Specsavers' second England-India Test, 2018: Five Reasons why India lost

So, that's it. As we have been mentioning for quite some time now, it was just, "a matter of time". And the inevitable has happened. India, done and dusted. Effectively, in terms of overs bowled, the game lasted just two days - in Harsha Bhogle's words, "a dire statement to make".

It was indeed a clinical display from the hosts, and it is very hard to spot any area where they may have failed - be it the bowling, the batting, or even the fielding - the English were much, much stronger than their opponents.

And too many match-winners as well - Chris Woakes for his 137 in the solitary innings that England played, and also his four wickets; Stuart Broad's five wickets; and above all, James Anderson's amazing age-defying performance: 9 wickets for 43 runs across both innings. It was clearly a deserving victory for the hosts, as England remains a tough nut for India to crack.

"A clinical performance from England. The first time that a side has outplayed us so much in recent times. Not proud of the way we played" - Kohli's disappointment was evident as he spoke in the final presentation ceremony. And boy, don't we all feel the same.

Brief Scores: India 107(Ashwin 29, Anderson 5/20), 130 (Ashwin 33*, Anderson 4/23) lost to England 396/7 decl. (Woakes 137*, Bairstow 93, Pandya 3/66) by an innings and 159 runs.

Let us just wrap up the proceeding now, and look at some major reasons why India lost the game.

__________________________________________________________________________

#1. Openers fail to make any impact

If the reader asks me to make a one-word description on what the Indian openers have contributed in the ongoing Test series till date, and before you complete the question, the answer will come out in a flash: "Nothing".

If one is still doubtful, then all that he or she needs to do is to take a look at Vijay's and Rahul's contribution in both matches of the Test series so far: Vijay - 20, 6, 0, 0. Rahul - 4, 13, 10, 8. Vijay (shamefully dismissed for a pair) did not even stay long enough to show that he may have any trouble with the English conditions in the Lord's game, while Rahul clearly showed his lack of proficiency in shot-selection.

On the other hand, Shikhar Dhawan started well in either innings in the previous game, but his tendency to get dismissed while attempting reckless shots may have prompted captain Kohli to take Rahul in over him. It was already deemed a gamble but now it has definitely been proved as one, and a failed one at that. Hopefully, Dhawan returns to the squad in the next game and does justice to his talent and skill.

#2. Ineffective Indian spin-department

Story

of a failed partnership so far

26 overs-2 maidens-112 runs-0 wickets: I can't remember a previous occasion from recent times, where the Indian spin-attack has been this unsuccessful in claiming even a single scalp.

Among the hosts, there was not a single spinner who bowled, as the pacers themselves completed all proceedings among themselves without respite. And having watched that, it looks as though Kohli and rest of the decision-makers in the management missed a trick by using spinners in the game.

The only place where Ashwin shone was while in batting, having remained top-scorer in both of India's innings of 107 and 130, notching figures of 29 and 33 not out by himself, respectively. Considering the humiliation India would have been further subjected to in his absence, it seems not a bad decision to have included him, after all. Meanwhile, there is nothing to speak about Kuldeep, in the batting case either.

#3. Umesh Yadav's absence in the playing XI

Umesh Yadav could have played a crucial role in the game, had he been present

Although this may look like a continuation of the previous reason, Umesh's absence denotes more than just that. The lanky pacer would have brought with him his wide array of attacking pace options, one of the few techniques that the English pacers employed so successfully in the game. Aiming to hit the deck is more like second nature for Umesh, and it would have come handy for India on a seaming wicket, especially considering that they were defending a total of just 107 from their first inning.

Umesh Yadav was replaced by left-arm wrist-spinner Kuldeep Yadav who, for his part, did not impress at all. For one, Kuldeep was given just nine overs to bowl, and for another, he went wicket-less with an economy rate of over four. Umesh's presence would have certainly meant that the other pacers were given more resting time between spells, while at the same time providing India with another attacking option to chose from. Virat's decision to bench him deserves no excuses here.

