FIRST PUBLISHED IN CRICBUZZ
Do you know how sometimes someone is trying to get you to change your mind but you resist or ignore the person even though you know their arguments are sound? You resist because acceding to their wishes would be some sort of an admission that you might have been wrong in the first place. Moreover, having a change of heart is sometimes seen as a sign of weakness; an indication that you weren't really committed to your original decision.
So you dig in and double down, steadfast in the face of even the most compelling logic. You soldier on, ignoring the calls for change because you cannot afford to look unsteady or indecisive. You are, after all, your own man, with confidence in your own judgements, especially since you think you are best positioned to make them.
We normally look askance at those who too easily change their minds. Politicians labelled flip floppers are unlikely to go far in their line of work, as the label suggests uncertainty, a lack of confidence, a lack of leadership, a lack of strong character. So once a decision is made it is often more expedient to stick with it rather than have a change of heart, even in the wake of loud opposition.
This, I believe, is a possible explanation for MS Dhoni and India's selectors insistence on excluding Ravichandran Ashwin from the side. Reams of articles have been written, and thousands of words spoken as to why Ashwin's name should have been present on the team sheet at Trent Bridge. Leaving him out there was clearly an error, but it was one that would obviously be rectified by playing him at Lord's.
Why then did India go into the second and third Tests without him? Was it that they were unmoved by the good arguments presented on Ashwin's behalf? Or was it that they were stubbornly sticking to their guns, convinced that their decision not to play India's leading spinner was the correct one?
If the sight of Moeen Ali posing serious questions at the Ageas Bowl to batsmen steeped in combating high class spin almost from the time they stopped imbibing their mothers milk didn't convince the Indian selectors of the error of their ways, then it is difficult to envision what will. Ali is indeed handy and has shown some improvement since he was first seen in the English uniform, but it is doubtful that even he would consider himself the spin bowling equal of Ashwin.
The Worcestershire all-rounder took eight wickets in the game, six in the second innings, and though considered a part-timer, was as effective on the fifth day on a wearing surface as any top class twirler would have been expected to be.
The decisions India made going into the third Test are rather curious. Victory came on the back of Ishant Sharma's rousing spell on either side of lunch on the last day at Lords. The leader of India's attack took 7/74 and swept away England in a wave of short-pitched bowling that will be spoken of for generations.
Unfortunately, an untimely leg injury meant he was unavailable to play at the Ageas Bowl and India would have to make adjustments to their bowling attack. Yet having played five bowlers in the first two encounters India defied logic by deciding to go with four for the third Test, even with their spearhead missing. It made little sense to have depleted their bowling resources.
In a post-match interview, Dhoni claimed that the fifth bowler was hardly used at Lord's. But that was only because the fifth bowler was Stuart Binny. Ten overs were required from him in the first innings, none in the second. Meanwhile, Jadeja bowled more overs than any other Indian bowler, and Dhoni found it necessary to call on the very part-time off-spin of Murali Vijay and Shikar Dhawan. Ashwin would not have been short of work had he played. Besides, Moeen Ali showed that good spin bowling made a huge difference at Southampton.
Now that England so easily disposed of the visitors to make the series even with two Tests to go, India must now respond appropriately. The highest card India has left to play, as far as their bowling is concerned, is Ashwin. He should rightly have been there from the first Test, and India did themselves no favours by leaving him out for the second and third as well.
This is not to say that the tall off-spinner will come into the side and work wonders. It is possible he could enter the team and perform disastrously. Those of us who have been advocating for him to play will then be forced to shut up, move on, and admit that the selectors might have been right all along. There are, after all, no guarantees in sport. Until that happens, however, sound reason demands the inclusion of India's best spinner at a time when the team is undeserved in that area.
India's Lord's victory was glorious and historic. Their loss at Southampton was comprehensive and disappointing, all the more because they would be aware that their performance was not up to the standards they had set in the first two Tests. Overall, their bowlers were not as circumspect in length and direction and their batsmen were too often lured into selling their wickets cheaply. Dhoni's side should resolve to make the necessary corrections.
At least one correction is also needed in the composition of the team. Rohit Sharma is an attractive batsman who has done reasonably in his very young Test career. But with a long batting order, and with India's most urgent concern being the ability to take 20 wickets cheaply enough to win, a wicket-taking bowler is likely to be more valuable than the runs he would provide.
Ashwin was forced to sit out the first three Tests. He will be raring to go in Manchester. India would be crazy to leave him on the bench again.
