India lost the third T20I by 26 runs (Source: AP Photos)
The third T20I against England turned out to be a disappointing encounter for India as they ended up losing the game by 26 runs. It was expected to be another flat deck in Rajkot that has produced some high-scoring encounters in the past, but India failed to chase down the target of 172.
The win means that England are still alive in the series with the scoreline reading 2-1 in favour of India and it is all to play for in the fourth T20I in Pune. However, the question is what went wrong for India in the third T20I after winning the first two games. Let's try to find out
5. Winning The Toss And Bowling First Despite Lack Of Dew
Suryakumar Yadav has won all the three tosses in the series so far, and decided to bowl first. There was dew in the first game in Kolkata while it was less in the second encounter. In the third match in Rajkot, the dew was even lesser and that made India's decision to chase a questionable one.
The batting clearly became difficult in the second innings with both pacers and spinners getting help and the wicket seemed two-paced as Indian batters failed to score freely. The conditions were surely better in the first innings for batting and had India batted first, their spinners could have dominated even more in the second innings and chasing would have been difficult for the visitors.
2. Mohammed Shami In Place Of In-Form Arshdeep Singh
Arshdeep Singh has been brilliant in T20Is from the last few years and did decently in this series too, with impactful bowling with new ball and at the death. However, the team management decided to rest Arshdeep Singh and bring in Mohammed Shami who was back after 14 months and the lack of game-time clearly showed in his bowling.
He bowled three overs for 25 runs without picking up a wicket and India could have gone with Arshdeep Singh when Livingstone was hitting big which could have made a difference of few runs. Also, having Shami as only frontline pacer brought lot of pressure on Hardik Pandya and it would have been better had India gone with Shami in place of Ravi Bishnoi who has not been impressive in the series so far.
3. India's Persistence With Washington Sundar Despite Availability Of Shivam Dube
In the two matches that Washington Sundar has played so far, he has bowled only two overs, one in each game and was pretty expensive in the second encounter with 15 runs in a solitary over.
He batted decently in the second T20I with 26 runs off 19 balls, but failed miserably in the third T20I, scoring just 6 off 15 balls. Also, having Sundar for his bowling makes little sense as India already had Ravi Bishnoi, Varun Chakaravarthy, Axar Patel and even Abhishek Sharma to bowl spin and it would have been better had India gone with a more accomplished T20 batter like Shivam Dube.
India also had just two pacers and one of them was Hardik Pandya and so having Shivam Dube or even Ramandeep Singh would have helped India in that department. Also, Dube and Ramandeep are better hitters of the ball than Washington Sundar and India lacked in that department when the required rate went high.