How should India skin the Twenty20 cat?
In the shortest format, fearlessness is the key, but there is more than one way to harness this
What approach should India take in Twenty20 cricket? Photo courtesy BCCI
What will you do if Afghanistan fail to beat New Zealand?, Ravindra Jadeja was asked, in his post-match press conference after India beat Scotland comprehensively.
“We will pack our bags and go home,” said Jadeja with a wry smile. Well, what else could he say?
India’s campaign in this Twenty20 World Cup is a tricky one to understand.
Virat Kohli’s team were soundly beaten, even comprehensively outplayed, by Pakistan and New Zealand.
While Pakistan forced the issue with Shaheen Shah Afridi, an undeniable talent who bowled an irresistible spell — and this can happen to anyone — the real unravelling was against New Zealand.
In their second match, India did not succumb to one outlandishly good performance, but collectively put on a show that was nowhere close to good enough.
Kohli thought his batsmen had not been brave enough in their approach, and this is true.
Jasprit Bumrah said that the batsmen took extra risks because they were batting first and needed a cushion of 15-20 extra runs because dew would come into play in the second half. This is also true.
It was just that the risks taken were not calculated well enough and every time a big, aerial shot was played the fielder in the deep was picked out with precision.
In the aftermath of the two defeats that all but ended India’s campaign in the tournament, even with three matches to play, several reasons were put forward to explain the poor showing.
One of them was mental fatigue from having been in bio-secure bubbles and on the road non stop.
India’s cricketers are highly paid and well looked after, but, at the end of the day they are human.
They have been away from family and working, in a sense, constantly for six or seven months on the trot.
While it is unclear how much of a role or what kind of role this played, it is obvious that understanding the impact is very difficult for those who have not been in similar bubbles.
The Covid-19 experience has been an individual one and even a unique one for all those who have lived through it.
Without making any excuses, Rohit Sharma attempted to make sense of what happened, once India had made a late course correction, hammering Afghanistan.
“I think the approach today from everyone was different, and I wish it was in the first two games, as well, but it didn't happen. But that can happen when you are on the road for a long time,” he said. “Decision making sometimes can be a problem, and that is exactly what happened in the first two games. We are a very good team. It's just that we were not good on that particular day against Pakistan and New Zealand. But yes, today the game we played, it's pretty much sums it up that this is the kind of team we are, and when we play fearlessly, this is what we get.”
That fearlessness was on display in even more extreme fashion against Scotland, when KL Rahul made a 19-ball half-century and India chased down 86 in just 39 balls, because they needed to boost their Net Run Rate.
The larger question this quartet of matches of two halves raises is this: how do you bat fearlessly all the time?
For players raised on first class cricket with the belief that Test cricket is the ultimate form of the game, it is easy to conflate fearlessness with recklessness.
Every batter of a certain vintage will remember coaches telling them to keep the ball on the ground, and suffering some consequences when they failed to do so.
With that in mind, the manner in which Rohit and Rahul, two accomplished long-form players, were able to flip the switch, was incredible.
But, it is worth noting — and this is not being said lightly or flippantly — that in the two matches India flourished, Virat Kohli did not have a role to play.
Against Afghanistan, after a base was laid and only few overs remained Kohli promoted Rishabh Pant and then Hardik Pandya, two of the best range hitters in the team, and held himself back.
Against Scotland Kohli only came out to bat once the game as a contest was finished, and faced two balls.
There is no doubt that Kohli is one of the best batsman of his generation and will finish as one of the greats of all time, but, he works from a certain mindset.
Kohli looks to build and innings, and will protect his valuable wicket at all costs until he has reached a certain score, a critical mass, before throwing caution to the wind.
This is exactly what is needed in Test cricket, four-day first class cricket and even 50-over cricket, but it can work against an individual, and even a team, in Twenty20 cricket.
This is not to blame Kohli, but having three batsmen with a conventional approach at the top of the order will inevitably lead to situations in which too many balls are used up in trying to get set and construct an innings.
Which leaves Indian cricket with a bigger question. Should the attempt be to take the best all-format batsmen they have and help them adapt to a Twenty20 mindset or should they stack the team with youngsters who do not carry the baggage of other formats?
There is merit in both arguments.
New Zealand work on the traditional format and are successful, while West Indies are the other extreme and do equally well.
Most players in the West Indies Twenty20 set up don’t play Test cricket, play the very occasional game for country or are just flat out freelancers who roam the world, taking part in one franchise league after another.
While they crashed and burned in this World Cup, there is no denying that West Indies were one of the early adopters to having a fearless Twenty20 mindset and shaped the way the game may be approached, providing a template.
India make a fresh start of sorts at the end of this Twenty20 World Cup, with a new captain, likely Rohit, and a new coach in Rahul Dravid.
Whether they also embrace a new approach or work harder on refining what exists remains to be seen.