England vs India 2018: 5 reasons why England lost the third T20I

On the back of Rohit Sharma's record-breaking third T20I century, India beat England by seven wickets in the third T20I at Bristol and sealed the three-match series 2-1. That win also extended India's win record in three-match T20I bilateral series to 8-0.

After winning the toss, Virat Kohli had no hesitation in deciding to bowl first. The hosts immediately set about proving that that was a mistake as they raced to 100 in no time. But Hardik Pandya ran through the middle-order and finished with four wickets as England eventually stuttered and stumbled their way to 198/9 in 20 overs.

In response, India lost Shikhar Dhawan cheaply again. Although KL Rahul got a start, even he was dismissed before the end of the powerplay. But that brought Kohli to the crease alongside Rohit and the pair put on 89 runs to set the platform for the chase. Although the Indian captain fell seven short of a fifty, Rohit got his century and Pandya sealed the victory with a six as India got over the line with seven wickets and eight balls to spare.

Here are 5 reasons why England lost the third T20I at Bristol:

Failure to capitalize on another splendid start

Roy got England off to a sublime start yet again

Even though the likes of Alex Hales and Jonny Bairstow had done well at the top for England, the decision to try out Jason Roy and Jos Buttler as openers signalled just one thing. The hosts want to maximise any chance they have of getting off to a great start during the powerplay.

And once again Roy and Buttler got the hosts off to the perfect start. At the end of the powerplay, thanks to Roy's blitzkrieg, England had already put on 73 without losing a wicket. And scoring rate didn't really go down after that as the two openers kept up the momentum. When Buttler was eventually dismissed by Siddarth Kaul, England were closing in on a century, inside eight overs.

That was just the perfect platform for a middle-order that boasted of Alex Hales, Eoin Morgan, Ben Stokes and Jonny Bairstow. Instead, things didn't go according to plan. From 94-1 after 7.5 overs, they finished with 198/9 from their 20 overs.

Eoin Morgan admitted as much in the post-match presentation when he said: "Roy and Buttler prove a dominant force at the top, we didn't do their platform justice. Probably fell between 20-30 short, just in our execution of shots."

The middle muddle

Too many openers in the middle-order

One of the problems England have with the decision to open with Jos Buttler is that they have too many batsmen who are far better opening the innings than they are in the middle. Alex Hales, Jonny Bairstow are front-line openers and on his comeback T20 for Durham, Stokes scored 90 as an opener as well.

That meant that England don't have too many players who actually prefer playing in the middle overs. That was evident in the third T20I where there was always a sense of anticipation of a boundary anytime the middle order walked out to bat. All of them took time to get into their groove, which hampered their ability to keep the momentum and also meant that eventually when they got out, England didn't get too far.

From No.3 to No.6, Bairstow was the only batsman to have a strike rate of over 150 and that is simply criminal in a small ground where the ball isn't doing a great deal.

The slow crawl to the finish

It was a slow, painful crawl to the end rather than a final flourish

It wasn't just an innings of two halves but one that simply didn't get going at the death. England were 111/2 at the end of 10 overs and had lost both openers. Still, they were in a decent position, the next three overs were quiet consolidation and although they only scored 21 runs, that meant that both Hales and Morgan were set by this point.

But what happened in the next seven overs basically turned the game. And it all started with the 14th over of the innings, bowled by Hardik Pandya, who got rid of both batsmen in the space of five balls. And England never really recovered from that.

From 132/2 after 13 overs, England finished their seven overs having scored just 66 runs but also having lost seven wickets. The last three overs went for just 23 runs but also saw England lose five wickets and eventually be lucky enough to not get bowled out.

That meant that instead of a target closer to 230 as it looked like it would at the start of the innings, India were chasing a target of under 200.

Under-utilization of Ben Stokes, the bowler

Why did he bowl just two overs?

England knew that they were at least 20 runs short. England knew that they needed early wickets and had to ensure that they didn't let the visitors get off to a flyer. Despite knowing all this, India got off to a great start as they finished the powerplay at 70/2.

And enter, Ben Stokes. The all-rounder had been brought in for Joe Root and was cleared to bowl as well. And perhaps most telling, England's best three-over period in the entire innings was when Ben Stokes was bowling.

After conceding just two runs off his first over, Stokes came back after an Adil Rashid over that went for 10 runs. Although his second over went for 9 runs, his figures were still far better than any other England bowler. At the end of two overs, Stokes had conceded just 11 overs. When the opposition needs nearly 10 runs an over that is simply sensational.

And yet for some reason only the England captain knows, Stokes didn't bowl at all for the rest of the game. Weird? Most certainly. Perhaps he wasn't fully fit to bowl his quota, but couldn't Morgan have at least given him another over? When all the other pacers were going at an economy rate of well over 10, wouldn't it have made sense to give the ball to someone who was going at just 5.5?

The curious case of Adil Rashid

Rashid failed to pick up a single wicket in the third T20I

One of the main reasons behind England's 5-0 whitewash of Australia in the ODI series was Adil Rashid. He had 12 wickets and at least one wicket in each match of the series. However, he has been a pale shadow of that player in the T20I series against India.

Although he hadn't gone for plenty in the first two T20Is against India, he picked up just a solitary wicket. And in the third T20I, although he was the most economical bowler after Stokes (who for some weird reason bowled just 2) and went at an acceptable economy rate of 8.

But the question here is not the fact that he has continued to be economical but that he has almost become invisible as a wicket-taking threat. In a summer that has seen England rack up wins courtesy of the effectiveness of the spinners, this is disturbing.

While Adil Rashid is definitely not to blame for England's loss, a couple of wickets from him could have made the game more interesting towards the end.