T20 World Cup debacle: India need to handle powerplays and mindset better

There are losses and then there are losses.India, at Adelaide, were trounced, walloped, whipped, slaughtered. But behind every win and every loss in sport, there are a multitude of causes and circumstances. So, keeping jingoism and a fan’s passion aside, here’s a step-by-step dissection of the what, how and why.T20 World Cup: Full coverage | Schedule | Results | Points Table | News | PhotosThe T20 format is foremost a young person’s game. It needs a barrel of young blood, fearless to the core and willing to die for the cause rather than deriving solace from a smattering of anaemic averages.Unfortunately, despite the stupendous success of the Indian Premier League (IPL), India’s batters by and large still live in a long-forgotten era.The openers should walk in believing they have to keep up the strike rate, take the pressure off the middle order, maximizing the run rate when the Powerplay's fielding restrictions are in place for the first 6 overs and not worry too much about settling down. In fact, that is where precisely India lost the plot right through the tournament.“I'm just staggered by how they play T20 cricket for the talent they have. They have the players, but just do not have the right process in place. They have to go for it. Since winning the 50 over World Cup on home soil in 2011 what have they done? Nothing. India are playing a white-ball game that is dated and have done for years,” former England captain Michael Vaughan and Ashes hero wrote in his column.Looking at it closely, the manner in which both teams (semi-final) handled the two Powerplays provided a hook on which the story unfolded. India scrounged around for 38 in the first 6 overs for 1 wicket. In sharp dissimilitude, England slammed 63 in 6 overs without breaking into a sweat. Read that as without losing a wicket. The carnage continued signalling the fact even if India had scored another 25 it may have still lost.India captain Rohit Sharma was quick to blame his bowlers. After all, losing a semi-final by 10 wickets is a hard pill to swallow.“I thought we still batted pretty well at the back end to get to that score, but we weren’t good enough with the ball,” Rohit said at the post-match presentation. “It was definitely not a wicket where a team could come and chase down [that target] in 16-17 overs. But yeah, these things happen. Like I said, with the ball we just didn’t turn up today.”Rohit blaming the lines bowled by India is a tad inexplicable.“We wanted to keep it tight, not give room, we looked at Adelaide pretty well, we know where the runs are scored. Square of the wicket is what we were quite aware of, and that’s where all the runs went today. Keeping it tight is something we spoke of but from there if the batsman plays a good shot we’ll take it. But that is something that didn’t happen today and that is a little disappointing.”However, the marvels of modern technology leave no room for anyone to duck. Ball-tracking data indicates Rohit Sharma was erroneous to say his bowlers didn’t bowl the right lines.The beehive (Cric Viz) shows all of England’s boundaries generally came from balls on a considerably tighter line. It meant India’s bowlers were on a tight line unlike what Rohit was suggesting.England bowled more bowls down leg and wide than India who were more effective at staying on a tight stump line.There is merit in the argument, buttressed by Sunil Gavaskar in his post-match analysis, that once the ball stops swinging India’s bowling attack – minus a genuine quick or a wrist spinner – lacked any threat. But, what Rohit pointed was not accurate.India lost because its batting order needs a serious rejig. And introspection to boot. There is a prevalent belief that going for par-scores is enough to see the side through as it would hope to ride on the rival’s batting weaknesses.India’s biggest batting problem in this World Cup stemmed from its openers. They still have this fond notion to settle in, take the game deep and then go berserk in the death overs. Frankly, those days have long gone extinct. “They (openers) have to go for it. Why do they give the opposition bowlers the first five overs to bed in? We know in T20 cricket the stats tell you a team needs a spinner who can turn it both ways. India have plenty of leg-spinners. Where are they?,” asked Vaughan.Even with the team selection India pushed too many wrong buttons. The selectors were driven with a defensive and outdated mindset:1. Rishabh Pant should have opened, bringing in the left-right combination2. Sky (Suryakumar Yadav) ought to have been No. 3. He is India’s best bat in this format and needed more time at the top3. There was no place for DK as the finisher at age 37 in T20s4. Sanju Samson, Ishan Kishan and Umran Malik were missed5. Injuries to Bumrah and Jadeja were gaping holes which were left unplugged6. Spinners Chahal, Kuldeep have good strike rates but were dropped7. Bad use of Powerplays cost India dearly8. Poor analysis of Australian pitches where there was hardly any swing meant good rival batters could hit through with impunity9. India lost to South Africa; somehow scrambled home against Pakistan and almost lost to Bangladesh“How they have not maximised someone like Rishabh Pant is incredible,” Michael Vaughan said. Aussie great Ian Chappell found it “ridiculous” that India weren’t playing Rishabh regularly.“Even in their own backyard at the 2016 World T20 they did not reach the final. They were nowhere last year. This time it took an outrageous innings by Virat Kohli, probably the best in T20 of all time, to beat Pakistan in the group stages. They massively underachieve for their skill levels,” added Vaughan.Truly bewildering is Suryakumar Yadav, the world's top-ranked T20I batsman, follows Rohit Sharma, KL Rahul and Virat Kohli. He had to either open or bat at No. 3. In a short-duration match of a little over 90 minutes the conditions don’t change appreciably.The specious plea of letting Virat to “anchor” the innings was also wrong. Joe Root, Kane Williamson, Steve Smith, are all batters in the classic mould but they aren’t roaring hits in T20. Therefore, Virat’s averages per innings in T20Is is irrelevant. It is his strike rate which matters the most.A higher strike rate and a lower average is indicative that a batter takes risks, scores quickly and lets others in the slipstream row hard.In the semi-final match, Hardik’s dynamite finish led India to a total of 168. It created the facetious impression that India had latched onto a par score. This when India had allowed Adil Rashid to bowl his spinners for 4 overs for 20 runs and scalped 1.According to the PitchViz model – which uses ball-tracking data to assess a par total – the par score on that pitch was 176, – typically amounting to around 10% win probability.Playing against England, it was known they bat deep and audaciously. So, another 20-25 runs were needed to be anywhere near par. But the hammering India took meant even those extra runs may have been insufficient.“They have a left-armer in Arshdeep Singh who swings it back into the right-handers. So what do they do defending 168? They put on Bhuvneshwar Kumar bowling outswing to give Jos Buttler and Alex Hales width. Where is the left-arm seamer swinging it in to Buttler and Hales in the first over? Madness,” Michael Vaughan added.T20 batsmen must be strategically open to taking risks for quick runs. There is no scope for selfishness. Sides like England have imbibed the train of thought of the limited overs game. The teams of the sub-continent still struggle to do so.The absurdity of hosting a blockbuster like IPL and yet staring at a very bare ICC trophy cabinet is difficult to ignore.To sum it up, former England captain Nasser Hussain put it very succinctly: “It’s not India’s personnel. It’s their mindset.”The author is CEO of nnisRead all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News, India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.