New Zealand just whitewashed India in India, something no other team ever did in the 3-match test series. They obviously played a really good cricket and outplayed India in every department at every phase of the series. Importantly, India played their worst cricket, not just from the skills but even from the mindset perspective. New Zealand applied their “horses for courses” strategy once again which has brought them the success for long.
Horses for Courses
Ajaz Patel – who took 11 wickets in Mumbai test – has 74 test wickets to his name, but none at his home country. He is only one of the three test bowlers to take all 10 wickets in the innings of a test cricket – the feat he achieved in his favourite ground, Mumbai. In spite of such stellar records, New Zealand hardly gives him a chance in New Zealand where conditions don’t favour his style of bowling.
This is not the first time New Zealand has applied horses for courses strategy. If you open the history book, they’ve been doing it fearlessly for last many years – a strategy that has bring them the constant success.
Matt Henry is yet another example. After running through the Indian side for 46 alongside Will O’Rourke, he was replaced by Tim Southee in the next game, since Southee’s style of cricket was better for Pune wicket.
Read More: The Kotla Crash: Need of the Whole, Display of the Parts – Cricket Bloggers
For that matter, Ish Sodhi bowled just 7 overs on a rank turner in Mumbai, in spite of playing as a specialist spinner. Latham did not throw a ball to him in the second innings since he wasn’t consistent and leaking runs.
India’s adamant approach
What did India do through the series? Almost no change except for bringing in Akash Deep for Siraj in the second test and resting Bumrah in the third- all in the pace department. Importantly, Siraj bowled just 6 overs in the entire Mumbai test match – and his spells came all in the first innings. If you had ordered a spinning pitch, shouldn’t Axar Patel made much more sense in place of out-of-form Siraj? Axar doesn’t just offer left-arm spin but even the surety of 20-30 runs even on rank turners – the margin of India’s defeat in Mumbai.
India doesn’t learn
This is not the first time New Zealand has applied horses for courses strategy. If you open the history book, they’ve been doing it fearlessly for last many years – a strategy that has bring them the constant success. The T20 WC 2016 opener in Nagpur against India is yet another classic example. They skittled out hosts for 79 by playing 3 spinners, against their usual strategy of relying on pace.
Unfortunately, India keeps backing their players in all-conditions irrespective of their performance, possibly in the name of consistent chances. They chose to play Sarfaraz Khan in spite of knowing that he isn’t good enough for spinning wickets (none of their batters anyway). New Zealand would have easily replaced him with a batter of better technique against spin.
Giving the chances on horses for courses basis isn’t really breaking consistency. When you give a chance to the players on their skills, they know exactly what they need to prepare for and gives them the surety of their role and approach. For example, Ajinkya Rahane is a very good player of pace but not spin. Giving him a chance in Border-Gavaskar trophy shouldn’t be a bad idea.
Not changing the players based on conditions is a mistake India has been paying price for long, and long they may keep paying if they don’t learn.
What do you think about horses for courses strategy? Do share your thoughts in the comments section. We are always open for your comments & suggestions.
The Indian team seems to lack adaptability for changes. There us no sense leaving out Axar and Kuldeep. Siraj has no clue what to do..when was the last time he took a wicket? Bazball only works once in a while.
Remember, Test cricket is about hanging in there. Anyone missing Pujara?