India romped home easy winners in the last match of the five-Test series against England at Dharamshala by a margin of an innings and 64 runs. Thus, after starting the series with a stunning 28-run victory in the first Test, England went down tamely in the remaining matches to lose the series 1-4. Though the final results suggest otherwise, England had their opportunities, especially in the fourth Test, but could not grab them and ended up losing the way they did.
The final result is not surprising as India is not an easy place to tour, let alone weak opponents to vanquish on their home turf. India's last home series defeat was at the hands of England in 2012. Since then India have lost only four out of the 51 Tests at home. They won 40 while seven ended in draws. Hence defeating India on home soil would have been the cricketing equivalent of David slaying the Goliath. By ending up on the losing side, Ben Stokes and his teammates proved that they are all too human.
It would be interesting to study the factors that worked in favour of India and those that went against England. In the first place, India had five debutants in this series in Rajat Patidar, Sarfaraz Khan, Dhruv Jurel, Akash Deep and Devdutt Padikkal. The only time India had five debutants in a series in the past was against Australia in 2020-21. Thus, India could test the depth of their bench strength during this series. It would have given the selectors and team management plenty of satisfaction that all of them did well, with the possible exception of Patidar, who ran into choppy waters after a good start.
It was India’s superior batting strength that helped the side win the series after the shock defeat in the first Test. Yashasvi Jaiswal was the leader of the pack with a total of 712 runs in the five Tests, with two double centuries and three fifties. If the 209 he scored in the first innings of the second Test was marked by caution and discretion, his unbeaten 214 in the second innings of the third Test was an exhibition of brilliant strokeplay, especially in the art of hitting sixers. Altogether, he struck 27 sixes in the series, which not only showed the ease with which he could pick the line of the ball early and deposit it beyond the ropes but also showcased the amazing form he was in. It was Jaiswal’s presence at the top of the order and the runs that flowed from his bat that gave India a head start in the four Tests that they won.
Jaiswal received good support from both skipper Rohit Sharma, who opened the innings with him, and Shubhman Gill. Rohit hit two centuries in a total tally of 400 runs, while Gill too struck two hundreds and ended with an aggregate of 452. Gill’s century in the second innings of second Test helped India post a match-winning total. He also anchored a difficult chase in the fourth Test, when India were in a spot at 120/5 while chasing a target of 192. These two knocks helped him overcome the hesitancy and tentativeness that had bogged him down on earlier occasions while playing in India. This newfound confidence was evident in the manner in which he helped himself to one more hundred in the last Test.
With the top order faring well, the pressure on Indian middle and lower order batsmen was less. The absence of Virat Kohli for the entire series was not seriously felt except during the second innings of the first Test when the batsmen went into a shell all of sudden, giving England bowlers the upper hand. K L Rahul played only in the first Test but Sarfaraz ensured that his absence was not felt. And after Patidar failed in the fourth Test, Padikkal stepped into the breech in then last match with an attractive half-century. The only disappointment in the batting line-up was the failure of Shreyas Iyer who was dropped after the first two Tests.
One major gain for India from this series was the discovery of a new wicketkeeper-batsman in Juvel. Though he was drafted into the squad as the understudy to K S Bharat, Juvel took over the job as the main stumper from the thirst Test onwards. He showed his mettle with the bat in the next game with two superb innings’ that helped India win the game and with it the series. In the first innings he held the tail with the mastery of a veteran batsman, while in the second, he took charge of the chase at a critical phase exhibiting a calm and composure that would have done an experienced professional proud. He was safe behind the stumps as well, without any display of flamboyance.
Though R Ashwin finished as the top wicket-taker for India with 26 wickets, he could get into the wicket-taking act only during the last three innings of the series. India won the second Test on the back of a match-winning spell by Jasprit Bumrah, who brought the hosts back into the game and the series with his brilliance with the ball. But the real find of the series was the evolution of Kuldeep Yadav as a frontline Test match bowler. After being sidelined in the first Test, Kuldeep played in the last four matches and picked up 19 wickets. But more than the number of wickets, it was his ability to remove top order batsmen and that too when they were well set that turned the tide in favour of India on many occasions. With Ashwin, Bumrah and Kuldeep in full cry, there was little left to do for Ravindra Jadeja and Muhammed Siraj, though the former managed a five wicket-haul in the third Test.
Thus, it can been that Indian batsmen and bowlers performed well and they were backed on the field as well. On the contrary, England batsmen could not get going except sporadically. The victory in first Test was on account of a brilliant 196 by Ollie Pope, who batted in true Bazball fashion, throwing caution to the winds. But Pope could not get going after this effort and ended up with an aggregate of 315 runs, thus scoring only 118 runs in the remaining eight visits to the crease, which included a “pair” at Ranchi. Even worse was his inability to convert good starts into substantive scores at Visakhapatnam and Rajkot, which let his side down badly. Joe Root, their lord of the middle order, too had an average series with 320 runs, out of which 206 came from two innings (122 at Ranchi and 84 at Dharamshala). Zak Crawley was the only batsman who showed consistent returns with the bat; his total tally of 407 runs included four half-centuries. Ben Duckett had one big innings of 153 in the third Test and skipper Ben Stokes made a solitary score above 50 while Jonny Bairstow did not reach the half-century mark even once. Thus, there was a batting failure with top batsmen coming good only occasionally, but never collectively.
It must be said that England bowlers faced bigger problems. Jack Leach, their senor left-arm spinner, had to return back after the first Test due to an injury. This left the spin bowling department in the hands of three rookies -Tom Hartley, Rehan Ahmed and Shoaib Bashir - with a collective experience of three Tests before the start of the series. Incidentally Ahmed, the only one who had played in Test matches earlier disappointed. However, Bashir and Hartley carried on their tasks manfully and finished with 17 and 22 wickets respectively. History tells us that England had always performed well when they had an experienced left-arm spin bowler in their ranks. The absence of Leach was felt severely and contributed substantively to England’s low key performances in the bowling department after the first Test. Incidentally, James Anderson carried the load of fast bowling on his shoulders and reached the landmark of 700 wickets in Tests in the last match, thus becoming the first pacer to do so.
Finally, the question arises as to whether Bazball failed as a strategy in this series. This column has maintained that rather than attacking cricket, Bazball is a philosophy which helps players to perform without fear of failure. On turning tracks, it may not be possible to indulge in strokeplay in the same manner that one does on hard bouncy pitches. Hence, it goes without saying that batsmen will need to fine-tune their game depending on the ground and pitch conditions. England batsmen failed to come to terms with the guile and craft of Indian spinners in conditions favourable to them. There were sporadic successes but none of their top batsmen could ever dominate the bowling consistently or bat with assurance and confidence for long periods.
Cricket, in the final analysis, is a game between a bat and a ball. The person wielding the willow can dominate the one sending down the ball only if he is technically equipped to do so. England batsmen did not have the technical prowess to dominate the Indian bowlers. In such circumstances, playing without fear can yield only so much and certainly not enough to assure a win. However, this does mean that the same set of bowlers will command equal amount of dominance when bowling in different conditions. In other words, Bazball did not fail as a strategy but it could not yield desired results as the England players were not technically equipped to handle the Indian bowlers in the conditions under which the matches were played.
Despite the loss, England and Stokes can return home with their heads held high as they braved numerous challenges to put up a decent fight. Rohit and his team are entitled for their moment under the sun and savour this win with joy and pride. This was not an easy outing for them and they deserve our applause and accolades.
(The author is a former international cricket umpire and a senior bureaucrat)
