The criticism stopped flowing towards the Indian cricket team after their superb performance on a tricky Johannesburg pitch helped them win a Test in the three-match series against South Africa. Then, in blue, they got off to a good start in the limited-overs series, beating the hosts by six wickets in the first ODI.
But the win notwithstanding, there were questions left unanswered, especially regarding a few selection decisions. India head coach Ravi Shastri, in an interview published on Friday in The Times of India, chose to answer them.
Shastri backed the team’s selections throughout the series and hit back at the critics. “People want to say a lot of things, but where are these people now?” the coach asked.
‘Rohit was the batsman in form, Ajinkya was struggling ’
About choosing Rohit Sharma for the first two Tests over Ajinkya Rahane, one of India’s most accomplished batsmen overseas, he said:
“Right from the beginning, there was no doubt in the mind of the team management that Rohit was the batsman in form while Ajinkya was struggling, not just on the field but in the nets too. Rohit was averaging more than 200 in Tests (in three innings against Sri Lanka last year, Rohit made 217 runs at an average of 217) and had scored around 1,200-odd runs in ODIs. So, what does the team tell him?
“Your runs don’t matter because that’s how it works? Performances count and that makes this whole talking point a no-brainer. We all know what Ajinkya is capable of, but before coming here he was averaging about 30 all through 2017.”
But before the third Test in Johannesburg, Rahane averaged almost 55 outside Asia, 69 in South Africa, 59 against South Africa. Sharma’s average outside Asia was less than 24, in South Africa it was 11.25, and against them, it was 8.87.
‘Bringing Ishant made all the difference’
Shastri also justified the choice of picking Ishant Sharma in the second Test over Bhuvneshwar Kumar, who was India’s best bowler in the first, saying, “Watch India’s first innings at Centurion. Quinton de Kock was keeping up front for Vernon Philander. That’s how slow the wicket was. Bringing in Ishant made all the difference. He has been phenomenal.
“We knew Bhuvi had to be played at the Wanderers and in fact, given the Centurion wicket - it had nothing for pace bowlers, leave alone swing – we knew Bhuvi would be fresh for the third Test. Ishant bowled beautifully in the first innings at Centurion, he got us both, AB [de Villiers] and Faf [du Plessis] and what a tireless effort it’s been from him. When did Ishant last bowl like [in] this series? Not even Perth.”
In the first Test, Bhuvneshwar had reduced South Africa to 12/3 in the first session, picked up six wickets, and batted more than his teammates.
‘Bumrah surprise was planned six months ago’
About Jasprit Bumrah’s surprise selection for the first Test, he said, “It wasn’t an overnight decision. Close to six months ago, we began work on this. Bumrah was our surprise package coming here and did it work? Of course.
“Tell me the last time a bowler has delivered so confidently on debut and has been learning so quickly. He was among the most consistent. In Cape Town, he bowled us back into the Test from where we could have won. In Johannesburg, he was simply intimidating.”
‘The series would’ve been different if we’d scored more runs in Cape Town and Centurion’
The recall of Rahane for the third Test, Shastri explained, was because of Sharma’s struggle and the former regaining his rhythm. “So we decided to do whatever looked better at that point in time and Ajinkya was in the eleven. And he scored at the Wanderers. Dropping or picking Bhuvi was not chopping or changing. It was a decision taken according to the pitch and the conditions.
“It’s simple, had we scored more runs in the second innings at Cape Town and the second innings at Centurion, this whole series would’ve been different.”
