(CRICBUZZ.COM)Upon tuning in to the first Test of the England-India 2014 Investec series, I was flabbergasted to find that the name Ravichandran Ashwin was not listed amongst the Indian XI. Yes, I am aware he was excluded from India's last three Test matches, and impressive though he has been at home, his performances abroad has been disappointing. Yet, he undoubtedly possesses the skill and control to conquer foreign conditions.
Martin Crowe, in a recent article, opined that India's selectors are treating Ashwin like a robber. And while I wouldn't go that far, it is perplexing that the player who has been India's top spinner for a few years is unable to find a place in the first game of a five-Test series against an England side that is ripe for the taking.
It's not like Ashwin had played the first two or three Tests and done badly and so needed to be replaced. No. He was, inexplicably in my view, not chosen for the very first skirmish in what is to be a very taxing campaign. You'd have thought that India would have wanted to enter the arena armed with its most potent weapons, and then make changes as required along the way, but the selection of both Ravindra Jadeja and Stuart Binny ahead of the off-spinner indicates a rather defensive mindset.
One area that India was supposed to have an advantage over the hosts is in spin bowling. Graeme Swann and Monty Panesar overshadowed India's spinners when England last visited India in 2012-13. India's 1-2 loss bears witness to that. With the retirement of Swann retirement and Panesar out of reckoning, and the fact that adequate replacements have not yet been identified, India were supposed to hold the edge as far as slow bowling was concerned. The decision to exclude Ashwin has gone some way towards neutralizing that advantage.
The Trent Bridge pitch, said Sky commentator and former English cricket great, Sir Ian Botham, would not have been out of place in Chennai, and throughout the five days of the Test there was precious little pace or bounce on offer from the very benign surface. One could not be certain exactly how the pitch would have played beforehand, but according to reports it did have a rather dry look to it, and that would have provided some clue.
Moeen Ali and Jadeja, part-timers though they are, were the main spinners at Trent Bridge on either side. Neither were able to extract much turn. And though there is no guarantee Ashwin would have been more effective, he does impart more revolutions on the ball, and might have just posed a bigger threat, especially as his deliveries, for the most part, would have been turning away from the six left-handers in England's side.
Dhoni said otherwise in his post-match interview, but it was most certainly an error to have omitted Ashwin. And it is easy to identify the players who might have made way for the Chennai Super Kings stand-out bowler.
If Jadeja is supposed to be more of a batting all-rounder his bowling has proven to be more valuable. Maker of three first-class triple hundreds, and with a few match winning limited overs knocks to his name, Jadeja's Test match batting has been disappointing. His left-arm spin can be very useful, especially when playing at home, but his batting has been so ordinary in Tests that he should now be considered strictly for his bowling. That being the case, Ashwin's name should have been penciled in before his, even if you ignore the fact that Ashwin's Test batting average is 39.40.
Stuart Binny made his debut at Trent Bridge and his second innings 78, though made in friendly batting conditions, suggested a batsman of class. But in an innings that lasted almost 145 overs only 10 were required from him, and his gentle medium pacers never appeared to be at all threatening. When you consider that the main worry facing the visitors is the trouble they are likely to have capturing 20 England wickets, then it is difficult to imagine that India will persist with Binny when there is potentially a greater wicket-taking option available.
One factor that should be in India's favour is that all of England's seamers toiled for more than 50 overs apiece, while India's, bowling only once in the game, were not as overworked. Only Sharma, with 38, sent down more than 30 overs, and when you add the Tests that England played against Sri Lanka, which finished less than a month ago, India's attack should be the fresher of the two.
The teams now move to London where the second Test will be contested at Lord's on a surface that should show more signs of life than its Trent Bridge counterpart. Despite the awful bowling conditions in the first Test, all three of India's main seamers, Ishant Sharma, Mohammad Shami and Kumar, did well enough to recommend that they can be troublesome in more helpful conditions.
Rightly, England's pace attack is more highly rated than India's. If we were to measure both units by their Trent Bridge performance, however, there would be little to choose between the two. It is in spin bowling that India have the opportunity to outdistance the hosts on pitches that are likely to be sluggish throughout. It is an opportunity they should not waste by being conservative, or by a reluctance to admit they might have made an error in not picking their number one spinner for the first Test.
Ashwin should play at Lords.
