India's T20 story: Batsmen devoid of bowling, bowlers lacking batting

HOW MANY PLAYERS are there in a cricket team? The literal answer is unquestionably 11.

- SANDIP G

But some teams create an impression that they have more than just eleven, and some others fewer than 11. At St George's Park, South Africa seemed to have more than eleven and India fewer than eleven. India had the classical Test team-six batsmen including the wicket-keeper, an all-rounder, and four specialist bowlers. None of the six batsmen could bowl, and none of the four bowlers could bat. Like polite neighbours, they seemed averse to usurping into each other's well-defined spaces. In striking contrast, South Africa had nine who can bat and six who could bowl, in lieu with the spirit of the T20 age.

But you could argue that different teams adopt different approaches. Besides, a team combination is subject to the availability and quality of those available. But it matters in big matches and against big opponents. In the end, superior depth in batting and bowling was the difference between India losing and South Africa winning the second T20. When Reeza Hendricks and Co. pillaged India's bowlers, Surykumar Yadav could only keep recycling the same bowlers in the hope that someone would produce a piece of magic. None did, and he was made to rue the unavailability of a part-time, partnership-breaking sixth bowler. All teams have one, or more than one. South Africa has Aiden Markram; Australia Travis Head and Mitchell Marsh; New Zealand Rachin Ravindra, Glenn Phillips and Daryll Mitchell; Pakistan have Iftikhar Ahmed and Imad Wasim; England Liam Livingstone and Harry Brook.

Where the world has gone behind multitaskers, India have stuck with specialists. Perhaps, there are not adequate alternatives, perhaps that is their philosophy, but it is taking India backwards in the most dynamically evolving format.