Picking the playing XI for a Test can either be straightforward or a little tricky. If the team is settled and most players pick themselves, it’s about putting those names on paper before the captain signs off. But, if you are looking for answers to certain questions, it can test your judgment and resolve.
What comes first: the combination you want to play, or the personnel whom you deem will fit the bill? Should pedigree be the only yardstick, or does current form override history?
Considering India’s run in the last 24 months, selection of the playing XI should’ve been easy. But it was the opposite in Cape Town. India chose only 5 batsmen, with Hardik Pandya being given a place.
That wasn’t the only tough decision that the management took. They chose Shikhar Dhawan over KL Rahul and Rohit Sharma over Ajinkya Rahane. In addition to these picks, India handed a debut to Jasprit Bumrah, which meant that the fast-bowling star of their home season — Umesh Yadav — warmed the bench.
One would assume that these brave and unpopular decisions were taken with clarity of thought. A heartbreaking loss will lead to these decisions being discussed threadbare.
So, how do you finalise the playing XI for the second Test? Should you use the first as a starting point, or simply consider the second as a brand new entity?
The reason for bringing this up is to figure out what comes first. Does team composition based on the pitch take priority? Or is it about who can’t be dropped because of his last performance?
Pandya’s performance has given India a sweet headache. Leaving him out would invite the wrath of supporters and experts. But playing him might mean compromising a combination that you might think is ideal for Centurion; one that is also best suited for the team after the twin batting failures. In my humble opinion, it should always be about the combination, for the pitch offered dictates that.
If the pitch is anywhere close to the one in Cape Town, it’s only pragmatic to play six batsmen.
On a pitch offering loads to bowlers, you must bolster batting, just like you must bolster bowling on a flat pitch.
If you think that you need only four bowlers to take 20 wickets, playing an extra bowling option at the cost of a proper batsman isn’t recommended. Especially when your batting has failed twice.
Let me raise another question, before you shred me to threads for this suggestion. If Karun Nair can be dropped after scoring a triple century for the sake of the right combination, why is it preposterous to suggest that Pandya can be left out for the same reason?
Back then, India felt the need for a fifth bowler on a flat Hyderabad pitch against Bangladesh. Retaining the spirit of the same logic, if the pitch at Centurion demands only four bowlers, the team shouldn’t hesitate in leaving Pandya out. If this team can leave out its vice-captain after only one poor series in his career, it also surely knows how to take unpopular calls.
That brings me to the second unpopular question worth pondering: the spot that is occupied by Dhawan.
While he’s scored a lot of runs in all three formats since the Champions Trophy, the jury is out on his ability to play overseas. His dismissals in the first Test have opened up a pandora’s box once again.
Since it’s widely believed that Rahul is better equipped to handle pace, bounce and lateral movement in the air and off the surface, does he merit a place for the second Test? It’s important to remember that any corrective measures taken after the second Test might have no bearing on the outcome of this series.
It’s human to err, and if the management feels that they erred in judgment with regard to Dhawan for the first Test, they can surely make amends in the second, without thinking about how their decision will be construed by outsiders.
There are no right or wrong answers to address this current selection conundrum. And it is almost certain that irrespective of the path the team takes, it will receive criticism. But that must not stop them from doing what they think is right, even if that means opting for a few more unpopular and brave decisions.