What is it that the Indian think-tank knows and the fan doesn't?

Up until the second session of the third day, when Dhoni’s counter-attack started paying off, India were still looking at a probable deficit and a possible defeat. The third day was one of the most fascinating days of cricket I have ever had the opportunity to watch. It had everything – tension, drama, skill, fight, persistence and thanks to Dhoni, plenty of flair. The match is still not over and in cricket, it’s not over till it is over. However, I intend for this write-up to be about reasoning more than about miracles; and as a fan, I would really want to understand what it is that the think-tank knows and a fan doesn’t.

The think-tank is the one that gets the flak, the one that has to eventually bell the cat. People like me can just make comments. However, once in a while, it would be really nice if ardent fans of Indian cricket get to understand a few things about why certain decisions were made. In the second Test, Murali Vijay in all probability is going to turn up instead of Ajinkya Rahane. He is fortunate that Sehwag isn’t performing well in a way and is on the axe list too. I know Vijay got a century very recently in the Irani Cup match. I know Vijay scored a century against Australians too. But, I still like the look of Rahane more than Vijay’s as a long term prospect for two reasons. Rahane, with some work, can be the traditional opener that India needs on overseas tours. Murali is more in the Sehwag mould, relying more on hand-eye coordination than perfect feet movement. Having seen enough of him in the IPL, I feel he is as unpredictable as Sehwag, though less explosive. It’s a gamble that doesn’t make sense to me, but it will be repeated from the looks of it.

I personally feel, Australia wouldn’t have gotten anywhere close to 350 had Ojha been playing. This will become quite an interesting decision come the second Test. The first question worth asking is, on the basis of bowling alone, which one out of Bhajji, Ojha and Jadeja would you pick? The answer is definitely Ojha. So, with Bhajji’s inclusion ahead of him, the think-tank is already due an explanation. If they wanted an off-spinner for this match, it definitely shouldn’t have been at the cost of Ojha. After all, do you drop a batsman who scores a century? Most would remember, Raina got a chance to play due to Yuvraj’s sickness and after scoring a century on debut, kept the position. By the same logic, we know who should be picked.

The next question really worth asking is whether Jadeja is good enough to bat at No. 7 ahead of Ashwin, leave alone at No.6? The whole world knows about Jadeja’s triples, only the 8th player in history to get three of them in first-class cricket, but still his innings yesterday didn’t convince me that he can handle genuine pace and swing. Ashwin, after Pujara has the highest average for an Indian batsman in the last 12 months, which is an incredible feat. At this stage of the career, only 2 other players have 500 runs and 70 wickets (relying on yesterday’s commentary for the stats). He is doing well for himself. More importantly, Ashwin looks more the part as a bowling all-rounder than Jadeja does. With Bhuvneshwar Kumar showing he can bat a bit, the think-tank definitely needs to show some consistency in its logic.

It is also incredible that Dhoni might have finally provided a solution to our No. 6 problem. It is incredible why it took so long for the team to understand this. Probably, it isn’t as bewildering as watching Clarke, the best batsman in the world right now, come at No. 5 for Australia. Yet, in hindsight, it seems a little unreasonable. India was never a country that knows how to take tough decisions, be it in sports, or in diplomacy. So, seeing Ashwin at 7, Bhajji/Jadeja at 8 and Bhuvneshwar at 9, followed by Pragyan Ojha would be hoping for too much. Would it be too much to hope it is Ishant who loses out finally for the extra spinner that will definitely come in the next match, instead of Bhuvneshwar?

The simple reason I want Bhuvneshwar Kumar in there is because not only does he look like a batsman who can hang in there, he can also bowl the longish spell that might be needed off the lone seamer. He swings the ball too and unlike Ishant, deserves one more go. India has played this match almost with 10 players instead of 11. Bhuvneshwar hasn’t bowled in the second innings yet, but he contributed with the bat, so I cannot count him out. Fans have a good memory and they will know that if England were able to orchestrate a havoc-wreaking comeback, Australia is perfectly capable of repeating the same. One only hopes that we play with full strength instead of hoping for a gamble to pay off.