#4. Lack of contribution from Pujara, Rahane and Karthik

Stuart Broad celebrates the fall of Dinesh Karthik in the second inning

While the openers are clearly to blame for not giving India even a decent start in both innings, the batsmen that followed are not to be spared from criticism either. Judging by the kind of verve that Pujara, Rahane or Karthik has displayed across several previous situations in their individual careers, it was saddening to see their knocks in the game carrying a tinge, if not too much - of irresponsibility.

Pujara and Rahane especially are known for their mature approach to the game in all-whites, but neither of them have displayed any cause for their respective worths as "Dravid's successor at No. 3" and "Dravid's favourite cricketer" respectively - well that's how they are most widely known, aren't they.

It is important for batsmen to try and stick on to the pitch in Test cricket, the ultimate test of talent being the way they negotiate the conditions at play. With both openers down for cheap scores, that is exactly what Rahane and Pujara should have done, but both of them looked absolutely clueless for the entire length of time they were down there in the middle.

Dinesh Karthik was seen by many as a worthy successor to MS Dhoni in Tests, especially after having had to stay under the latter's shadow for such a long time before finally getting an opportunity. But Karthik has not been able to make use of what he has got, and with Wriddhiman Saha recovering from a shoulder injury and a highly energetic Rishabh Pant very much active in the sidelines, it may look like Karthik will soon go back into where he was all this while - at the fringe of national selection.

#5. The biggest of all reasons; Virat Kohli

Either be a silent spectator...

Being the biggest fan of Virat Kohli since his under-19 days (that was in 2007), it hurts me a lot to do this. This why I put it off as the last reason - I was hoping to come up with a good reason so that I may not write this, but no matter how much I racked my brains, nothing else seemed to fill up this spot.

Virat Kohli right now is the team's biggest boon - and also the biggest curse. We saw how the boon-thing worked in the first Test at Edgbaston, where his fighting 149 in the first inning and a gritty 51 in the second, almost gave the contingent a ray of sunshine to look up to. But immediately after his dismissal, came the curse-part.

When Kohli faill, India fail.

...Or hide from the suffering, under a smile

The same thing repeated in the Lord's game. It is quite funny that he is a No.4 batsman, and yet has to come to play before even the eighth over draws to a close. He may as well be an opener, if that's the case, well why not.

Across several instances, it looked like his teammates shared the same thought as the rest of India: "It's okay, even if everyone else fails, he will not. And he will deliver us" - maybe that's the reason why nobody else seemed to be able to do literally anything to try and save even a Test session, let alone an entire day's play or even an entire game.

Also, India's star batsman's captaincy has rarely been of any good level. In the games that India wins, Virat himself does way too much for the end result, and so any assessment on his captaincy is left redundant. But when it comes to games where he fails (and the side subsequently loses), his captaincy can be seen leaving a gaping hole right there in the middle.

Take, for instance, the idea of choosing Rahul over Dhawan in opening. Time and again, the southpaw has shown his ability in English conditions, while Rahul is, in comparison, a newborn baby. It is indeed true that Dhawan got out to cheap shots in the Edgbaston game, but so did Rahul. Still, for some reason, he chose to go with the baby even when he had a more experienced man at his disposal.

Similarly, the decision to include Kuldeep over Umesh Yadav. With an entire day's play ruled out, and with the pitch no longer dry, just Ashwin himself as a spinner was a luxury. The seaming track would have helped a pacer much more, and yet Kohli opted for the second spinner in Kuldeep, who in turn went wicket-less and expensive at the same time.

With the English pacers reaping all of India's 20 wickets across just 82.2 overs, I don't think there's a need for bigger proof as to why Kuldeep's pick was a totally blind move.

A combined over-confidence of the team on Kohli's supposed super-human abilities and Kohli's own uncalled-for decisions have thus cost India yet another game.

Three tests remain in the series, and India needs to win all three to win the contest. Too much of a far cry. Hopefully, the visitors will learn something from this harrowing loss, and at least try to save the series at best, if not win it.