia was dubbed an allrounder by captain Sourav Ganguly. And Mongia played ahead of Kumble in the title clash against Australia. There was little chance Ricky Ponting and Damien Martyn would have got out to him. India clearly missed Kumble’s guile in the crunch game.
To be fair to Thakur’s skills, he is a bigger wicket-taker (on his own skills) than Mongia was. After India’s win over New Zealand, Rohit Sharma has said in jest that Thakur is a “badey match ka” player.
Thankfully, going by current form, he is not expected to take the place of Shami in this team. The tree of Shami is an important part of Mahabharata. The pandavas had hidden their weapons inside the shami tree when they had to bear one year of exile after 12 years of vanvaas.
Shami has been associated with weapons for the ages. Now, the Indian team think-tank is reaping the reward of the Shami weapon which has not suffered from any rust despite being unused for some time. And fans of skilful cricket are lapping it up.
[ad_2]
Source link
