T20 World Cup: India promised aggressive cricket but England delivered

Before this T20 World Cup started, Indian broadcaster played an emotional advertisement which said the world has changed, a lot of time has passed, please bring the World Cup. It was a touchy ad which related to India’s T20 cabinet drought after the win in the inaugural World Cup in 2007.

Sadly, the drought continues after England’s Jos Buttler and Alex Hales blew India away in the semifinals at the Adelaide Oval.

After the first round exit in the previous World Cup in UAE last year, India had promised, under Rohit Sharma, to play an aggressive brand of cricket and changed their style, playing fearlessly and not worrying about the result in the eight bilateral series. They won almost everything barring one tied series against South Africa.

What India had done in those bilateral series was to go hard either when setting a target or chasing one. And India were successful because they followed that template with the bat, not worrying about if they get bowled out cheaply in doing so, which is quite possible when you play a brand of high risk cricket.

ALSO READ:

• T20 World Cup: Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif trolls Indian team after semifinal loss

• T20 World Cup: England cruise past India to set up final date with Pakistan

But come the World Cup, India went back to the traditional brand of cricket, playing out the first six overs slowly and then lifting their run rate in the death overs to reach a par score.

The intent was lacking by the openers and India’s average powerplay score in the World Cup was 36, which can’t be played in today’s day and age of fast-paced T20 cricket. And similarly in the bowling, India missed a trick by not going for an attacking wicket-taking bowler like Yuzvendra Chahal and instead played Ravichandran Ashwin and Axar Patel.

Chahal is one bowler who does not worry about getting hit and that’s why, even if he goes for runs, he gets his captain wickets and turns the match on its head.

In the case of Ashwin, I am afraid he is more of a defensive bowler who likes to control the flow of runs. That is where the Indian management forgot that aggressive cricket is not only about batting but also in bowling and, of course, in the fielding — going in for a catch than protecting the boundary.

All the cricket pundits were wondering why Chahal was not played even in one game and Sunil Gavaskar was one who said again on Thursday that finger spinners don’t get turn in Australia. They might contain the opposition but not get you wickets and he was baffled at the exclusion of Chahal, who is a match-winner as he gets you wickets and is not scares of being hit.

Thursday’s difference across both the sides was the bowling of Adil Rashid, England’s leg-spinner, who went for just 20 runs and got the prized wicket of Suryakumar Yadav. SKY was in prime form and could have hurt England but Rashid foxed him.

To add more salt to India’s wounds, part-timer Liam Livingstone went for just 21 runs in his three overs, which meant the seven overs of leg spin bowling went for just 43 runs. India had picked Rishabh Pant on Thursday to thwart the threat of Rashid, and to my surprise, India did not send him ahead just to attack the leg spinner. Pant could have utilised the short boundary square on both sides and taken a chance being a left-hander. The aggression was once again missing from India.

India promised aggressive cricket but sadly, for all Indian fans, it was England who delivered and knocked India out of yet another World Cup.

The wait for a T20 World Cup title still goes on.

Anis Sajan is the vice-chairman of the Danube Group

• India
• Australia